It’s so weird to see the New York Times do a narrative violation, but it does: check this out,
Predictably, most young Republicans agree with the statement, “Feminism has done more harm than good.” What was astonishing was how many young Democrats agreed as well. While only 4 percent of Democratic men over 50 thought feminism was harmful, 46 percent of Democratic men under 50 did. Nearly a quarter of Democratic women under 50 agreed, compared with only 10 percent of those 50 and older.
I’d have guessed the opposite, that older men would support feminism less, and younger men would support it more… when you find data that contradicts your beliefs, it is worth thinking closely about it. If this kind of polling shows up in a venue committed to “feminism” as an ideology and lifestyle, the citing of the data shows social problems, and cracks in a certain kind of narrative. “Feminism” as defined in the 1950s-1970s, basically won, and this is true whether you or I like it or not (although feminism is now being attacked as somehow excluding transsexuals… a topic for another time). Now what? What comes after victory? Feminism is having a problem because it was against a lot of things, but what was it for? What was its vision of the good life, the good society, etc.?
Its implied vision seemed to be women working tough corporate jobs like men and never having kids cause they’re too busy working, plus, often f**king lots of Chads, traveling, etc… I bet that is a real meaningful way for the average person to live, particularly as the average person gets older.
Turns out that a lot of women value having a husband, having children, having a community, etc. … all things institutional feminism has little or nothing to say about. The average woman says she wants two or three kids. Two or three! While the average woman has around 1.7 kids, or one or two kids per woman. One of the biggest crises a lot of women face regarding those goals is the same one men face, the high cost of housing. In the 1950s-1970s, feminism was all about telling women they can work if they want to. By the 1990s, almost all women had to work, because it’s not mathematically possible for women to not work AND for them to be able to afford high housing costs, unless they are married to a very high-income man, and there aren’t so many of those around.
Poorer women don’t get married at all and have kids, creating a different set of problems that are ignored. Overall, ideology can’t defeat biology. I read another piece about how for women “life is archetypally divided into three stages: maiden, mother and crone…” and those phases are mostly ignored by media systems. Spinsters complain that they are under-represented, but the spinster market is small and ignored by Hollywood for good reason. Yet the economic system we have is a vice that continually forces up the cost of shelter, forces women to work harder and harder, and women who don’t thread this incredibly tight set of conditions wind up as unhappy spinsters. Woooooo feminism! Yeah! How great is it! Now women can go to college and take out $100,000 in student loans, just like men, for a degree they’ll never be able to pay back! Feminism rules! These problems must all somehow be the fault of men.
There is a kind of ideological complex in academia and media, and it controls the schools as well, and within that complex there are things members in good standing must say they believe every bit as fervently as people in the middle ages had to say they were Catholic. Whatever the complex comes to believe, its members have to say they believe, with extra points for saying they believe obvious falsehoods. The complex says it believes men and women are exactly alike apart from culture/training (Blank slate-ism). But, at the same time, the complex wants women to be victims / different… these kinds of paradoxes are hard to resolve. People don’t behave like men and women are exactly the same… causing all sorts of conflicts between academia-media, including teaching, and real life.
These conflicts could mostly be ignored when the academia-media complex controlled most of the narrative world. It doesn’t really, fully, any more… but that has made the people within the world it controls all the more concerned with being doctrinaire and orthodox. The information world is now peer-to-peer, not top down (as anyone who reads this will know, cause I’m not part of the complex).
I do think we’re suffering, in some ways, from too much freedom and choice, and too little responsibility, connection, and fidelity. Feminism has no good answers for any of these issues. It’s trapped in the world and fights of the 1950s-1970s. It’s too boomer.
Feminism has “won,” but what has it won? More women than ever are single mothers or spinsters. Elon Musk points out that USA fertility rates have been below 2.1 children per woman for like 50 years. In the news, “U.S. Birthrates Fall to Record Low,” something we see practically every year. Whatever that is a sign of, it’s not a sign of optimism or societal success. Some small number of people who call themselves “feminists” don’t like the term “woman” and prefer “birthing person” or some similar circumlocution, which is a big improvement in the lives of everyday women, isn’t it? If that is institutional feminism, we can see why feminism is a hard sell.
It is easier than ever for women to work long hours or be sex workers, both big victories for women. Family bonds and positive feelings are of course stronger than they’ve ever been (forgive me for all the sarcasm, but certain kinds of absurdities, one can’t help but be sarcastic about). Feminism works out pretty well for workaholics like Sheryl Sandberg and other elite women like her, but they’re a pretty small slice of the population… the slice that works so hard and so much and so effectively that they can afford the new world of $1 million+ domiciles in the most liberal cities and states. The new world order brought about by feminist successes is really awesome for women.
In some ways, pickup artistry and Red Pill don’t have great answers to many modern problems either, but these strategies/ideas are about at least getting men into the game. A lot of men aren’t there, and are invisible to women. Pickup and Red Pill can be very effective at the level of “getting men in the sexual game, and making us sexually relevant to women,” a topic I’ve talked a lot about. But, let’s say a guy does all that… what’s he do then? Sleeps with a bunch of chicks, which is awesome, but what then? What happens when the latest girl leaves on Sunday night or Monday morning? What then? What’s the guy doing as he gets older? Does he become the mirror image of the aging feminists, which is to say Rollo Tomassi of The Rational Male? He’s surmounted one set of challenges, but many others remain, unless he keeps repeating the set of challenges he’s already completed. That way lies stagnation.
Pickup artists were talking a lot at the same time feminists were, in like 2005-2015,
Mukhopadhyay was the executive editor of the blog Feministing, which was once part of a vital feminist publishing scene. That scene is now mostly gone. Feministing closed a couple of years ago, and one of the last holdouts, Bitch Magazine, a publication devoted to feminist pop-culture criticism, is shuttering this month. Independent feminist publications, said Mukhopadhyay, are difficult to sustain financially, but that’s not the only reason so many have disappeared. “That type of earnest, identity-focused feminism has also grown out of style,” she said.
I notice the way the two mirrored each other. Do most guys not care about getting laid any more? Or is something else going on, that drove the decline of feminist writing and game / pickup writing simultaneously? I have no sense of what the answer might be. Around the same time feminism and pickup were popular online, so was atheism and Christianity, topics no one cares about online today (in that case, atheism seemed to win, whereas the battle of the sexes is eternal because men and women face different reproductive costs and thus priorities). Has “guys getting laid” also “grown out of style” like the “earnest, identity-focused feminism?” Could be that the answer is somehow “yes.”
For feminists, once a woman decides “okay, I am a feminist,” she may not be helped by more feminist writing. There are also women who are notably not feminists, describing themselves as “feminists:” once a term becomes universally ubiquitous, it loses it’s meaning). She then faces the question we all do, “What is life and how should I live it?” Being a feminist is not going to help with skill and relationship formation and might inhibit the ability to develop skills (a woman who thinks cooking is somehow bad, for example) or relationships (rejecting people for political narrative violation reasons). Similar applicability of “red pill ideas” to men will be left as an exercise for the reader.
I have written before about compassion and empathy for chicks, a set of ideas voiced & seen too little in this space. I have compassion even for the ones who’ve been brainwashed into becoming part of the complex. Ultimately in life there are opposing forces in the form of the negative, and what not to do, and the positive, in the form of what to do. The critical, negative side is easier than the positive, growth side, and something about social media is very conducive to the critical side more than the growth side. We are maybe seeing some correction now, when people are figuring out that haters, and the insane, dominate social media. I have been talking mostly about feminism, associated with the left, but a lot of the modern right is also more interested in opposing the left than in coming up with positive visions for the future and solutions to real problems. The real problems are left to fester while debates rage about pronouns, critical race theory, and other things that are not that important in the real world.