More proof feminism has jumped the shark

H/T Paul Elam by way of The Private Man:

We are living through one of history’s great transitions – a major shift in social and cultural consciousness where institutions and structures of the past have been turned on their heads.

The 5,500-year history of domination and control is coming to an end, and it’s clear we need a new model to replace it. Men seem to be caught between these two worlds: the old culture for which we’ve been trained, and the emerging culture we have yet to be prepared for.

Yawn.  Feminism has already thrown all it has at us, and if anything the tide is turning the other way.  They have completed their long march through the institutions of the west, and they hold all high ground.  Yet they haven’t made the kind of radical change they have always dreamed of.  These guys can grovel at the feet of feminists all they want.  We already know that won’t do them any good.

What these guys really need to do is go out and kill something and eat it (In accordance with all relevant fish and game laws of course).

This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Feminists, Manliness. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to More proof feminism has jumped the shark

  1. meme says:

    it’s pretty much all out war between the sexes now. Each searching online for reasons to justify their anger. It’s the most excitement any of them have probably felt in a long time. Once the newness of the current theories and attitudes wear off a new round of backlashes will take over (in the form of whatever gets people riled up in new ways).

    C’est la vie!

  2. Twenty says:

    Any time your theory is that a pattern of 5,500 years is about to change, you might want to re-think it. You might be right, but that’s not the way to bet.

    My theory is that there’s nothing new under the sun, and that feminism has been tried many times before. The reason it’s hardly recorded (if at all) is that it quickly destroys any society in which it takes root, and that ancient record-keeping was spotty at best. “Enjoy the decline”, as I’ve heard someone or other say.

    Incidentally, on the subject of the turning tide: I think that one of the most important things that the Roissys and Rooshs of the world do is to encourage men to think about what they want in a woman … and to recognize that if a woman isn’t good enough for them, it’s better to remain uninvolved. A huge part of feminism is the pretense that male characteristics (aggression, competition, achievement) in women are attractive to men. A big part of the rollback will simply be men saying, matter of factly: “Your career doesn’t impress me, but it does seem like it’s going to interfere with your ability to be a good wife.”

  3. Elam’s crew is all over this.

    But the word needs to get out more.

  4. javert says:

    I’m losing faith in the manosphere. Here and everywhere else people are just having pity party whining and lamenting how badly the “adorable creatures” have strayed from their path, all while just babbling about how awesome it would be to reintroduce the chastity belts again and willfully lock ourselves in the prison that marriage 1.0 was just because it were even worse for women. When the plan to please women is “keeping them occupied enough by having them gaving birth to a child each year all the way to the double digits so they can’t even have a moment to think about all the fun such as work men get”, you know the manosphere is still on identity crisis.
    Seriously, can’t we look forward to something different that marriage 1.0 while still getting us out of the trap that marriage 2.0 currently is? We don’t have to go backwards into history, we are better than that. We now have paternity testing, ability to control the gender of our children, pills (can’t wait for the male pill to enter the market) and a deep understanding about human nature both in its impulses and its strategies. This time not only we can try, we can engineer something different.

  5. Twenty says:


    This time not only we can try, we can engineer something different.

    You sound like a commie. I mean that quite literally; the assumption of the malleability of human nature and the perfectability of society lies at the very heart of all leftist social engineering, of which communism is perhaps the purest example. No attempt to build on that foundation has ever ended well.

    I suggest that rather than worrying about going “backwards into history”, you should wonder if your culture will go forwards into the future. Given TFRs, disincentives for male investment in society, and the general pansy-fication of the West, I’m guessing it won’t.

    As for “a deep understanding about human nature”, I got bad news for you, chief: In the first place, that understanding isn’t new, it only looks new in the face of 50 (100?) years of feminist and leftist lies. In the second, understanding will not save you.

  6. “We don’t have to go backwards into history, we are better than that. We now have paternity testing, ability to control the gender of our children, pills (can’t wait for the male pill to enter the market) and a deep understanding about human nature both in its impulses and its strategies. This time not only we can try, we can engineer something different.”

    It’s evolving.

    The male birth control pill will have an deep impact on our entire civilization. I suspect that certain powers are looking to squash it.

    We need a place to rant, talk, discuss, and get righteously angry about current social trends and expectations that are quite harmful to men. This is the current state of the Manosphere.

    The next phase is close. Witness Glenn Sacks and his efforts. He is getting laws changed and presidential candidates are beginning to understand the political agenda that is important to men.

    We’re not going backwards.

    We are going forward.

  7. krakonos says:

    There are records about collapses of societies and empires and even anthropologists investigated that issue. I cannot remember any book but you could ask uncle Google.

  8. Looking Glass says:

    Hehe, over at Athol’s place, I found a new term for the “Red Pill”: “Stark Realization Shark”. I like it and thought I’d share.

    Privateman is right, though. A male birth-control pill will be a game changer. We’ll see less teen pregnancies and less overall. Though there’s going to be a serious risk for permanent damage to guys compared to gals, in that regard. But it should actually lower prostate cancer risks (though raise others).

    As to javert’s ideas. Well, it’s not Marriage 2.0; we’re entering Marriage 4.0 and we’ll be going into 5.0 as the laws & technology change. We just have to encourage the behaviors that keep our society existing and thriving, not falling to the wayside of history.

  9. Höllenhund says:

    ” all while just babbling about how awesome it would be to reintroduce the chastity belts again and willfully lock ourselves in the prison that marriage 1.0 was just because it were even worse for women.”

    LOL. The most common complaint about the Manosphere I see is that it rejects Marriage 1.0 and traditional gender roles.

  10. dragnet says:

    It’s pretty funny to see white knights and manginas doubling down even as fewer and fewer women identify as feminists. As young women become complacent and satisfied with their gains, the feminist movement is running out of gas—so now these guys are seeking to refuel it using men.

    It won’t work.

  11. Opus says:

    All periods in history have seen themselves as radically different from past ages. Sometimes there is reason to think that there has been a change in the Zeitgeist. Frequently the current age is seen as considerably worse than the one previously. These changes are, however, I would suggest, when seen against Human Biology, trivial and temporary and no more than cultural shifts. Human Nature has not changed. What, in my view, we have in the west is, behind the empowerment rhetoric, the continuation of the Pedestalisation of Females; supported by (self-abasing pussy-worshipping) Male Chivalry. This has been enabled by the success of the west. The success of western Science, has done two notable things. It has firstly enabled women (by reason of small families) to be released from the one thing they are naturally better at – giving birth to and bringing small children, thus (secondly) enabling them to move into the easier and largely irrelevant occupations formerly a male preserve (corporate cubicles). This is part of the conspicuous consumption of the west, where effectively we thumb our nose at the third world (largely Muslim) who cannot afford such luxuries whilst we humiliate them by flaunting our so-called Democracy. We have no enemies who are any serious threat to us. It is part of the Dialectic of Enlightenment that in our success we begin to destroy ourselves, by creating a generation of unfulfilled men and bad-tempered women. Far from being a triumph for women against an evil and fictious patriarchy, Feminism (which rides on the back of male invented technology – and is unthinkable without it), has revealed the irrelevance of women. Given that keeping them at home, and bored to death with little to do, what else could be done but promote them into positions for which by reason of strength and other mental qualities they are entirely unsuited for e.g. the military, the law etc. The anti-discrimination laws seek to make it illegal to acknowledge this fact. Like the Emperor, one can see the clothes are threadbare if not entirely absent, but no one may say so.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    This conference is good news. It demonstrates that men’s anger is filtering out of the Internet niches and into the main stream of culture. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been such a conference, physical or virtual, before. Now, why would these people decide to have one now? I suggest that the ongoing responses to Hymowitz’s “man up!” article is a factor, because for the first time on any mainstream media comments thread the anger, and the facts, that are kicking around the net suddenly showed up. Hymowitz claims she was shocked by the anger. Well, she ain’t seen nothing yet.

    Consider this teleconference to be a form of damage control, whereby the various wings of male feminism attempt to deflect and/or co-opt the righteous anger of men. Consider it a belated response to the men’s gathering in Switzerland less than a year ago.

    If the feminists and others weren’t a bit alarmed, this conference would not be happening. That’s good. They should be alarmed. Later on, they’ll be more than alarmed, they will be frightened of what they have created with decades of misandry.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Male birth control pill… damn straight! My baby-gravy, my choice!

  14. Steffen says:

    That comment about past attempts of feminized society being lost reminded me of the prophet Amos slamming rich pampered women by calling them “fat cows of Bashan” and going after usury as well.

    “Nothing new under the sun,” indeed.

  15. Doug1 says:

    Which laws is Glenn Sachs getting changed privateman? I’d really like to know.

  16. dragnet says:

    @ Opus

    Don’t agree with your post in it’s entirety. As far as I can see, women can make perfectly capable and credible lawyers, mathematicians, soldiers, etc. I’m 27—I’ve never lived in a world where women weren’t pursuing and excelling in their chosen careers. They really can do just about anything men can do.

    The real question is one of cost/benefit. Sure, women can be mathematicians and CEOs…but why should we as a society devote precious and finite resources toward encouraging more women to do something that seems to come naturally to a much greater number of men?

    Gov’ts and societies owe it to their populations to be good and efficient stewards of human and economic capital. Spending billions to make sure math departments, sports programs, etc have 50/50 gender ratios is not a worthwhile allocation of scarce and hard-won capital. Part of what culture should do is encourage natural proclivities that are productive—not constrain them in a bid for social engineering.

    [D: Agreed. Opportunity isn’t a problem. Trying to re-engineer humanity at all costs is.]

  17. Doug1 says:

    Personally I find the April directive from Obama’s Dept of Education that all universities getting any federal funding MUST change their standard of evidence in disciplinary hearings in rape and sexual assault accusations to the 50.1% preponderance of the evidence standard to be truly horrific. This truly is guilt unless proven innocent anytime a girl feels like leveling an accusation, for any reason, against a guy she’s slept with and later becomes pissed at, of feels she needs to cover her sluttiness or her cheating on her bf when she sobers up the next day.

  18. greyghost says:

    Yeah the male pill is the key and it is lights out.

  19. Paige says:

    I have never used a hormonal contraceptive and I never will. That stuff is poison.

    If guys want a hormonal contraceptive then I am not going begrudge them that but I will caution them to be careful about messing with their hormones. I imagine that a male pill would actually suppress testosterone which probably wouldn’t help ones sex life.

  20. greyghost says:

    The male pill as being tested is non hormonal

  21. Oak says:

    There’s also an injection… and the injection is in a place I never let needles go. It puts in a chemical blocking agent that kills sperm. Male birth control is an excellent idea. Although personally, I’d have everyone sterilized at birth, and then make them earn a parenting license to have it reversed.

  22. Opus says:


    Allow me to respond to your post.

    I did not say that women were incapable of being Doctors, Lawyers, etc but I did suggest that they are unsuited to such occupations. If I may enlarge on that:

    From my own observation (as a lawyer) women can be a nightmare to work with. I am not suggesting that men do not have their faults, but Women need special pleading. They have to be treated differently. They think about sex constantly. If you fail to notice them , they become upset: If you do notice them ditto. They never have any idea how to dress and blame you if you (cannot help) but notice, but if you fail to notice they become upset. They use their charm when it suits them – I have ‘suffered’ the sort of sexual attention: baring of breasts, crotch -grinding on my hand and other uncalled for bodily contact which if a man were to attempt would lead to instant dismissal and a visit from the Police, and of course they invent allegations of sexual harrassement whenever they choose, usually when they are feeling unnoticed and undesired – but some women foregoing charm become Uber-aggressive; in a way that men aren’t, and bear as much resemblance in their aggression to a man as a Transvetite does to a woman. They demand extra holidays which are taken either for the sake of their famly (maternity leave – xmas shopping – other excuses regarding children) or just take as sickies – no man dare ever enquire into the genuineness of the alleged infirmity – its a owman’s thing!. In cases they seem to be unable to see both sides of an argument nad thus unable to judge the strength and weakness of their own case. This is particularily evident in both Family Law (Even when representing the man they seem to be supporting the woman) and in Criminal Law where there is an allegation by a woman against a man, they tend to lose touch with reality (by abandoning the idea that their should be evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in support of the Prosecution) – their feelings seem to be all that matters. They seem to lack the ability to make decisions always seeming keen to defer to other authority before doing anything thus enlarging cases and making them slower and more expensive than needs be. They form cliques and factions and send others to ‘coventry’ male or female – and ther rudeness and arrogance is at times breathtaking. They seem to be endlessly petty and take offence at the least thing. I do not exclude the Judiciary from these criticisms either. In terms of career they do not have the drive that men have, as they do not have the necessity to succeed, and seem to be endlessly posing. That at least is my observation.

  23. greyghost says:

    Opus your discription of the experience of women in law looks a lot like my experience with women in the military. I left in 1996 and the female “crap” was getting growing with their numbers. It must be a comeplete mess now.

  24. MarkyMark says:


    The War of the Sexes is over; women WON! By any objective metric, women won. They’ve totally remade society in their image, and they did so with men’s help. Who can snap their fingers, bitch, and get laws passed on the spot, hmmm? We can’t, but women do it all the time. In any case, the War of the Sexes was won by the women.


    [D: They have won every battle, but are losing the war.]

  25. Opus says:



    I wondered whether my second posting was ‘rather’ a rant. Re-reading Dragnet’s response to my first post I am entirely in agreement with him and Dalrock about proper allocation of resources; indeed John Stuart Mill – rather a feminist hero – makes exactly the same point in ‘On the Subjection of Women’.

    I have no idea what the solution to the problem is, but I think a start would be for some senior Politician, preferably female, to criticise the Misandry which emanates from so many Women Writers and their Male Supporters these days.

  26. ElectricAngel says:

    There’s more proof that feminism has lost its appeal. Every day, walking up the ramps at a train station in a major metropolitan area, I see ad posters for the new season of Bridezillas. Each poster features an actual quote, with an asterisk showing saying “Yeah, we can’t believe she said that either.” The shaming of outrageous behavior as a major media standard has returned.

    Perhaps I’ll take a few photos and send on to Dalrock.

  27. Looking Glass says:

    @ Paige: for men, it’s likely the “male pill” will actually have little effect on total hormone levels. Female birth control substances work by effectively mimicking pregnancy, as women have a natural way to stop ovulation. Men don’t have a similar, natural method by which sperm production is stopped. That’s why we’ve seen little past chemical castration that stops sperm production. The few paths available for the male variety will mostly be in blocking a key-component in synthesis at the testes. This will likely have a limited down-regulation on testosterone, but should leave most of the rest of it unharmed. However, there’s a serious chance, depending on the path of action, for permanent damage, aside from it taking at least 6 weeks after discontinuation for sperm production to be fully functional. It’s not an easily unwound problem, and I’m not sure it’s going to be actually doable, but it might be.

    @ Opus & dragnet: what you’re seeing is women in high-stress environments. In those situations, their testosterone levels are far higher, which causes those women to act in a very unusual manners. This is what complicates male/female interactions in what are generally “Alpha male” fields.

    And I do agree that encouraging people to study & excel at what they’re good at is the important goal for society, so long as what they’re good at isn’t destroying it. When we try to force people into fields they’re not good at, we all end up worse off for that mistake.

Comments are closed.