Transcription
Welcome back, tribe. We've got an episode here from a channel that was, uh, posted 13 years ago and got two and a half million views. So, she was talking about this stuff way before men not marrying. How deep does the problem go? I'm going to let it play out and see what she says. I'm so curious.
Everybody, I'm Girl Writes What? And, uh, uh, an online friend of mine was, uh, really freaking pissed off after reading a recent effort on the part of, I can only assume, a traditionalist woman, in, uh, trying to figure out what the heck is wrong with men these days. I'm, I'm going to leave the article in the information section along with, uh, some other stuff, but, uh, basically, just like many traditionalists and feminists before her, she, she really missed the mark by a freaking mile.
Um, even though she really, she kind of danced a little closer, like within a hundred miles or so, of the, the few core issues that currently discourage men from being the good little married drones they're supposed to be. Despite being critical of feminist attitudes that she rightly sees as anti-male, the article was still absurdly gyocentric. It was very much about what women want and why they're not getting it. And, uh, like that is getting married, having babies on women's schedules as decided by women.
Um, I almost have to wonder whether this author even bothered to ask any actual unmarried males why they're refusing or not bothering to, uh, man up before writing her article. Ah, I get into this one in the episode coming up on the channel. If you haven't, check out the second channel. I'll link it. It'll be at the end of this video. Go to the second channel, dude. I talk about why men are putting off marriage and kids, specifically not wanting to have kids. It goes into, oh, I go in, I go in deep on that one. But as I said, it at least poked at the surface of the festering boil that is the systemic nature of the problem, even if it didn't give it the lancing it truly deserved.
Her conclusion seemed to come down to, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" Uh, and, "Why get a good job when women are independent and can just give milk away for nothing?" Um, both are backhanded criticisms of women's behavior, which is kind of nice. Somebody brave enough to blame women for their own troubles, but they really fall far short of any real examination of the underlying issues. So, I'm going to give it the old college try and, uh, give a bit of an overview of what I believe has become a multifaceted problem. Tell 'em, Karen.
Now, I'm going to read a recent, uh, part of a recent article from Hartist, uh, who said a very great deal with some serious literary flare. Uh, it's kind of pearls of wisdom from the pit of social nihilism that is the pickup artist community. And, uh, and he actually was spot on about some things, yet again, overly simplistic about others. I'm just going to quote some of the relevant, relevant bits and leave a link to the article below.
He says, "If you want to know why men are running away from marriage, children, and beta provisioning, one major reason is that the women available to these working-class men are flat-out disgusting. What man of normal mental health and active libido wants to romantically woo and date, let alone marry, a beastly, waddling, tatted mountain of postulence, with the issue of three other men barking and nipping at her cankles? And let's not forget that economically empowered and government-assed women, slaves to their hypergamous instincts for a higher status mate than themselves, cannot help but winnow the pool of men deemed acceptable marriage material. When women say, 'There are no good men left,' what the astute observer hears is, 'There are no good men left, thanks to a combination of my increased expectations and decreased attractiveness.'"
He goes on to say, "To the factory farm tower, ivory tower sociologists studying marriage trends and turning out paper after paper of half-assed hogwash, there's a whole other world out there. It's the world of men, and in that world, men's desires matter. You should think about incorporating that ugly reality into your theories."
As blistering as that little snippet was, it raises some very important points. And I think the most important one is that men's desires matter. When men can't find women they desire who are willing to partner with them, then why would they partner? And, uh, and it really can't be stressed enough, uh, that the reality of divorce and family law in our culture plays a huge part in men's growing contempt for marriage as an institution. It's not that men are commitment phobes. It's that women seem increasingly commitment incompatible. The word commitment has, in fact, in female parliament, come to mean up until the moment I'm no longer 100% satisfied with the person I married. And that attitude's only going to lead to more and more divorces as more and more successful women effectively set their sights higher than they reasonably should. While their youth and attractiveness wanes, leading to a growing number of them feeling like they settled, even if they didn't, even if they scored someone two points above them on the overall attractiveness scale.
One symptom of this, I think, uh, that's very telling is OKCID's recent revelation that women on their site deemed 80% of men less than average attractiveness 13 years ago. That is, 80% of men were below average. This does not compute. This in no way is in line with reality. This is about women's expectations. And oddly enough, no one, least of all women, seem to really give a [ __ ] what men want in a partner.
Why can't men just be happy with what's available? Well, when you look at what's available to the average man in his 30s or early 40s, a 35-year-old woman who hollers "yes" over the jangling of her biological clock while unable to keep the grimace from her face because he's a bigger loser than the five guys she dumped in her 20s and now she's having to settle. A fool. Or a divorcee who's already financially annihilated and emotionally crippled at least one other man. Or a single mother who's collecting reams of child support from one poor schmuck while her other baby daddy manages to duck his obligations because he's a drug dealer and his income's off the books. And yeah, I'm exaggerating, but you see my point. And no, not all women are like that. Lord knows, I know not all women are like that. But frankly, the consensus among today's women seems to be that this state of affairs is just the new normal. And it got so much worse. That 80/20 rule is now 95/5. They've gotten more delusional, more narcissistic, and more detached from reality. And the double standards have only increased. And it will only get worse from here. It's not going to get better. We're going to live in a very, like, dystopian future very soon. By like 2050, no woman will be happy with any man, regardless. I mean, they're hat, they're heading down, like, a man-hating kind of rhetoric and ideology where any man is bad. No matter how good off he is, how attractive he is, he's very toxic. We need to desenter men. Anything anti-man, that's where they're going. Cuz right now, their happiness is reserved only in the top, like, 1 to 2% of men. And eventually, that will turn to hate because they can't lock any of these guys down. Watch.
Watch men, uh, even responsible women will often frame such destructive choices on the part of other women as somehow valid and defensible. The sentiment in the mainstream is that men should just man up and go along with pairing up 2.0. Who cares what men want? And that essentially, a woman's behavior and life choices should have no effect on whether she's able to attract a good, reliable man. All of that really doesn't speak well of the principles of even those women who are more well-situated. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the fewer female voices of reason there are out there, the more men are likely to wash their hands of the entire idea of partnering.
But I honestly think it goes even deeper than just the baggage the average unattached woman now carries, or the danger of ending up in emotionally and financially devastated statistic, generous every other weekend access to one's children, that's keeping men from manning up. I kind of started thinking a little bit more about this when I, uh, watched Typhen Blue's, uh, extremely thought-provoking video, uh, on what she calls the apexual male, a man who, uh, who does not identify with other men, but merely identifies with his place in the status hierarchy. I, I highly recommend anybody to go watching, go watch that, and, and I'm going to leave the link in the information section as well. Her video got me thinking about the White Feather Girls. For those of you who don't know, this was a group of young women in the UK during World War I who went around bestowing white feathers of cowardice on any man they saw in civilian clothes to shame them into enlisting. M. Now, when I consider how vulnerable so many men were to those kinds of shaming tactics, vulnerable enough to enlist in a war that killed 10 million, uh, to preserve their manhood in the eyes of [ __ ] women they'd never even met, I just can't believe that it's only the risks of marriage, as onerous as they are, that have rendered men impervious to the kinds of shaming tactics employed by traditionalists and feminists who seem increasingly desperate to strong-arm men back into their old roles.
So I think beyond any discussion of the risks of marriage, unfairness in family court, all of that, I think way down at the, at the core of things, uh, maybe it's about, uh, a positive male identity. Now, male identity almost always revolves around doing rather than being. Uh, most of that doing has revolved around being of use in a uniquely male context. Most of men's usefulness through history has derived from learning male skills and performing them well, embodying a male role in the service of women in society. In the more turbulent past, those roles, uh, needed to perform a valuable service to women or the community that women couldn't or shouldn't be expected to perform for themselves. Now, this is the most common path, in my opinion, to a positive male identity because men lack a mechanism for automatic own-group preference. Simply put, they just don't relate to other men automatically just because they're men. Women have this bias which provides them a natural ability to form cooperatives and relate to other women and seek consensus through their strong mechanism for own-group preference based on gender alone. Given the gender roles through most of human history, this mechanism really makes sense. Uh, their individual value, as to put it bluntly, breeders, meant that in a survivalist environment, you didn't throw a woman on the trash pile without a pressing reason. Adjustments were made when they could be to keep as many women as possible within the sisterhood. This is where you'll find a ton of attention in female spaces given to things like tone and being nice and, you know, emoticons with smiling faces and getting along even when there are disagreements. Uh, a lot of their interactions are about comfort level and feelings of acceptance.
Men, on the other hand, lack the hardwiring to form a preference for maleness based merely on maleness. And that really just makes sense when you think about men's roles for the last couple million years or so. Um, roles that involved things like beating the men down the valley to a pulp when they threatened his women and children, or competing against other males within his community for a shot at the mating game. Given those roles, automatically siding with one's own gender over the other is just not going to work. And it's not that men can't manifest any forms of own-group preference. It's just that when own-group preference manifests in males, it, it just isn't based on maleness alone. Yeah. It's based on things you've done together, shared like suffering, misery, and hardship. That's why boys that sign up to the military and they then they come out after a few tours and they have brothers for life, cuz it's like the [ __ ] that you went through is stronger than blood between those guys. That's why it's called a brotherhood, and they forever have your back and will give you, you know, the shirt off your back, whatever, whatever you need. And you're looked at completely differently when you do things together, suffer the same kind of way, and achieve something or strive towards a similar goal. That's how men connect and relate to one another. Physical alone. There has to be a common purpose, a common set of ideals or principles, a common duty or cause, a common doing, or a common position in the status hierarchy. Mhm. So men can indeed identify with each other and relate to each other and be team players among other men. Uh, you see it in churches, military units, fraternities, sports teams, even sports fans, political parties, movements, project teams, stuff like that. And while they'll often form hierarchies within those contexts, those realms can be sources of a sense of loyalty and brotherhood among men.
The myth among feminists that men will insult each other for displaying feminine traits because they see women as inferior is really just that, a myth. Uh, men do this because women have a trump card that they don't. A trump card that bestows intrinsic value on them, their uteruses, and they retain that value even when they gender bend a little. A woman who acts like a woman isn't seen as inferior at all. A man who acts like a woman, uh, has always been seen not as a woman, but as a woman without a womb. That is a woman with no value. He has no female value, and he has no unique male value. Therefore, he has no value at all. And unlike women who, uh, and you wonder why they push the fem, the super emotional, high estrogen type of male today in society. What happens when you get a cluster of men, an entire generation that feel like this, completely disconnected from their gender and their masculinity, and then you hear them say, "I have no value in society. Society doesn't value me." Yeah, they trained you to be valueless. You see, I hope guys are connecting some dots. This is great. We're valuable in and of themselves. Men who were not useful did and still do get. And when you try to reclaim your masculinity, anything traditionally masculine is considered toxic. Do you see how they try to shut that door in front of you? Cuz you know the path you need to take. You know you need to do the self-improvement. You know you need to start reading books and getting your mind sharp. You know, you need to start aligning with your spirit to get your purpose in life and align mind, body, spirit together. And that's where you find that deep satisfaction for your direction in life. They don't want you to travel down any of those paths. They want you to be mentally weak, addicted to their slop that they feed you in porn and anime and video games and all the subliminal messages they're in and all the slop that you consume. They want your body weak. So they feed you poisonous food full of [ __ ] chemicals and preservatives that you can't even burn a burger or it survives on the shelf for 10 [ __ ] years and your stomach is somehow supposed to utilize this as nutrients and then stay out of the gym, cuz that's also white supremacy. I remember reading that one. It made me laugh. Or that you'll get an increased risk of heart attacks. All of a sudden, you know, we know why. But it's now because working out gives you an increased risk in heart attacks. And that, that's also patriarchal and toxic masculinity as well to go lift weights. And spiritually, spiritually, you're already dejected and broken. You don't even have a purpose in life. You don't even know what your purpose is, what your value is, what your use is. You have no use. You've been discarded since birth. And any attempts to find your way back into that trinity is met with resistance by the powers to be, aka society. H. What a sad world thrown onto the trash heap of society.
In the currency of reproduction, an ovum might go for a thousand bucks, a uterus, a cool mill, an ejaculation that's worth about 10 cents. To be acceptable mating material and worth a community keeping him around, a man had to do more than generate sperm. And when the only thing keeping you from becoming completely disposable as an individual lies in differentiating yourself from the feminine to spare women those onerous tasks, well, guys are going to enforce that [ __ ]. It's my belief that this is why men have always tended to define themselves by their roles. Mhm. Father, husband, working man, soldier, career man, family man, middle-class man, politician, activist, all of that. In other words, roles to exist in which allow them to relate to other men who also occupy those roles and to derive a positive and meaningful identity from performing their masculinity through those roles. And I also think this may be why suicide rates for men skyrocket after divorce. You haven't just taken away his kids, his wife, his assets, and, and a good chunk of his income. You've effectively stripped him of a huge part of the male identity he's built around himself.
So, I'm thinking that for most men, forming a positive male identity in relation to other males requires a couple of things. Uh, a male role that's differentiated from the female one, or at the very least, a male-oriented environment and, well, positivity. Men used to be able to construct a positive male identity out of marriage, that is, through the respected and uniquely male role of husband and father. When that identity is increasingly characterized by society as superfluous, obsolete, or, in the words of Harriet Harmon, unnecessary to social cohesion, it's no longer a way for a man to defer his disposability. Is it? Moreover, when that identity can be unilaterally stripped from him on the whim of, of his wife, even when he did everything right, marriage ceases to be a positive way for men to define themselves as men. It really becomes a way for men to define themselves as chumps and idiots, and nobody really wants to define themselves that way. Perfect.
Moreover, from sitcoms to romcoms to TV commercials, the role of husband and father is increasingly one of playing the incompetent buffoon to a sassy, smart, together, disrespectful wife or even child. In the mass media, there's nothing noble or respectable about husband anymore. And when the roles within the marriage, uh, have become virtually indistinguishable and interchangeable, a man's role becomes less and less male. It's just a role. Um, it can be a path to meaning and fulfillment if he's lucky. And it, it may be something he desires to do and to become, but it's not necessarily a path to defining himself as a man. So, we can scratch that one off the list. Even for men who've been living under a rock when it comes to divorce law, marriage and children no longer offer a reliable path to a positive male identity. It's no longer positive, nor is it significantly male.
The workplace is yet another male space that has largely lost its maleness. Yep. And that's not to say that women ruined everything. It's not so much the presence of women, but rather the alterations in environment and interaction many women demand when they want to engage the world through the paid workforce. A male space that leads to a positive male identity doesn't need to be free of women, but it needs to be male. Uh, it needs to be an environment that suits their psychology, not one in which they end up being metaphorically castrated if they want to steer clear of trouble with human resources. And I'm not even talking about vulgarity or expressions of sexuality. I'm talking about things like aggression, ambition, ribbing, competition, passion, authority, plain speech. All of these are often discouraged when women are present in order to spare feelings and prevent discomfort. Outspokenness is replaced with drawing room rules of discourse and ingenuity with protocol. All of which render a feminized workplace, though tolerable to men, no longer a path to a positive male identity. Yep. It's no longer a male space, and it no longer appeals to the psychology of men. The workplace has therefore become a ladder. Fewer men feel driven to climb in order to construct their identities. Combine this with the fact that, uh, their job is frequently on the line the moment they step out of the rigid, rigid, uh, restrictions on their masculinity, um, and offend an an overly litigious female coworker. Yep. A large number of men are not only becoming disenchanted with the expectation to perform in an environment that doesn't feed their nature and has set them up to fail, uh, and that sees him as disposable. In the absence of those uniquely male-centered psychological rewards and motivators, a growing number of them are finally opening their eyes and waking up to the negative aspects of wage slavery. And that is a pill that once taken can't be unswallowed.
In every single space males congregate where women have elbowed their way in and demanded changes, you seem to find large numbers of men just kind of giving ground and eventually losing their drive to really perform there. And, and again, I don't think it's the presence of women that does this. It's the enforced necessity to change one's behavior in order to maintain a proper decorum around them and the changes in how those places function that women often demand. It's the expect special privileges. Women have unwritten rules regarding special privileges that you have to, as a man, watch what you say, watch how you behave, be more civilized and cultured around a lady. If we just threw the unspoken rules out the [ __ ] window and masculine culture still existed in corporations, most of these women would not be surviving in any of those jobs. They're out here doing TikTok dances talking about, "Girl with a [ __ ] brown tattoo, girl with a [ __ ] brown necklace, girl with [ __ ] blue eyes, girl with a shitty skirt," blah, blah, blah. And it's like, dude, what the [ __ ] are you doing at work? And they're getting paid buku bucks to just waste a co, a corporation's [ __ ] hard-earned time and efficiency doing [ __ ] all, employing systems that no longer hire men anyways. They're being elbowed out completely because the vibes, the vibes, the vibes were off. Dude, this was posted 13 [ __ ] years ago. Not a goddamn thing has changed, and it's only getting worse. Unbelievable.
Whoa, there's more videos with this lady. We got to watch him on the next episode. She's got so much content. All right, we got to watch her. She's good. She's been on this [ __ ] for a minute. If you got more videos of her or more cool, super informative videos like this, let me know, dude. Very interesting before, you know, slop took over the internet and people regurgitate a bunch of [ __ ] and with no experience or not being well-read at anything at all, and kind of the message got lost in the slop. So, eight years later, this guy said, "The problem is 10 times worse." Brother, that was four years ago. Five years ago, potentially. It's gotten even worse still, and it's only going to get worse. I hit up on that topic about men not marrying too on the second channel. It's kind of crazy because I've just opened one of the tabs, one of my million tabs. I know the boys like to make fun of me for that. Look at these millions of tabs. And if I extend this window out here, there's another 50 tabs. So, uh, I just selected one randomly here cuz I got like episodes to, you know, cover potentially. For example, what does this one say? "Living in Vietnam Sucks. Here's Why." "Three Nice Guy Habits You Need to Stop Now." So, I'll be covering a bunch of these in due time. But the episode I'm doing on the second channel, if you haven't seen it, go watch it. It's going to be a heater on exactly this, why men don't want to even have kids anymore. And it has all to do with basically that first quip she read from.
Anyways, boys, appreciate you guys tuning in. Thoughts on this episode because it's informationally dense, and she basically hit the head on the nail as usual. See you on the next one. Take care, everybody.