Main Edition
US
FR
Has the Taliban gone soft? Nava Jamshidi / Stringer
During the US evacuation of Afghanistan, as the mainstream press argued about the fate of translators, or the evacuation of Pen Farthing’s dogs, the online Right had fun tweaking progressive noses by cheering on the Taliban. The return of veiling for women was celebrated and pictures of Afghans atop abandoned US weaponry were gleefully shared. Memes contrasted a purportedly effete, rainbow-flag-promoting US military with pious, self-confidently masculine warrior Afghans. And a jihadi version of the hypermasculine “Gigachad” meme popped up, dubbed “Talichad”.
But though Talichad won the insurgency, could he still lose the peace? Young Taliban fighters, whose daily life has been transformed by victory, have been interviewed for a new report — and it turns out many don’t like it. Put to work in Kabul’s bureaucracy, they find office work dull and restrictive, and they miss the excitement, fellowship and lofty moral purpose they felt as insurgents. Not only do they loathe office work every bit as much as the West’s much-discussed “quiet quitters”, but peacetime urban life appears to be making them soft and, well, less Taliban-ish.
This, in turn, raises some questions for the online masculinist Right in the West: the men who made a totem of Talichad. For the Taliban’s predicament now offers a counterfactual to a doctrine from these circles, that’s now leaking into the mainstream: that every facet of modern male malaise is the fault of women, and especially of feminism.
This idea circulates, in condensed form, via the term “longhouse”. This originates with the now-notorious internet anon Bronze Age Pervert (BAP), author of the influential 2018 Bronze Age Mindset. Ironically, the term accepts wholesale a set of revisionist claims made by feminist archaeologists, such as Heide Göttner-Abendroth, who argue the very earliest societies lived in collective “longhouse” dwellings — and were matriarchal.
For Göttner-Abendroth and her fellow feminists, these longhouse-dwelling matriarchies were characterised by egalitarianism and sharing of resources and caring obligations, traits they viewed as positive and worthy of revival. From the perspective of Bronze Age Pervert and his online followers, though, such societies are beneath contempt, dragging the natural excellence of some into the feminised morass of the many.
And, contra the feminists, such matriarchy isn’t something we should revive — because it’s already here. For BAP, the modern world is already one huge metaphorical “longhouse”. In it, we are told, Western men have grown contemptibly soft, relinquishing a life of confident vitality in favour of a weak and resentful mass culture of collectivism. BAPists assert that under this suffocating order, masculine excellence is resentfully nipped in the bud at every turn by a stifling, safety-obsessed egalitarianism of the lowest common denominator, whose enforcers act like burrowing termites to hollow out everything good about our civilisation, leaving behind only crumbling ruins to be picked over by whiny, feeble, and increasingly asexual moral pygmies.
And this is all women’s fault. When the “longhouse” meme completed its transition to familiar jargon recently, in an explainer on the term published by First Things, the author ‘Lomez’ linked it explicitly with the growing prevalence of women in public life. In BAP’s view, “feminism and the liberation of women” is “both the proximate and the ultimate cause” of this nightmarish world, which Bronze Age Mindset characterises luridly as presided over by “some kind of half-human half-cockroach creature resplendent with horrid eggs like a big Amazon centipede…this seeks to re-absorb you”.
As the “longhouse” concept has percolated out of group chats and Discord servers, so too has this correlation grown more accepted, between emotivism, safetyism, suffocating egalitarianism — and the rising prevalence of women in public life. Essays now come thick and fast: political scientist Richard Hanania tackled the relation between female-typical social patterns and changing norms of political debate and conflict, and the journalist Heather Mac Donald argued that the feminisation of American academia is now “almost complete”. She suggests that this has been accompanied by a transition away from norms of truth-seeking and open debate, toward a culture characterised by emotional volatility, anxiety and a fixation on vulnerability.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI think what Mary has done here is the height of dishonesty. Take something that people say “feminism has ruined men” and try to debunk it with the most outlandish and cartoonish examples (BAP and the Taleban). I generally think it is amazing how feminists will breathlessly comment on men when they dismiss any comments from men about women as uninformed at best and misogyny at worst, after all, men have no “lived experience” of being women. Yet women can theorise and talk about men all day long.
Mary seems to have forgotten that feminists have cultivated a culture of “women good, men bad” and are never letting that one go. They have gained too much from it.
It’s interesting that she avoids the question of how the culture sees men because it is undeniable that feminists have constructed it to a large degree, and that would blow her argument apart.
Feminists have pathologised maleness to such a degree that I don’t even have to watch a modern television programme, say a detective show, to know what will happen. The badass female in her fifties will smoke and drink and yet be able to outsprint slim twenty-year old blokes and beat up men twice her size. The men will be evil or weak, apart from maybe a few box-tickers, who invariably suck up to the Girlboss Detective, and the women will save the day.
And it extends to other areas of media and public life. The countless feminist double standards and demonisation of men are much more emasculating than office jobs and the internet. Men better at something? It’s patriarchy and we have to gerrymander it in favour of women.
Women better at something? It’s because women are better and men have to accept it. Man commits a crime against a woman? It’s because men hate women and we need to enact censorship and laws aagainst all men to curb it. Woman commits a crime against a man? It’s the patriarchy’s fault, so he was in part to blame. Man offends a woman? It’s a hate crime, and soon he will be going to jail in Scotland. Woman offends a man? Sexism made women more deferential so boys will just have to suck it up.
Feminists justify this by saying the “effects” of misandry are just hurt male feelings, but they simultaneously want us to claim that the world should stop if a woman’s feelings are hurt. There was an article in the Times recently where a woman asked “would I still fancy my husband if I met him now”. Imagine the outcry if a man wrote the equivalent article about his wife? No man thinking such wrongthink would get anywhere near publishing an article in the Western press.
In every aspect of being, men are seen as deficient women. Always inferior, always slower, always wrong. While women are portrayed as being simultaneously omnipotent and helpless.
You might think that my examples are random or minute, but if you create a culture where men are never good, or are treated by such double standards, don’t be surprised if you get more male dropouts. Okay, if you are a feminist and you don’t care about that, you will care about this: lots of boys transitioning to girls. I know trans gets feminists fired up, but they created trans with their social constructivism. Young men and boys have a choice: be blamed for every bad thing that ever happened because they are men, or occupy a higher place on the oppression pyramid than the feminists. Be permanently surrounded by people who are “more equal” than you, or become “more equal” than those who bullied you with “equality”. What do you think they are going to choose?
There’s no dishonesty here. Mary isnt debunking the idea that feminism has had negative consequences for men. Just the much stronger assertion that “every facet of modern male malaise is the fault of women, and especially of feminism”. And her Taliban example is a good one to refute that; no one else has purged woman and all traces of explicit feminism from public life the way they have.
Otherwise you raise important points, though in some ways it may be worse than you think. The sort of feminists that writes for unherd may be fired up about trans, but in much of mainstream feminism, trans is welcomed, and the minority of feminists who have strong concerns are dismissed as TERFS (esp in US, but here in UK too.)
And by some measures, despite the “woman good, men bad” thing you note, females are hurting more than males, at least if we look at teenagers. (I’m thinking of last months CDC report that found 57% of girls now have ‘persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness’ and 30% have seriously considered suicide. – the figures were only 29% & 14% for boys. The report matches what I’m hearing anecdotally – several of my friends have girls struggling with suicidal ideation, but not boys.) While it would help to have less “men are bad” themes in the media, the best way to respond to these issues is probably to ramp up the minimum age for social media use. A policy I expect to see in the next 5 years or so, as the scientific evidence is beginning to support it.
Thank you for your response. I will comment later as you gave made a lot of good points.
But that’s exactly the issue with this piece – you would find it difficult to find a man who asserts that “EVERY facet of modern male malaise is the fault of women, and especially of feminism”.
The author does use an absurd, extreme, illogical premise, and try to use it to attack the more obvious and clear premise that feminism is toxic and has had negative impact on society, men and children…
And, it’s increasing being seen, negative for women as well. And the fact that it’s only the last that’s causing rethink among feminists proves the real point.
Incidentally, there is also a fair degree of projection here. Because feminists and a lot of women do believe that everything in their life that goes wrong is the fault of the “patriarchy”, and nothing is their own responsibility.
I better see what you and Galvatron mean now you put it like that. But taking your point on lots of women believing “EVERYthing wrong in their life is the fault of the patriarchy” I equally dont think you’d find a woman who directly asserts that. Yet it may be a valid conclusion to draw from the totality of their words and actions. Similarly, while no man may directly make the absurd assertion, it comes across that way from the totality of some of the long anti woman rants out there.As to your ‘real point’ concerning some feminists having zero concern for the plight of men, that does seem to be the case with some, though IMO not that many, and definetly not Mary.
“while no man may directly make the absurd assertion, (that they hate women?) it comes across that way from the totality of some of the long anti woman rants out there.”
But does anyone need to say that when certain facts are out there for all to see: i.e. A woman is beaten every 18 seconds; a female is raped every 3 minutes, four thousand women are murdered every year. You may quibble over the exact count, but the violent hatred of women is incontrovertible.
And how many men are murdered every year in the same cohort?
That is an oversimplification of a complex phenomenon.
Hatred and anger are two different things.
Also love and hate are often entwined.
People may lash out in anger and frustration at people they love.
They may have complicated, ambivalent feelings.
A mother may get angry at her children and lash out verbally, slap or hit them, for example.
That does not necessarily mean they simply “hate” them, as a permanent and simple feeling.
And how many men are murdered every year in the same cohort?
That is an oversimplification of a complex phenomenon.
Hatred and anger are two different things.
Also love and hate are often entwined.
People may lash out in anger and frustration at people they love.
They may have complicated, ambivalent feelings.
A mother may get angry at her children and lash out verbally, slap or hit them, for example.
That does not necessarily mean they simply “hate” them, as a permanent and simple feeling.
“while no man may directly make the absurd assertion, (that they hate women?) it comes across that way from the totality of some of the long anti woman rants out there.”
But does anyone need to say that when certain facts are out there for all to see: i.e. A woman is beaten every 18 seconds; a female is raped every 3 minutes, four thousand women are murdered every year. You may quibble over the exact count, but the violent hatred of women is incontrovertible.
I better see what you and Galvatron mean now you put it like that. But taking your point on lots of women believing “EVERYthing wrong in their life is the fault of the patriarchy” I equally dont think you’d find a woman who directly asserts that. Yet it may be a valid conclusion to draw from the totality of their words and actions. Similarly, while no man may directly make the absurd assertion, it comes across that way from the totality of some of the long anti woman rants out there.As to your ‘real point’ concerning some feminists having zero concern for the plight of men, that does seem to be the case with some, though IMO not that many, and definetly not Mary.
“The sort of feminists that writes for unherd may be fired up about trans, but in much of mainstream feminism, trans is welcomed, and the minority of feminists who have strong concerns are dismissed as TERFS (esp in US, but here in UK too.)”
Enemy’s enemy and all that.
As to suicidal thoughts, when it comes to the actual deed males still top the league, not that it is a competition
Suicide: That’s because although females attempt suicide triple the number of times men do, females use mich less lethal means (poisons, medical overdoses, slit wrists) and thus have less success than men who use more violent means like guns, jumping off buildings, suicide by cop, etc.
There’s certainly an element of what you refer to. But there has to be a big question mark around any figures for ‘attempted suicides’ (by both women and men). Indeed, I wonder what proportion of actual suicides are in fact ‘attempted suicides’ that went tragically wrong.
There’s certainly an element of what you refer to. But there has to be a big question mark around any figures for ‘attempted suicides’ (by both women and men). Indeed, I wonder what proportion of actual suicides are in fact ‘attempted suicides’ that went tragically wrong.
Suicide: That’s because although females attempt suicide triple the number of times men do, females use mich less lethal means (poisons, medical overdoses, slit wrists) and thus have less success than men who use more violent means like guns, jumping off buildings, suicide by cop, etc.
Good idea re min age for social media use
What I most appreciated about this piece is that it refuses to take the perspective of a certain sort of (domestic) feminism — that there are naturally feminine & masculine outlooks — in favor of the perspective that a sort of other-directedness is socially fostered by cubicle-land and affects people broadly: men, women, Bronze Age Perverts 4Chans and Talibans alike: “a transition away from norms of truth-seeking and open debate, toward a culture characterised by emotional volatility, anxiety and a fixation on vulnerability.” “Female-typical social patterns” are social, not natural/sexual. This reads like old-style middle-range sociological theory at its best.
Sorry Adam, there is plenty of dishonesty here… “For probably the only way the online masculinist Right could exit the “longhouse” entirely would be by passing the Taliban in the opposite direction, and exiting the modern world. And, especially, exiting the internet. And it seems not even the Taliban is willing to do that” – With such a quick flick of her wrist, Mary is pushing the logic that the Internet is actually the world. It is not – and the fact that some men still frequent it does nothing to hide the fact that they are exercising their masculinity someplace else. And that such “checking-out” is obviously hurting women too. Mary takes the well-travelled path of disqualifying those that refuse to play by the rules that suit her best. And don’t even get me started on Mary’s trite implication that communication somehow is a female forte…
Olay thank you everyone for your replies and I am sorry for my lack of response. Deadlines.
I think the people who talk about “trad” ideas are ridiculous. We are the most technologically privileged humans in history. For “tradcath” or whatever gibberish they call their “ideas” to become the norm again, we would need a social collapse so massive that half of the orthochad BAP LARPers would die in the process.
I regret the tone of my message as Mary Harrington is always worth reading, and it is true she acknowledges the consequences of feminism on sex relations. I think the reason it winds me up is that it is so unnecessary. We could just be sensible and have much better relations between the sexes.
As for anti-feminist women, I think you mean women lile Tomi Lahren who complain men are not macho or manly enough. Yes, they exist, but they are probably more predictable. It’s pretty logical to assume women of the populist Right want alpha macho types.
I think men need to take a step back and be thankful they can choose to be hunting types and DIY whizzes nowadays. I feel that one of the worst developments is indeed the manosphere/trad grifter. Young men online have been served the woeful personalities of Mike Cernovich, Milo Yiannopoulos, Jack Murphy, Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate and others, who are cartoonishly fame hungry, selfish and calamitous. If you are on the internet claiming you have the key to being an alpha or whatever, you are not an alpha. The real alphas are far too busy doing what they have always done. But thanks to technology and knowledge, men can excel in other areas. I don’t think they will find their meaning in what they are doing now.
Only just seen this – I did wonder if you’d decided not to reply after all.
Anyway, after the heart-felt tone of your initial comment this is quite a disappointment. You seem to be furiously back-peddling as though overcome by an urge to renounce your lack of nuance, subtlety and balance – those standard skills of the thinking man.
Why be so apologetic about criticising Mary Harrington’s writing? I’m sure she can take it on the chin. In fact many of the male readers here show a strange genteel deference to her. It reminds me of the rather fawning behaviour shown by male writers toward the young Germain Greer when she first appeared on the scene with The Female Eunuch – the arch-feminist became quite accustomed to it.
I have had some doubts about Ms Harrington’s world view since her July 2021 interview with the Triggernometry boys. Titled “I Don’t Believe in Progress” she praised Roger Hallam (of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil fame) and made much of a slow-motion doom facing humanity as technological development will (in her view) prove not to be progress at all.
I think deference towards feminists by men is a definite development among the “anti-woke” crowd, with Harrington being one of the recipients. Julie Bindel and Suzanne Moore must be laughing that they now get paid by the Telegraph. When I said MH is worth reading, it was probably in light of the fact that Bindel, Moore, Glosswitch and many other feminists made careers in mainstream journalism by effectively writing the same article over and over for 30-odd years. These writers complain about the Guardian no longer being a welcome place for them. They seem to have done pretty well out of the Telegraph, Speccie, Unherd etc. As for MH herself, I think quite a few anti-woke blokes just fancy her.
My first post was an early morning salvo, with my second one writen in a state of post-submission calm. I thought the mood of my first post was a bit too hasty, because I was short on sleep and in machine-gun mode, but I still stand by what I said by all means. I certainly didn’t want to backpedal the points I made about the doubel standards as they are the most infuriating manifestations of the problem at hand.
I think deference towards feminists by men is a definite development among the “anti-woke” crowd, with Harrington being one of the recipients. Julie Bindel and Suzanne Moore must be laughing that they now get paid by the Telegraph. When I said MH is worth reading, it was probably in light of the fact that Bindel, Moore, Glosswitch and many other feminists made careers in mainstream journalism by effectively writing the same article over and over for 30-odd years. These writers complain about the Guardian no longer being a welcome place for them. They seem to have done pretty well out of the Telegraph, Speccie, Unherd etc. As for MH herself, I think quite a few anti-woke blokes just fancy her.
My first post was an early morning salvo, with my second one writen in a state of post-submission calm. I thought the mood of my first post was a bit too hasty, because I was short on sleep and in machine-gun mode, but I still stand by what I said by all means. I certainly didn’t want to backpedal the points I made about the doubel standards as they are the most infuriating manifestations of the problem at hand.
Thanks for the reply. I’m surprised to see you seem quite a bit more -ve about the manosphere & trad than I am. I’d agree much polarising nonsense comes out of the manosphere but I think some value too, esp. on the Trad side. I’ve not watched the personalities you mention except a few Milo youtubes and I thought he was quite amusing. The one I fine most worthwhile on the Trad / patriotic mysticism side is Scot Mannion, though he’s not very well known.
Only just seen this – I did wonder if you’d decided not to reply after all.
Anyway, after the heart-felt tone of your initial comment this is quite a disappointment. You seem to be furiously back-peddling as though overcome by an urge to renounce your lack of nuance, subtlety and balance – those standard skills of the thinking man.
Why be so apologetic about criticising Mary Harrington’s writing? I’m sure she can take it on the chin. In fact many of the male readers here show a strange genteel deference to her. It reminds me of the rather fawning behaviour shown by male writers toward the young Germain Greer when she first appeared on the scene with The Female Eunuch – the arch-feminist became quite accustomed to it.
I have had some doubts about Ms Harrington’s world view since her July 2021 interview with the Triggernometry boys. Titled “I Don’t Believe in Progress” she praised Roger Hallam (of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil fame) and made much of a slow-motion doom facing humanity as technological development will (in her view) prove not to be progress at all.
Thanks for the reply. I’m surprised to see you seem quite a bit more -ve about the manosphere & trad than I am. I’d agree much polarising nonsense comes out of the manosphere but I think some value too, esp. on the Trad side. I’ve not watched the personalities you mention except a few Milo youtubes and I thought he was quite amusing. The one I fine most worthwhile on the Trad / patriotic mysticism side is Scot Mannion, though he’s not very well known.
Isn’t Mary pointing to Coriolanus? The ultimate in virtue if courage defines virtue. Coriolanus dripped with contempt for the non-warrior class. That class did not deserve even to look upon his wounds. For him, nothing could compare to a battle with Aufidius. Which is just the point, yes?
I dont think so, but thanks for bringing to mind one of my fave Manning quotes: The ectasy of battle , compared to which, even the physical ectasy of love is less poignant.
I dont think so, but thanks for bringing to mind one of my fave Manning quotes: The ectasy of battle , compared to which, even the physical ectasy of love is less poignant.
Thank you for your response. I will comment later as you gave made a lot of good points.
But that’s exactly the issue with this piece – you would find it difficult to find a man who asserts that “EVERY facet of modern male malaise is the fault of women, and especially of feminism”.
The author does use an absurd, extreme, illogical premise, and try to use it to attack the more obvious and clear premise that feminism is toxic and has had negative impact on society, men and children…
And, it’s increasing being seen, negative for women as well. And the fact that it’s only the last that’s causing rethink among feminists proves the real point.
Incidentally, there is also a fair degree of projection here. Because feminists and a lot of women do believe that everything in their life that goes wrong is the fault of the “patriarchy”, and nothing is their own responsibility.
“The sort of feminists that writes for unherd may be fired up about trans, but in much of mainstream feminism, trans is welcomed, and the minority of feminists who have strong concerns are dismissed as TERFS (esp in US, but here in UK too.)”
Enemy’s enemy and all that.
As to suicidal thoughts, when it comes to the actual deed males still top the league, not that it is a competition
Good idea re min age for social media use
What I most appreciated about this piece is that it refuses to take the perspective of a certain sort of (domestic) feminism — that there are naturally feminine & masculine outlooks — in favor of the perspective that a sort of other-directedness is socially fostered by cubicle-land and affects people broadly: men, women, Bronze Age Perverts 4Chans and Talibans alike: “a transition away from norms of truth-seeking and open debate, toward a culture characterised by emotional volatility, anxiety and a fixation on vulnerability.” “Female-typical social patterns” are social, not natural/sexual. This reads like old-style middle-range sociological theory at its best.
Sorry Adam, there is plenty of dishonesty here… “For probably the only way the online masculinist Right could exit the “longhouse” entirely would be by passing the Taliban in the opposite direction, and exiting the modern world. And, especially, exiting the internet. And it seems not even the Taliban is willing to do that” – With such a quick flick of her wrist, Mary is pushing the logic that the Internet is actually the world. It is not – and the fact that some men still frequent it does nothing to hide the fact that they are exercising their masculinity someplace else. And that such “checking-out” is obviously hurting women too. Mary takes the well-travelled path of disqualifying those that refuse to play by the rules that suit her best. And don’t even get me started on Mary’s trite implication that communication somehow is a female forte…
Olay thank you everyone for your replies and I am sorry for my lack of response. Deadlines.
I think the people who talk about “trad” ideas are ridiculous. We are the most technologically privileged humans in history. For “tradcath” or whatever gibberish they call their “ideas” to become the norm again, we would need a social collapse so massive that half of the orthochad BAP LARPers would die in the process.
I regret the tone of my message as Mary Harrington is always worth reading, and it is true she acknowledges the consequences of feminism on sex relations. I think the reason it winds me up is that it is so unnecessary. We could just be sensible and have much better relations between the sexes.
As for anti-feminist women, I think you mean women lile Tomi Lahren who complain men are not macho or manly enough. Yes, they exist, but they are probably more predictable. It’s pretty logical to assume women of the populist Right want alpha macho types.
I think men need to take a step back and be thankful they can choose to be hunting types and DIY whizzes nowadays. I feel that one of the worst developments is indeed the manosphere/trad grifter. Young men online have been served the woeful personalities of Mike Cernovich, Milo Yiannopoulos, Jack Murphy, Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate and others, who are cartoonishly fame hungry, selfish and calamitous. If you are on the internet claiming you have the key to being an alpha or whatever, you are not an alpha. The real alphas are far too busy doing what they have always done. But thanks to technology and knowledge, men can excel in other areas. I don’t think they will find their meaning in what they are doing now.
Isn’t Mary pointing to Coriolanus? The ultimate in virtue if courage defines virtue. Coriolanus dripped with contempt for the non-warrior class. That class did not deserve even to look upon his wounds. For him, nothing could compare to a battle with Aufidius. Which is just the point, yes?
Men get attacked from both sides of the women’s world. You must have come across those women who, while claiming not to be anti-feminist, pine for ‘real men’ and berate contemporary men as eunochs who have surrendered to feminism.
I have. I will write a fuller response to this point and Adam’s later.
Yes I have, and thank you for your comment. I want to write a longer response to both you and Adam.
Galvatron… I suggest you consider submitting a full-blown response, on Unherd, to Mary’s sometimes-insightful, sometimes-distorted observations. Many of your counter-arguments were sound.
The hot mess of male-female relations in this advanced society of ours is approaching the stuff of cultural apocalypse.
Galvatron… I suggest you consider submitting a full-blown response, on Unherd, to Mary’s sometimes-insightful, sometimes-distorted observations. Many of your counter-arguments were sound.
The hot mess of male-female relations in this advanced society of ours is approaching the stuff of cultural apocalypse.
I have. I will write a fuller response to this point and Adam’s later.
Yes I have, and thank you for your comment. I want to write a longer response to both you and Adam.
One of the best comments I’ve ever read on this site, well played.
“The men will be evil or weak, apart from maybe a few box-tickers, who invariably suck up to the Girlboss Detective…”
I assume you mean ethic
Yes, ethnic minorities (who now, in total, are the majority) and the obvious and proud homosexual. In other words, anyone other than white, straight Christian men are box tickers in Hollywood and DEI programs.
I wonder where white, straight, Christian women fit on this continuum. I suppose one up from the bottom of DEI acceptability.
I wonder where white, straight, Christian women fit on this continuum. I suppose one up from the bottom of DEI acceptability.
Yes, ethnic minorities (who now, in total, are the majority) and the obvious and proud homosexual. In other words, anyone other than white, straight Christian men are box tickers in Hollywood and DEI programs.
Although I usually find Harrington’s essays insightful, I don’t think that this one is. On the contrary, she resorts to the level of overgeneralization and even anecdote.
In the end, she admits that feminism has actually caused some problems, but that admission doesn’t amount to much after a lengthy diatribe against the presumably many Western men who actually admire the Taliban and would actually want to live in a tribal society such as theirs. I can’t disprove that, because I’m aware of no statistical analysis on that topic, but I can at least say that this assertion sounds very implausible to me (no matter what anonymous trolls say on the internet).
There are indeed men who blame feminism for the gynocentrism that it has fostered and the misandry that it has (to say the least) tolerated or condoned Where many of those men go wrong, along with almost everyone on this blog, is assuming that the current state of affairs came about recently–that is, within living memory as a result of one cause: feminism, reactions against feminism, modernity and modern technology or whatever. This is simplistic, whether couched in the most fashionable academic jargon or the most neurotic ranting. Relying on both historical and cross-cultural evidence, I’ve come to see that the current problems of men have been building, slowly at first, since the late Neolithic period and for reasons that have little to do with women per se, let alone feminists, but rather with the cultural meaning of male bodies. I’ve sent in brief summaries of this process several times without evoking much interest, but I’ll try again in more detail.
Everyone needs a healthy identity, both personal and collective. To attain that, everyone must be able to make at least one contribution to family or community that is (a) distinctive; (b) necessary; and (c) publicly valued. We know almost nothing about our remote ancestors, but we have no reason to believe that they sat around all day and pondered any of this. They simply did whatever they had to do, and could do, in the urgent need for collective survival. Men and women made comparable contributions. And both sexes paid high prices. Men were often killed by predators. Women often died in childbirth.
This de fact “egalitarianism” began to change in the late Neolithic period due to the rise of horticulture and then agriculture (or pastoralism), which eventually led to urbanization and specialization. These led in turn to states or empires, increasingly elaborate hierarchies, increasingly complex organized religions, symbolic gender systems, international trade, raiding or warfare and so on.
Of particular interest here is the gradually changing relation between maleness (the male body) and masculinity (its cultural interpretation). Most men (and women) were serfs. They did backbreaking work in the fields. Elite men (and women) did no menial work at all. Although chiefs or kings and their male courtiers hunted occasionally, it was to assert their status symbolically, no longer to provide food. Although they led armies into battle occasionally, moreover, they relied on conscript armies to do much of the dirty work (unless doing that prevented them from producing food). Middle-class men–even ten thousand years ago, there was a small middle class of shopkeepers, traders, artisans, scribes and so on–relied even less often on their male bodies as venues of masculine identity. Rather, they were masculine because they did things that culture prescribed for men, sometimes but not always arbitrarily. By now, the men with highest status are precisely those who do not perform manual labor. Athletic prowess is a ceremonial or vestigial form of masculinity. In some circles, even military prowess is a vestigial form of masculinity (although I won’t complain about that, because it’s also a lethal one).
This separation of masculinity from maleness continued slowly for many centuries but increased now and then due to a series of technological and therefore cultural revolutions. Among these were the Industrial Revolution (which eventually separated fathers from their families and replaced male muscles with machines in the factories and mines), the “Military Revolution” (during which modern states adopted a new social contract that turned all men, per se, into citizens but at the cost of becoming cannon fodder to serve the revolution or the nation), the Sexual Revolution (which “freed” both men and women, for the first time in human history, from the biological consequences and cultural responsibilities of sexual behavior but with disastrous consequences for marriage and especially for children), along with the more recent Reproductive Revolution (which, among other things, reduced the male contribution to a “teaspoon” of sperm at the cost of trivializing the function of fathers within family life and thus expanding the ranks of fatherless children).
At this point, women can do (almost) everything that men can do, which is fine in theory for supporting egalitarianism. Women can provide resources for themselves, for instance, and protect themselves and their children–if not on their own, then with help from state agencies (which have replaced men in the family).
Only one contribution of men, per se, remains both distinctive and necessary: fatherhood. And even that has been either trivialized or attacked relentlessly for decades in order to assert the “autonomy” of women (and, of course, to attract votes for politicians). The fragile position of fathers might gain strength in view of many “studies” that indicate great advantages for children with live-in fathers. That’s because fathers are not assistant mothers. Human fathers, unlike those of most other species, have evolved with a distinctive and necessary function in family life (as distinct from providing sperm). Unlike motherhood, fatherhood doesn’t begin when children are infants. Rather, it begins as children move in the larger world. Unlike mothers, fathers don’t necessarily provide their children with unconditional love, although many do, but do provide them with earned respect. I doubt that most parents, let alone academics and politicians, understand this crucial distinction. Maybe it would require another cultural revolution to turn things around at this point.
Meanwhile, consider what happens to the increasing number of boys and young men who must now try to grow up without a healthy identity (that is, with nothing distinctive, necessary or publicly valued to contribute). Even though feminists did not invent or directly cause this problem, the fallout from feminist ideology has greatly exacerbated it. Some boys and young men abandon schools that either explicitly or implicitly treat them with contempt, ignorance and suspicion. Others abandon a society with no room for them as men by resorting to drugs and antisocial behavior such as crime. Still others abandon life itself. Say what you will about anxiety or depression among young women, the suicide rate for young men is much higher than for young women (who often attempt suicide as a way of crying for help).
Thank you for this, especially the bits about the need for public recognition for one’s valuable contributions, and Fathers tending to be the one that gives earned respect rather than unconditional love.
Very well said Paul
Fathers with toddlers will often watch them less closely than mothers. My female eye will sometimes notice a toddler trailing a little too far behind, Dad oblivious. But that under protectiveness balances out the over protectiveness of mothers. The toddler grows in independence in ‘the zone of proximal development’.
Thank you for this, especially the bits about the need for public recognition for one’s valuable contributions, and Fathers tending to be the one that gives earned respect rather than unconditional love.
Very well said Paul
Fathers with toddlers will often watch them less closely than mothers. My female eye will sometimes notice a toddler trailing a little too far behind, Dad oblivious. But that under protectiveness balances out the over protectiveness of mothers. The toddler grows in independence in ‘the zone of proximal development’.
Is this perhaps America’s revenge on Britain? Ann Douglas, The Feminization of American Culture (1977) is not well remembered, but she makes the case that this pattern is the outgrowth of evangelical Protestantism, and that as a normative pattern this broadly cultural sort of feminization well pre-dates any actual feminist movement.
Good rebuttal. How many times do we hear that every bad thing is the cause of ‘the patriarchy.’ Western women denigrate men reflexively so much they aren’t aware they are doing it – but boy do they get tetchy when someone makes negative generalizations about women.
There’s no dishonesty here. Mary isnt debunking the idea that feminism has had negative consequences for men. Just the much stronger assertion that “every facet of modern male malaise is the fault of women, and especially of feminism”. And her Taliban example is a good one to refute that; no one else has purged woman and all traces of explicit feminism from public life the way they have.
Otherwise you raise important points, though in some ways it may be worse than you think. The sort of feminists that writes for unherd may be fired up about trans, but in much of mainstream feminism, trans is welcomed, and the minority of feminists who have strong concerns are dismissed as TERFS (esp in US, but here in UK too.)
And by some measures, despite the “woman good, men bad” thing you note, females are hurting more than males, at least if we look at teenagers. (I’m thinking of last months CDC report that found 57% of girls now have ‘persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness’ and 30% have seriously considered suicide. – the figures were only 29% & 14% for boys. The report matches what I’m hearing anecdotally – several of my friends have girls struggling with suicidal ideation, but not boys.) While it would help to have less “men are bad” themes in the media, the best way to respond to these issues is probably to ramp up the minimum age for social media use. A policy I expect to see in the next 5 years or so, as the scientific evidence is beginning to support it.
Men get attacked from both sides of the women’s world. You must have come across those women who, while claiming not to be anti-feminist, pine for ‘real men’ and berate contemporary men as eunochs who have surrendered to feminism.
One of the best comments I’ve ever read on this site, well played.
“The men will be evil or weak, apart from maybe a few box-tickers, who invariably suck up to the Girlboss Detective…”
I assume you mean ethic
Although I usually find Harrington’s essays insightful, I don’t think that this one is. On the contrary, she resorts to the level of overgeneralization and even anecdote.
In the end, she admits that feminism has actually caused some problems, but that admission doesn’t amount to much after a lengthy diatribe against the presumably many Western men who actually admire the Taliban and would actually want to live in a tribal society such as theirs. I can’t disprove that, because I’m aware of no statistical analysis on that topic, but I can at least say that this assertion sounds very implausible to me (no matter what anonymous trolls say on the internet).
There are indeed men who blame feminism for the gynocentrism that it has fostered and the misandry that it has (to say the least) tolerated or condoned Where many of those men go wrong, along with almost everyone on this blog, is assuming that the current state of affairs came about recently–that is, within living memory as a result of one cause: feminism, reactions against feminism, modernity and modern technology or whatever. This is simplistic, whether couched in the most fashionable academic jargon or the most neurotic ranting. Relying on both historical and cross-cultural evidence, I’ve come to see that the current problems of men have been building, slowly at first, since the late Neolithic period and for reasons that have little to do with women per se, let alone feminists, but rather with the cultural meaning of male bodies. I’ve sent in brief summaries of this process several times without evoking much interest, but I’ll try again in more detail.
Everyone needs a healthy identity, both personal and collective. To attain that, everyone must be able to make at least one contribution to family or community that is (a) distinctive; (b) necessary; and (c) publicly valued. We know almost nothing about our remote ancestors, but we have no reason to believe that they sat around all day and pondered any of this. They simply did whatever they had to do, and could do, in the urgent need for collective survival. Men and women made comparable contributions. And both sexes paid high prices. Men were often killed by predators. Women often died in childbirth.
This de fact “egalitarianism” began to change in the late Neolithic period due to the rise of horticulture and then agriculture (or pastoralism), which eventually led to urbanization and specialization. These led in turn to states or empires, increasingly elaborate hierarchies, increasingly complex organized religions, symbolic gender systems, international trade, raiding or warfare and so on.
Of particular interest here is the gradually changing relation between maleness (the male body) and masculinity (its cultural interpretation). Most men (and women) were serfs. They did backbreaking work in the fields. Elite men (and women) did no menial work at all. Although chiefs or kings and their male courtiers hunted occasionally, it was to assert their status symbolically, no longer to provide food. Although they led armies into battle occasionally, moreover, they relied on conscript armies to do much of the dirty work (unless doing that prevented them from producing food). Middle-class men–even ten thousand years ago, there was a small middle class of shopkeepers, traders, artisans, scribes and so on–relied even less often on their male bodies as venues of masculine identity. Rather, they were masculine because they did things that culture prescribed for men, sometimes but not always arbitrarily. By now, the men with highest status are precisely those who do not perform manual labor. Athletic prowess is a ceremonial or vestigial form of masculinity. In some circles, even military prowess is a vestigial form of masculinity (although I won’t complain about that, because it’s also a lethal one).
This separation of masculinity from maleness continued slowly for many centuries but increased now and then due to a series of technological and therefore cultural revolutions. Among these were the Industrial Revolution (which eventually separated fathers from their families and replaced male muscles with machines in the factories and mines), the “Military Revolution” (during which modern states adopted a new social contract that turned all men, per se, into citizens but at the cost of becoming cannon fodder to serve the revolution or the nation), the Sexual Revolution (which “freed” both men and women, for the first time in human history, from the biological consequences and cultural responsibilities of sexual behavior but with disastrous consequences for marriage and especially for children), along with the more recent Reproductive Revolution (which, among other things, reduced the male contribution to a “teaspoon” of sperm at the cost of trivializing the function of fathers within family life and thus expanding the ranks of fatherless children).
At this point, women can do (almost) everything that men can do, which is fine in theory for supporting egalitarianism. Women can provide resources for themselves, for instance, and protect themselves and their children–if not on their own, then with help from state agencies (which have replaced men in the family).
Only one contribution of men, per se, remains both distinctive and necessary: fatherhood. And even that has been either trivialized or attacked relentlessly for decades in order to assert the “autonomy” of women (and, of course, to attract votes for politicians). The fragile position of fathers might gain strength in view of many “studies” that indicate great advantages for children with live-in fathers. That’s because fathers are not assistant mothers. Human fathers, unlike those of most other species, have evolved with a distinctive and necessary function in family life (as distinct from providing sperm). Unlike motherhood, fatherhood doesn’t begin when children are infants. Rather, it begins as children move in the larger world. Unlike mothers, fathers don’t necessarily provide their children with unconditional love, although many do, but do provide them with earned respect. I doubt that most parents, let alone academics and politicians, understand this crucial distinction. Maybe it would require another cultural revolution to turn things around at this point.
Meanwhile, consider what happens to the increasing number of boys and young men who must now try to grow up without a healthy identity (that is, with nothing distinctive, necessary or publicly valued to contribute). Even though feminists did not invent or directly cause this problem, the fallout from feminist ideology has greatly exacerbated it. Some boys and young men abandon schools that either explicitly or implicitly treat them with contempt, ignorance and suspicion. Others abandon a society with no room for them as men by resorting to drugs and antisocial behavior such as crime. Still others abandon life itself. Say what you will about anxiety or depression among young women, the suicide rate for young men is much higher than for young women (who often attempt suicide as a way of crying for help).
Is this perhaps America’s revenge on Britain? Ann Douglas, The Feminization of American Culture (1977) is not well remembered, but she makes the case that this pattern is the outgrowth of evangelical Protestantism, and that as a normative pattern this broadly cultural sort of feminization well pre-dates any actual feminist movement.
Good rebuttal. How many times do we hear that every bad thing is the cause of ‘the patriarchy.’ Western women denigrate men reflexively so much they aren’t aware they are doing it – but boy do they get tetchy when someone makes negative generalizations about women.
I think what Mary has done here is the height of dishonesty. Take something that people say “feminism has ruined men” and try to debunk it with the most outlandish and cartoonish examples (BAP and the Taleban). I generally think it is amazing how feminists will breathlessly comment on men when they dismiss any comments from men about women as uninformed at best and misogyny at worst, after all, men have no “lived experience” of being women. Yet women can theorise and talk about men all day long.
Mary seems to have forgotten that feminists have cultivated a culture of “women good, men bad” and are never letting that one go. They have gained too much from it.
It’s interesting that she avoids the question of how the culture sees men because it is undeniable that feminists have constructed it to a large degree, and that would blow her argument apart.
Feminists have pathologised maleness to such a degree that I don’t even have to watch a modern television programme, say a detective show, to know what will happen. The badass female in her fifties will smoke and drink and yet be able to outsprint slim twenty-year old blokes and beat up men twice her size. The men will be evil or weak, apart from maybe a few box-tickers, who invariably suck up to the Girlboss Detective, and the women will save the day.
And it extends to other areas of media and public life. The countless feminist double standards and demonisation of men are much more emasculating than office jobs and the internet. Men better at something? It’s patriarchy and we have to gerrymander it in favour of women.
Women better at something? It’s because women are better and men have to accept it. Man commits a crime against a woman? It’s because men hate women and we need to enact censorship and laws aagainst all men to curb it. Woman commits a crime against a man? It’s the patriarchy’s fault, so he was in part to blame. Man offends a woman? It’s a hate crime, and soon he will be going to jail in Scotland. Woman offends a man? Sexism made women more deferential so boys will just have to suck it up.
Feminists justify this by saying the “effects” of misandry are just hurt male feelings, but they simultaneously want us to claim that the world should stop if a woman’s feelings are hurt. There was an article in the Times recently where a woman asked “would I still fancy my husband if I met him now”. Imagine the outcry if a man wrote the equivalent article about his wife? No man thinking such wrongthink would get anywhere near publishing an article in the Western press.
In every aspect of being, men are seen as deficient women. Always inferior, always slower, always wrong. While women are portrayed as being simultaneously omnipotent and helpless.
You might think that my examples are random or minute, but if you create a culture where men are never good, or are treated by such double standards, don’t be surprised if you get more male dropouts. Okay, if you are a feminist and you don’t care about that, you will care about this: lots of boys transitioning to girls. I know trans gets feminists fired up, but they created trans with their social constructivism. Young men and boys have a choice: be blamed for every bad thing that ever happened because they are men, or occupy a higher place on the oppression pyramid than the feminists. Be permanently surrounded by people who are “more equal” than you, or become “more equal” than those who bullied you with “equality”. What do you think they are going to choose?
Bloody hell. I work mainly in front of a screen, but that doesn’t necessarily have to entail a loss of masculinity. I’ve got three small kids including a 2 month old, and my wife is currently laid up with a broken ankle. There is no time for twitter or any of that bullshit in this scenario, and I know other men who’ve been in a similar situation. So what I recommend for men who feel their masculinity is under threat: have kids and have plenty of them. You’ll have no option then other than to be a man
I really respected your comment. When it began with the bit of working at a computer BUT…..
I thought, yea he will turn out to be some feminized nerd – but then I saw I was wrong all together – you are being very much a true man with your family, and fatherhood – Good for you, good post. If how you were living was the norm for men and women, the Family, the whole world would be so much better. Your kind are the best thing there is to save society, the real, two parent Family. Man and Woman, and their family extending forward and back and laterally, and so bound by duty and responsibility to society.
Mary really misses that – it undermines her whole story and thesis. It is the breakdown of the Family, and from that the extended family, and so the community, and so the Nation…..where all the harms lie.
Those Talib men on the internet and office jobs – you have to understand Pashtunwali – the code of the Pashtun. Family is ALL. Honour is All, and the two intertwined like braided rope.
As the Talib are not Kabulies I doubt they have their family there, if they have one yet. And then the extended family, and local clan….there is a great deal going on Mary is overlooking.
My time there was the best of my life.
Feminists wanted the family abolished in the West. They won.
Yes, they most certainly have “won”. But I’m unsure the prize was worth it.
No they did not win. Where on earth do you live?
No they did not win. Where on earth do you live?
Yes, they most certainly have “won”. But I’m unsure the prize was worth it.
Perhaps in this article, but not in her work generally, where she is excellent and insightful on such points. I’ve bought her new book, “Feminism Against Progress”, and it’s a good read.
Feminists wanted the family abolished in the West. They won.
Perhaps in this article, but not in her work generally, where she is excellent and insightful on such points. I’ve bought her new book, “Feminism Against Progress”, and it’s a good read.
Does that take us back to Mary’s views on The Pill? Putting off becoming a parent (father or mother) for so many that they are stuck in ‘unnatural’ views.
Interesting that I had a similar experience. My wife left me with three small children and I felt that the sacrifices I made to take over their care for 16 years made me much more masculine, which is counter intuitive. Gentleness comes from real strength for men. It’s the weak and insecure who become bullies and philanderers.
I would agree that women in public life are hardly a powerful enough influence to feminize men, with one major exception, in child care. In a place like the US which has the highest percentage of single parent households and schools are virtually single sex institutions staffed by women versed at university in the evils of manhood, is it any wonder that young men are weak, insecure boys who bluster with a false manliness of physical and verbal violence, objectification of women and shirking of social duty?
Feminism got so worked up at blaming men and masculinity for the pre-birth control trap of reproductive roles that it all but forgot that good men are of necessity strong and confident and masculine. I have been a leftist all my life but I’m starting to grasp the conservative ideas about the necessity of some structure to preserve a civilized, non violent world.
We’ll done sir. Welcome to the fold! A true, wise man is one who can see they were on the wrong path and changes direction.
“I felt that the sacrifices I made to take over their care for 16 years made me much more masculine”
Yes – you’re right. First, fatherhood makes you much less selfish, and, second, fatherhood makes you get on with things, and not over analyse, as you haven’t the time for navel-gazing anyway. A bias towards action and significantly increased unselfishness both are traditional masculine virtues.
Thank you for one of the best comments here. This is what makes Unherd so good.
Not to mention, those kids have turned out really well.
We’ll done sir. Welcome to the fold! A true, wise man is one who can see they were on the wrong path and changes direction.
“I felt that the sacrifices I made to take over their care for 16 years made me much more masculine”
Yes – you’re right. First, fatherhood makes you much less selfish, and, second, fatherhood makes you get on with things, and not over analyse, as you haven’t the time for navel-gazing anyway. A bias towards action and significantly increased unselfishness both are traditional masculine virtues.
Thank you for one of the best comments here. This is what makes Unherd so good.
Not to mention, those kids have turned out really well.
I really respected your comment. When it began with the bit of working at a computer BUT…..
I thought, yea he will turn out to be some feminized nerd – but then I saw I was wrong all together – you are being very much a true man with your family, and fatherhood – Good for you, good post. If how you were living was the norm for men and women, the Family, the whole world would be so much better. Your kind are the best thing there is to save society, the real, two parent Family. Man and Woman, and their family extending forward and back and laterally, and so bound by duty and responsibility to society.
Mary really misses that – it undermines her whole story and thesis. It is the breakdown of the Family, and from that the extended family, and so the community, and so the Nation…..where all the harms lie.
Those Talib men on the internet and office jobs – you have to understand Pashtunwali – the code of the Pashtun. Family is ALL. Honour is All, and the two intertwined like braided rope.
As the Talib are not Kabulies I doubt they have their family there, if they have one yet. And then the extended family, and local clan….there is a great deal going on Mary is overlooking.
My time there was the best of my life.
Does that take us back to Mary’s views on The Pill? Putting off becoming a parent (father or mother) for so many that they are stuck in ‘unnatural’ views.
Interesting that I had a similar experience. My wife left me with three small children and I felt that the sacrifices I made to take over their care for 16 years made me much more masculine, which is counter intuitive. Gentleness comes from real strength for men. It’s the weak and insecure who become bullies and philanderers.
I would agree that women in public life are hardly a powerful enough influence to feminize men, with one major exception, in child care. In a place like the US which has the highest percentage of single parent households and schools are virtually single sex institutions staffed by women versed at university in the evils of manhood, is it any wonder that young men are weak, insecure boys who bluster with a false manliness of physical and verbal violence, objectification of women and shirking of social duty?
Feminism got so worked up at blaming men and masculinity for the pre-birth control trap of reproductive roles that it all but forgot that good men are of necessity strong and confident and masculine. I have been a leftist all my life but I’m starting to grasp the conservative ideas about the necessity of some structure to preserve a civilized, non violent world.
Bloody hell. I work mainly in front of a screen, but that doesn’t necessarily have to entail a loss of masculinity. I’ve got three small kids including a 2 month old, and my wife is currently laid up with a broken ankle. There is no time for twitter or any of that bullshit in this scenario, and I know other men who’ve been in a similar situation. So what I recommend for men who feel their masculinity is under threat: have kids and have plenty of them. You’ll have no option then other than to be a man
I think this is a complicated issue as Mary says but for me one thing is clear: if 21st century urban life is failing young men it is the fault of our society and not the other way round.
I grew up in a working class community in the 70s and 80s where the fathers were expected to involve their sons in communal, competitive sporting activities from a young age – football mainly, but also boxing, rugby, cricket – you name it.
Not only was it a way of channeling all that energy but it also enabled the fathers to have some downtime together on the touch lines.
When you add to that the working men’s clubs, the boxing gyms, the scout groups, there was an entire network of male only organisations that could help socialise and guide youngsters in the direction of responsible citizenship and employment.
Men I think need these larger organisations to congregate around and within – we are just not good at the more intimate arrangements women seem to thrive in.
The problem of course is that now all this is viewed as toxic there is no place to go, and for boys without fathers at home, no men around to help them move forward with their lives.
There is also scant support for older men who may run into difficulties mid life, again I think because there is little effort made to accept that men and women are just different!
One of the best posts here.
Good points. I don’t see the problem as male vs female or feminists vs whoever but more in terms of capitalism and it’s requirements that everyone works long hours outside the home leaving no time for the community involvement you speak of.
The destruction of the family is multi causal, but the demands of the labour market play a huge part. Long hours, super competitive, insecure housing etc drive us to exactly where capital wants us. And that leaves community decimated and does most of us no good.
I think blaming feminists/patriarchy is a distraction from the real issues of inequality in both time and money.
Time to be a human and hang out with your kids, to cherish your partner, to contribute to your community, to honour our human needs for each other.
Building division and blaming the other is a waste of our short time on this earth. So instead of hanging out on 4chan and the feminist equivalent, go and be present with others, in real time and space.
Feminists feel threatened by masculinity, and so repress its expression starting with childrearing, throughout schooling, and by political action in society to affect academia and workplaces. This is why male-taught classes and male uni-attendance are in a downward spiral. The goal is to purge society of masculine traits in the cause of promoting the feminine as heroic. This is the zeitgeist if our era.
One of the best posts here.
Good points. I don’t see the problem as male vs female or feminists vs whoever but more in terms of capitalism and it’s requirements that everyone works long hours outside the home leaving no time for the community involvement you speak of.
The destruction of the family is multi causal, but the demands of the labour market play a huge part. Long hours, super competitive, insecure housing etc drive us to exactly where capital wants us. And that leaves community decimated and does most of us no good.
I think blaming feminists/patriarchy is a distraction from the real issues of inequality in both time and money.
Time to be a human and hang out with your kids, to cherish your partner, to contribute to your community, to honour our human needs for each other.
Building division and blaming the other is a waste of our short time on this earth. So instead of hanging out on 4chan and the feminist equivalent, go and be present with others, in real time and space.
Feminists feel threatened by masculinity, and so repress its expression starting with childrearing, throughout schooling, and by political action in society to affect academia and workplaces. This is why male-taught classes and male uni-attendance are in a downward spiral. The goal is to purge society of masculine traits in the cause of promoting the feminine as heroic. This is the zeitgeist if our era.
I think this is a complicated issue as Mary says but for me one thing is clear: if 21st century urban life is failing young men it is the fault of our society and not the other way round.
I grew up in a working class community in the 70s and 80s where the fathers were expected to involve their sons in communal, competitive sporting activities from a young age – football mainly, but also boxing, rugby, cricket – you name it.
Not only was it a way of channeling all that energy but it also enabled the fathers to have some downtime together on the touch lines.
When you add to that the working men’s clubs, the boxing gyms, the scout groups, there was an entire network of male only organisations that could help socialise and guide youngsters in the direction of responsible citizenship and employment.
Men I think need these larger organisations to congregate around and within – we are just not good at the more intimate arrangements women seem to thrive in.
The problem of course is that now all this is viewed as toxic there is no place to go, and for boys without fathers at home, no men around to help them move forward with their lives.
There is also scant support for older men who may run into difficulties mid life, again I think because there is little effort made to accept that men and women are just different!
Cast a critical eye over that “new report” which provides inspiration for Ms Harrington’s essay [and where would modern journalism be without an endless flow of reports, studies and expert’s findings to source].
The source of the report is a body calling itself Afghanistan Analysts Network. The ‘About’ page reveals that the executive and advisory boards consist almost entirely of women. The author of the report is, of course, male – surely a basic requirement when interviewing Taliban.
The report itself was put together from interviews with just 5 former Taliban fighters – young men, formerly fighters, now having to cope with a boring 8-4 working day and a cost of living crisis (Kabul is just so expensive!). Fighting men forced to beat their swords into – well, something supportive and non-macho. That will amuse Western feminists of course. Welcome to the not-so-brave new world boys!
Cast a critical eye over that “new report” which provides inspiration for Ms Harrington’s essay [and where would modern journalism be without an endless flow of reports, studies and expert’s findings to source].
The source of the report is a body calling itself Afghanistan Analysts Network. The ‘About’ page reveals that the executive and advisory boards consist almost entirely of women. The author of the report is, of course, male – surely a basic requirement when interviewing Taliban.
The report itself was put together from interviews with just 5 former Taliban fighters – young men, formerly fighters, now having to cope with a boring 8-4 working day and a cost of living crisis (Kabul is just so expensive!). Fighting men forced to beat their swords into – well, something supportive and non-macho. That will amuse Western feminists of course. Welcome to the not-so-brave new world boys!
I found the article thought provoking and, broadly, reasonable. One of the big causes of the current malaise is definitely lack of freedom. Not just freedom of speech (or thought) but freedom to fail or be resilient. If something is wrong in our life it is not how it ‘should’ be and it is not our fault; other people (teachers, parents, patriarchy, conservatives etc etc) are not only to blame but must make it better by funding our food, care, health etc.
Freedom means the freedom to live, succeed or fail, even die.
I agree whole-heartedly with you about the idea that we have lost resilience and now blame our problems on others, but I would include feminists among your list of those you are blamed . Many of the men (and some women) who blame feminists have just not come to terms with the fact that women no longer wish to be under the thumbs of men, at their beck and call,and reliant upon them for their financial security (you can bet that Ms Harrington is reliant upon no man for her financial security); this latter is probably the most important. I do understand that modern society gives men (particularly young men) no positive outlet for their higher levels (on average) of aggression. I don’t know the solution for this, it is probably up to men to find one that suits them, but most men’s groups seem to be little more than moan-fests or misogenistic griping – getting off social media is probably a good start.
“..have just not come to terms with the fact that women no longer wish to be under the thumbs of men, at their beck and call.”
When was that ever true?
For centuries, the coming of the Normans made it so, although it wasn’t a paradise before then it was better.
For centuries, the coming of the Normans made it so, although it wasn’t a paradise before then it was better.
I can’t speak to her financial situation but she has spoken about women’s need of a patriarchal male protector and provider.
She’s a feminist who sees men as useful provided they serve women.
“..have just not come to terms with the fact that women no longer wish to be under the thumbs of men, at their beck and call.”
When was that ever true?
I can’t speak to her financial situation but she has spoken about women’s need of a patriarchal male protector and provider.
She’s a feminist who sees men as useful provided they serve women.
I agree whole-heartedly with you about the idea that we have lost resilience and now blame our problems on others, but I would include feminists among your list of those you are blamed . Many of the men (and some women) who blame feminists have just not come to terms with the fact that women no longer wish to be under the thumbs of men, at their beck and call,and reliant upon them for their financial security (you can bet that Ms Harrington is reliant upon no man for her financial security); this latter is probably the most important. I do understand that modern society gives men (particularly young men) no positive outlet for their higher levels (on average) of aggression. I don’t know the solution for this, it is probably up to men to find one that suits them, but most men’s groups seem to be little more than moan-fests or misogenistic griping – getting off social media is probably a good start.
I found the article thought provoking and, broadly, reasonable. One of the big causes of the current malaise is definitely lack of freedom. Not just freedom of speech (or thought) but freedom to fail or be resilient. If something is wrong in our life it is not how it ‘should’ be and it is not our fault; other people (teachers, parents, patriarchy, conservatives etc etc) are not only to blame but must make it better by funding our food, care, health etc.
Freedom means the freedom to live, succeed or fail, even die.
Mary is spot on here. As I divine from her other articles, it’s tech which gets the most credit for driving the changes in traditional male/female division of labour, not so much all the Feminist ferment. And now AI is about to turn the handle once again, which will likely result in the eclipse of many of the niches now dominated by females, and emasculated males. In the fast approaching brave new world, competence may once again reassert itself, but this time, hopefully, as gender neutral and gender natural.
Lol. That won’t happen because AI has already been gerrymandered to being woke, so the women will always be essential and the AI will say so.
Use of “lol” isn’t required here. Simply argue your case (as you have done elsewhere) and try to refrain from twitter-like nonsense.
Use of “lol” isn’t required here. Simply argue your case (as you have done elsewhere) and try to refrain from twitter-like nonsense.
Lol. That won’t happen because AI has already been gerrymandered to being woke, so the women will always be essential and the AI will say so.
Mary is spot on here. As I divine from her other articles, it’s tech which gets the most credit for driving the changes in traditional male/female division of labour, not so much all the Feminist ferment. And now AI is about to turn the handle once again, which will likely result in the eclipse of many of the niches now dominated by females, and emasculated males. In the fast approaching brave new world, competence may once again reassert itself, but this time, hopefully, as gender neutral and gender natural.
Outstanding… I abhor the concept of the Long House, but I don’t blame it on anyone’s gender (and I suspect there are many, many women who don’t like the concept either, starting with Camille Paglia and ending with Kim Kardashian). I blame it on Marxism and the kids who desperately want to keep their sheltered and pampered lives going at University.
Hmmm. Maybe dig deeper than that. I’ll see your M word and raise you the thought that it’s Capitalism that imprisons us. It’s quite a comfy prison for most of us but we have to accept that animals in captivity exhibit “unnatural” behaviours.
That metaphor doesn’t work. What would be the alternative? Both Marxism and Capitalism have aspects of captivity, although i would add much less so with Capitalism.
What i’m really asking here is: what does not being in one form of captivity or another look like?
That metaphor doesn’t work. What would be the alternative? Both Marxism and Capitalism have aspects of captivity, although i would add much less so with Capitalism.
What i’m really asking here is: what does not being in one form of captivity or another look like?
Hmmm. Maybe dig deeper than that. I’ll see your M word and raise you the thought that it’s Capitalism that imprisons us. It’s quite a comfy prison for most of us but we have to accept that animals in captivity exhibit “unnatural” behaviours.
Outstanding… I abhor the concept of the Long House, but I don’t blame it on anyone’s gender (and I suspect there are many, many women who don’t like the concept either, starting with Camille Paglia and ending with Kim Kardashian). I blame it on Marxism and the kids who desperately want to keep their sheltered and pampered lives going at University.
“that every facet of modern male malaise is the fault of women, and especially of feminism.”
But it’s men that let the wimin and the faggots and the niggaz win … to put it crudely.
Strong men make good times.
Good times make weak men.
Weak men make bad times.
… and hopefully:
Bad times make strong men.
“that every facet of modern male malaise is the fault of women, and especially of feminism.”
But it’s men that let the wimin and the faggots and the niggaz win … to put it crudely.
Strong men make good times.
Good times make weak men.
Weak men make bad times.
… and hopefully:
Bad times make strong men.
There’s too much conflation here, not enough distinction between feminism and females and the recognisable, indeed ubiquitous phenomenon of ‘the Longhouse’ with Bronze Age Bollox and the Taliban.
There’s too much conflation here, not enough distinction between feminism and females and the recognisable, indeed ubiquitous phenomenon of ‘the Longhouse’ with Bronze Age Bollox and the Taliban.
I like Mary’s pieces a lot, but there are some mis-fires here.
I take her point that technology and the changing nature of work can explain ‘demasculisation’ more than political feminism can.
But I think she’s looking at this from only a birds eye view. Zoom in a bit…
The office space isn’t necessarily egalitarian. Just because there isn’t physical violence doesn’t mean it’s all soft all the time.
It can be competitive, jockeying for resource and attention, competing for promotion, etc. But competition and merit are being undermined in favour of things like representation, and being seen, etc. Those are values prized by liberal feminism.
My office was a nice place to work 10 years ago, but now, we’re constantly told to be vulnerable, be kind, talk about mental health, how equity is good. Again, things prized by liberal feminism.
Whenever you have a group get together, they will express their on-average biases without knowing it. I think Hanania is one of the few people out there brave enough to call some things out, though I don’t like his abrasive style
I like Mary’s pieces a lot, but there are some mis-fires here.
I take her point that technology and the changing nature of work can explain ‘demasculisation’ more than political feminism can.
But I think she’s looking at this from only a birds eye view. Zoom in a bit…
The office space isn’t necessarily egalitarian. Just because there isn’t physical violence doesn’t mean it’s all soft all the time.
It can be competitive, jockeying for resource and attention, competing for promotion, etc. But competition and merit are being undermined in favour of things like representation, and being seen, etc. Those are values prized by liberal feminism.
My office was a nice place to work 10 years ago, but now, we’re constantly told to be vulnerable, be kind, talk about mental health, how equity is good. Again, things prized by liberal feminism.
Whenever you have a group get together, they will express their on-average biases without knowing it. I think Hanania is one of the few people out there brave enough to call some things out, though I don’t like his abrasive style
Oh dear. Ms Harrington cherry picks a few extreme examples to generalise from and either miss or misrepresent the real argument. What Mac Donald and Rufo are pointing out is that the ‘Age of Reason’, information and evidence based factual views,opinion, ideas, principles, etc, is being subverted by an ‘age of feelings’, where emotions – more of a female trait than a male one -take precedence. Fact based science, maths, technologies, etc, which supposedly exclude or disadvantage women and minorities, are denounced as ‘engines of the oppressive white patriarchy’, and standards of achievement abandoned in the name of ‘equity’.
Oh dear. Ms Harrington cherry picks a few extreme examples to generalise from and either miss or misrepresent the real argument. What Mac Donald and Rufo are pointing out is that the ‘Age of Reason’, information and evidence based factual views,opinion, ideas, principles, etc, is being subverted by an ‘age of feelings’, where emotions – more of a female trait than a male one -take precedence. Fact based science, maths, technologies, etc, which supposedly exclude or disadvantage women and minorities, are denounced as ‘engines of the oppressive white patriarchy’, and standards of achievement abandoned in the name of ‘equity’.
Women used to support the “patriarchy” because male aggression was valuable. When peace comes, male aggression is more of a nuisance. Men enjoy being warriors more than they enjoy doing spreadsheets. Women didn’t engineer the changed state of affairs. Like the men, they are responding to the new environment.
And the internet? Like vodka, it provides relief, even as it exacerbates some of the craziness.
Women used to support the “patriarchy” because male aggression was valuable. When peace comes, male aggression is more of a nuisance. Men enjoy being warriors more than they enjoy doing spreadsheets. Women didn’t engineer the changed state of affairs. Like the men, they are responding to the new environment.
And the internet? Like vodka, it provides relief, even as it exacerbates some of the craziness.
The films of St Trinian’s were there first…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0VWeuuQV-E
(I never thought that clip could ever be linked to the Taliban, mind)
The films of St Trinian’s were there first…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0VWeuuQV-E
(I never thought that clip could ever be linked to the Taliban, mind)
Journalism using hot air, extremes and parodies with a veneer of academese – to entertain and sell. Something rather more useful, honest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY&ab_channel=TEDxTalks
Journalism using hot air, extremes and parodies with a veneer of academese – to entertain and sell. Something rather more useful, honest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY&ab_channel=TEDxTalks
For quite a while now I have had the feeling that a movement will form that rejects the internet and moves on happier without it. Reading this article makes it seem like a good idea.
For quite a while now I have had the feeling that a movement will form that rejects the internet and moves on happier without it. Reading this article makes it seem like a good idea.
I agree that technology is more to blame than some supposed war of the sexes in which feminist are ahead. Honestly it feels like both men and women are getting the short end of the stick. We could bicker for decades over gender equality, but the day people reject consumerism, phony social media, and big brothers guiding hand, all hell will break loose. Don’t fret, It’s not the only way hell can break loose. We could see the obese American empire collapse from any number of “straws”.
Cheers
sandy
I agree that technology is more to blame than some supposed war of the sexes in which feminist are ahead. Honestly it feels like both men and women are getting the short end of the stick. We could bicker for decades over gender equality, but the day people reject consumerism, phony social media, and big brothers guiding hand, all hell will break loose. Don’t fret, It’s not the only way hell can break loose. We could see the obese American empire collapse from any number of “straws”.
Cheers
sandy
Historically feminisation precedes collapse.
Yep, that is one of the historical facts that keep being ignored. Lindisfarne and so many other examples are conveniently forgotten. Faking that equality “is here to stay” might just invite other more realistic cultures to dissolve ours.
Yep, that is one of the historical facts that keep being ignored. Lindisfarne and so many other examples are conveniently forgotten. Faking that equality “is here to stay” might just invite other more realistic cultures to dissolve ours.
Historically feminisation precedes collapse.
This all seems to be just a long footnote to Nietzsche.
This all seems to be just a long footnote to Nietzsche.
The Talichads are now on the Internet? Wait until they discover porn. There goes those prodigious Muslim birthrates.
The Talichads are now on the Internet? Wait until they discover porn. There goes those prodigious Muslim birthrates.
“…every facet of modern male malaise is the fault of women, and especially of feminism”
Complete rubbish. Feminism has produced huge benefits for men if they could only recognise them. Seems like they need someone to show them what they are because the lack of fathers in their lives and the cultural brainwashing they receive in school makes them blind to the advantages.
It’s obvious why so many young men are listening to Andrew Tate.
Feminism has certainly “benefitted” men. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? And not have to bother about her calves.
Feminism has certainly “benefitted” men. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? And not have to bother about her calves.
“…every facet of modern male malaise is the fault of women, and especially of feminism”
Complete rubbish. Feminism has produced huge benefits for men if they could only recognise them. Seems like they need someone to show them what they are because the lack of fathers in their lives and the cultural brainwashing they receive in school makes them blind to the advantages.
It’s obvious why so many young men are listening to Andrew Tate.
Fascinating that so few women have commented here.
This article belongs in an academic journal rather than a public discussion forum in my opinion and brings to mind Trump’s anti-intellectual comment about pizza delivery workers being more useful to society than many professors.
I never thought that I would ever say this – deep breath, here goes – I agree with Mr Trump on this point. Whew, that was difficult. I haven’t seen the quote, but if you are reporting him correctly he said “many professors” not all, therefore he was not necessarily being anti-intellectual because that leaves many others who are valuable to society, and, let’s be honest, we all know who these useless mouths are.
It is quite amazing how many of his quotes people agree with when they actually hear them.
It is quite amazing how many of his quotes people agree with when they actually hear them.
I do not like pizza but, as usual, Trump is right
The ones about Putin being a genius and allowing him to annex parts of Ukraine come to mind.
The ones about Putin being a genius and allowing him to annex parts of Ukraine come to mind.
Mmmmmm. Pizza.
I never thought that I would ever say this – deep breath, here goes – I agree with Mr Trump on this point. Whew, that was difficult. I haven’t seen the quote, but if you are reporting him correctly he said “many professors” not all, therefore he was not necessarily being anti-intellectual because that leaves many others who are valuable to society, and, let’s be honest, we all know who these useless mouths are.
I do not like pizza but, as usual, Trump is right
Mmmmmm. Pizza.
This article belongs in an academic journal rather than a public discussion forum in my opinion and brings to mind Trump’s anti-intellectual comment about pizza delivery workers being more useful to society than many professors.