Probably result of the whole economic and/or societal woes the west has had since basically since 2008. It has caused a lot of scepticism in more moderate parties polarizing people and the left is much more divided than the right nowadays. Altough I don't think this applies to every country
i think it is because from a young age kids are given unlimited access to the internet, and current social media and youtube algorithms push and promote right wing content because it gets more engagement. these kids are not informed and not fully developed mentally, so they can’t recognize the problems with conservative rhetoric. conservatism is appealing to uneducated and uninformed people because it has very simple and very easy to understand messages, distilling complex issues into extremely easily comprehensible finger pointing and blame games. that is why education is an essential tool in fighting fascism and bigotry, and why conservative governments work so hard to diminish it.
it’s easier to convince a 14 year old that the economy sucks because of immigrants than it is to convince them it sucks because of complex economic and political theories and monopolization and the concept of inflation and the fact that private companies are buying up all the homes and the myriad other factors. and conservatives know this and theyre doing it on purpose. since kids are being exposed to such right wing content very regularly, it takes root when they’re young, and over time it gets harder and harder to escape from it. it’s almost like a digital hitler youth camp.
This doesn't take much to go onto some online communities and see the indoctrination in real time. I fell for it before when I was younger. I was "red pilled" for a minute, and it did not make me happy at all. Just more jaded and bitter, which suprise surprise makes you more vulnerable to Intel behavior.
I don't think you can argue that the "red pill" weirdo shit is more toxic than its opposite. Half the modern liberals you talk to will call anyone who disagrees with them a racist, sexist, nazi, misogynistic, incel, Russian troll. Like they are literally founded on blind hatred and identity politics. And it is easier to get sucked into the far left online. The arts, media, education, and bureaucracy are liberal dominated. Reddit included.
Can any extreme be toxic and not healthy? Yeah, sure, but I think the alt right toxicity to be worse and more violent. Alt right become extremely jaded. Feeling discounted from people makes it easier to be violent.
Of course, but I disagree entirely with the toxic right being worse. It's mostly shunned away by the masses the moment it breaches containment.
The toxic left has been permeating modern media and culture for like a decade now because it hides itself as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
The more dangerous predator is the one that goes unseen.
I don't think you can argue that the "red pill" weirdo shit is more toxic than its opposite. Half the modern liberals you talk to will call anyone who disagrees with them a racist, sexist, nazi, misogynistic, incel, Russian troll. Like they are literally founded on blind hatred and identity politics. And it is easier to get sucked into the far left online. The arts, media, education, and bureaucracy are liberal dominated. Reddit included.
Yeah. Its pretty typical for women to be sacrificed for the "greater good". It won't be the first or last time that society chooses women as its scapegoat in order to have more "prosperity" which is actually just an illusion based on the value the man run government gives it and can easily lose all value with one decision.
Gen Z here, the economy is most definitely a huge factor toward that; I know it’s anecdotal and speaks nothing to the generation as a whole, but just about every fellow Zoomer I know is *economically* veering somewhat toward the right; though *socially* they’re still rather liberal (I live in NYC if that factors in haha)
Me personally, I’m just sick of how the economy is upside down yet we’re still arguing over who can piss where and what flags we can put in classrooms 💀
Just to be clear, I fully support the LGBT community and I can be considered part of it (though I don’t strongly identify with it for personal reasons), but *please*, I want to be able to own a house when I’m older
Except it’s not the LGBTQ community making the bathroom thing and flags in classrooms an issue. Conservatives made that into their entire platform.
Your entire comment makes it sound as though it’s the *left wing* turning those things into issues when conservatives just want to focus on fiscal issues, but the liberals just won’t let them.
In reality its the other way around - Leftists are trying to solve material issues while conservatives try their best to claw as much money from the working class as possible and usher in the next feudal age.
I’m not sure how conservatives managed to convince you that it’s the other way around, but your comment defies reality.
Oh no, I just said I support the community because my comment about the culture war could’ve been interpreted as being anti-LGBT 💀
That was unclear on my part, sorry about that
IMO right wing pipelines and algorithms feeding young men's deepest insecurities with misinformation + continued and accelerated increased alienation of the proletariat so that young men's increased radicalization goes unchecked as they are isolated and connected digitally only to other young men and right wing content
But it's also impossible to leave out money and propaganda. Grifters follow the money and there is more money on the right wing than on the left. As traditional media dies, the money is being pumped into targeted messages via right wing media personalities and orgs like Turning Point USA, Prager University, Ben Shartiro, and others. There's so much more money in selling your soul for dominance over others than in protecting democracy and human rights.
This feels so odd because as a Gen Z, it depends on who you talk to. Me and all of my friends are like pretty leftist, so it’s kinda odd to hear that’s apparently not the case overall.
I don't think anyone here is reading the article before coming to the comments to share their personal platforms.
The article states that less than 1 in 5 Gen Z men have these views. Less than 20%. A HUGE minority. But an article titled "80% of Gen Z men do not agree with misogyny" doesn't get clicks or rile up that feeling of righteous fury people like to dwell in, regardless of data.
That makes a lot of sense, thank you for the insight! Especially considering that a lot of the Gen Zers I know tend to be at least somewhat progressive
It's well-studied that lower intelligence/education trends with conservatism. And Gen Z men are not going to college at nearly the rate that women are. They're spending more time online and less time studying/learning to be smart enough to spot misinformation.
The way this comment is worded it makes it sound like the blame is being placed on young men for not being able to attain the level of success in education that women do. Wouldn’t it make more sense to blame the education system for failing these boys and leaving them behind in favor of their female peers in K-12 education?
There are no barriers in place stopping men from being able to attain success in education. In fact, the education system was tailor-made FOR men. And they did just fine when women were not allowed to participate. Not to mention that in 2024 they are even being boosted. There is affirmative action for men in US colleges right now, to the point where it is easier for a man to go to college than it is for a woman. And despite this, they are falling behind. The problem is that so few men are even bothering to apply themselves. If you look at what teachers are seeing first-hand, it's the boys who don't study, whine about homework, whine about having to write a single paragraph. The girls are working harder, point blank. Men will need to take some accountability for their own lives and work hard like women do. And need to stop expecting things to be handed to them simply for being a male.
Manosphere Youtube / influencers. Andrew Tate being the biggest example. And no this is not true about Gen Z at all. just a loud portion of annoying men.
It’s simply that conservatism is the new counter culture as progressive culture has become the main one shown to us and parroted by the older generation as of now. Older generations as in 20-40 year olds, who are usually the ones that kids interact with as counselors or teachers.
They are kids and rebel, and as the metropolitan areas dictate our current culture and are progressive, they revel against the progressivism.
Because they can't read. It is literally that simple. The entire chain of cultural transmission is broken for them.
It's a generation whose literacy stems from random and suspect video essays.
Gen Z is disillusioned with both parties, and care more for something functional.
Millennials are favorable towards Democrats but disillusioned with Republicans.
This is the exact place it needs to be. And ask trump supporter, passport bro, etc
Those young men need to read this every single day because they're obviously very ignorant to our history
Well just like it literally does not fit in the sub description and in fact those people would probably use that as an excuse to ignore it and reinforce negative opinions about this sub
Well, I suppose in the end she’ll do with it as she wishes. But do agree that most if not almost 99% are horribly and sadly ignorant of our history. I feel like passport bros, especially since the podcastbros are in there, it’d go right over their head but yeah might know it better, I’ve went over there twice out of curiosity. Second time was good enough for me.
I think it’s a bit oversimplified in a lot of aspects. It presents this whole narrative that women’s rights have been steadily increasing over time, which is untrue. There were many societies that were matriarchal and there were many societies that were more egalitarian than the modern western one. Social progress isn’t this continuous improvement. It dips up and down and varies wildly between cultures so presenting this one note idea progression from them being “clubbed and raped” to now is very inaccurate.
One of the first and finest colleges in the Middle East was founded by and admitted women which doesn’t happen over there even now, women used to be able to hold the title of bishops and deacons in the church until the 13th century where it was declared to be against gods will, it’s a story throughout many cultures how the introduction of abrahamic religions in the area led to a sharp decrease in the rights and perceived value of women to a degree we can only guess at since history is written through the perspective of the dominant groups, but the list goes on. It’s also worth mentioning particularly in prehistoric times women and men most likely split the labor (in contrast to the commonly accepted knowledge of women being the gatherers and men the hunters) and many of the elaborate burials celebrating high ranking members of society, often in connection to hunting prowess, that were often assumed to be men were actually female skeletons, something like a third of them.
The whole section on biblical figures to me demonstrates a lack of understanding of the material. Eve was “blamed” for the fall of humanity because she’s the one who originally disobeyed god. You could say that’s a pretty misogynistic perspective but the point is they weren’t equally at fault. And I don’t see how Adam isn’t portrayed as being gullible and naive in that story since he just followed after her when she did it and was also the one who was directly in contact with god and receiving the information.
Even in other places throughout the Old Testament women are talked about like they’re the assets of men so often the man will be held accountable for something his wife did for not guiding or controlling her properly. To me it’s pretty big it was singled out as a decisive action she independently took.
In addition the whole thing about Mary seems to be relying on the misconception that her status as the immaculate virgin was in reference to her conceiving without sex. When actually the basic idea behind her “purity” is the fact that she was born free of sin to be worthy to carry the son of god.
Virgin was a general term for a young woman that often came with connotations of having good virtue, kind of like “maiden” Which doesn’t explicitly refer to being a virgin in the modern sense although there is a suggestion of that. But its primary use is in describing a fair young woman. It’s ridiculous to act like the foundation of her holiness as “the Virgin” comes from her literal sexual abstinence.
And just for the Bible portion cuz I don’t feel like writing more I don’t know who “Lizbeth” is supposed to be. There’s Elizabeth, who I don’t know how anyone would have a problem with since she was just a morally righteous woman. She also conceived without sexual intercourse but she still had had it, she was just infertile.
Also women have never just been “holes.” Even if they aren’t employed in a respectable line of work
Alright you just laid out some incredible work and insights.
The Eve thing has ALWAYS, always bothered. Because when I read I held them both at fault, yet whenever men brought it up, it was only Eve. I never understood that. I was like, hold up, Adam was just as big a part of this as Eve was. You little fucks. If you call yourself Christian, one needs to be able to self reflect enough to realize their faults, apparently a lot of me. Never truly did that.
Okay, saving this because I’m about to pass out. Will reply with more tomorrow!
In my city, I don't think this is the case. Today we had a huge feminist students' march. Boys came from all over the city under the pouring rain to attend. I think that trend is exclusive to America, South Korea and maybe the UK.
edit: South Korea too
>I think that trend is exclusive to America and maybe the UK.
Actually I think it's exclusive to every country that has social media, and that's most likely gonna be western countries in general. Social media is full of "redpill" incel content typically targeting young men & teenage boys. It's honestly quite sinister.
Well actually its every country then. Eastern countries are even worse since they tend to be more strict on women's rights even if not through law then socially. Even places where there is no social media, girls and women are treated worse. The more primitive the society is, the younger the girls are married off and impregnated.
Men control and run everything by using their physical strength to force their will on women and women can literally never do anything about it, **even men are coming out and admitting that once society falls that us women are going to be "put in our place" and that the only reason Western women have any freedoms is because Western men "allow" it which they are all wanting to stop doing, particularly to vote and work so that things can "get back to when things were better for *everyone* (except women, but thats not their problem and so they don't care)"...**
By "trend" I wasn't referring to general misogyny that's been around for millenia. I was referring to the specific type of misogyny that's on the rise especially among young men in the west, and that being the redpill incel type.
Bruh why are some men so hell bent on taking us back to the dark ages just so they can satisfy their egos by beating and hurting people that are physically smaller than them? It’s straight up evil behaviour.
“Oh society has collapsed and we need to rebuild it - let’s just enslave 50% of the population.” Great fucking idea. Time and time again it is proven that societies with greater equality between the sexes do better. But that doesn’t matter to them. They just want female slaves they can treat like shit so that they can feel powerful and like they’re doing something with their lives … like your asshole boss at work who’s on a massive power trip and gets psychological pleasure from treating employees like shit because he’s mad his wife left him.
Is that true about Pre-History. We read that the development of agriculture actually enslaved women far more than they were beforehand. I think humans having a natural mating process disproves the idea that assault was universal. Historically anthropology has been a field made up of mostly white men from patriarchal societies and have historically denied the existence of Female warriors in early human history.
The idea that men always clubbed and raped women is a lie that I suspect men peddle to make women feel hopeless and like patriarchy is the natural order of things and therefore inevitable. Anthropologists have found evidence of matriarchal and matrilineal societies in the past. I doubt we’ll ever know the truth about how long patriarchy has gone on for, but some believe it’s only been about 10,000 years. I remember I read a really interesting excerpt from a book that explained how it is theorised that rape isn’t natural to humans because women haven’t developed any self-defences against rape like, for example, female ducks did. This has caused them to theorise that the patriarchy is relatively recent. I can’t remember the book but I’ll edit my comment to include it if I find out.
If it is true that early human societies were matriarchal, it is in the best interest of the patriarchy to hide that information from women so I suspect we’ll never know the truth.
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/10/eve-how-female-body-drove-200-million-years-of-human-evolution-by-cat-bohannon-review
This is the review that I read that featured the duck fact - thought you might be interested in reading it before deciding whether or not to order the book. I ordered it last week but it hasn’t arrived yet so sadly I can’t review it myself
I think it's self evident why women wouldn't want conservative goverments since they threaten liberties they have fought hard to get. That being said I wouldn't agree with some ideas here. First of the idea that lesbian and bi women are choosing anything shouldn't be entertained at all. It's not an accurate representation of what these two groups are.
Second of the idea that men are becoming less misogynistic in gen z. I feel a good number of them have developed agressive views against feminism because people like Tate and others have been really good at demonizing it.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/feb/01/gen-z-boys-and-men-more-likely-than-baby-boomers-to-believe-feminism-harmful-says-poll
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/why-young-men-are-turning-against-feminism/
This has made the right and even the far right far more palpable for gen z men.
Plus, one can argue that feminist politicians to a degree has forgotten male issues. For example in a recent report about the state of teaching in the UK it highlighted that most teachers now are women (around 75%) but the highest paid positions while dominated by women wasn't as dominated as their regular education counterparts (around 66%). I feel that this very obviously misses the issue that children especially in their youngest years are lacking good male role models.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bbf2137ed915d735983790d/Statement_of_intent_on_the_diversity_of_the_teaching_workforce.pdf
Plus stuff like Amber vs Depp very easily can be twisted as feminism going against Depp. It's really stupid but it's how it's perceived. Basically feminism also needs better PR among men. This combined with the factor that privilege feels better than equality makes men more likely to distance themselves from feminism therefore the left.
Its incredibly ironic, because patriarchy is obviously bad for woman as a whole, but people don't (especially woman) realise its bad for MEN as well.
Yes its made by men for men, turns out the outdated views of what a man should be however, the average guy gets screwed over by and its affected from social to law.
E.G. At least in UK Law
A woman cannot rape a man legally. Flat out. It's a patriarchal view, that a man cannot be taken advantage of because ultimately he is in the position of power throughout. Which extends to consent laws, if a woman is slightly drunk and a man is basically passed out drunk, and the woman initiates sex, that is considered rape by the man.
Absolutely dumb. And it extends to why woman tend to be favoured in divorce proceedings. Because OF COURSE the children need a mother, of course she's going to be at home all the time, OF COURSE the man is going to be the one earning the money, so its only natural the woman gets the kids, because the man is going to be out suffering making the money to supply the family.
Patriarchy sucks for most people. Which is what feminists should be trying to show to convince people, because ultimately when you only look at one sides issues, its very easy cause resentment.
I think most women recognize that as a whole the patriarchy hurts everyone who doesn’t have power and money which includes pretty much everyone but the elite males. Most women I talk with understand it’s unhealthy as a whole, just women usually get the shittier end of all the sticks, so that’s what they talk about bc the patriarchy literally leaves women physically and mentally ill.
Most feminists care deeply about men and their suffering under patriarchy. They’re not being sidelined whatsoever, and no, we don’t need to focus more on their issues.
> E.G. At least in UK Law
> A woman cannot rape a man legally. Flat out. It's a patriarchal view, that a man cannot be taken advantage of because ultimately he is in the position of power throughout. Which extends to consent laws, if a woman is slightly drunk and a man is basically passed out drunk, and the woman initiates sex, that is considered rape by the man.
Fun fact I recently discovered that this is the case as well for my country.
They can’t be charged with rape which is stupid and that’s because they include penetration in the definition. They can however be charged with sexual assault which has the same maximum sentencing time as rape. I think they should update the definition though.
You just described classism but because of cultural propaganda, they turned the bourgeoisie vs proletariat sociopolitical tension into a gender war by semantically equating class tyranny with men. It's why we lag so behind other countries when it comes to rallying as a united front and protesting the people in power compared to older European countries like France.
Why do we need these labels anyways? People should just organize around specific issues as a matter of their conscious. We don't need labels like "feminisim" or whatever to encapsulate lots of different things, because then you start to stray further from substance and things get tribal and weird.
I have two questions, and they aren’t facetious or antagonistic. And, there is the caveat that I’m framing all of this in the perspective of heteronormative relationships.
Your wording sounds like it implies that Late Stage Capitalism is the reason that in a society that has become less misogynistic over time, and in an economy where women were essentially thrusted into the workforce; women began to become more independent, and have started having less sex. As far as I’ve been able to research, having less sex goes for both men and women as time has gone on since the 90’s
Do you think that this trend would continue or persist in a non-capitalist society that also pursued to dismantle institutional and cultural misogyny? And Secondly, given the advent of AI and the ever evolving adult content/toy industry, do you see this divide getting worse, even without contemporary misogynistic rhetoric, or do you think these things will only scrape the bottom of the barrel of society?
You raise some really interesting questions!
I think a helpful way to initiate a discussion on these questions would be to figure out what we require for sex to occur in the first place.
Firstly, there has to be time to have sex. Right off the bat late stage capitalism comes swinging - a cursory Google search showed that paid work, housework, leisure, eating, and sleeping take 80–90% of all the 1440 minutes in a day (https://ourworldindata.org/time-use). There's not exactly a tonne of time for extracurricular activities - still enough for someone to get some action but not an abundance by any stretch. Recalling that the work of daily living is increasingly becoming strenuous also means that the time a person does have free to themselves is usually spent recovering or doing low-stress activities.
The second thing people need for sex is human connection. When do people have the time to build human connection? If their immediate circles don't consist of people they are or could be attracted to, an individual is in tough waters. There will have to be some serious reorganising and adjusting of one's life and environment to facilitate human connection. Again, many people don't have the luxury of such an immense alteration to their life, whether for financial, social or psychological reasons.
The third thing people need is designated spaces. Let's say you're workplace doesn't have anyone you could be interested in. You don't have any neighbours and you have a home gym, so no chance for a potential meet-cute there. And though you have some lovely friends, your circles are small and exclusive; you don't really branch out. Where do you go? Where is the place you go specifically to meet people your age interested in romance, love and sex? People always come hollering about the club when I mention this but this space is inaccessible for many people for many reasons. It prioritises rich, young, extroverted and attractive people - the vast majority of the world doesn't fit cleanly in those categories! Go to a club and you'll see that most clubgoers fit into only a few of those categories and inevitably "lose" their access as/if they get poorer, older, more introverted or less conventionally attractive.
The fourth thing people need is confidence and hope. It takes courage to leave yourself vulnerable to rejection and even more courage to bounce back from rejection. And you need hope so that it feels there is a point to being continuously rejected. Take a look at your own circles - how confident and hopeful do people around you seem? Not just personally confident and hopeful about their prospects and future, but hopeful about the world? Confident about humanity's ability to take care of itself and this planet?
The fifth thing and perhaps the most important is you need to be in a happy and relaxed enough state to want to pursue sex. Something like 51% of adults will have a mental health crisis and I personally am astonished that number isn't higher. We are so preoccupied with survival, western societies have a culture of bragging/being nonchalant about their failure to attend to health - "Oh, I only got three hours of sleep last night", "I was coughing up a lung but I still managed to get through my shift somehow".
There are plenty of non-capitalist societies that would exacerbate these issues tenfold. There are plenty of non-capitalist societies that would make capitalist societies seem like a dream. However, a society that prioritises quality of life of every human being, and embeds this value within it's government policies and legislation and culture could absolutely encourage more sex. Dismantling institutionalised and cultural misogyny would make the incidence of heterosexual sex higher in communities because the final barrier is the inability of men and women to understand each other, to communicate honestly and offensively with each other and to recognise the value of each other. The issue is that there are centuries worth of wounds that have been done unto women - I really don't know how we begin to repair that. But an excellent place to start isn't in how men relate to women. The best place to start so far as I'm concerned is for men to repair themselves, and then come to the world, to women, with a renewed sense of who they are, what they want and to communicate that with other men and women. Though I speak of men as a monolith, this is by nature and necessity a solo journey. If anyone has gone through an immense and life-altering period of growth they will know that though you may have people in your corner, you have to do it alone. Your next experiences of growth need not be so lonely, though, with your newfound self-awareness and capacity for connection.
In terms of the second question, yes. I think it will make things worse. Whether we like it or not, a large percentage of how women are perceived is wrapped up in sex. I'm hesitant to even throw any hypotheses of what will happen out there because I really don't want to alarm anyone. The worst case scenario is an emerging culture where women begin to try and appear more robotic, more inhuman, to compete for mates. This is horrific because their "competitors" don't even want mates, nor are they capable of wanting them, nor if they did want them, would they be human. My other concern is that there will be a large chunk of the human population who will eschew human connection in favour of something easier, more convenient but infinitely less fulfilling. Of course, there will be counter-cultural moves towards humanism and suspicion of AI but there will almost certainly be a disconcertingly alien and uncomfortable period before even the potential of some new and healthier world order appears. One of the first manifestations of that unrest will almost certainly appear in the realm of sex, it's frequency and it's quality.
I think until men realize they need to offer more than just a paycheck to get laid these days the rates will increase.
There are a growing number of increasingly anti social and undatable men in this society, offering nothing of value to women and spewing vitriol whenever they talk.
I think until men make a huge push for self development and stop blaming women for their issues these numbers will continue to rise.
The sad fact is a huge number of men just have nothing worthwhile to offer women these days, and it's even more of a turnoff when they blame said women
An amazing number of people would say very few women have anything to offer to men. A lot of guys I know just don't see dating as worth their time due to the horror stories they see online or hear in conversation. I also think that they're super paranoid about infidelity or ghosting. I've never heard them blame women in general, but I have heard them name-dropping the 3 or 4 class "passed-around"girls that they are familiar with a lot and just generalize based on that.
Unfortunately there's a couple huge differences between men and women that makes it very unbalanced. Women don't need a relationship for access to as much sex as they want/need. The vast majority of men absolutely do need a relationship for regular access to sex.
The other is women have a lot more emotionally intimate relationships in their lives, they have stronger social circles and support networks. Most men rely on their female partner to fulfill their emotional intimacy needs.
So you can generalize "men don't need women" in the same way "women don't need men" but in reality men suffer a lot more from being single than women, as shown in every study done on the topic.
To focus on the emotional/non romantic part of your statement. It is amazing to me how many friends girls can have. Many of my girl friends are impressed by how long I can be out of contact but still recognize and throw back with my old friends, one of whom I hadn't seen since about second grade.
Yeah girls are socialized to really value strong friendships, it's tragic that guys are socialized to be islands, nobody should have to be completely independent, were a social species. I really hope we can change the culture so that guys can have better friendships
Tbf, I haven't seen 2 of my male friends in the last few years, but I still consider myself friends with them. Hell! My dad saw a friend he hadn't spoken with since I was about 8 years old, and they recognized each other immediately. I think my problem is a sort of "initiation anxiety" where I don't want to annoy people by reaching out while they need their full attention on something.
Also, I don't really want to talk to the guys around me because half of them are in their own cult-like friend groups, and the other half are just dumb.(backflip(failed) in the bathroom type shit)
I think we need each other. I remember a much older woman telling my younger (female) self that back in her day, you married the best man you could find. And if that didn’t pan out, you married the second best man. I’ve been married for decades and my husband shows 100% respect for me and I am the major breadwinner but still perform some trad wife roles while he tends to perform the traditional male roles in our relationship. It works for us. I don’t understand why the flaming misogynistic ways are coming back so forcefully. I’m glad I came of age when I did. Most men had a more open mind or they gradually realized a flaming misogynist wasn’t going to get them very far
That's a big reason I've never tried dating. I hear all these horrific cheating stories online and know several good friends irl who have been betrayed by gfs/wives and It makes me genuinely scared of women because I've never experienced a betrayal of of that caliber before and don't feel it's worth the risk.
Wow! I’m an older woman and I’m REALLY sorry to hear this. But remember, online is only a microcosm of what happens in real life. You have to put yourself out there because the rewards far outweigh the risks. Just imagine if you had a sweet flirtation going with a girl and you asked her to go out and you both fell in love?
I mean I don't really blame gen z. Women where handed a shit sandwich and decided to do with what they could, just like you by finding other female friends and avoiding males, I don't blame anyone for that either.
Now you have a bunch of boys who have no idea how to interact with women because well let's be honest here where are they supposed to learn? A lot of these kids are terminally online and seeing onlyfans content by the time they are in middle school, spread all over insta and Snapchat(most meme accounts take these ads and have been for years, that's why I deleted the apps long ago). Ipad parents that just give their kids devices to keep them distracted are coming round full circle with these kids growing up.
So now you have a bunch of socially empowered women who don't exactly want to even bother with men, and would rather just make friends with women. And alot of men who don't even know how to properly approach a women/talk to them now with out being called an incel, because no one bothered to parent them, and women are already predisposed to dislike them.
Yup you have it exactly correct.
There's a massive divide between men/women these days and there isn't much middle ground being sought.
Like it's funny to laugh at some of the stuff incels say, but at the end of the day instead of mocking them and shutting them down people need to start asking them why they think what they do and challenge them to open their minds, as they won't do it getting mocked, it will probably just make them more bitter.(I say from my experience dealing with a few tate fans)
>instead of mocking them and shutting them down people need to start asking them why they think what they do and challenge them to open their minds, as they won't do it getting mocked, it will probably just make them more bitter
I agree, but I can't be bothered to do all that. I have enough shit to deal with in my own life. I don't have the time or energy to educate hateful men so they can hopefully start being good people one day.
I definitely can blame Gen Z. As someone raised in a cult who started questioning and ran away way before their age, you are responsible for your beliefs and what you buy into, no matter what propaganda you’ve been exposed to. Women are not predisposed to disliking men. They’re exposed to all of the nasty shit that these losers say about women and are aware that automatically trusting men is dangerous.
Every woman and girl I know has male friends. They’re not being excluded. Just the ones that are clearly problematic and instead of listening when they’re told that they’re the problem, they go looking for content that validates their opinion that nothing is wrong with them. The real problem is women having the right to reject them. Their parents are definitely also to blame for not monitoring the content they consume, teaching them respect for women and not limiting their access to such resources but ultimately, they are responsible for making the choice to hate us and advocate for our subjugation.
Yeah men really need to learn how to not treat women like objects... It would help them so much
Considering they've been objectifying and dehumanizing us since the dawn of humanity I don't have much hope for them tho
Yep, this is how it is in India and why so many men from India is like that.
It's not because of traditions we stopped following centuries ago (sati) neither is it because of some cultural boogeyman (often seen people say outright false shit and then blame it on Hinduism or Islam and these comments get hundreds of upvotes on reddit)
It's simply just lack of female interaction and learning it from porn.
Its been a while since i didn't ate a good crunchy apple and right now i'm eating one , i love apple ( I remember the day when i ate a super big crunchy apple , it was one of the best day of my life i think )
I've come to understand men clubbing women in pre-history is a misogynist trope. There's very little proof that actually happened a lot.
Probably a rumor invented by men to make themselves look good?
Most men nowadays are revolting to me. I can count on one hand the number of times I met a genuinely good man in the last couple of years who made me want to talk with him for longer than 2 seconds. The women I have talked to on the other hand are so much more intelligent, empathetic and kind in comparison. I really hate that I'm a straight woman in today's world.
I'm a guy and I agree with you. Stopped talking to a lot of my male friends because they're all so fucking hive minded nowadays (and ironically they accuse women of being the same)
Yeah I just immediately shut down when they start saying red pill nonsense. It's kind of sad how prevalent it has become among men. Hopefully these men wake up soon because most women would rather die alone than become whatever these men want us to be.
Women never had a choice in the past. Now we do that's the difference. Women won't have to "deal with being alone". We are choosing to be alone than be with toxic men.
I have great female friends, so my social situation isn't all that bad. It's more so the romantic side of things. But I'm realizing that I'm a lot happier being single, so I don't mind this tbh.
In two years you can count on one hand how many times you’ve found an intelligent and empathetic man? This is 100% a you problem.
Reverse the roles and this utter nonsense is no different than what incels write about women.
So I clicked 2 links to get to the actual study. The study was a survey where they asked a bunch of people of various ages a ton of questions (so far I've only read like 20 ish). The general picture I'm getting from the responses is much better than the two articles I had to look through made it look. In the majority of the questions gen z men were either reportedly nuetral on feminism and or found it slightly beneficial. Now, I'm a man so maybe this perspective is because I am one of these people, but it seems to me that the increase in "misogyny" isn't actually all that big (unless if you look at it in a relativistic way), and since such so many people report to be nuetral or find it slightly beneficial, to me it seems people just don't have enough knowledge about what feminism is. The increase in people who find feminism harmful is because of influences like Andrew Tate who are able to reach so many people and say feminism is bad and that women have better lives then men. However, there aren't any figure that are going viral or are super well known that not only refute that but talk about the truth. Every time I've seen someone talk about Andrew Tate being wrong they've dismissed his claims, but they haven't done it in a way that shows the truth, only in a way that shows he is wrong. This leads people to getting Andrew Tate's info that feminism is bad and then someone pointing out how he is wrong but not showing the good feminism has done. I think this is what has lead to the neutrality. Uneducated masses of men who aren't trying to find the truth. I think that a large portion of these men could easily find feminism to be beneficial/good if there was a force like Andrew Tate that goes viral and everyone talks about and they finally learn why feminism is good, or if something happens to motivate them to educate themselves. The problem seems to stem more from misinformation and being uneducated than actual hate for women (thankfully). It also means that the problem is much more fixable since a lot of the people who have a negative opinion of feminism were likely just nuetral people who kept having Andrew Tate's bs shoved down their throats.
These polls are taken by opt in polling, which is known to be very inaccurate, so I would trust this unless you trust that 12% of people aged 18-25 are licensed to operate SSGN class subs (these are nuclear armed military submarines)
Source about both how inaccurate and how prevalent opt in polling is, which is why you basically can't trust any polls.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/sr_24-03-04_opt-in-polls_1/
I'm sorry but I really just can't walk past without interrogating some elements of this. Like, I have no particular opinion on the overall conclusion you're drawing, but... jesus christ that might have been some of the worst history I've ever seen written.
>In prehistory, men just simply clubbed women and raped them.
Prehistoric people's weren't literally monkeys. There are uncontacted tribes today who functionally live in "prehistoric" times, and they still organise themselves and utilise moral codes to govern their behaviour. They are not just savages, they're humans.
>For over a thousand years European women of the higher class were expected to cook, clean, have babies, instill morals into children (especially the girls), and be willing to fuck whenever their husbands wanted
Upper class women would absolutely not be cooking and cleaning for themselves, they had servants to do a lot of that work for them. They commonly oversaw the servants, and certainly could pitch in if they wished to, but the idea of a gentile lady as a domestic servant is utterly laughable. The only worthwhile statement here is the idea of instilling morals into children, which definitely was a woman's task - although this went for boys as much as girls.
To expand on the role of women, in the early modern european household (the basic social unit at this time), the wife sat second, just below the "head of the house" (her husband). In his absence she would run his business, she commanded the servants, apprentices, and all her own children in maintaining the business and home, and in some cases even could inherit the business and functionally take it over.
>Women were expected to even EAT in a “feminine” manner.
Etiquette has been a thing for as long as parties have been a thing, and really only affects the rich at very specific formal events as a means of governing the social activities going on. It's actually a topic that's very worthy of study. At lower levels of society, people simply ate.
>When the Industrial Revolution hit, women from the lower classes did not need to tend to the farms as much, thus, they were expected to stay at home.
Here's the first piece of flat out misinformation. Like, it genuinely needs to be sifted through to pick apart all of the pop history bullshit.
1. Farm labour was come and go. There were times of the year when everyone in a village would be hauling ass to get the harvest in, and times of the year where there was very little to be done on the farm besides the basic routine. You completely missed the actual most common female activity of the time - spinning. It's easy with a modern view on things to forget the amount of upkeep that used to go into simple things like clothes, but suffice it to say that there was a truly immense amount of domestic labour that women were in charge of, generally with their children doing the most physically intensive work.
2. Women did not "stay home" they also went into the cities in search of jobs. It was a very rare opportunity for social mobility, especially as the agrarian economy was failing, and a great many women took it.
> Jobs were effectively limited to: wife, midwife, governess, and prostitute. It actually got so bad in Victorian Era London that there was an STI crisis due to some 80,000 women having to be prostitutes.
And here we have become fully dissociated from reality. Not really sure how you managed to completely miss the role of the "domestic", i.e. domestic servants, given that it was the overwhelming majority profession for women. Any serious discussion of women in Victorian Britain should spend about 80% of it's time speaking about the working condition of domestics, but here it has been overlooked for... governess? A rare job that requires you to be educated to own? And midwifery, which is another fairly rare and specialised job.
You've also just completely skipped over the significant amounts of women employed in factories, where they made up the majority of the workforce in the textiles industry, and significant portions of the workforce in paper and pottery.
Also, London's population rose to 5.5 ***million*** by 1890 - 80,000 people is really not a shocking amount. Prostitution is a genuinely fascinating subject in the victorian period, since it sits at the intersection of gender, health, sexuality, morality, crime, and poverty, but I don't think that just saying 'waow 80,000 prostitutes' does it justice.
Honestly I'm going to stop reading this for my own sake. That's just me slightly interrogating the first few paragraphs of a massive post. There's nothing wrong with the message you're trying to send, but seriously don't weaken your points by associating them with straight up misinformation.
It's alright, and I'm sorry if I came across as overly harsh or vitriolic - this is just an area of study I'm quite passionate about and the impacts of many of these misconceptions I think are pretty major.
Probably not suprising, considering how most people nowadays are isolated and spend too much time on social media, which is the biggest source of "redpill" incel content, usually targeting specifically young men & teen boys.
This isn't a counterargument to your analysis. But I've recently learned that the research these articles cite might not reflect reality very accurately. The problem is the selection system they use.
See, you can select by probability, or you can ask for voluntary responses. It's been found that younger respondents to self-selected surveys are far far likelier to answer these surveys with a certain bend, whether that be far right or just bogus answers.
When you use probability-based panels compared to opt-in polls, the figures reflect much better results.
It seems like there's a trend of weirdo terminally online freaks who would seek online surveys to report that they don't believe in the holocaust. And this is asymmetrical, as left leaning people don't get off on this. So these kind of sensationalist studies get published that don't reflect the actual political opinions but over report anti-feme is anti-semetic and generally bigoted world-views.
That is to say, when you collect data at random, the trend of young men of being disproportionately far right disappears.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/
I don’t think Gen Z (in western nations) are more “conservatives” than Gen Y, it’s just that “conservative” people in Gen Z are much more radical in being conservative embracing “right wing populism” than being “moderate conservatives”, Gen Z in the west has higher percentage of voting for left wing/liberal parties, but the conservative one tend to vote for radical right more than mainstream conservatives, for example the polish 2023 election where 27% of 18-29 years which were the most, voted for the liberal civic coalition, 17.4% voted for progressive “the left” which were the most % of the party vote, but 17.8% of them voted for the far-right confederation suppressing only 14.3% of their vote for the mainstream right wing “law and justice” party.
Most feminists care deeply about men and their suffering under patriarchy. They’re not being sidelined whatsoever, and no, we don’t need to focus more on their issues.
We need laws for social media companies to be regulated, classes that teach critical thinking, and media laws. This will not solve itself. Free speech is great but there should be consequences for trying to lie about an election/try to steal it like Trump did, or for social media companies to allow fake lies to spread across their platform about the very fabric of reality.
I feel like women's rights is a very polarizing thing among young males where I live. There was a massive protest in my city today with thousands of young men joining in. But on the other hand you also have a lot of incel-alpha male types who degrade women constantly. There seems to be little in between, if you meet a young man around here it's a coin flip of them either being avid women's rights advocates or mysoginists.
Years of culture wars stoking people's insecurities and creating paranoia that everyone different is against, promoted by a very efficient alt-right pipeline on the Internet. People have this mentality that you can only be in one of two states: oppressing or oppressed. Now, we have a major political party in the U.S. that may very well impose theocracy and dictatorship in the near future.
This is all a very true and awesome post but I wanted to add some tidbits:
>
When the Industrial Revolution hit, women from the lower classes did not need to tend to the farms as much, thus, they were expected to stay at home. Jobs were effectively limited to: wife, midwife, governess, and prostitute
Women worked other jobs besides this for a period of time, and lower class Women had the MODEL of staying at home, but this didn't really seem to happen. Around the industrial revolution also came inflation and many women were forced out of their homes to be factory workers, especially the lower class women, to help provide for their families around 1840-1850. However they were also payed less and worked in awful conditions. Extremely.
Women & Children in the Industrial Revolution | Impact & Effect - Lesson https://study.com/learn/lesson/women-children-industrial-revolution-roles-effects-impact.html
>After women’s suffrage and WW2, women were encouraged to exit the workforce and return to the conservative lifestyle in the 1950’s and 60’s. While we tend to think of the 60’s and 70’s as a time of social progress, realistically the conservative white nuclear family was still the majority and status quo.
Absolutely true and there is nothing wrong here. But I wanted to add that women's employment rate started to slowly rise after ww2, and I think the period of working during ww2 maybe gave women inspiration for careers. The problem is you couldn't hold a job after you got pregnant as a woman, or even if you got married. Including the inequal pay still making it a nothing burger.
https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/post-world-war-ii-1946-1970
In conclusion, the idea of a stay at home wife/mom seems to be a capitalist fantasy, and not something easily implemented in reality consistently in history compared to a 2 person working household. That's just my 2 cents
Technology has advanced so much in the last few decades that people start getting phones and tablets at a very young age, the "loudest voice" fallacy is almost definitely going to affect many kids way of thinking. Misogyny and misandry is most definitely on the rise and is probably going to keep being on the rise until we can find a way to stop it, young kids are very impressionable.
I'm a millennial and married and I don't mean to be out of pocket but...is there anyone who just doesn't notice stuff like this?
My wife is up and I asked her too, we are not hip on this . Just out here living. We just try to be kind and live and let live. I'm in the trades and have some Gen Z guys and onee gal actually apprentice under me and they were...normal. Good people.
Sometimes it's good to get out and touch grass as they say
Yeah, this article isn't really that reliable of a source, the data was mostly collected through internet polls which are faulty given how vunerable they are to brigades/trolls (look up any youtube video about the topic of anti-semetism for example) and them generally favoring the people who are the most chronically online rather than a proper sample of the real world.
With that being said though the zoomers who are right wing are far more extreme than the millennials who were right wing, there's been a massive blow up of right wing alternative media in their formative years essentially creating an online Fox News media market equivalent for them.
A partial reason for this is that the presentation of feminism in the media has changed. From the presenters as well as the people preaching it. Doesn't help at all that a lot of political figures try to dismantle anything progressive, like anything pro LGBTQ+, because they can't and don't want to comprehend progression. A good amount of pop culture gen z consumed when growing up actually had very positive depiction of women. This might be hard for some to swallow, but it's more that a loud group that preaches feminism in the past few years has portrayed feminism in a very anti male way. It often starts in a very stupidly simple way. A lot of young people are easily offended, hell, even orders, but let's focus on young, because in their mind they didn't do anything. They are still learning.
"So why is the feminist lady angry at me?"
Ofc there are several layers to this all, but when a comparison against all men is made in such a frequent and negative way, some start to think "holy shit, fuck women, they just want things and complain" and therefor people grant negative influencers a platform (Andrew Tate, etc.)
Modern feminism has a adapted in a very roundabout way compared to feminism in general. A lot of people grow up being feminist, because they didn't learn from any sources to be against things like "women should be equal, they deserve the things they get". But when modern feminism has a "let's lash out and get aggressively in their faces" way of doing things, it's viewed as something annoying and unreasonable.
Most people have no idea about stuff and are easily influenced. Myspgyny should be wider spread by people that have adapted a very hostile and old way of thinking, either through they parents, their friends, the media or their jobs. Rarely through their actual experiences with the world. If anything, the fact that gen z is struggling with this issue shows how wrong it's been presented to them, when there was a lesser amount of misogyny present during their upbringing.
Obviously once a fire is set it often becomes bigger and bigger and this isn't the only reason this has happened. However, I also don't think that it's as bad as the people in this article make it out to be. It's, same with the modern feminism issue, a loud minority.
One little thing that's a bit out there, some people hate onlyfans models, mostly out of jealousy, because they earn money through weak minded guys and view it in a way that no guy can make money this way, so they hate women as a whole more for how easy they have it. "Just make an Onlyfans". An unreasonable issue with a striking minority.
Also a lot of Gen Z is made up of lonely men that project their insecurities and seek help from men they view as helpful advisors that protect them in a, for them seeming, hostile and harsh environment, such as figures like Jordan Peterson. This is ironically also the reason why onlyfans is as successful for certain people as it is.
The fact that tabernacle Baptist church in Monroe NC in 2024 blames women wearing shorts on them getting raped tells me that humans are not as smart as they like to believe.
Young Men may be becoming more mysongnistic but young women are still going the opposite direction.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/why-gender-split-exists-gen-z-political-beliefs/
If gen z men want any sort of companionship that isn't a sock they will have to learn or stay bitter and alone
Women’s rights have always been controversial among the male demographic. There has never been a point during the patriarchy where men as a whole have supported women’s rights and freedoms. Think about how many revolutions occurred that didn’t result in women gaining any rights. Consider the American revolution: a bunch of white men complaining they didn’t have rights and freedoms while enslaving women and black people, the hypocrisy of what they were saying never crossing their mind, not even once.
A lot of incels and right-wingers say “Oh I could get behind 1st and 2nd wave feminists but 3rd wave has gone too far!!!” Yeah right lmao. The 1st and 2nd wave feminists met SO much resistance from men. Anyone remember how Red Dead Redemption 2 came out and all the right-wingers were complaining about the suffragettes and killing them? I thought you guys supported the 1st wave - what happened to that? 🤨
In the end, the point of the patriarchy is for men to get easy access to sex without having to put the work in. In nature, only the fittest and best males get to mate. I wonder if at one point that’s what human society was like: polyamorous matriarchies where the women had sex with only the best men, with the weakest men getting left behind. Considering that the patriarchy involves forcing unwilling women to marry men that they don’t want, I genuinely believe it was developed to ensure even the weakest men get to pass on their genes.
That’s why, now that women have more rights and are able to choose who to partner with, shitty men are getting left behind. They look at how their grandfathers and great grandfathers didn’t need to put any effort into finding a wife because women literally had to marry if they wanted a bank account or anything like that. They hate that now that women have independence and their own finances they are more likely to go for men that actually add something to their lives, not just any random man. They need to accept that’s natural selection, baby. If incels want to get girlfriends they need to git gud and become more likeable, more pleasant, improve their hygiene and just generally become more likeable human beings so women actually want to fuck them. But nah that’s too difficult so that’s why countries like America are starting to clamp down. Ban abortion, ban birth control, ban no-fault divorce. These are all policies that will allow shitty men that nobody wants to pass on their genes regardless.
So your answer to this societal problem is poly relationships where the top 10 percent of men are the only ones who have access to all the women, while other men get to die off as a form of eugenics? First off, I’m sure those men with harems of women and no male competition are going to make for great feminists. Second of all you are basically advocating for social Darwinism, which is what people like Ayn Rand and Hitler believed lmaoooo.
It's ok. Eventually all humans will have robots as their sexual/life partner, and all children will be born from a lab tube. There will be no more need for conflict between men and women.
I like your post, but I'd like to point out that research suggests that prehistoric civilizations were probably more civilized and less gendered than what you say. Men weren't just going out and assaulting women constantly like they do now. They had structured societies. Women hunted alongside men even after having babies. Women were leaders. Women had rank. We can see in the "primitive" societies that still exist how this would have worked and still works today. Not saying no one had misogyny in early history and prehistory, just pointing out that lots of societies were civilized enough to treat women as equals even before written language was a thing
Probably the result of the IHateMen mentality.
Actually viewing Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate aren't the same.
It's a shame that Jordan Peterson was cancelled by radicals, now you get Andrew Tate.
Look I'm with you sis/bro but calling for arresting people for speech is a HUGE no, we aren't North Korea.
Besides, you can't use violence to stop ideas anyway. We need to present a better way and treat these people with love.
Iceldom and misogyny are like an infection it spreads so slowly we often times ignore so it spreads until it becomes a problem it spreads into the voting base, then the politicians and before you know it an incel president is elected, then an incel congress and then women’s rights are revoked and it’s all because we didn’t stop the spread early by helping young boys and men understand that your not entitled to relationships and women’s attention so that they grow up not “scared of women” and wanting to support women not wanting to oppress them for their own egos. A prime example of this is South Korea as they ignored their incel crisis and now their rolling back women’s rights.
>Misogyny is Increasing Among Gen Z Men
No shit. Because it's a problem policy makers, charities, etc refuse to address but only talk about. Men are NOT Okay and unless we do something productive about it, like make sure men are okay, things will only get worse.
You know what prevents young men from being bitter and angry? Male friendships, goals, a decent wage, affordable housing, purpose.
While I agree with your point, the whole thing about prehistoric men clubbing women and Eve receiving most of the blame in the Bible (it was Adam whom God gave the most grandiose punishment to for not stopping Eve from listening to the serpent) isn’t correct.
Also, how is sex less common in late stage capitalism? I understand that less children will be born, but that doesn’t mean less sex, for the most part.
I don’t know if it’s entirely true. I think a very vocal minority of gen z men and boys are like this but many are still progressive
Edit: and from reading the article the study seems flawed to me
it is insane that in 2024 there is still a stigma of being a feminist- the amount of times i’ve heard “oh ur a feminist… right” like YES I AM I LIKE RIGHTS?? and also it’s the rise of andrew tate, its provided insecure men with a safe place which is just extremism and hatred of women and thankfully alot of establishments (including my college) have to actually report any support of andrew tate as it is seen as extremism.
I don’t think you understand anything about prehistory society. Rape would’ve been WAY less common in tribes of 80-200 where everyone knew and interacted with eachother
I take issue with the idea ancient men clubbed women over the head and raped them. What evidence we have is pre agriculture societies were more egalitarian with women being represented in hunting parties and through history having roles as hunters or warriors. Don't fight bad information with more bad information
The book sex at dawn goes over the anthropological evidence of hunter/gatherers living in egalitarian societies, The evidence shows that we all shared and nobody was being clubbed and raped. Hysterically rewriting history de values the entire feminist movement, and makes people not trust you
Most of this is very sound but saying “in prehistory, men just simply clubbed women and raped them” is not exactly sound. Not only because that’d be incredibly hard to prove, but also that it sounds sensationalist AND that most of prehistory exists before misogyny? It doesn’t matter what gender you are if you can kill a mammoth and find edible roots.
Imho that line only serves to weaken an other wise sound argument.
Honestly, I'm sure it depended on the tribe. Their were probably tribes that were completely egalitarian as well as tribes that just club women and rape them.
Amazing what decades of propaganda & lies can do isn't it?
Interestingly gen z as a whole is more conservative then millennials and im not totally sure why
Probably result of the whole economic and/or societal woes the west has had since basically since 2008. It has caused a lot of scepticism in more moderate parties polarizing people and the left is much more divided than the right nowadays. Altough I don't think this applies to every country
i think it is because from a young age kids are given unlimited access to the internet, and current social media and youtube algorithms push and promote right wing content because it gets more engagement. these kids are not informed and not fully developed mentally, so they can’t recognize the problems with conservative rhetoric. conservatism is appealing to uneducated and uninformed people because it has very simple and very easy to understand messages, distilling complex issues into extremely easily comprehensible finger pointing and blame games. that is why education is an essential tool in fighting fascism and bigotry, and why conservative governments work so hard to diminish it. it’s easier to convince a 14 year old that the economy sucks because of immigrants than it is to convince them it sucks because of complex economic and political theories and monopolization and the concept of inflation and the fact that private companies are buying up all the homes and the myriad other factors. and conservatives know this and theyre doing it on purpose. since kids are being exposed to such right wing content very regularly, it takes root when they’re young, and over time it gets harder and harder to escape from it. it’s almost like a digital hitler youth camp.
This is an excellent and wise take
This doesn't take much to go onto some online communities and see the indoctrination in real time. I fell for it before when I was younger. I was "red pilled" for a minute, and it did not make me happy at all. Just more jaded and bitter, which suprise surprise makes you more vulnerable to Intel behavior.
I don't think you can argue that the "red pill" weirdo shit is more toxic than its opposite. Half the modern liberals you talk to will call anyone who disagrees with them a racist, sexist, nazi, misogynistic, incel, Russian troll. Like they are literally founded on blind hatred and identity politics. And it is easier to get sucked into the far left online. The arts, media, education, and bureaucracy are liberal dominated. Reddit included.
Can any extreme be toxic and not healthy? Yeah, sure, but I think the alt right toxicity to be worse and more violent. Alt right become extremely jaded. Feeling discounted from people makes it easier to be violent.
Of course, but I disagree entirely with the toxic right being worse. It's mostly shunned away by the masses the moment it breaches containment. The toxic left has been permeating modern media and culture for like a decade now because it hides itself as a wolf in sheep's clothing. The more dangerous predator is the one that goes unseen.
Then we believe differently it seems
And it's a wonderful thing when you can do that instead of being intercepted by name calling and cancel culture.
I don't think you can argue that the "red pill" weirdo shit is more toxic than its opposite. Half the modern liberals you talk to will call anyone who disagrees with them a racist, sexist, nazi, misogynistic, incel, Russian troll. Like they are literally founded on blind hatred and identity politics. And it is easier to get sucked into the far left online. The arts, media, education, and bureaucracy are liberal dominated. Reddit included.
And it gives them power trips to be hateful.
Or it could be, you know, both.
Yeah. Its pretty typical for women to be sacrificed for the "greater good". It won't be the first or last time that society chooses women as its scapegoat in order to have more "prosperity" which is actually just an illusion based on the value the man run government gives it and can easily lose all value with one decision.
Dude… I’ve lived through more recessions than I can count and I just go farther left each time. Voting R isn’t gonna help shit
Gen Z here, the economy is most definitely a huge factor toward that; I know it’s anecdotal and speaks nothing to the generation as a whole, but just about every fellow Zoomer I know is *economically* veering somewhat toward the right; though *socially* they’re still rather liberal (I live in NYC if that factors in haha) Me personally, I’m just sick of how the economy is upside down yet we’re still arguing over who can piss where and what flags we can put in classrooms 💀 Just to be clear, I fully support the LGBT community and I can be considered part of it (though I don’t strongly identify with it for personal reasons), but *please*, I want to be able to own a house when I’m older
Except it’s not the LGBTQ community making the bathroom thing and flags in classrooms an issue. Conservatives made that into their entire platform. Your entire comment makes it sound as though it’s the *left wing* turning those things into issues when conservatives just want to focus on fiscal issues, but the liberals just won’t let them. In reality its the other way around - Leftists are trying to solve material issues while conservatives try their best to claw as much money from the working class as possible and usher in the next feudal age. I’m not sure how conservatives managed to convince you that it’s the other way around, but your comment defies reality.
Oh no, I just said I support the community because my comment about the culture war could’ve been interpreted as being anti-LGBT 💀 That was unclear on my part, sorry about that
IMO right wing pipelines and algorithms feeding young men's deepest insecurities with misinformation + continued and accelerated increased alienation of the proletariat so that young men's increased radicalization goes unchecked as they are isolated and connected digitally only to other young men and right wing content But it's also impossible to leave out money and propaganda. Grifters follow the money and there is more money on the right wing than on the left. As traditional media dies, the money is being pumped into targeted messages via right wing media personalities and orgs like Turning Point USA, Prager University, Ben Shartiro, and others. There's so much more money in selling your soul for dominance over others than in protecting democracy and human rights.
This feels so odd because as a Gen Z, it depends on who you talk to. Me and all of my friends are like pretty leftist, so it’s kinda odd to hear that’s apparently not the case overall.
I don't think anyone here is reading the article before coming to the comments to share their personal platforms. The article states that less than 1 in 5 Gen Z men have these views. Less than 20%. A HUGE minority. But an article titled "80% of Gen Z men do not agree with misogyny" doesn't get clicks or rile up that feeling of righteous fury people like to dwell in, regardless of data.
That makes a lot of sense, thank you for the insight! Especially considering that a lot of the Gen Zers I know tend to be at least somewhat progressive
It's well-studied that lower intelligence/education trends with conservatism. And Gen Z men are not going to college at nearly the rate that women are. They're spending more time online and less time studying/learning to be smart enough to spot misinformation.
The way this comment is worded it makes it sound like the blame is being placed on young men for not being able to attain the level of success in education that women do. Wouldn’t it make more sense to blame the education system for failing these boys and leaving them behind in favor of their female peers in K-12 education?
There are no barriers in place stopping men from being able to attain success in education. In fact, the education system was tailor-made FOR men. And they did just fine when women were not allowed to participate. Not to mention that in 2024 they are even being boosted. There is affirmative action for men in US colleges right now, to the point where it is easier for a man to go to college than it is for a woman. And despite this, they are falling behind. The problem is that so few men are even bothering to apply themselves. If you look at what teachers are seeing first-hand, it's the boys who don't study, whine about homework, whine about having to write a single paragraph. The girls are working harder, point blank. Men will need to take some accountability for their own lives and work hard like women do. And need to stop expecting things to be handed to them simply for being a male.
Clown comment
Manosphere Youtube / influencers. Andrew Tate being the biggest example. And no this is not true about Gen Z at all. just a loud portion of annoying men.
Authoritarian, not merely conservative. Everything is a crusade for the Social Media generation
nah that theory comes from a study that was proven to be bullshit and had huge flaws in methodology. Media ran with it though because ofc they did
Generation has been poisoned by internet algorithms
Millennials took it too fast with there ideals so we went back to the medium
It’s simply that conservatism is the new counter culture as progressive culture has become the main one shown to us and parroted by the older generation as of now. Older generations as in 20-40 year olds, who are usually the ones that kids interact with as counselors or teachers. They are kids and rebel, and as the metropolitan areas dictate our current culture and are progressive, they revel against the progressivism.
Do you have a source?
I don’t have a source, just look around and talk to people (especially guys)
Pendulum swung too far too fast
Because they can't read. It is literally that simple. The entire chain of cultural transmission is broken for them. It's a generation whose literacy stems from random and suspect video essays.
Is this actually the case for women? I read that it’s only true for the men, and women are further left than older generations.
Simple because left thinking is the mainstream so to be conservative is now seen as counter culture by teens
Gen Z is disillusioned with both parties, and care more for something functional. Millennials are favorable towards Democrats but disillusioned with Republicans.
Yeah this post would be great in two chromosomes. But not quite the fit for this sub. Although I do love what you posted.
This post needs to be everywhere. He'd only be preaching to the choir in TwoX
Ah, yeah you’re probably right to be honest!
This is the exact place it needs to be. And ask trump supporter, passport bro, etc Those young men need to read this every single day because they're obviously very ignorant to our history
Honestly not a great place if that's your objective the people who need to hear this are unlikely to be here in the first place
Nah those kinds of dudes are reading a lot of content in this sub in an effort to mock us
That's true
Well just like it literally does not fit in the sub description and in fact those people would probably use that as an excuse to ignore it and reinforce negative opinions about this sub
Well, I suppose in the end she’ll do with it as she wishes. But do agree that most if not almost 99% are horribly and sadly ignorant of our history. I feel like passport bros, especially since the podcastbros are in there, it’d go right over their head but yeah might know it better, I’ve went over there twice out of curiosity. Second time was good enough for me.
I think it’s a bit oversimplified in a lot of aspects. It presents this whole narrative that women’s rights have been steadily increasing over time, which is untrue. There were many societies that were matriarchal and there were many societies that were more egalitarian than the modern western one. Social progress isn’t this continuous improvement. It dips up and down and varies wildly between cultures so presenting this one note idea progression from them being “clubbed and raped” to now is very inaccurate. One of the first and finest colleges in the Middle East was founded by and admitted women which doesn’t happen over there even now, women used to be able to hold the title of bishops and deacons in the church until the 13th century where it was declared to be against gods will, it’s a story throughout many cultures how the introduction of abrahamic religions in the area led to a sharp decrease in the rights and perceived value of women to a degree we can only guess at since history is written through the perspective of the dominant groups, but the list goes on. It’s also worth mentioning particularly in prehistoric times women and men most likely split the labor (in contrast to the commonly accepted knowledge of women being the gatherers and men the hunters) and many of the elaborate burials celebrating high ranking members of society, often in connection to hunting prowess, that were often assumed to be men were actually female skeletons, something like a third of them. The whole section on biblical figures to me demonstrates a lack of understanding of the material. Eve was “blamed” for the fall of humanity because she’s the one who originally disobeyed god. You could say that’s a pretty misogynistic perspective but the point is they weren’t equally at fault. And I don’t see how Adam isn’t portrayed as being gullible and naive in that story since he just followed after her when she did it and was also the one who was directly in contact with god and receiving the information. Even in other places throughout the Old Testament women are talked about like they’re the assets of men so often the man will be held accountable for something his wife did for not guiding or controlling her properly. To me it’s pretty big it was singled out as a decisive action she independently took. In addition the whole thing about Mary seems to be relying on the misconception that her status as the immaculate virgin was in reference to her conceiving without sex. When actually the basic idea behind her “purity” is the fact that she was born free of sin to be worthy to carry the son of god. Virgin was a general term for a young woman that often came with connotations of having good virtue, kind of like “maiden” Which doesn’t explicitly refer to being a virgin in the modern sense although there is a suggestion of that. But its primary use is in describing a fair young woman. It’s ridiculous to act like the foundation of her holiness as “the Virgin” comes from her literal sexual abstinence. And just for the Bible portion cuz I don’t feel like writing more I don’t know who “Lizbeth” is supposed to be. There’s Elizabeth, who I don’t know how anyone would have a problem with since she was just a morally righteous woman. She also conceived without sexual intercourse but she still had had it, she was just infertile. Also women have never just been “holes.” Even if they aren’t employed in a respectable line of work
Alright you just laid out some incredible work and insights. The Eve thing has ALWAYS, always bothered. Because when I read I held them both at fault, yet whenever men brought it up, it was only Eve. I never understood that. I was like, hold up, Adam was just as big a part of this as Eve was. You little fucks. If you call yourself Christian, one needs to be able to self reflect enough to realize their faults, apparently a lot of me. Never truly did that. Okay, saving this because I’m about to pass out. Will reply with more tomorrow!
I was most certainly just a hole for almost my entire life. So I can't help but disagree. I know I'm not the only one
I mean clearly, I wasn't in reality just a whole, sorry to say, but that's exactly how I was always treated
In my city, I don't think this is the case. Today we had a huge feminist students' march. Boys came from all over the city under the pouring rain to attend. I think that trend is exclusive to America, South Korea and maybe the UK. edit: South Korea too
South Korea is where this is actually the worst https://www.ft.com/content/29fd9b5c-2f35-41bf-9d4c-994db4e12998
True, I read about that the other day. I'll edit my comment
>I think that trend is exclusive to America and maybe the UK. Actually I think it's exclusive to every country that has social media, and that's most likely gonna be western countries in general. Social media is full of "redpill" incel content typically targeting young men & teenage boys. It's honestly quite sinister.
Well actually its every country then. Eastern countries are even worse since they tend to be more strict on women's rights even if not through law then socially. Even places where there is no social media, girls and women are treated worse. The more primitive the society is, the younger the girls are married off and impregnated. Men control and run everything by using their physical strength to force their will on women and women can literally never do anything about it, **even men are coming out and admitting that once society falls that us women are going to be "put in our place" and that the only reason Western women have any freedoms is because Western men "allow" it which they are all wanting to stop doing, particularly to vote and work so that things can "get back to when things were better for *everyone* (except women, but thats not their problem and so they don't care)"...**
By "trend" I wasn't referring to general misogyny that's been around for millenia. I was referring to the specific type of misogyny that's on the rise especially among young men in the west, and that being the redpill incel type.
Oh ok gotcha.
Bruh why are some men so hell bent on taking us back to the dark ages just so they can satisfy their egos by beating and hurting people that are physically smaller than them? It’s straight up evil behaviour. “Oh society has collapsed and we need to rebuild it - let’s just enslave 50% of the population.” Great fucking idea. Time and time again it is proven that societies with greater equality between the sexes do better. But that doesn’t matter to them. They just want female slaves they can treat like shit so that they can feel powerful and like they’re doing something with their lives … like your asshole boss at work who’s on a massive power trip and gets psychological pleasure from treating employees like shit because he’s mad his wife left him.
I have nothing to add besides I agree with you 100%.
Is that true about Pre-History. We read that the development of agriculture actually enslaved women far more than they were beforehand. I think humans having a natural mating process disproves the idea that assault was universal. Historically anthropology has been a field made up of mostly white men from patriarchal societies and have historically denied the existence of Female warriors in early human history.
The idea that men always clubbed and raped women is a lie that I suspect men peddle to make women feel hopeless and like patriarchy is the natural order of things and therefore inevitable. Anthropologists have found evidence of matriarchal and matrilineal societies in the past. I doubt we’ll ever know the truth about how long patriarchy has gone on for, but some believe it’s only been about 10,000 years. I remember I read a really interesting excerpt from a book that explained how it is theorised that rape isn’t natural to humans because women haven’t developed any self-defences against rape like, for example, female ducks did. This has caused them to theorise that the patriarchy is relatively recent. I can’t remember the book but I’ll edit my comment to include it if I find out. If it is true that early human societies were matriarchal, it is in the best interest of the patriarchy to hide that information from women so I suspect we’ll never know the truth.
Could you point me to a source or link for the last topic cuz its sounds really an interesting take and I would like to read more about it
I think the book was Eve: How the Female Body Drove 200 Million Years of Human Evolution
Ok thanks
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/10/eve-how-female-body-drove-200-million-years-of-human-evolution-by-cat-bohannon-review This is the review that I read that featured the duck fact - thought you might be interested in reading it before deciding whether or not to order the book. I ordered it last week but it hasn’t arrived yet so sadly I can’t review it myself
It most definitely isn’t. This individual is quite misinformed about many areas
And they’re better at hiding it from their women partners until it’s too late to escape easily. So, these men are a rising problem.
I think it's self evident why women wouldn't want conservative goverments since they threaten liberties they have fought hard to get. That being said I wouldn't agree with some ideas here. First of the idea that lesbian and bi women are choosing anything shouldn't be entertained at all. It's not an accurate representation of what these two groups are. Second of the idea that men are becoming less misogynistic in gen z. I feel a good number of them have developed agressive views against feminism because people like Tate and others have been really good at demonizing it. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/feb/01/gen-z-boys-and-men-more-likely-than-baby-boomers-to-believe-feminism-harmful-says-poll https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/why-young-men-are-turning-against-feminism/ This has made the right and even the far right far more palpable for gen z men. Plus, one can argue that feminist politicians to a degree has forgotten male issues. For example in a recent report about the state of teaching in the UK it highlighted that most teachers now are women (around 75%) but the highest paid positions while dominated by women wasn't as dominated as their regular education counterparts (around 66%). I feel that this very obviously misses the issue that children especially in their youngest years are lacking good male role models. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bbf2137ed915d735983790d/Statement_of_intent_on_the_diversity_of_the_teaching_workforce.pdf Plus stuff like Amber vs Depp very easily can be twisted as feminism going against Depp. It's really stupid but it's how it's perceived. Basically feminism also needs better PR among men. This combined with the factor that privilege feels better than equality makes men more likely to distance themselves from feminism therefore the left.
Its incredibly ironic, because patriarchy is obviously bad for woman as a whole, but people don't (especially woman) realise its bad for MEN as well. Yes its made by men for men, turns out the outdated views of what a man should be however, the average guy gets screwed over by and its affected from social to law. E.G. At least in UK Law A woman cannot rape a man legally. Flat out. It's a patriarchal view, that a man cannot be taken advantage of because ultimately he is in the position of power throughout. Which extends to consent laws, if a woman is slightly drunk and a man is basically passed out drunk, and the woman initiates sex, that is considered rape by the man. Absolutely dumb. And it extends to why woman tend to be favoured in divorce proceedings. Because OF COURSE the children need a mother, of course she's going to be at home all the time, OF COURSE the man is going to be the one earning the money, so its only natural the woman gets the kids, because the man is going to be out suffering making the money to supply the family. Patriarchy sucks for most people. Which is what feminists should be trying to show to convince people, because ultimately when you only look at one sides issues, its very easy cause resentment.
I think most women recognize that as a whole the patriarchy hurts everyone who doesn’t have power and money which includes pretty much everyone but the elite males. Most women I talk with understand it’s unhealthy as a whole, just women usually get the shittier end of all the sticks, so that’s what they talk about bc the patriarchy literally leaves women physically and mentally ill.
Most feminists care deeply about men and their suffering under patriarchy. They’re not being sidelined whatsoever, and no, we don’t need to focus more on their issues.
> E.G. At least in UK Law > A woman cannot rape a man legally. Flat out. It's a patriarchal view, that a man cannot be taken advantage of because ultimately he is in the position of power throughout. Which extends to consent laws, if a woman is slightly drunk and a man is basically passed out drunk, and the woman initiates sex, that is considered rape by the man. Fun fact I recently discovered that this is the case as well for my country.
They can’t be charged with rape which is stupid and that’s because they include penetration in the definition. They can however be charged with sexual assault which has the same maximum sentencing time as rape. I think they should update the definition though.
You just described classism but because of cultural propaganda, they turned the bourgeoisie vs proletariat sociopolitical tension into a gender war by semantically equating class tyranny with men. It's why we lag so behind other countries when it comes to rallying as a united front and protesting the people in power compared to older European countries like France.
Why do we need these labels anyways? People should just organize around specific issues as a matter of their conscious. We don't need labels like "feminisim" or whatever to encapsulate lots of different things, because then you start to stray further from substance and things get tribal and weird.
Would you like to expand on your comment on Heard vs Depp ? I'm not sure I see what you mean.
People latched on to that as a way to prove how feminism is against men and demonizing the me too movement.
Yeah exactly. I saw “this is what happens when we believe all women.”
This is it.
You're making some interesting points and I agree with a lot of this, but this probably isn't the right sub
I have two questions, and they aren’t facetious or antagonistic. And, there is the caveat that I’m framing all of this in the perspective of heteronormative relationships. Your wording sounds like it implies that Late Stage Capitalism is the reason that in a society that has become less misogynistic over time, and in an economy where women were essentially thrusted into the workforce; women began to become more independent, and have started having less sex. As far as I’ve been able to research, having less sex goes for both men and women as time has gone on since the 90’s Do you think that this trend would continue or persist in a non-capitalist society that also pursued to dismantle institutional and cultural misogyny? And Secondly, given the advent of AI and the ever evolving adult content/toy industry, do you see this divide getting worse, even without contemporary misogynistic rhetoric, or do you think these things will only scrape the bottom of the barrel of society?
You raise some really interesting questions! I think a helpful way to initiate a discussion on these questions would be to figure out what we require for sex to occur in the first place. Firstly, there has to be time to have sex. Right off the bat late stage capitalism comes swinging - a cursory Google search showed that paid work, housework, leisure, eating, and sleeping take 80–90% of all the 1440 minutes in a day (https://ourworldindata.org/time-use). There's not exactly a tonne of time for extracurricular activities - still enough for someone to get some action but not an abundance by any stretch. Recalling that the work of daily living is increasingly becoming strenuous also means that the time a person does have free to themselves is usually spent recovering or doing low-stress activities. The second thing people need for sex is human connection. When do people have the time to build human connection? If their immediate circles don't consist of people they are or could be attracted to, an individual is in tough waters. There will have to be some serious reorganising and adjusting of one's life and environment to facilitate human connection. Again, many people don't have the luxury of such an immense alteration to their life, whether for financial, social or psychological reasons. The third thing people need is designated spaces. Let's say you're workplace doesn't have anyone you could be interested in. You don't have any neighbours and you have a home gym, so no chance for a potential meet-cute there. And though you have some lovely friends, your circles are small and exclusive; you don't really branch out. Where do you go? Where is the place you go specifically to meet people your age interested in romance, love and sex? People always come hollering about the club when I mention this but this space is inaccessible for many people for many reasons. It prioritises rich, young, extroverted and attractive people - the vast majority of the world doesn't fit cleanly in those categories! Go to a club and you'll see that most clubgoers fit into only a few of those categories and inevitably "lose" their access as/if they get poorer, older, more introverted or less conventionally attractive. The fourth thing people need is confidence and hope. It takes courage to leave yourself vulnerable to rejection and even more courage to bounce back from rejection. And you need hope so that it feels there is a point to being continuously rejected. Take a look at your own circles - how confident and hopeful do people around you seem? Not just personally confident and hopeful about their prospects and future, but hopeful about the world? Confident about humanity's ability to take care of itself and this planet? The fifth thing and perhaps the most important is you need to be in a happy and relaxed enough state to want to pursue sex. Something like 51% of adults will have a mental health crisis and I personally am astonished that number isn't higher. We are so preoccupied with survival, western societies have a culture of bragging/being nonchalant about their failure to attend to health - "Oh, I only got three hours of sleep last night", "I was coughing up a lung but I still managed to get through my shift somehow". There are plenty of non-capitalist societies that would exacerbate these issues tenfold. There are plenty of non-capitalist societies that would make capitalist societies seem like a dream. However, a society that prioritises quality of life of every human being, and embeds this value within it's government policies and legislation and culture could absolutely encourage more sex. Dismantling institutionalised and cultural misogyny would make the incidence of heterosexual sex higher in communities because the final barrier is the inability of men and women to understand each other, to communicate honestly and offensively with each other and to recognise the value of each other. The issue is that there are centuries worth of wounds that have been done unto women - I really don't know how we begin to repair that. But an excellent place to start isn't in how men relate to women. The best place to start so far as I'm concerned is for men to repair themselves, and then come to the world, to women, with a renewed sense of who they are, what they want and to communicate that with other men and women. Though I speak of men as a monolith, this is by nature and necessity a solo journey. If anyone has gone through an immense and life-altering period of growth they will know that though you may have people in your corner, you have to do it alone. Your next experiences of growth need not be so lonely, though, with your newfound self-awareness and capacity for connection. In terms of the second question, yes. I think it will make things worse. Whether we like it or not, a large percentage of how women are perceived is wrapped up in sex. I'm hesitant to even throw any hypotheses of what will happen out there because I really don't want to alarm anyone. The worst case scenario is an emerging culture where women begin to try and appear more robotic, more inhuman, to compete for mates. This is horrific because their "competitors" don't even want mates, nor are they capable of wanting them, nor if they did want them, would they be human. My other concern is that there will be a large chunk of the human population who will eschew human connection in favour of something easier, more convenient but infinitely less fulfilling. Of course, there will be counter-cultural moves towards humanism and suspicion of AI but there will almost certainly be a disconcertingly alien and uncomfortable period before even the potential of some new and healthier world order appears. One of the first manifestations of that unrest will almost certainly appear in the realm of sex, it's frequency and it's quality.
I think until men realize they need to offer more than just a paycheck to get laid these days the rates will increase. There are a growing number of increasingly anti social and undatable men in this society, offering nothing of value to women and spewing vitriol whenever they talk. I think until men make a huge push for self development and stop blaming women for their issues these numbers will continue to rise. The sad fact is a huge number of men just have nothing worthwhile to offer women these days, and it's even more of a turnoff when they blame said women
An amazing number of people would say very few women have anything to offer to men. A lot of guys I know just don't see dating as worth their time due to the horror stories they see online or hear in conversation. I also think that they're super paranoid about infidelity or ghosting. I've never heard them blame women in general, but I have heard them name-dropping the 3 or 4 class "passed-around"girls that they are familiar with a lot and just generalize based on that.
Unfortunately there's a couple huge differences between men and women that makes it very unbalanced. Women don't need a relationship for access to as much sex as they want/need. The vast majority of men absolutely do need a relationship for regular access to sex. The other is women have a lot more emotionally intimate relationships in their lives, they have stronger social circles and support networks. Most men rely on their female partner to fulfill their emotional intimacy needs. So you can generalize "men don't need women" in the same way "women don't need men" but in reality men suffer a lot more from being single than women, as shown in every study done on the topic.
But is that why you should enter into a relationship? What relationship is going to be satisfying for women if a guy is just dating her for sex?
I think you missed my point 😅 I'm making a descriptive statement not a normative one
To focus on the emotional/non romantic part of your statement. It is amazing to me how many friends girls can have. Many of my girl friends are impressed by how long I can be out of contact but still recognize and throw back with my old friends, one of whom I hadn't seen since about second grade.
Yeah girls are socialized to really value strong friendships, it's tragic that guys are socialized to be islands, nobody should have to be completely independent, were a social species. I really hope we can change the culture so that guys can have better friendships
Tbf, I haven't seen 2 of my male friends in the last few years, but I still consider myself friends with them. Hell! My dad saw a friend he hadn't spoken with since I was about 8 years old, and they recognized each other immediately. I think my problem is a sort of "initiation anxiety" where I don't want to annoy people by reaching out while they need their full attention on something. Also, I don't really want to talk to the guys around me because half of them are in their own cult-like friend groups, and the other half are just dumb.(backflip(failed) in the bathroom type shit)
Who tf is down voting this
Eh it's not true for a lot of guys. People get defensive. Guys need to realize it's indeed a general trend though.
I think we need each other. I remember a much older woman telling my younger (female) self that back in her day, you married the best man you could find. And if that didn’t pan out, you married the second best man. I’ve been married for decades and my husband shows 100% respect for me and I am the major breadwinner but still perform some trad wife roles while he tends to perform the traditional male roles in our relationship. It works for us. I don’t understand why the flaming misogynistic ways are coming back so forcefully. I’m glad I came of age when I did. Most men had a more open mind or they gradually realized a flaming misogynist wasn’t going to get them very far
That's a big reason I've never tried dating. I hear all these horrific cheating stories online and know several good friends irl who have been betrayed by gfs/wives and It makes me genuinely scared of women because I've never experienced a betrayal of of that caliber before and don't feel it's worth the risk.
Wow! I’m an older woman and I’m REALLY sorry to hear this. But remember, online is only a microcosm of what happens in real life. You have to put yourself out there because the rewards far outweigh the risks. Just imagine if you had a sweet flirtation going with a girl and you asked her to go out and you both fell in love?
That's a big part of why the last relationship I had was in 8th grade
That’s literally just misogyny
I mean I don't really blame gen z. Women where handed a shit sandwich and decided to do with what they could, just like you by finding other female friends and avoiding males, I don't blame anyone for that either. Now you have a bunch of boys who have no idea how to interact with women because well let's be honest here where are they supposed to learn? A lot of these kids are terminally online and seeing onlyfans content by the time they are in middle school, spread all over insta and Snapchat(most meme accounts take these ads and have been for years, that's why I deleted the apps long ago). Ipad parents that just give their kids devices to keep them distracted are coming round full circle with these kids growing up. So now you have a bunch of socially empowered women who don't exactly want to even bother with men, and would rather just make friends with women. And alot of men who don't even know how to properly approach a women/talk to them now with out being called an incel, because no one bothered to parent them, and women are already predisposed to dislike them.
[удалено]
Yup you have it exactly correct. There's a massive divide between men/women these days and there isn't much middle ground being sought. Like it's funny to laugh at some of the stuff incels say, but at the end of the day instead of mocking them and shutting them down people need to start asking them why they think what they do and challenge them to open their minds, as they won't do it getting mocked, it will probably just make them more bitter.(I say from my experience dealing with a few tate fans)
>instead of mocking them and shutting them down people need to start asking them why they think what they do and challenge them to open their minds, as they won't do it getting mocked, it will probably just make them more bitter I agree, but I can't be bothered to do all that. I have enough shit to deal with in my own life. I don't have the time or energy to educate hateful men so they can hopefully start being good people one day.
Thats what sociologists are for.
sorry no, I'm not a teacher for random men who hate my ass. I have my own life
I definitely can blame Gen Z. As someone raised in a cult who started questioning and ran away way before their age, you are responsible for your beliefs and what you buy into, no matter what propaganda you’ve been exposed to. Women are not predisposed to disliking men. They’re exposed to all of the nasty shit that these losers say about women and are aware that automatically trusting men is dangerous. Every woman and girl I know has male friends. They’re not being excluded. Just the ones that are clearly problematic and instead of listening when they’re told that they’re the problem, they go looking for content that validates their opinion that nothing is wrong with them. The real problem is women having the right to reject them. Their parents are definitely also to blame for not monitoring the content they consume, teaching them respect for women and not limiting their access to such resources but ultimately, they are responsible for making the choice to hate us and advocate for our subjugation.
Yeah men really need to learn how to not treat women like objects... It would help them so much Considering they've been objectifying and dehumanizing us since the dawn of humanity I don't have much hope for them tho
Yep, this is how it is in India and why so many men from India is like that. It's not because of traditions we stopped following centuries ago (sati) neither is it because of some cultural boogeyman (often seen people say outright false shit and then blame it on Hinduism or Islam and these comments get hundreds of upvotes on reddit) It's simply just lack of female interaction and learning it from porn.
Its been a while since i didn't ate a good crunchy apple and right now i'm eating one , i love apple ( I remember the day when i ate a super big crunchy apple , it was one of the best day of my life i think )
Natural result of allowing propaganda like tate's to exist
I've come to understand men clubbing women in pre-history is a misogynist trope. There's very little proof that actually happened a lot. Probably a rumor invented by men to make themselves look good?
How does caveman clubbing women make men look good?
I meant it makes modern men look good by comparison.
Wrong sub.
Most men nowadays are revolting to me. I can count on one hand the number of times I met a genuinely good man in the last couple of years who made me want to talk with him for longer than 2 seconds. The women I have talked to on the other hand are so much more intelligent, empathetic and kind in comparison. I really hate that I'm a straight woman in today's world.
I'm a guy and I agree with you. Stopped talking to a lot of my male friends because they're all so fucking hive minded nowadays (and ironically they accuse women of being the same)
Yeah I just immediately shut down when they start saying red pill nonsense. It's kind of sad how prevalent it has become among men. Hopefully these men wake up soon because most women would rather die alone than become whatever these men want us to be.
[удалено]
Women never had a choice in the past. Now we do that's the difference. Women won't have to "deal with being alone". We are choosing to be alone than be with toxic men.
That's really unfortunate, I hope your social situation improves ❤️
I have great female friends, so my social situation isn't all that bad. It's more so the romantic side of things. But I'm realizing that I'm a lot happier being single, so I don't mind this tbh.
That’s… really just sad. And a little hurtful (no offense, please).
I'm sorry if I offended you too. I always start conversations with men in good faith, but end up being disappointed.
In two years you can count on one hand how many times you’ve found an intelligent and empathetic man? This is 100% a you problem. Reverse the roles and this utter nonsense is no different than what incels write about women.
So I clicked 2 links to get to the actual study. The study was a survey where they asked a bunch of people of various ages a ton of questions (so far I've only read like 20 ish). The general picture I'm getting from the responses is much better than the two articles I had to look through made it look. In the majority of the questions gen z men were either reportedly nuetral on feminism and or found it slightly beneficial. Now, I'm a man so maybe this perspective is because I am one of these people, but it seems to me that the increase in "misogyny" isn't actually all that big (unless if you look at it in a relativistic way), and since such so many people report to be nuetral or find it slightly beneficial, to me it seems people just don't have enough knowledge about what feminism is. The increase in people who find feminism harmful is because of influences like Andrew Tate who are able to reach so many people and say feminism is bad and that women have better lives then men. However, there aren't any figure that are going viral or are super well known that not only refute that but talk about the truth. Every time I've seen someone talk about Andrew Tate being wrong they've dismissed his claims, but they haven't done it in a way that shows the truth, only in a way that shows he is wrong. This leads people to getting Andrew Tate's info that feminism is bad and then someone pointing out how he is wrong but not showing the good feminism has done. I think this is what has lead to the neutrality. Uneducated masses of men who aren't trying to find the truth. I think that a large portion of these men could easily find feminism to be beneficial/good if there was a force like Andrew Tate that goes viral and everyone talks about and they finally learn why feminism is good, or if something happens to motivate them to educate themselves. The problem seems to stem more from misinformation and being uneducated than actual hate for women (thankfully). It also means that the problem is much more fixable since a lot of the people who have a negative opinion of feminism were likely just nuetral people who kept having Andrew Tate's bs shoved down their throats.
These polls are taken by opt in polling, which is known to be very inaccurate, so I would trust this unless you trust that 12% of people aged 18-25 are licensed to operate SSGN class subs (these are nuclear armed military submarines) Source about both how inaccurate and how prevalent opt in polling is, which is why you basically can't trust any polls. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/sr_24-03-04_opt-in-polls_1/
I'm sorry but I really just can't walk past without interrogating some elements of this. Like, I have no particular opinion on the overall conclusion you're drawing, but... jesus christ that might have been some of the worst history I've ever seen written. >In prehistory, men just simply clubbed women and raped them. Prehistoric people's weren't literally monkeys. There are uncontacted tribes today who functionally live in "prehistoric" times, and they still organise themselves and utilise moral codes to govern their behaviour. They are not just savages, they're humans. >For over a thousand years European women of the higher class were expected to cook, clean, have babies, instill morals into children (especially the girls), and be willing to fuck whenever their husbands wanted Upper class women would absolutely not be cooking and cleaning for themselves, they had servants to do a lot of that work for them. They commonly oversaw the servants, and certainly could pitch in if they wished to, but the idea of a gentile lady as a domestic servant is utterly laughable. The only worthwhile statement here is the idea of instilling morals into children, which definitely was a woman's task - although this went for boys as much as girls. To expand on the role of women, in the early modern european household (the basic social unit at this time), the wife sat second, just below the "head of the house" (her husband). In his absence she would run his business, she commanded the servants, apprentices, and all her own children in maintaining the business and home, and in some cases even could inherit the business and functionally take it over. >Women were expected to even EAT in a “feminine” manner. Etiquette has been a thing for as long as parties have been a thing, and really only affects the rich at very specific formal events as a means of governing the social activities going on. It's actually a topic that's very worthy of study. At lower levels of society, people simply ate. >When the Industrial Revolution hit, women from the lower classes did not need to tend to the farms as much, thus, they were expected to stay at home. Here's the first piece of flat out misinformation. Like, it genuinely needs to be sifted through to pick apart all of the pop history bullshit. 1. Farm labour was come and go. There were times of the year when everyone in a village would be hauling ass to get the harvest in, and times of the year where there was very little to be done on the farm besides the basic routine. You completely missed the actual most common female activity of the time - spinning. It's easy with a modern view on things to forget the amount of upkeep that used to go into simple things like clothes, but suffice it to say that there was a truly immense amount of domestic labour that women were in charge of, generally with their children doing the most physically intensive work. 2. Women did not "stay home" they also went into the cities in search of jobs. It was a very rare opportunity for social mobility, especially as the agrarian economy was failing, and a great many women took it. > Jobs were effectively limited to: wife, midwife, governess, and prostitute. It actually got so bad in Victorian Era London that there was an STI crisis due to some 80,000 women having to be prostitutes. And here we have become fully dissociated from reality. Not really sure how you managed to completely miss the role of the "domestic", i.e. domestic servants, given that it was the overwhelming majority profession for women. Any serious discussion of women in Victorian Britain should spend about 80% of it's time speaking about the working condition of domestics, but here it has been overlooked for... governess? A rare job that requires you to be educated to own? And midwifery, which is another fairly rare and specialised job. You've also just completely skipped over the significant amounts of women employed in factories, where they made up the majority of the workforce in the textiles industry, and significant portions of the workforce in paper and pottery. Also, London's population rose to 5.5 ***million*** by 1890 - 80,000 people is really not a shocking amount. Prostitution is a genuinely fascinating subject in the victorian period, since it sits at the intersection of gender, health, sexuality, morality, crime, and poverty, but I don't think that just saying 'waow 80,000 prostitutes' does it justice. Honestly I'm going to stop reading this for my own sake. That's just me slightly interrogating the first few paragraphs of a massive post. There's nothing wrong with the message you're trying to send, but seriously don't weaken your points by associating them with straight up misinformation.
Thank you for correcting some of my historical mistakes. I’m a chemistry major so sometimes I make mistakes my bad.
It's alright, and I'm sorry if I came across as overly harsh or vitriolic - this is just an area of study I'm quite passionate about and the impacts of many of these misconceptions I think are pretty major.
You low-key give me journalist vibes. I know this is a meme sub and a lot of people here don't appreciate it, but I loved what u wrote
Not a journalist but I write lab reports every week lol thx for the comment
Probably not suprising, considering how most people nowadays are isolated and spend too much time on social media, which is the biggest source of "redpill" incel content, usually targeting specifically young men & teen boys.
It’s not even young ppl exclusively. My dad has gone down a rabbit hole of flat earth bullshit bc of the tiktok algorithm.
I'm so sorry
This actually saddens me as a gen z man. I thought we were (slowly but surely) making progress but ig not..
This isn't a counterargument to your analysis. But I've recently learned that the research these articles cite might not reflect reality very accurately. The problem is the selection system they use. See, you can select by probability, or you can ask for voluntary responses. It's been found that younger respondents to self-selected surveys are far far likelier to answer these surveys with a certain bend, whether that be far right or just bogus answers. When you use probability-based panels compared to opt-in polls, the figures reflect much better results. It seems like there's a trend of weirdo terminally online freaks who would seek online surveys to report that they don't believe in the holocaust. And this is asymmetrical, as left leaning people don't get off on this. So these kind of sensationalist studies get published that don't reflect the actual political opinions but over report anti-feme is anti-semetic and generally bigoted world-views. That is to say, when you collect data at random, the trend of young men of being disproportionately far right disappears. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/
I'd like to discuss the significant historical inaccuracies and speculation in this post but I fear that would result in a ban. Is that allowed here?
*sex is uncommon in late stage capitalism* No
I don’t think Gen Z (in western nations) are more “conservatives” than Gen Y, it’s just that “conservative” people in Gen Z are much more radical in being conservative embracing “right wing populism” than being “moderate conservatives”, Gen Z in the west has higher percentage of voting for left wing/liberal parties, but the conservative one tend to vote for radical right more than mainstream conservatives, for example the polish 2023 election where 27% of 18-29 years which were the most, voted for the liberal civic coalition, 17.4% voted for progressive “the left” which were the most % of the party vote, but 17.8% of them voted for the far-right confederation suppressing only 14.3% of their vote for the mainstream right wing “law and justice” party.
Pre-history is way more complex than that with possible matriarchal systems.
Most feminists care deeply about men and their suffering under patriarchy. They’re not being sidelined whatsoever, and no, we don’t need to focus more on their issues.
We need laws for social media companies to be regulated, classes that teach critical thinking, and media laws. This will not solve itself. Free speech is great but there should be consequences for trying to lie about an election/try to steal it like Trump did, or for social media companies to allow fake lies to spread across their platform about the very fabric of reality.
Me when I write a thesis in the meme sub:
Maybe, but please don't box Gen Z men into the "conservative assholes" box as if we are one singular entity. Most of us have basic decency
so why are we writing paragraphs and not posting memes?
I feel like women's rights is a very polarizing thing among young males where I live. There was a massive protest in my city today with thousands of young men joining in. But on the other hand you also have a lot of incel-alpha male types who degrade women constantly. There seems to be little in between, if you meet a young man around here it's a coin flip of them either being avid women's rights advocates or mysoginists.
Years of culture wars stoking people's insecurities and creating paranoia that everyone different is against, promoted by a very efficient alt-right pipeline on the Internet. People have this mentality that you can only be in one of two states: oppressing or oppressed. Now, we have a major political party in the U.S. that may very well impose theocracy and dictatorship in the near future.
This is all a very true and awesome post but I wanted to add some tidbits: > When the Industrial Revolution hit, women from the lower classes did not need to tend to the farms as much, thus, they were expected to stay at home. Jobs were effectively limited to: wife, midwife, governess, and prostitute Women worked other jobs besides this for a period of time, and lower class Women had the MODEL of staying at home, but this didn't really seem to happen. Around the industrial revolution also came inflation and many women were forced out of their homes to be factory workers, especially the lower class women, to help provide for their families around 1840-1850. However they were also payed less and worked in awful conditions. Extremely. Women & Children in the Industrial Revolution | Impact & Effect - Lesson https://study.com/learn/lesson/women-children-industrial-revolution-roles-effects-impact.html >After women’s suffrage and WW2, women were encouraged to exit the workforce and return to the conservative lifestyle in the 1950’s and 60’s. While we tend to think of the 60’s and 70’s as a time of social progress, realistically the conservative white nuclear family was still the majority and status quo. Absolutely true and there is nothing wrong here. But I wanted to add that women's employment rate started to slowly rise after ww2, and I think the period of working during ww2 maybe gave women inspiration for careers. The problem is you couldn't hold a job after you got pregnant as a woman, or even if you got married. Including the inequal pay still making it a nothing burger. https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/post-world-war-ii-1946-1970 In conclusion, the idea of a stay at home wife/mom seems to be a capitalist fantasy, and not something easily implemented in reality consistently in history compared to a 2 person working household. That's just my 2 cents
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed as it was deemed to be uncivil to member(s) of this community.
Technology has advanced so much in the last few decades that people start getting phones and tablets at a very young age, the "loudest voice" fallacy is almost definitely going to affect many kids way of thinking. Misogyny and misandry is most definitely on the rise and is probably going to keep being on the rise until we can find a way to stop it, young kids are very impressionable.
I mean… everyone’s way too sexual, men and women. Shit’s gross, not worth it. For the record I’m not bitter, I tried once and I just hated it
I'm a millennial and married and I don't mean to be out of pocket but...is there anyone who just doesn't notice stuff like this? My wife is up and I asked her too, we are not hip on this . Just out here living. We just try to be kind and live and let live. I'm in the trades and have some Gen Z guys and onee gal actually apprentice under me and they were...normal. Good people. Sometimes it's good to get out and touch grass as they say
Yeah, this article isn't really that reliable of a source, the data was mostly collected through internet polls which are faulty given how vunerable they are to brigades/trolls (look up any youtube video about the topic of anti-semetism for example) and them generally favoring the people who are the most chronically online rather than a proper sample of the real world. With that being said though the zoomers who are right wing are far more extreme than the millennials who were right wing, there's been a massive blow up of right wing alternative media in their formative years essentially creating an online Fox News media market equivalent for them.
A partial reason for this is that the presentation of feminism in the media has changed. From the presenters as well as the people preaching it. Doesn't help at all that a lot of political figures try to dismantle anything progressive, like anything pro LGBTQ+, because they can't and don't want to comprehend progression. A good amount of pop culture gen z consumed when growing up actually had very positive depiction of women. This might be hard for some to swallow, but it's more that a loud group that preaches feminism in the past few years has portrayed feminism in a very anti male way. It often starts in a very stupidly simple way. A lot of young people are easily offended, hell, even orders, but let's focus on young, because in their mind they didn't do anything. They are still learning. "So why is the feminist lady angry at me?" Ofc there are several layers to this all, but when a comparison against all men is made in such a frequent and negative way, some start to think "holy shit, fuck women, they just want things and complain" and therefor people grant negative influencers a platform (Andrew Tate, etc.) Modern feminism has a adapted in a very roundabout way compared to feminism in general. A lot of people grow up being feminist, because they didn't learn from any sources to be against things like "women should be equal, they deserve the things they get". But when modern feminism has a "let's lash out and get aggressively in their faces" way of doing things, it's viewed as something annoying and unreasonable. Most people have no idea about stuff and are easily influenced. Myspgyny should be wider spread by people that have adapted a very hostile and old way of thinking, either through they parents, their friends, the media or their jobs. Rarely through their actual experiences with the world. If anything, the fact that gen z is struggling with this issue shows how wrong it's been presented to them, when there was a lesser amount of misogyny present during their upbringing. Obviously once a fire is set it often becomes bigger and bigger and this isn't the only reason this has happened. However, I also don't think that it's as bad as the people in this article make it out to be. It's, same with the modern feminism issue, a loud minority. One little thing that's a bit out there, some people hate onlyfans models, mostly out of jealousy, because they earn money through weak minded guys and view it in a way that no guy can make money this way, so they hate women as a whole more for how easy they have it. "Just make an Onlyfans". An unreasonable issue with a striking minority. Also a lot of Gen Z is made up of lonely men that project their insecurities and seek help from men they view as helpful advisors that protect them in a, for them seeming, hostile and harsh environment, such as figures like Jordan Peterson. This is ironically also the reason why onlyfans is as successful for certain people as it is.
The fact that tabernacle Baptist church in Monroe NC in 2024 blames women wearing shorts on them getting raped tells me that humans are not as smart as they like to believe.
Young Men may be becoming more mysongnistic but young women are still going the opposite direction. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/why-gender-split-exists-gen-z-political-beliefs/ If gen z men want any sort of companionship that isn't a sock they will have to learn or stay bitter and alone
Women’s rights have always been controversial among the male demographic. There has never been a point during the patriarchy where men as a whole have supported women’s rights and freedoms. Think about how many revolutions occurred that didn’t result in women gaining any rights. Consider the American revolution: a bunch of white men complaining they didn’t have rights and freedoms while enslaving women and black people, the hypocrisy of what they were saying never crossing their mind, not even once. A lot of incels and right-wingers say “Oh I could get behind 1st and 2nd wave feminists but 3rd wave has gone too far!!!” Yeah right lmao. The 1st and 2nd wave feminists met SO much resistance from men. Anyone remember how Red Dead Redemption 2 came out and all the right-wingers were complaining about the suffragettes and killing them? I thought you guys supported the 1st wave - what happened to that? 🤨 In the end, the point of the patriarchy is for men to get easy access to sex without having to put the work in. In nature, only the fittest and best males get to mate. I wonder if at one point that’s what human society was like: polyamorous matriarchies where the women had sex with only the best men, with the weakest men getting left behind. Considering that the patriarchy involves forcing unwilling women to marry men that they don’t want, I genuinely believe it was developed to ensure even the weakest men get to pass on their genes. That’s why, now that women have more rights and are able to choose who to partner with, shitty men are getting left behind. They look at how their grandfathers and great grandfathers didn’t need to put any effort into finding a wife because women literally had to marry if they wanted a bank account or anything like that. They hate that now that women have independence and their own finances they are more likely to go for men that actually add something to their lives, not just any random man. They need to accept that’s natural selection, baby. If incels want to get girlfriends they need to git gud and become more likeable, more pleasant, improve their hygiene and just generally become more likeable human beings so women actually want to fuck them. But nah that’s too difficult so that’s why countries like America are starting to clamp down. Ban abortion, ban birth control, ban no-fault divorce. These are all policies that will allow shitty men that nobody wants to pass on their genes regardless.
So your answer to this societal problem is poly relationships where the top 10 percent of men are the only ones who have access to all the women, while other men get to die off as a form of eugenics? First off, I’m sure those men with harems of women and no male competition are going to make for great feminists. Second of all you are basically advocating for social Darwinism, which is what people like Ayn Rand and Hitler believed lmaoooo.
It's ok. Eventually all humans will have robots as their sexual/life partner, and all children will be born from a lab tube. There will be no more need for conflict between men and women.
Having skepticism of “feminism” is not misogyny
can this sub to back to getting angry at shitposts
I like your post, but I'd like to point out that research suggests that prehistoric civilizations were probably more civilized and less gendered than what you say. Men weren't just going out and assaulting women constantly like they do now. They had structured societies. Women hunted alongside men even after having babies. Women were leaders. Women had rank. We can see in the "primitive" societies that still exist how this would have worked and still works today. Not saying no one had misogyny in early history and prehistory, just pointing out that lots of societies were civilized enough to treat women as equals even before written language was a thing
Probably the result of the IHateMen mentality. Actually viewing Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate aren't the same. It's a shame that Jordan Peterson was cancelled by radicals, now you get Andrew Tate.
Look I'm with you sis/bro but calling for arresting people for speech is a HUGE no, we aren't North Korea. Besides, you can't use violence to stop ideas anyway. We need to present a better way and treat these people with love.
I love how historically illiterate this post is.
Iceldom and misogyny are like an infection it spreads so slowly we often times ignore so it spreads until it becomes a problem it spreads into the voting base, then the politicians and before you know it an incel president is elected, then an incel congress and then women’s rights are revoked and it’s all because we didn’t stop the spread early by helping young boys and men understand that your not entitled to relationships and women’s attention so that they grow up not “scared of women” and wanting to support women not wanting to oppress them for their own egos. A prime example of this is South Korea as they ignored their incel crisis and now their rolling back women’s rights.
>Misogyny is Increasing Among Gen Z Men No shit. Because it's a problem policy makers, charities, etc refuse to address but only talk about. Men are NOT Okay and unless we do something productive about it, like make sure men are okay, things will only get worse. You know what prevents young men from being bitter and angry? Male friendships, goals, a decent wage, affordable housing, purpose.
What a load of shit you all just hate men and want us all gone.
I would have gone with, "Queen of internalized misogyny and also the United Kingdom, Victoria..."
While I agree with your point, the whole thing about prehistoric men clubbing women and Eve receiving most of the blame in the Bible (it was Adam whom God gave the most grandiose punishment to for not stopping Eve from listening to the serpent) isn’t correct. Also, how is sex less common in late stage capitalism? I understand that less children will be born, but that doesn’t mean less sex, for the most part.
social media is making everything extreme
I don’t know if it’s entirely true. I think a very vocal minority of gen z men and boys are like this but many are still progressive Edit: and from reading the article the study seems flawed to me
it is insane that in 2024 there is still a stigma of being a feminist- the amount of times i’ve heard “oh ur a feminist… right” like YES I AM I LIKE RIGHTS?? and also it’s the rise of andrew tate, its provided insecure men with a safe place which is just extremism and hatred of women and thankfully alot of establishments (including my college) have to actually report any support of andrew tate as it is seen as extremism.
I don’t think you understand anything about prehistory society. Rape would’ve been WAY less common in tribes of 80-200 where everyone knew and interacted with eachother
I take issue with the idea ancient men clubbed women over the head and raped them. What evidence we have is pre agriculture societies were more egalitarian with women being represented in hunting parties and through history having roles as hunters or warriors. Don't fight bad information with more bad information
The book sex at dawn goes over the anthropological evidence of hunter/gatherers living in egalitarian societies, The evidence shows that we all shared and nobody was being clubbed and raped. Hysterically rewriting history de values the entire feminist movement, and makes people not trust you
Most of this is very sound but saying “in prehistory, men just simply clubbed women and raped them” is not exactly sound. Not only because that’d be incredibly hard to prove, but also that it sounds sensationalist AND that most of prehistory exists before misogyny? It doesn’t matter what gender you are if you can kill a mammoth and find edible roots. Imho that line only serves to weaken an other wise sound argument.
Honestly, I'm sure it depended on the tribe. Their were probably tribes that were completely egalitarian as well as tribes that just club women and rape them.
Gen X and Millennials are the peak? Hopefully my Gen Alpha kids can help reverse this trend.
Agreed except for the random strays fired at cnc and free-use kinks.
It's okay, whatever your kinks are. It doesn't mean what you think it does.