Am I the only one who thinks that the night on the town was reminiscent of pre-2008 crash McBling partying? The whole thing looked like a scene from Entourage. Although there weren’t explicit PUA themes in Entourage, there were episodes which briefly touched upon looksmaxxing and certain men’s career struggles. I wonder if there’s a subset of Zoomer boys who’ve taken to the show the way their female peers have taken to Sex and the City.
I have to wonder if you read a line of Moynihan's report. It's not racist and by saying it is you're slandering him and adding another layer of confusion to the debate. Inner-city dysfunction exploded following the Great Society programs introduced early in the decade. Moynihan merely pointed that out. He was vilified then too for that, and of course, the malign trends went from bad to worse.
This is an interesting theory one I had never quite thought about.
Love the screenshot of the comment almost certainly from Return of Kings. The amount of important discussion in the manosphere that happened in that comment section cannot be overstated.
This is the first time I've read such a clear explanation of the Manosphere aesthetic. Where it comes from, what it signals, and why it sticks. And I recognised my father in it: my mum became the breadwinner and tried to keep our family afloat, and he turned resentful and controlling. The 'compensatory performance' piece landed too.
So I'm left with a genuine question. What fills that gap? If the legitimate, non-destructive paths to masculine identity keep getting foreclosed, and the Manosphere offers an answer that mostly just redistributes suffering, what's the alternative? Not as a gotcha. As an actual question.
Putting women into the 1964 Civil Rights Act shut out black men as the women flooded the labor market and snatched the jobs that would have gone newly to the black men otherwise.
There is no excuse for saying sex discrimination is the same as race discrimination. Employers have a right to prefer to hire sole providers.
Even if that is true, technology had automated the house making job most women had to do. Cleaning clothes, making food, keeping the house in order no longer took a job's worth of time. And without those things women got bored. So the bored housewives found something to do. Join the workforce.
A solution to this would require giving women something to do besides sit around bored sick.
Interesting connection and historical research and background. As someone who sees the manosphere as a crass but necessary counterweight to feminism, it's certainly food for thought.
How about as a counterweight to some of the crazier shades of feminism? Not all of it is bad, I think you're referring to the excesses of the 'social justice left' brand, which, yes, is pretty crazy.
I don't really disagree. It's a yin-yang thing, absolutely.
I don't think they're a great counterweight--they put way too much emphasis on individual action and being a player and are often sociopathic or narcissistic--but it's something.
Pretty sure cultural conservatives like Charles Murray have been saying that white people in the US are following the same path of degeneracy and declining marriage which black people followed in past decades. Unsurprising that white men are adopting similar "solutions" to those that black men adopted.
I wonder if there's an infinite loop of the form PUA -> 4b -> Prince Charming -> bored women. Bored women create aggressive men, aggressive men create anxious women, anxious women create caring men, caring men create bored women.
I don’t feel like Fuentes fans or Fuentes himself would agree with your read on him, nor would I! (And I don’t like him)
Sneako’s not a fountain bubbling with original thought, you can watch a few videos and get a gist. Tate explains himself “well” and can be understood in 4-6 hours.
But Fuentes. A month? Two months? He’s a jester. He’ll never say what he explicitly means. He deserves more nuance. If you can stomach his tirades (too depressing imo) and make it onto his humorous content you’ll understand what I mean. He’s not a written mind. He’s formulates it over 2hr+ podcasts.
They all reject the “framework”. Tate rejects it for money, Sneako because it’s all bullshit man, but Fuentes rejects it for something else closer to independence.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Nick Fuentes. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid understanding of irony a lot of the theory will go over your head.
The idea that the Moynihan report was racist was the bien-pensant liberal view, but more careful and less tribally compromised people have long argued - persuasively IMO - that the label was too summary and unfair, and in fact helped bury and taboo a lot of needed avenues of discussion for what will actually help low income African Americans. Which is why reading *checks notes (in good humor)* Katherine Dee say it was "plainly racist" was a record scratch moment for me.
This is a typical lazy leftist take on the manosphere, that completely misses the forest for the trees. Since it's leftist, the only explanations can be random cultural trends (blank slate). As opposed to certain innate tendencies in men (pursuing markers of status in order to impress women), that lead to certain convergent behaviors
I can see that but it's not really my read. She mentions how both blacks in the 60s and modern men are experiencing similar crisis of masculinity. Just blacks experienced it sooner due to discrimination. So it stands to reason without blacks inventing these manosphere solutions similar ones may have arisen anyways.
Friend reminded me of this classic, the OG PUA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuLRIMnGNoI
Am I the only one who thinks that the night on the town was reminiscent of pre-2008 crash McBling partying? The whole thing looked like a scene from Entourage. Although there weren’t explicit PUA themes in Entourage, there were episodes which briefly touched upon looksmaxxing and certain men’s career struggles. I wonder if there’s a subset of Zoomer boys who’ve taken to the show the way their female peers have taken to Sex and the City.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=woDYWWQ07BU&pp=ygUUa2FueWUgd2VzdCBlbnRvdXJhZ2U%3D
My ex-best friend has a crush on him
But #notallwomen
I have to wonder if you read a line of Moynihan's report. It's not racist and by saying it is you're slandering him and adding another layer of confusion to the debate. Inner-city dysfunction exploded following the Great Society programs introduced early in the decade. Moynihan merely pointed that out. He was vilified then too for that, and of course, the malign trends went from bad to worse.
Very good.
The diagnose is convincing. How about a solution?
Why was Moynihan's report "plainly racist"?
And more to the point, where did black 'matriarchy' come from? Absent fathers?
This is an interesting theory one I had never quite thought about.
Love the screenshot of the comment almost certainly from Return of Kings. The amount of important discussion in the manosphere that happened in that comment section cannot be overstated.
This is the first time I've read such a clear explanation of the Manosphere aesthetic. Where it comes from, what it signals, and why it sticks. And I recognised my father in it: my mum became the breadwinner and tried to keep our family afloat, and he turned resentful and controlling. The 'compensatory performance' piece landed too.
So I'm left with a genuine question. What fills that gap? If the legitimate, non-destructive paths to masculine identity keep getting foreclosed, and the Manosphere offers an answer that mostly just redistributes suffering, what's the alternative? Not as a gotcha. As an actual question.
Putting women into the 1964 Civil Rights Act shut out black men as the women flooded the labor market and snatched the jobs that would have gone newly to the black men otherwise.
There is no excuse for saying sex discrimination is the same as race discrimination. Employers have a right to prefer to hire sole providers.
Even if that is true, technology had automated the house making job most women had to do. Cleaning clothes, making food, keeping the house in order no longer took a job's worth of time. And without those things women got bored. So the bored housewives found something to do. Join the workforce.
A solution to this would require giving women something to do besides sit around bored sick.
Friedan kvetched about boredom because she was paid to do so.
Breastfeeding and Cooking from scratch has never been more valuable than in this era of chronic and pharma made disease.
Also....
Just about the time the sex revolution and dumbing down made public education untenable, except for the neediest... Came home education.
Those who can, homeschool!
deranged take lol
Interesting connection and historical research and background. As someone who sees the manosphere as a crass but necessary counterweight to feminism, it's certainly food for thought.
How about as a counterweight to some of the crazier shades of feminism? Not all of it is bad, I think you're referring to the excesses of the 'social justice left' brand, which, yes, is pretty crazy.
I don't really disagree. It's a yin-yang thing, absolutely.
I don't think they're a great counterweight--they put way too much emphasis on individual action and being a player and are often sociopathic or narcissistic--but it's something.
I have zero respect for men who obsess about masculinity. It’s stupid!
Pretty sure cultural conservatives like Charles Murray have been saying that white people in the US are following the same path of degeneracy and declining marriage which black people followed in past decades. Unsurprising that white men are adopting similar "solutions" to those that black men adopted.
I wonder if there's an infinite loop of the form PUA -> 4b -> Prince Charming -> bored women. Bored women create aggressive men, aggressive men create anxious women, anxious women create caring men, caring men create bored women.
I don’t feel like Fuentes fans or Fuentes himself would agree with your read on him, nor would I! (And I don’t like him)
Sneako’s not a fountain bubbling with original thought, you can watch a few videos and get a gist. Tate explains himself “well” and can be understood in 4-6 hours.
But Fuentes. A month? Two months? He’s a jester. He’ll never say what he explicitly means. He deserves more nuance. If you can stomach his tirades (too depressing imo) and make it onto his humorous content you’ll understand what I mean. He’s not a written mind. He’s formulates it over 2hr+ podcasts.
They all reject the “framework”. Tate rejects it for money, Sneako because it’s all bullshit man, but Fuentes rejects it for something else closer to independence.
Fuentes has legs, you’ll see him into the future.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Nick Fuentes. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid understanding of irony a lot of the theory will go over your head.
I’ve never heard or read the Moynihan report referred to as racist
The idea that the Moynihan report was racist was the bien-pensant liberal view, but more careful and less tribally compromised people have long argued - persuasively IMO - that the label was too summary and unfair, and in fact helped bury and taboo a lot of needed avenues of discussion for what will actually help low income African Americans. Which is why reading *checks notes (in good humor)* Katherine Dee say it was "plainly racist" was a record scratch moment for me.
This is a typical lazy leftist take on the manosphere, that completely misses the forest for the trees. Since it's leftist, the only explanations can be random cultural trends (blank slate). As opposed to certain innate tendencies in men (pursuing markers of status in order to impress women), that lead to certain convergent behaviors
I can see that but it's not really my read. She mentions how both blacks in the 60s and modern men are experiencing similar crisis of masculinity. Just blacks experienced it sooner due to discrimination. So it stands to reason without blacks inventing these manosphere solutions similar ones may have arisen anyways.