Increased suffering for both genders is the result of female leadership. It is not accident that letting emotional animals runs things results in failure. Only the suppression of rational male voices allowed us to fall this far.
You say this was never political it was always biological. Feminists themselves, for a very long time have repeated this phrase “the personal is political” another way to say that is “the biological is political”. My question is, why don’t you believe feminists when they tell you who they are?
Maybe you prefer to stay away from the political yourself, and that’s fine. But, to say this has never been political is to discount 75% of what has happened in the Western world since 1967. I think it’s rather misleading. And yes, it truly is both.
Don’t get me wrong, I love your work. But there’s a bigger broader picture here that so many with your level of expertise seem to be purposely ignoring for at least 15-20 years now. And it’s rather frustrating to say the least.
Well written piece, but sadly falls on deaf ears, especially for women. Even with all the empirical data, they just create a new 'dragon to slay', for example, now blaming pre-menopause, menopause, postmenopausal, or peri-menopausal 'issues' that were never addressed as the new 'boogeyman'. Women will never admit that feminism fucked generations of women, so they double-down and defend the ideology. They want to be right so badly, that they forego happiness in the process.
Ironically, the women's health 'issues' weren't addressed before because they were a biological inconvenience for the ideology.
In fact, not so long ago, many of the points I've seen women's health campaigners make were widely dismissed as misogynistic myth (i.e. falsehoods, stereotypes and narratives meant to justify inequal outcomes).
Sad that the feminist solution to female unhappiness caused by feminism is always more feminism. It is a shame that young women aren't capable of learning from the experience of older women and they postscript reinforce feminism. Someday this may change but f3 the foreseeable future, it will keep getting worse.
To understand the structural nature of the problem simply consider this - how many of the leading feminist voices are career oriented rather than family oriented and how likely do you think they are to willingly step aside and allow a mother returning from years of child-raising to take their place on the lectern or publishing schedule?
For structural reasons the career oriented women have dominated the debate since at least the start of 2nd wave feminism. They have set out to replace patriarchy but the last thing those women were interested in was matriarchy. They have created a narrative in which motherhood is low status while career oriented things are high status. For those few women who got the publishing deals and places on the presentation circuit that might have given them the social reward they desired but most women are finding what most men learned already from the previous generations - work does not care about you and they will forget you soon after you walk out the door.
It is the reward structures of academia and the mass media that sorted so effectively for career oriented voices to dominate the discussion. It seems to me that other voices have very likely existed but we will not have heard them. We now have decades of collected feminist thought and very little of it is uplifting of the things that actually a lot of women always wanted - better relationships, more supportive husbands, and a reflection of how important parenthood is to society. The best that the career oriented version of feminism we have can offer to mothers is to hand off your children to strangers at subsidised rates so you can go back to your precious status-building career.
Funny. The first thing I saw in the late 60's was more men practicing love 'em and leave 'em and trying to convince women it was okay. Seemed like masculine duty to family as a value took a hit then too. Seems like feminism became mainstream a little later, as did porn. A lot of women went to work because husbands sent them, too.
Yeah. I don't have data, but it seems like a minority of men won the sexual revolution. I think most men did better under monogamy, where a woman had to commit early, based on a man's potential. Then his best hope of satisfaction was a happy, faithful marriage, since catering to biological urges toward variety tended to have long-term consequences.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's definitely not all about feminism.
Great article, Richard. It brings to mind a recent essay by Unbekoming, which is perhaps complementary to your post -- that being the contribution to this whole episode in human history of hormonal contraception -- the chemical element layered on top of everything you've outlined here. https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-progress-that-wasnt
Increased suffering for both genders is the result of female leadership. It is not accident that letting emotional animals runs things results in failure. Only the suppression of rational male voices allowed us to fall this far.
You say this was never political it was always biological. Feminists themselves, for a very long time have repeated this phrase “the personal is political” another way to say that is “the biological is political”. My question is, why don’t you believe feminists when they tell you who they are?
Maybe you prefer to stay away from the political yourself, and that’s fine. But, to say this has never been political is to discount 75% of what has happened in the Western world since 1967. I think it’s rather misleading. And yes, it truly is both.
Don’t get me wrong, I love your work. But there’s a bigger broader picture here that so many with your level of expertise seem to be purposely ignoring for at least 15-20 years now. And it’s rather frustrating to say the least.
Also, I wrote a very similar article a month ago. Glad to see we are on the same page..
https://theculturalreckoning.substack.com/p/the-happiness-paradox-the-deep-dive?r=83fpq9&utm_medium=ios
Fellas. Don't...get...married.
good stuff Richard, we're completely out of line with natural law
Great write up: Roissy said it years ago that feminism was made by and for lesbians, that is women who don’t feel the drive to have kids with a man.
Small wonder it makes most straight women, the majority of women, unhappy.
Data are
Well written piece, but sadly falls on deaf ears, especially for women. Even with all the empirical data, they just create a new 'dragon to slay', for example, now blaming pre-menopause, menopause, postmenopausal, or peri-menopausal 'issues' that were never addressed as the new 'boogeyman'. Women will never admit that feminism fucked generations of women, so they double-down and defend the ideology. They want to be right so badly, that they forego happiness in the process.
Ironically, the women's health 'issues' weren't addressed before because they were a biological inconvenience for the ideology.
In fact, not so long ago, many of the points I've seen women's health campaigners make were widely dismissed as misogynistic myth (i.e. falsehoods, stereotypes and narratives meant to justify inequal outcomes).
Great article. Keep up the great work. Check out my page. I know you will like it.
Sad that the feminist solution to female unhappiness caused by feminism is always more feminism. It is a shame that young women aren't capable of learning from the experience of older women and they postscript reinforce feminism. Someday this may change but f3 the foreseeable future, it will keep getting worse.
To understand the structural nature of the problem simply consider this - how many of the leading feminist voices are career oriented rather than family oriented and how likely do you think they are to willingly step aside and allow a mother returning from years of child-raising to take their place on the lectern or publishing schedule?
For structural reasons the career oriented women have dominated the debate since at least the start of 2nd wave feminism. They have set out to replace patriarchy but the last thing those women were interested in was matriarchy. They have created a narrative in which motherhood is low status while career oriented things are high status. For those few women who got the publishing deals and places on the presentation circuit that might have given them the social reward they desired but most women are finding what most men learned already from the previous generations - work does not care about you and they will forget you soon after you walk out the door.
It is the reward structures of academia and the mass media that sorted so effectively for career oriented voices to dominate the discussion. It seems to me that other voices have very likely existed but we will not have heard them. We now have decades of collected feminist thought and very little of it is uplifting of the things that actually a lot of women always wanted - better relationships, more supportive husbands, and a reflection of how important parenthood is to society. The best that the career oriented version of feminism we have can offer to mothers is to hand off your children to strangers at subsidised rates so you can go back to your precious status-building career.
Funny. The first thing I saw in the late 60's was more men practicing love 'em and leave 'em and trying to convince women it was okay. Seemed like masculine duty to family as a value took a hit then too. Seems like feminism became mainstream a little later, as did porn. A lot of women went to work because husbands sent them, too.
Yeah. I don't have data, but it seems like a minority of men won the sexual revolution. I think most men did better under monogamy, where a woman had to commit early, based on a man's potential. Then his best hope of satisfaction was a happy, faithful marriage, since catering to biological urges toward variety tended to have long-term consequences.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's definitely not all about feminism.
PSA to Gentlemen. Please remember I proved alimony and child support are voluntary payments in January 2008. You are welcome.
Great article, Richard. It brings to mind a recent essay by Unbekoming, which is perhaps complementary to your post -- that being the contribution to this whole episode in human history of hormonal contraception -- the chemical element layered on top of everything you've outlined here. https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-progress-that-wasnt