Skip to content

What Is Causing the Rise of the Male Loneliness Epidemic When It Comes to Matters of Love & Pair Bonding?

I am interested in understanding the true causes of the rising male loneliness epidemic. Broad areas of the antifeminist arena have not adequately addressed the true causes of this problem. The entire narrative needs to be overhauled and reclarified.

Dr. Jordan Peterson began on the right foot, explaining how sexually liberated societies revert to 80/20 type behaviors. This in turn leads to the toxic creation of “male haves” and “male have-nots” which, quite obviously, creates a rising loneliness epidemic in men. Loneliness epidemics are no joking matter, and sexual and familial alienation (things which men in particular know quite a lot about) are among the most painful forms of loneliness known to humankind. Although Dr. Peterson started out in the right direction, he ultimately threw men under the bus and basically 100% blamed men for this problem while all but entirely giving women a pass, saying, “If the women are rejecting the men, the women are right and the men are wrong.”

That doesn’t really make sense, does it? To begin by saying that women have all this power and influence in the sexual realm as the sexual gatekeepers of humanity, claiming that anything other than culturally enforced monogamy (the ideal of a woman for every man and a father for every nuclear family) ultimately severely damages children and society, only to then claim that the women are right and the men are wrong if women should engage in this sort of destructively lopsided behavior? This simply does not add up.

If the women are allegedly right and the men are allegedly wrong, even in the most lopsided examples of sexual selectivity, then why promote culturally enforced monogamy in the first place? Why even bring it up? Wasn’t one of the primary purposes of culturally enforced monogamy that of placing limitations on women’s rank hyper-selectivity in the mating market, specifically for purposes of ensuring a woman for every man and a father for every nuclear family? Why undercut that narrative with an entirely incoherent conclusion thereby implicitly supporting female participation in the 80/20 rule while all but entirely scapegoating the men most badly impacted by these culturally degenerate dynamics? This is the sort of incoherent nonsense that we often encounter when dealing with people whose capacity for basic logicality has been significantly hindered by rank gynocentrism. Even someone as brilliant as Dr. Peterson is not immune to this sort of overt cognitive dissonance.

The average man is romantically rejected at a rate ten times greater than the average women. That’s the average, so for half of men, it’s worse than that. The question is this: How much worse does that highly one sided dynamic have to get due to an increasingly lopsided dating market before large portions of men begin to get demoralized to the point of dropping out of the game of love and family formation altogether? Again, it shouldn’t take a genius to recognize that, given the fact things are already difficult enough as it is for so many men, it doesn’t take much worsening of those dynamics to lead to a pervasive sense of male cultural demoralization when it comes to matters of love, sexuality, and family formation—and I haven’t even begun to address the problems with the family courts. At some point, yelling at men to toughen up simply comes across as condescending.

Unfortunately, Dr. Peterson (who I otherwise believe to be brilliant, admirable, and a generally ethical person) contributes to the lie that women are the pure “face of Mother Nature” whose job is to righteously weed out bad men. According to Dr. Peterson, women are basically a righteous femi-Nazi class of evolutionarily superior beings while men are (and should be) a potentially intergenerationally disposable semi-dehumanized genetic crop. Hence, when it comes to female ruthlessness in relation to men concerning matters of sexual selectivity, anything women say more or less goes, no matter how unrealistic, unsustainable, and psychotically destructive their narcissistically self-inflated standards may in fact be. All while Dr. Peterson all but blesses women’s increasingly hostile treatment of men as subhuman trash when it comes to matters of sexual selectivity with his insidiously misleading “women right/men wrong” rhetoric.

For a man who so emphatically advertises for the Catholic Church, robustly telling young men to rush out and become Catholic, Dr. Peterson has a truly unCatholic interpretation of women’s proper role in relation to men. Out goes the Christianly “woman as man’s helper” doctrine, and in comes the “man as intergenerationally disposable quasi-subhuman genetic crop” line of argumentation—complete with the all but total scapegoating of men should men complain about women throwing themselves at the top portion of men while demoralizing the lower half of the male mating market. And although this sort of lopsided sexuality may be fairly “natural” as far as women are concerned, it’s also important to remember that genocide, racism, infanticide, incest, slavery, and fratricide are all fairly “natural” as well by historical standards. Women’s hyper-selectivity is natural much in the same manner that cancer is natural. Female hyper-selectivity doesn’t improve the fabric of society. It merely leads to single motherhood, fatherlessness, male demoralization, increasing degeneracy in the children, a rising loneliness epidemic, and cultural breakdown in general. Women are increasingly miserable as well.

Normally, devoted Catholics actually teach women about their God given responsibilities to men and children—something Dr. Peterson does not seem to fully understand. Dr. Peterson, despite his general brilliance as one of the greatest living intellectual figures of our time, appears to be too wrapped up with an underlying desire to appease the radical feminist lobbyists to actually tell women about their God given obligation to practice premarital chastity and lifelong monogamy in a more clear and direct manner. Even when he does push these virtues, he tends to slam men hardest of all while treating women as a femi-Nazi class of gender-cidal sexual selectivity.

One can only begin to imagine what this narrative does to the female ego when it comes to matters of toxic female narcissism. What could be more poisonous to the female psyche than the belief that women are some kind of intergenerational meat grinder sent to Earth for the specific purpose of eliminating bad male genetics? This idea sounds more like something from a science-fiction horror film than anything vaguely approaching the concept of sacred family values. The general notion of “women as genetic filter” has a fairly Hitlerian vibe, to say the least. If any other group were to feel this way about any other demographic, we can only begin to imagine the psychotically warped mental state that would emerge from such insidiously genocidal undercurrents.

Just imagine a Nazi saying, “If the Jews want to reproduce, they will have to pass through us first. If they fail, serves them right. And anyone who disagrees with this general pretense is a potential terrorist.” Unfortunately, people like Dr. Peterson encourage women to view themselves in precisely this manner. Not only that, there is no silver lining to female hyper-selectivity given that neither polygamous societies nor single mother societies produce “alpha children.” Anything other than the ideal of a boy for every girl and a girl for every boy does in fact damage the fundamental stability of your culture.

Although asymmetrical sexuality may have had some utility in ancient times, especially during periods of extreme resource scarcity, these attitudes and ideals no longer benefit the human race. Female hyper-selectivity is in fact a destructive force of cultural devolution at this point, not only in the mating market, but also in the realm of the divorce courts—something which people like Dr. Peterson struggle to fully comprehend. It’s virtually impossible to create the cultural foundations necessary to providing a loving father for every nuclear family while the women of your culture are actively trying to eliminate significant portions of men from the process of forming longterm pair bonds in the first place. And if anyone doubts that’s precisely what women are in fact trying to do, just talk about these concerns and see what sorts of insults come your way.

The other day, I had some crazy person (one of many—there are so many of them these days) slam me for allegedly misrepresenting the teachings of the Catholic Church while addressing the damaging issue of asymmetrical sexuality. Sorry, folks, the Catholic Church actually does teach that premarital chastity and lifelong monogamous marriage are in fact virtues. If you don’t know this, I don’t know what planet you are on, but it’s certainly not Earth. And no, the lifelong celibacy practiced by priests and nuns is not particularly relevant to the discussion concerning the rising male loneliness epidemic and the ongoing breakdown of male/female gender relations and basic family values.

And as far as the Seven Deadly Sins go, which of the Seven Deadly Sins are causing women to feel they are “too good” for a significant portion of the men? Are the women filled with pride, envy, lust, jealousy, wrath, gluttony, sloth? All of the above? There are nearly four billion men in the world. What level of pathological narcissism is actually required for a woman to believe that she cannot find a husband because no singular man available to her can possibly meet her psychotically unrealistic standards? Although people might ask the same thing of men, men aren’t the ones with the unrealistic/hyper-selectivity problem when it comes to matters of mate selection.

Dr. Jordan Peterson isn’t the only one who is a bit lackluster when it comes to this particular topic of female accountability in the feminine realm. Many of our female antifeminists come across more like doomsday cheerleaders than successful agents for moral change. After letting their own feminine realm go to hell over a period of decades, many of these ladies stand on the sidelines and cheer, “It’s only going to get worse! Abandon ship! There’s nothing that can be done at this point! Save yourselves!” Instead of raising dysfunctional girls and then advising men to abandon ship, these ladies could simply teach girls about their God given obligations to men and children. With female leadership like this, who needs the civilizational undertow of cultural decay and satanic demoralization?

In actuality, female hyper-selectivity in the mating market does not produce alpha-children. Polygamous societies do not produce alpha children. Having five baby mamas does not produce alpha children. It’s beyond comprehension that we would even need to explain this to anyone. Female hyper-selectivity, in any of its primary manifestations, is not the “gift” to the human race that some people purport it to be. Rationalizing women’s hyper-selectivity in the mating market won’t make your civilization stronger. Female hyper-selectivity in the mating market produces subpar offspring, fatherlessness, and de facto polygamy (which is degenerate in of itself as it creates violent and/or otherwise dysfunctional offspring). Female hyper-selectivity will run your civilization straight into the mud.

There are those who will say, “The women will fool around with the alpha-seeds before settling down with the beta-needs! Hence, the women can have their cake and eat it too!” Telling a huge portion of men to deal with a high level of romantic alienation for the majority of their teens, twenties, and early thirties, only to then get the “reward” of pair bonding with women who are settling for them after those women have spent years of their lives living it up with higher status men. Only to then face the potential risks of the family courts. It’s simply not an attractive narrative and it does in fact demoralize a large portion of men. It’s difficult for many men to feel deeply enthused about these dynamics. And yes, this does make many men feel rather lonesome.

It shouldn’t be outrageously shocking that an ever growing percentage of women telling men that the institutions of husbandhood, fatherhood, and marriage are no longer important might lead to a male loneliness epidemic, not only due to adult men’s increasing loss of those sexual and familial roles in their own lives, but also due to the ultimate fatherlessness problem that comes along with women’s sexual and familial estrangement of men. It also shouldn’t come as a surprise that the more women tell men that the culture of “someone for everyone” no longer exists (all while branding anyone who discusses the ideal of a loving woman for every man as a potential terrorist), the more increasing portions of men begin to feel sexually, socially, and familially alienated in relation to their society. Of course, if you portray husbandhood, fatherhood, marriage, and the ideal of a boy for every girl and a girl for every boy as “outdated” and “bad,” then you are obviously going to create a growing portion of sexually, socially, and familially alienated men.

Throw in the fact that people keep slamming men with the message that the economy won’t be needing them in the near future (due to the ongoing robot revolution), and you are basically creating a catastrophic social problem in which both the women, and the economy itself, have teamed up against the sons of your civilization. The message is loud and clear. They are attacking the men sexually, familially, economically, and socially. And then, they have the nerve to blame the rising male loneliness rate on “video games.” And as for those who blame men’s use of the internet and social media for the rise of the male loneliness epidemic, all while portraying such men as lazy shut-ins, it should be said that women use the internet and social media quite a lot as well.

The other day, I had yet another madman suggest that we need to weed out large portions of male genetics by encouraging either outright polygamy or “multiple baby mama” scenarios in the name of improving the human genome. And these are some of our antifeminists, folks. For the love of God, get it through your closeted femi-Nazi/gender-cidal skulls—there is no modern day situation where either of those outcomes are proven to produce superior offspring. Also, imagine telling that narrative to the children of your civilization: Welcome to Earth, kids! A large portion of you boys are genetically disposable! When you grow up, you will be treated like intergenerational garbage! And that’s a good thing! If you think this will produce good cultural outcomes, loving citizens, and a generally functional society, think again. You will raise the most murderously nihilistic/anti-social boys humanly imaginable with a narrative like that.

Female hyper-selectivity merely produces the destruction of the ideal of a woman for every man and a father for every nuclear family. And as anyone with a functioning mind knows, the loss of a woman for every man and a father for every nuclear family does not produce legions of alpha children. For those who don’t understand this, just look at the quality of the offspring born into either polygamous societies or single mother type societies. We established, a very very long time ago, that absolute monogamy (see J.D. Unwin’s Sex & Culture if you are not familiar with the terminology) produces superior children who grow up to demonstrate lower rates of social dysfunction and diseases of despair. Anyone who hasn’t got the memo by now was clearly born yesterday.

Aside from Dr. Peterson, who I otherwise greatly admire, there are others who have botched the narrative on the male loneliness epidemic as well. For example, there are those who refuse to blame women for their role in damaging the fabric of the mating market with their participation in the 80/20 rule, all while embracing a rather boneheaded understanding of cultural libertarianism which says that as long as people aren’t killing, stealing, slandering, or vandalizing, they cannot possibly be doing any wrong in relation to their civilization.

Of course, this insidiously dishonest narrative ignores the reality that men, women, and children are three meta organs in a meta organism called civilization, and as any honest person knows, all an organ has to do in order to make the other organs sick is to not do anything at all. Improper inaction poisons the meta organism of civilization just as badly as improper action. In other words, women absolutely can do significant harm to their civilization’s wellbeing simply by mismanaging their sexuality. And yes, this includes the concept of women wrongfully starving a significant portion of men of either wives or girlfriends, thereby radically destabilizing the proper sexual and familial cultural foundation within a given society, all while embracing entirely unrealistic and ultimately culturally destructive expectations regarding what type of men they actually deserve.

There are those who will say, “It’s not the asymmetrical pair bonding in the mating market that’s causing the loneliness epidemic in men! It’s single motherhood and fatherlessness that are the real problems!” Well, actually, it’s both. But either way, the single motherhood issue is actually the same problem as the asymmetrical pair bonding issue because if you had actual symmetrical pair bonding there wouldn’t be any single mother households because there would literally be a woman for every man and a father for every family. Anyone with a basic understanding of second grade level mathematics should be able to understand this. For those who still somehow fail to comprehend these basic truths, keep trying.

Then there are those who claim that men are alienated and killing themselves because men lack male friends. Although there’s a parcel of truth in most things, this line of argument is ultimately offensively dismissive to say the least. If women were increasingly suicidal, lonesome, and sexually and familially estranged, wouldn’t it be a bit calloused if the men were to say, “That’s not our fault! It has little to do with the fact that we men are shunning these women in the mating market or throwing them out of their own homes and marriages! Why don’t the women form some kind of female knitting club instead of relying upon sexual intimacy and familial companionship for their sense of self worth?” This sort of response ultimately sounds maliciously condescending. It also sounds somewhat homosexual. It’s hardly an adequate solution.

Many of our female antifeminists won’t even blame women for irresponsibly having children out of wedlock, a behavior which is clearly proven to create subpar offspring. That’s how little accountability some of these women have when it comes to the female sphere of sexuality and the home. All too many women have no basic human decency when it comes to teaching girls how to go about proper family formation in order to fulfill their moral obligations as women in relation to men, children, and civilization. They simply don’t know how to raise a society of proper daughters. Then, after largely failing to comprehend how to raise proper/marriageable daughters in the first place, they all too often advise men to go MGTOW in order to deal with the low quality women that they themselves created. But don’t you dare complain about the difficulties of the mating market if you’re a man. If you do, some of the other antifeminists will attempt to scapegoat you by claiming that you have a “victim complex.”

Given that most people these days don’t understand the extreme basics of the meta organs/meta organism paradigm concerning men, women, and children, this means most people have no clue how to raise proper daughters. They simply cannot wrap their minds around the generally self evident reality that men and children actually need women to fulfill three or four highly specific tasks, much in the same manner that the body relies upon the heart. If you don’t understand this, good luck watching your culture drive itself straight off of a cliff as the entirety of the feminine realm crumbles into a state of general chaos and discord.

If you want a society of single motherhood, abortion, fatherlessness, a rising male loneliness epidemic, rising rates of anti-natalism, and rising rates of anti-familism, all at the same time, then congratulations, that’s precisely where you’re headed. All in the name of “sexual liberation.” Furthermore, anyone who dares to so much as suggest that women are not properly managing their power, influence, and responsibility in the feminine realm will then be wrongfully labeled as some kind of potential terrorist. All in the name of progress.

I am endlessly astonished by the fact that so many people entirely fail to grasp just how grotesquely twisted this entire situation has become. Your society is demonizing lonesome men as the newly defined dregs of society, glorifying abortion and single motherhood, increasingly normalizing fatherlessness, and promoting female adultery and female-filed divorce in the mainstream media. Those of us who have some remaining shred of human decency are merely trying to help ensure a loving woman for every man and a loving father for every nuclear family, all so as to maintain some semblance of basic family values and common sense morality in an increasingly demonic world.

Somehow radical feminists, and others, have promoted the idea that women are crucially and irreplaceably important to men and children, all while utterly raging at men and children for even remotely suggesting that either men or children might need women to help them in a few hugely important and utterly irreplaceable ways by fulfilling a set of specific female roles and obligations in relation to men and children. This combination of demanding ultimate female importance while denying any sort of irreplaceable female responsibility to men or children is so murderously incoherent as to make one wonder how the hell people could become so dishonest, unethical, and willfully mental, all at the same time. So much for that whole “women as the wise and purifying face of Mother Nature” theory.

For those who don’t believe the staggeringly obvious truth regarding the interconnectedness of the male and female meta organs in relation to the larger meta organism known as civilization, just imagine what would happen if men failed to maintain the infrastructure (roads, waterlines, gas lines, heating systems, fuel production, steel mills, trains, planes, shipping yards, etc). I know it’s extremely hard for the radical cultural libertarians to understand this given that logic and intelligence are clearly not their strong points, but there are many ways to weaken and destroy a civilization from within that go way beyond their utterly sophomoric definitions of so-called liberty and individualism.

How might women destroy the fabric of society not only through improper action but also through improper inaction? Women could create a sub replacement fertility rate (in fact, they already have). This damages the stability of the Western world. Women could entirely demoralize half or more of men by creating a dating marketplace that is so lopsided that it merely isn’t worth it for a significant portion of men to get involved. This would perniciously undermine the very sexual, social, and romantic foundations necessary to proper family formation. Women could fail to properly serve their husbands, thereby destroying the institution of marriage, which would (in turn) harm men and children alike. All of these problems are more or less currently happening. And yes, some of these problems are currently contributing to the male loneliness epidemic. After all, growing up with few siblings, in single mother households, amidst a brutally cutthroat/largely anti-male dating market might just cause a growing portion of men to become increasingly lonesome and demoralized.

The idea of women teaching other women about their God given obligations to men and children appears to be an entirely foreign concept to many modern day women. Even many female antifeminists seem to have no idea where to begin, as though they just landed on planet Earth all of two weeks ago and the idea of “women mentoring women and girls” is simply way too much to handle. All too often, even the non feminist types will blankly stare back at you, as though completely dumbstruck, while saying, “Women? Teaching girls about their obligations to men and children? But what if they don’t listen?”

What if they don’t listen? Do you ever hear men ask this question about other men? Men are given infinitely harder tasks—building canals, fighting wars, resurrecting entire cities, felling trees, and much much more. Do you ever hear the men say, “Men? Teaching other men and boys about their God given responsibilities to women and children? But how? What if the other men don’t listen?” We pretty much never hear men give this sort of answer. We only ask three or four extremely basic things of the women. And still, all too many of them can’t seem to grasp the concept of teaching girls about their obligations to men and children. It’s somewhat stunning. Meanwhile, we ask men, “Can you put a man on the moon, ASAP?” And the men instantly yell back, “Yes! Absolutely!” And then the men actually make a competition to see who can do it in the best and most efficient manner humanly possible.

And for those who still cannot comprehend why women engaging in asymmetrical pair bonding doesn’t produce alpha children. Do you actually believe women breeding with non-monogamous males who have five baby mamas and then bounce between households produces superior offspring? Do you have zero understanding of reality? Have you not even remotely studied the outcomes of those situations? Are you completely and totally unaware of anything you are actually talking about? And as for polygamous societies, are you completely and totally unaware of the fact that these societies produce high rates of violent offspring? What planet are you even on if this is all new information to you? And how can you folks promote such murderously destructive blatantly idiotic nonsense with a straight face?

Meanwhile, all we ask of our women is to pair bond with one man each, shag him until they die, maintain a replacement fertility rate, and do a few basic chores that require nothing more than a sixth grade education. And yet, somehow, the women still can’t seem to organize themselves, even when the fate of their civilization largely depends upon it.

Would you toxically gynocentric types be so kind to the men if the men were to suddenly mismanage the masculine realm in the same manner that women are currently mismanaging the feminine realm? Would you make excuses for the men rooted in utterly soulless concepts of “external temptations” that magically eliminate all male accountability in the same manner that you do for the women? Of course not. The toxically gynocentric types reserve this level of dishonesty, manipulation, and cultural perniciousness for female centric concerns only.

For those of you who say, “But not all men contribute to the infrastructure.” That’s entirely beside the point. The point is that we actually recognize when things go wrong in the masculine realm. When mistakes are made, we actually take them seriously by publicly debating how to address them. The feminine realm, on the other hand, is run with a general sense of pervasive rudderlessness.

It shouldn’t take a genius to understand that when women fail to maintain the feminine realm in an ethical manner that it is actually just as bad for society as it would be if men were to fail to maintain the sewage system and the electrical grid. And as we all know, the feminine realm is sexuality and the home (as women are the primary sexual gatekeepers of the human race). Anyone who says there is only an external masculine realm of power and influence (infrastructure) while there is no internal feminine realm of power and influence (sexuality and the home) is either a lunatic or a bald faced liar. None of you would actually be dishonest enough as to blame women if men were to fail to pave the roads and fix the waterlines, all while saying that it was all women’s fault for putting up with men’s incompetence in the first place. Only with the feminine realm do you toxically gynocentric lunatics use such blatantly dishonest lines of argumentation.

So now that we have established that women can poison a society by acting in a manner akin to organ failure (harming a culture not only through improper action, but also through improper inaction), while also recognizing that women largely control the feminine realm of sexuality and the home (as a parallel to how men control the masculine realm of infrastructure), is it finally possible for people to begin to address the true causes of the male loneliness epidemic? That is, unless people want to dishonestly claim that only men influence society through a masculine realm while the feminine realm doesn’t even exist in the first place and therefore has no power, influence, or persuasion in relation to men and children to begin with.

Some people in the antifeminist arena blame men for not holding women accountable for the equivalent of female cultural organ failure in the feminine realm. Only, when men do blame women for this problem, in order to teach women accountability, men are then incoherently slammed all over again for allegedly taking on a “male victim complex.” People start screaming, “Don’t blame the women! Only a weak man blames women!” Excuse me, but how do you hold women accountable without the possibility of blame? It doesn’t even make sense.

So let me get this straight. The men are to blame for not blaming the women (because this is spineless and fails to teach women accountability). But if the men blame the women, then men are also wrong because this represents a male victim complex? As usual, we see that even portions of the antifeminist arena seem to adore creating unactionable double-binds which leave men all but entirely powerless to do anything without being slammed in one way or another. All while still somehow protecting women from any accountability and responsibility in relation to society.

Some people blame pornography and video games for the rise of the male loneliness epidemic. But this is about as absurd as blaming cats, drugstore romance novels, and ice cream for the existence of old maids. Yes, it’s true that hardcore pornography does not fit into the premarital chastity/lifelong monogamy based conceptualization of morality. However, it’s a bit farfetched to suggest that pornography in of itself would be causing men to entirely give up on their dreams of love, family, and fatherhood.

I suppose we could blame cats and romance novels for giving women a false sense of relationship. Soap operas (and Danielle Steel) are satiating our women to the point of sloth. Only with men would people dare to use such shallow and boneheaded lines of reasoning. What’s infinitely more likely is that the ethical quality of modern day women is so totally demoralizing to men that many men are using pornography and video games as a form of self medication in order to help get their minds off of the tragic state of modern womanhood.

Then we get people saying, “Don’t infantilize the women!” Oh really? Don’t blame the women for their mismanagement of their own feminine realm of sexuality and the home? All while somehow not infantilizing the women? How is this even possible? And don’t blame the women for how they are using their power in the feminine realm to badly influence society—literally using their power in the feminine realm to create a male loneliness epidemic by unleashing the ancient problem of the 80/20 rule, all while we would never accept this line of argument regarding any dereliction of duty from men concerning the male realm of infrastructure? All while somehow not infantilizing the women?

Can people cut the malarky with the “blame the women!/don’t blame the women!” double-bind? Which is it? Are men cowards for not blaming women? Or idiots with victim complexes for blaming women? Both? Really? How murderously idiotic is our society becoming? Can anyone square this circle for me? I’m pretty repulsed with the elaborate contradictions seen all over our culture, even within the antifeminist scene to some extent—the willful nonsense. Few people are honest about these issues.

And remember, we blame men for screwing up the masculine realm of infrastructure (on the rare occasion that even happens), no matter how insanely hard it is. Making deals with hostile neighbors, pulling oil out of the earth, building coal mines, shipping life saving products across oceans. Do it, men! No excuses! Meanwhile, our women are all too often complaining about having to pick one man each in order to form a proper family. All while the women scream that they are simultaneously “irreplaceably important” to men and children (while somehow demanding that women should have no obligations and responsibilities in relation to men and children, all at the same time). If only women could make love to their husbands with the same consistency that men ship fuel across the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, nobody can even address the feminine realm of sexuality and the home without legions of bastard-idiots jumping up and saying, “Don’t blame the women! That’s the sign of a victim complex!” Only to have the same people who blame men for blaming the women say, “Why aren’t you blaming the women!? You can’t teach women accountability to society regarding the role they play in the feminine realm unless you teach them about blame!”

It’s also worth pointing out that there is something a bit unnerving about a culture that keeps screaming in men’s faces, “Don’t develop a victim complex! Otherwise, we will hate you!” On one hand, this might be excellent advice. On the other hand, that’s precisely what an incredibly abusive person (or an incredibly abusive society) would say as they were abusing the hell out of another demographic. Of course, the modern West is utterly terrified of the fact that men might awaken themselves to the fact their society has been, and continues to be, sexually, familially, economically, and socially abusive to men. Men have been treated as an intergenerationally disposable subhuman genetic crop (mere human doings, not human beings). There’s nothing quite so frightening as recognizing that we have in fact created a large underclass of people who just might have some fairly understandable reasons for hating our guts.

A proper civilization requires an inspirational foundation myth. It’s part of what keeps people enthused about the prospect of investing in their own society. And civilizations aren’t the only thing that need foundation myths. The institution of the nuclear family specifically requires an inspirational foundation myth as well. Once upon a time, God made a boy for every a girl, and a girl for every boy. There is someone for everyone. Love is real and love conquers all.  If we destroy these ideals, we unleash our worst possible selves. Those who claim these ideals are “unrealistic” have no clue what they are talking about. It’s the striving for the unobtainable that makes us better people. Is it any wonder many men are feeling increasingly lonesome?

As far as the topics of male and female accountability go. Are the men going to blame women for putting up with male incompetence the next time an oil spill happens? The men will say, “It’s not our fault, ladies! It’s your fault, for putting up with our incompetence!” Yeah right. So why are people using this utterly insane line of reasoning on the women? Let me get this straight. When men mismanage the infrastructure, that’s men’s fault. But when women mismanage sexuality (they are the sexual gatekeepers) and the home, that’s also men’s fault.

I had some complete lunatic yelling at me the other day, “But not all men are responsible when an oil spill happens!” No kidding, Sherlock. That’s entirely beside the point. The point is that when things go wrong in the masculine realm, men actually recognize it and take it seriously because men recognize women and children are depending upon them. When things go wrong in the feminine realm, on the other hand, modern day women have no sense of accountability in relation to men and children whatsoever. For those who don’t believe me, look at how many women are actively trying to reform the family courts (vanishingly few). And of those involved, how many are making any headway whatsoever?

Can people stop gaslighting the hell out of men with every double-bind humanly imaginable? And as for those who still say, “But women need to have high standards in men!” The only way that makes sense is within the confines of absolute monogamy. In our grandparents’ generation, most of the men married in their early twenties. So, between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one-ish, the women tried to snag the best guy they could get, all while holding “high standards.” After a few years of courting, everyone paired off one for one, and from that point on, the ideal was “in sickness and in health, until death.” It wasn’t about making men endlessly strive, for decades on end, in hope that they might finally win over a woman with a moderate case of narcissistic personality disorder and a wretchedly high bodycount only to then face the perils of the divorce courts.

There’s nothing high standards about women throwing themselves at men who are out of their league while narcissistically screaming in men’s faces that 85% of men are “below average.” There’s nothing high standards about birthing half of kids out of wedlock and filing for divorces in mass for obscenely shallow and petty reasons, all at the expense of men and children. There’s nothing high standards about scapegoating your sons for a male loneliness epidemic when the cause of the problem is primarily rooted in female sexual and familial immorality in the feminine realm. The feminine realm should run as smoothly as the masculine realm’s infrastructure. If the feminine realm isn’t running as smoothly as our waterlines, roads, and shipping yards, something is most certainly amiss.

Sometimes it feels like many of the men of our modern day civilization are dealing with a good cop/bad cop situation. The feminist women are the bad cop. Then the antifeminist women are the good cop who tells them, “I deeply sympathize with your pain. Aren’t they jerks? Here’s a band-aid, and no, there’s nothing we can do about it.” Then in come some other antifeminist men and women with the strange double-binds. And although the Jordan Petersons of the world are doing their best to lend a helping hand, even they all too often get the narrative cripplingly wrong. Could people do a worse job addressing the true causes of the rising male loneliness epidemic? Maybe, but they sure as hell would have to work at it.

Please follow and like us: