Such a clear sighted essay. One could still come up with a feminist take on this as “women need men to protect them from male violence”. Maybe that’s true. Feminism can probably only arise in conditions when women are protected by the state and supported by the state. Remove those conditions and feminism will vanish overnight.
Yes, and I believe he put it succinctly in the text: "women still need men, but they don't need a man".
The state isn't an outside factor that can be snipped out, though. States are reflections of the societies they rule over, even if only in a "you deserve what you tolerate" sense.
In my (limited) understanding, even successful societies of the past, that never had anything resembling a welfare state, went through similar problems of feminization in their latter stages. Even the Mohammedan Arabs did (!). It is a function of affluence. Affluence brings comfort, and eventually complacency and decadence. One major expression of this is a growing proportion of resources invested unproductively in status competition for females.
I disagree that MGTOW rejects the sexual contract. It simply recognises that the contract is in tatters, and that engaging in it as a man is a sucker move in game theory terms. And as you rightly analyse, it is because there is no social enforcement that the rate of defection is high, which in turn makes the risk-reward calculation irrational. Certainly for men but also to a lesser extent for women. Women less so because the state provides significant support for women after a defection, with absolutely no distinction as to whether the woman was the defector or the defected-again. Conversely the state enforces sanctions against the man, regardless of whether he was the defector or the defected-against.
Depends on the definition of MGTOW. The extreme or bad version I would call masculinism (etymologically it mirrors feminism), and the more rational version I would say is a variety of sexism. Masculinism is bad, sexism is good.
Rationality is not goodness. I am not of the persuasion that doing what the left wants is a good thing. If the system is unjust that it needs to be abolished. Shutting down and being unindustrious is not good. I guess it depends on specific claims, but a true sexist wants to rule over women.
Yeah I’m not saying it’s a “good” response, just a rational and predictable one. In fact due to the inherent goodness of men, this rational response is lagging on the change in objective circumstances.
I would call the extreme MGTOWism that is the counterpart to feminism to be masculinism. The opposite of both of these would be sexism. I am a sexist btw.
Men still want what women have to offer, but women don't want what a lot of men have to offer. If our culture doesn't sort it out then eventually biological evolution will.
First and foremost women want, just like men, someone who is actually attractive/handsome. Of course under circumstances of basically pre-civilization societies, women would have to take any man that can protect and provide. But that does make the relationship happy, its a miserable relationship.
Now that we have a stable civilization and women are not endangered by any means, this shines through: Theyd rather kill themselves than bear the children of ugly men. Which is good. Ugly people should not reproduce as it correlates with alot of other mental dysfunctionalities.
The big problem is that women arent making children. Birth control is the issue. Let women decide who is worthy of reproduction. Everything else is incel cope. I would be absolutely disgusted by a world where pretty girls are forced to get raped again and again by ugly men because theyre dependent on them for survival. That would be a nightmare.
I think modernity/ post modernity/ whatever we live in now is called, 'short circuits,' natural human sexuality and reproduction. I think humans may evolved in conditions where the male offers material goods to female as a crucial part of courtship. Now that that has become irrelevant, through women working and being provided for by the state, these natural forms of courtship which would lead to 'reproduction,' have become somewhat 'retarded' in the original sense of the word. Thus it is a lot harder to coax men and women to reproduce, in this day and age. I analogise this to animals being in captivity, where they notoriously struggle to breed as they have been denatured from their natural environment and sexuality.
Yeah, the state and the market have largely replaced the sexual contract, so men have much less to offer women. More generally, we're not adapted to the environment of modern civilization. I have written quite a bit on that topic.
Didn't read.
Women are great.
Remove jews and have unlimited women.
Such a clear sighted essay. One could still come up with a feminist take on this as “women need men to protect them from male violence”. Maybe that’s true. Feminism can probably only arise in conditions when women are protected by the state and supported by the state. Remove those conditions and feminism will vanish overnight.
Yes, and I believe he put it succinctly in the text: "women still need men, but they don't need a man".
The state isn't an outside factor that can be snipped out, though. States are reflections of the societies they rule over, even if only in a "you deserve what you tolerate" sense.
In my (limited) understanding, even successful societies of the past, that never had anything resembling a welfare state, went through similar problems of feminization in their latter stages. Even the Mohammedan Arabs did (!). It is a function of affluence. Affluence brings comfort, and eventually complacency and decadence. One major expression of this is a growing proportion of resources invested unproductively in status competition for females.
I disagree that MGTOW rejects the sexual contract. It simply recognises that the contract is in tatters, and that engaging in it as a man is a sucker move in game theory terms. And as you rightly analyse, it is because there is no social enforcement that the rate of defection is high, which in turn makes the risk-reward calculation irrational. Certainly for men but also to a lesser extent for women. Women less so because the state provides significant support for women after a defection, with absolutely no distinction as to whether the woman was the defector or the defected-again. Conversely the state enforces sanctions against the man, regardless of whether he was the defector or the defected-against.
Depends on the definition of MGTOW. The extreme or bad version I would call masculinism (etymologically it mirrors feminism), and the more rational version I would say is a variety of sexism. Masculinism is bad, sexism is good.
All of it seems perfectly rational to me. It’s a rational self interest response by men to a system that is now rigged against them.
Rationality is not goodness. I am not of the persuasion that doing what the left wants is a good thing. If the system is unjust that it needs to be abolished. Shutting down and being unindustrious is not good. I guess it depends on specific claims, but a true sexist wants to rule over women.
Yeah I’m not saying it’s a “good” response, just a rational and predictable one. In fact due to the inherent goodness of men, this rational response is lagging on the change in objective circumstances.
Correct.
"...the civilization created and maintained by men" ?? You call THIS a "CIVILIZATION"??
I would call the extreme MGTOWism that is the counterpart to feminism to be masculinism. The opposite of both of these would be sexism. I am a sexist btw.
Men still want what women have to offer, but women don't want what a lot of men have to offer. If our culture doesn't sort it out then eventually biological evolution will.
First and foremost women want, just like men, someone who is actually attractive/handsome. Of course under circumstances of basically pre-civilization societies, women would have to take any man that can protect and provide. But that does make the relationship happy, its a miserable relationship.
Now that we have a stable civilization and women are not endangered by any means, this shines through: Theyd rather kill themselves than bear the children of ugly men. Which is good. Ugly people should not reproduce as it correlates with alot of other mental dysfunctionalities.
The big problem is that women arent making children. Birth control is the issue. Let women decide who is worthy of reproduction. Everything else is incel cope. I would be absolutely disgusted by a world where pretty girls are forced to get raped again and again by ugly men because theyre dependent on them for survival. That would be a nightmare.
https://x.com/lilprairiegrl/status/1717584150058999877
I think modernity/ post modernity/ whatever we live in now is called, 'short circuits,' natural human sexuality and reproduction. I think humans may evolved in conditions where the male offers material goods to female as a crucial part of courtship. Now that that has become irrelevant, through women working and being provided for by the state, these natural forms of courtship which would lead to 'reproduction,' have become somewhat 'retarded' in the original sense of the word. Thus it is a lot harder to coax men and women to reproduce, in this day and age. I analogise this to animals being in captivity, where they notoriously struggle to breed as they have been denatured from their natural environment and sexuality.
Yeah, the state and the market have largely replaced the sexual contract, so men have much less to offer women. More generally, we're not adapted to the environment of modern civilization. I have written quite a bit on that topic.