Everyone wants status, especially men. Status goods are highly valued, as they signal success and secure peer respect. The Ivy League and beautiful girlfriends are both examples of scarce status goods. The average American guy now struggles in both departments. This may be contributing to hostile sexism.
It was always my impression that men frequently pursued status because being higher status made them much more attractive to women.
Different subcommunities have different status ladders. It is why middle/junior high school is such hell, the subgroups are in the process of splitting apart. By high school and later (in the US) you have different subgroups, each with their own status ladders.
It disheartens me when women and girls drop out of educational opportunities when males make them uncomfortable. This is how these little mofos win! Debate teams train skills for future attorneys or even judges, these are powerful roles that shape the policies of our society.
Tell crude jokes about incels and community dicks. Film them if the male students start to strip in public. When there is a will, there is a way. You go girls!
While I concur with you, not everyone is or should be comfortable in a hostile environment. As a male, I didn’t adjust to fighting back until about high school—when I joined the football team in self-defense (long story). I think I overcompensated with aggression for decades—maybe still am. (Yeah, I’m a short guy. Wanna make something of it? 🤪)
The defenders of the status quo point to this hazing as a “valid” weeding out process of those who “can’t take it.” Which is an argument I reject, even in contact sports and debate clubs. Stripping isn’t a valid debate technique and would disqualify any debate team or attorney in court. Ad hominem is routinely taught as an invalid argument in debate. I digress.
I would be sad if we had to condition every gentle soul to endure and strike back. But I do admire anyone who develops the guts to fight fire with fire. Since I can’t paste the screen cap of X née Twitter here, I’ll share the text of one that I adore:
——
Devon Voix (Mashing 22C)
@DevonVoixVO
I just saw a girl streamer get harassed by a dude she beat, and she popped off with "I'm going to fuck your dad and give him a child he'll actually love."
Hahahaha! Thank you for sharing. I accept all of this. Though personally I’ve always used option c. I’m never rude, I stay perfectly polite, and I competed for many years in debate! 🙂
True, institutions should tackle these hostile behaviors. The problem is, we need people, especially women who care about tackling sexual harassment to climb to the top and gain power in the first place.
If nobody wants to get dirty and wrestle with pigs, the pigs will win. Just look at our Supreme Court as an example.
There are various ways to wrestle with pigs, with different levels of dirtiness. But I think the most important thing is to not drop out because some assholes don't want you to be there. You need to stick around and rub your success into their ugly faces.
Well that's why men are now complaining that women's eyes are glued to their phones and earbuds are in their ears all the time. How can you intimidate visually someone who is not looking or intimidate aurally someone who can't hear you? Women have x'd out men in the public sphere and they are PISSED!
People with even a little bit of social intelligence should know that a phone in someone's face politely signals "leave me tf alone" by now.
In my personal experience, men who complain about women's phones are the ones who "don't get a hint". They are usually comically lack of self awareness and social skills, and they are angry that women hanging out in public spaces aren't available to entertain them any time they want, or "make connections with strangers", or whatever they tell themselves women are obligated to do as payments to exist in public. I don't know where this entitlement come from. Wishful thinking stemming out of desperation, perhaps.
My speculation is that these men's desperation and loneliness make them look out for potential female partners 24/7, and they think women operate the same way. It's unfathomable to them that other people might have priorities and thoughts (like, project deadlines or how do I make this dude go away without causing a scene) other than mating, unlike themselves.
Since people are very good at smelling desperation and romantic intentions, yet generally want to stay polite, phones and earbuds are the most frequently used shields.
Men who complain about women's phones tell a lot about themselves.
<i>On top of this, 1 in 5 Gen-Z Americans are identifying as LGBT. It’s not obvious that all are queer in practice, but this at least suggests diminishing demand for men.</i>
A minor point, but without additional supporting information, this statement is at best a red herring and likely wrong. Unless among women the rate of identifying as LGBTQ is (much) greater than that among men, this affects both the supply of and demand for (heterosexual) men equally.
According to <b><a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/470708/lgbt-identification-steady.aspx">Gallup</b></a>, the fraction of bisexuals in Gen-Z is similar to the PRRI survey, but the fraction of gay men (3.4% of Gen-Z) > the fraction of Lesbians (2.2%). I cannot quickly find what fraction of Gen-Z is male vs. female. The <b><a href="https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_tables.php?component=pyramid">number of men exceeds the number of women in Gen-Z</a></b>, so men in this age group are at a disadvantage without considering anything else, especially when considering traditional age differences within heterosexual relationships, but the LGBTQ issue is, as stated above, a red herring and probably cuts the other way.
It's not that they identify as LGBT, but rather LGBTQ+. The "plus" stands for anything from ACE (asexual) to demisexual (look it up) and a huge range in between. So no, we're not talking exclusively gay or trans here.
Agreed, but the difference does not actually have to be large to have significant population effects. Even small changes in the sex ratio can have large effects because of how they tip the balance. So yeah, the question of whether there are sex differences in LGBTQ+ identification is a really critical one here.
The "plus" in LGBTQ+ stands for anything from ACE (asexual) to demisexual (look it up) and a huge range in between. So the numbers don't mean what people think they mean.
"half the LGBTQ fraction is B, which coulc" s/b "half the LGBTQ fraction is 15%, which could"
Apologies for the links making the comment hard to read. I was trying to document my assertions by embedding them. In any future comments, I will try to recall that that does not work here.
I would like to know your thoughts on women’s status seeking. It seems to go underanalyzed on the whole, because it’s easier to talk about men’s socially destructive tendencies (and more politically palatable).
While I think that this is a good article, I think that it is flawed because it fails to examine the root motivators behind status-seeking behaviors, which I believe are economic. You suggest that the resentment expressed by young men is ultimately because they are inherently status-seeking, which paints them as irrational. I don't think that this is the case.
It would be difficult to deny that young people are pursuing prestige careers for economic reasons. This includes both young men and women. Here in the U.S., the middle class is shrinking and the distinction between workers and asset holders is becoming more and more distinct. There is a plethora of evidence to this being the case, and a very clear-cut example would be the growing gap between productivity and wages. Simultaneously, the application environment for both education and jobs has gotten more competitive. Immigration, increased women in education/the workforce, and simple population growth have all increased the absolute number of applications for different positions. The result is that students and workers get a raw deal. If you have a prestige career, you get to avoid some of the negative impacts of this environment because your compensation is typically above your needs. I don't think young guys’ pursuit of these careers is purely driven by status because of this economic reality.
It's interesting that you bring up dating within this context. If you look around at different manosphere-type locations online, a term you might see come up is “hoeflation.” Young guys online are constantly complaining about how they must work harder and harder to go out with girls. While the term is certainly sexist, I think it hints at an underlying truth that women have a tighter constraint in relationships when it comes to material resources. During the childbearing process, women are often down for the count for a considerable period. They are certainly better off if they can be provided for during this period, even if that is not something they necessarily want. If we assume that women have a rational, material interest while finding relationships, is it hard to believe that these men’s resentment could be downstream from big picture economic issues?
I’m sure this comment comes off like a jumbled mess, but my main point is that you should consider the potential of larger machinations that are pulling the strings to people’s behaviors. “Men are just naturally status-seeking” is about as rigorous as “women just love being in the kitchen,” and is probably just as sexist. A deeper view is necessary if we want to work towards healing the relationship between men and women.
I think hard work and determination go a long way, too. Is it possible that many expect things to be awarded to them without much effort on their parts? I’m a university professor and I see that with expectations around effort versus grades expected.
Women are attracted to men who are confident and are working to get somewhere with their lives. Chronically aggrieved men are on the opposite side of that spectrum
Fascinating dispatch from another planet! In my neck of rural America, degrees are nothing but kindling when the power goes out. A man who can wield a chainsaw and repair things is priceless. You can get entertainment on TV (thanks to the linemen!)
Men who can fix things and build things are seriously underrated in young women's selection criteria. It isn't something they tend to consider, til after they've chosen someone and bought a house and realize what an enormous amount of work it is to maintain a house and yard and by then it's too late (especially if she has ambitions to renovate). My husband has many great qualities, but one of the qualities I appreciate and admire the very most is his ability to build and fix anything...replace an HVAC system, build a shed, fix the plumbing, wire up a new outlet...all of that is no problem. Yes you can of course hire someone to do those things, but at great cost and on their timeframe.
Our HVAC died last year and after getting multiple quotes over $20k to fix it, my husband decided to just do it himself, and did. I told him he had banked about five years worth of "husband of the year" credits for that one.
And no, I would not be able to do most of this stuff even I knew how. I'm fairly handy, but a lot of that kind of thing just requires a certain level of strength (especially grip strength) that I don't and will never have. Women absolutely should put way more stock in a man having these kinds of skills, it will make you household so much more pleasant and safe feeling, and save a ton of money, over the years. My mom always tells me how jealous she is because her spouse has no tech/handyman skills. She always had aspirations for magnificent landscaping but didn't have someone to build all the infrastructure it requires for your plants to thrive, like I do.
I agree it doesn't factor into their decisionmaking when choosing someone, at all. But then AFTER they get married and suddenly they have a mile long list of all the changes they want to make to their house/apartment, they realize how important it is and envy women with husbands who can do that stuff. And God forbid the power goes out for an extended period of time or hear goes out in winter etc...suddenly it's immediately and instinctively clear how important that shit is.
Kind of similar to how people where I live just LOVE to snark on and bitch about guys who drive trucks...they assume they're all Trump supporters or don't really "use" their trucks (totally untrue)...yet who are they immediately looking for to help pull them out when their car is stuck in the mud or snow, and they need to haul something or move furniture?
feminism is essentially, men pay the price women benefit, women gain honor at the expense of mens humiliation .
Resentment is natural because women are being artificially propped up in the workplace and academia and this is unfair to men. But it is what feminists want.
Not LGBT but LGBTQ+. The "plus" stands for anything from ACE (asexual) to Demisexual (look it up) and a huge range in between. So no, 20% are not gay or trans.
THIS IS HELL!!! People are becoming mentally unstable and ill that they have to specify which letters they are on the gender theory distopy. YOU ARE HUMAN, A MAN OR A WOMAN
“Women only want men who are entertaining!” Most journalism on dating/mating - when it talks about "'men' this...." and "'women' that...." fails to pick up on the huge INTRA-sex variations between what I call the More and the Less Desired. "Many people of both sexes are capable of feeling that the sex and romance cards are stacked against them. Others are prettier, richer, smarter - or just luckier - than you. It has long been understood that male desire for a woman tends to be driven primarily by her physical attractiveness whereas women place much greater value on personality traits like confidence and ‘charm’ – especially when they have led to social success and/or wealth. A study on the dating app Tinder found that women “liked” only 4.5 percent of male profiles. Nature it would seem is also unfair in its distribution of this rare 4.5% of male animal magnetism. There is ‘unfairness’ in the mating experience for both sexes." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired
It was always my impression that men frequently pursued status because being higher status made them much more attractive to women.
Different subcommunities have different status ladders. It is why middle/junior high school is such hell, the subgroups are in the process of splitting apart. By high school and later (in the US) you have different subgroups, each with their own status ladders.
Agree. So when I say the Ivy League , that’s short hand for academic competition
It disheartens me when women and girls drop out of educational opportunities when males make them uncomfortable. This is how these little mofos win! Debate teams train skills for future attorneys or even judges, these are powerful roles that shape the policies of our society.
Tell crude jokes about incels and community dicks. Film them if the male students start to strip in public. When there is a will, there is a way. You go girls!
While I concur with you, not everyone is or should be comfortable in a hostile environment. As a male, I didn’t adjust to fighting back until about high school—when I joined the football team in self-defense (long story). I think I overcompensated with aggression for decades—maybe still am. (Yeah, I’m a short guy. Wanna make something of it? 🤪)
The defenders of the status quo point to this hazing as a “valid” weeding out process of those who “can’t take it.” Which is an argument I reject, even in contact sports and debate clubs. Stripping isn’t a valid debate technique and would disqualify any debate team or attorney in court. Ad hominem is routinely taught as an invalid argument in debate. I digress.
I would be sad if we had to condition every gentle soul to endure and strike back. But I do admire anyone who develops the guts to fight fire with fire. Since I can’t paste the screen cap of X née Twitter here, I’ll share the text of one that I adore:
——
Devon Voix (Mashing 22C)
@DevonVoixVO
I just saw a girl streamer get harassed by a dude she beat, and she popped off with "I'm going to fuck your dad and give him a child he'll actually love."
Bro, how the fuck do you recover from that.
7:29 PM • Dec 21, 2021
Hahahaha! Thank you for sharing. I accept all of this. Though personally I’ve always used option c. I’m never rude, I stay perfectly polite, and I competed for many years in debate! 🙂
True, institutions should tackle these hostile behaviors. The problem is, we need people, especially women who care about tackling sexual harassment to climb to the top and gain power in the first place.
If nobody wants to get dirty and wrestle with pigs, the pigs will win. Just look at our Supreme Court as an example.
There are various ways to wrestle with pigs, with different levels of dirtiness. But I think the most important thing is to not drop out because some assholes don't want you to be there. You need to stick around and rub your success into their ugly faces.
💯 There's no better revenge than thriving.
Well that's why men are now complaining that women's eyes are glued to their phones and earbuds are in their ears all the time. How can you intimidate visually someone who is not looking or intimidate aurally someone who can't hear you? Women have x'd out men in the public sphere and they are PISSED!
People with even a little bit of social intelligence should know that a phone in someone's face politely signals "leave me tf alone" by now.
In my personal experience, men who complain about women's phones are the ones who "don't get a hint". They are usually comically lack of self awareness and social skills, and they are angry that women hanging out in public spaces aren't available to entertain them any time they want, or "make connections with strangers", or whatever they tell themselves women are obligated to do as payments to exist in public. I don't know where this entitlement come from. Wishful thinking stemming out of desperation, perhaps.
My speculation is that these men's desperation and loneliness make them look out for potential female partners 24/7, and they think women operate the same way. It's unfathomable to them that other people might have priorities and thoughts (like, project deadlines or how do I make this dude go away without causing a scene) other than mating, unlike themselves.
Since people are very good at smelling desperation and romantic intentions, yet generally want to stay polite, phones and earbuds are the most frequently used shields.
Men who complain about women's phones tell a lot about themselves.
<i>On top of this, 1 in 5 Gen-Z Americans are identifying as LGBT. It’s not obvious that all are queer in practice, but this at least suggests diminishing demand for men.</i>
A minor point, but without additional supporting information, this statement is at best a red herring and likely wrong. Unless among women the rate of identifying as LGBTQ is (much) greater than that among men, this affects both the supply of and demand for (heterosexual) men equally.
(Note: <b><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/nearly-30-gen-z-adults-identify-lgbtq-national-survey-finds-rcna135510">NBC</a></b> reports that the figure is closer to 30% than 20%: it also mentions an earlier Gallup survey which appears to be consistent with the numbers reported in the post. In the PRRI survey that NBC reports on, half the LGBTQ fraction is B, which coulc also increase or decrease overall demand for men, while, presumably, not affecting supply).
According to <b><a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/470708/lgbt-identification-steady.aspx">Gallup</b></a>, the fraction of bisexuals in Gen-Z is similar to the PRRI survey, but the fraction of gay men (3.4% of Gen-Z) > the fraction of Lesbians (2.2%). I cannot quickly find what fraction of Gen-Z is male vs. female. The <b><a href="https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_tables.php?component=pyramid">number of men exceeds the number of women in Gen-Z</a></b>, so men in this age group are at a disadvantage without considering anything else, especially when considering traditional age differences within heterosexual relationships, but the LGBTQ issue is, as stated above, a red herring and probably cuts the other way.
It's not that they identify as LGBT, but rather LGBTQ+. The "plus" stands for anything from ACE (asexual) to demisexual (look it up) and a huge range in between. So no, we're not talking exclusively gay or trans here.
Agreed, but the difference does not actually have to be large to have significant population effects. Even small changes in the sex ratio can have large effects because of how they tip the balance. So yeah, the question of whether there are sex differences in LGBTQ+ identification is a really critical one here.
The "plus" in LGBTQ+ stands for anything from ACE (asexual) to demisexual (look it up) and a huge range in between. So the numbers don't mean what people think they mean.
Corrections to the above:
"half the LGBTQ fraction is B, which coulc" s/b "half the LGBTQ fraction is 15%, which could"
Apologies for the links making the comment hard to read. I was trying to document my assertions by embedding them. In any future comments, I will try to recall that that does not work here.
I would like to know your thoughts on women’s status seeking. It seems to go underanalyzed on the whole, because it’s easier to talk about men’s socially destructive tendencies (and more politically palatable).
While I think that this is a good article, I think that it is flawed because it fails to examine the root motivators behind status-seeking behaviors, which I believe are economic. You suggest that the resentment expressed by young men is ultimately because they are inherently status-seeking, which paints them as irrational. I don't think that this is the case.
It would be difficult to deny that young people are pursuing prestige careers for economic reasons. This includes both young men and women. Here in the U.S., the middle class is shrinking and the distinction between workers and asset holders is becoming more and more distinct. There is a plethora of evidence to this being the case, and a very clear-cut example would be the growing gap between productivity and wages. Simultaneously, the application environment for both education and jobs has gotten more competitive. Immigration, increased women in education/the workforce, and simple population growth have all increased the absolute number of applications for different positions. The result is that students and workers get a raw deal. If you have a prestige career, you get to avoid some of the negative impacts of this environment because your compensation is typically above your needs. I don't think young guys’ pursuit of these careers is purely driven by status because of this economic reality.
It's interesting that you bring up dating within this context. If you look around at different manosphere-type locations online, a term you might see come up is “hoeflation.” Young guys online are constantly complaining about how they must work harder and harder to go out with girls. While the term is certainly sexist, I think it hints at an underlying truth that women have a tighter constraint in relationships when it comes to material resources. During the childbearing process, women are often down for the count for a considerable period. They are certainly better off if they can be provided for during this period, even if that is not something they necessarily want. If we assume that women have a rational, material interest while finding relationships, is it hard to believe that these men’s resentment could be downstream from big picture economic issues?
I’m sure this comment comes off like a jumbled mess, but my main point is that you should consider the potential of larger machinations that are pulling the strings to people’s behaviors. “Men are just naturally status-seeking” is about as rigorous as “women just love being in the kitchen,” and is probably just as sexist. A deeper view is necessary if we want to work towards healing the relationship between men and women.
The Ivy League is overrated…most men are not interested in the Claudine Gay dog and pony plagiarism show.
Two links with divergent views:
https://open.substack.com/pub/arnoldkling/p/can-marriage-be-saved
https://open.substack.com/pub/humancarbohydrate/p/the-neediest-female-on-the-internet
I think hard work and determination go a long way, too. Is it possible that many expect things to be awarded to them without much effort on their parts? I’m a university professor and I see that with expectations around effort versus grades expected.
Women are attracted to men who are confident and are working to get somewhere with their lives. Chronically aggrieved men are on the opposite side of that spectrum
Fascinating dispatch from another planet! In my neck of rural America, degrees are nothing but kindling when the power goes out. A man who can wield a chainsaw and repair things is priceless. You can get entertainment on TV (thanks to the linemen!)
Men who can fix things and build things are seriously underrated in young women's selection criteria. It isn't something they tend to consider, til after they've chosen someone and bought a house and realize what an enormous amount of work it is to maintain a house and yard and by then it's too late (especially if she has ambitions to renovate). My husband has many great qualities, but one of the qualities I appreciate and admire the very most is his ability to build and fix anything...replace an HVAC system, build a shed, fix the plumbing, wire up a new outlet...all of that is no problem. Yes you can of course hire someone to do those things, but at great cost and on their timeframe.
Our HVAC died last year and after getting multiple quotes over $20k to fix it, my husband decided to just do it himself, and did. I told him he had banked about five years worth of "husband of the year" credits for that one.
And no, I would not be able to do most of this stuff even I knew how. I'm fairly handy, but a lot of that kind of thing just requires a certain level of strength (especially grip strength) that I don't and will never have. Women absolutely should put way more stock in a man having these kinds of skills, it will make you household so much more pleasant and safe feeling, and save a ton of money, over the years. My mom always tells me how jealous she is because her spouse has no tech/handyman skills. She always had aspirations for magnificent landscaping but didn't have someone to build all the infrastructure it requires for your plants to thrive, like I do.
That will never happen. Women today are ULTRA-WOKE and Annoying. Better to be alone
I agree it doesn't factor into their decisionmaking when choosing someone, at all. But then AFTER they get married and suddenly they have a mile long list of all the changes they want to make to their house/apartment, they realize how important it is and envy women with husbands who can do that stuff. And God forbid the power goes out for an extended period of time or hear goes out in winter etc...suddenly it's immediately and instinctively clear how important that shit is.
Kind of similar to how people where I live just LOVE to snark on and bitch about guys who drive trucks...they assume they're all Trump supporters or don't really "use" their trucks (totally untrue)...yet who are they immediately looking for to help pull them out when their car is stuck in the mud or snow, and they need to haul something or move furniture?
Your DW interview was very disheartening, not even a suggestion on how to help men, also why not send women to war.
feminism is essentially, men pay the price women benefit, women gain honor at the expense of mens humiliation .
Resentment is natural because women are being artificially propped up in the workplace and academia and this is unfair to men. But it is what feminists want.
Absolutely thanks for your analysis in fact i believe modern feminism is warping the natural way of things
We are done. 20% of my generation is LGBT. I am annihilated. Women wake up!!
Not LGBT but LGBTQ+. The "plus" stands for anything from ACE (asexual) to Demisexual (look it up) and a huge range in between. So no, 20% are not gay or trans.
EVEN WORSE!!! THIS IS A CATACLYSM!!
Not really. If everyone in the world were demisexual, for example, it would be a better place.
THIS IS HELL!!! People are becoming mentally unstable and ill that they have to specify which letters they are on the gender theory distopy. YOU ARE HUMAN, A MAN OR A WOMAN
It is ridiculous but people don't need to freak out since the "plus" after LGBTQ+ includes some "normal" stuff. How are things over there in Italy?
How are things? Completely normal. I believe LGBT has become a religion or a sect
Maybe it's "giving up", but fewer men seem "marriable."
“Women only want men who are entertaining!” Most journalism on dating/mating - when it talks about "'men' this...." and "'women' that...." fails to pick up on the huge INTRA-sex variations between what I call the More and the Less Desired. "Many people of both sexes are capable of feeling that the sex and romance cards are stacked against them. Others are prettier, richer, smarter - or just luckier - than you. It has long been understood that male desire for a woman tends to be driven primarily by her physical attractiveness whereas women place much greater value on personality traits like confidence and ‘charm’ – especially when they have led to social success and/or wealth. A study on the dating app Tinder found that women “liked” only 4.5 percent of male profiles. Nature it would seem is also unfair in its distribution of this rare 4.5% of male animal magnetism. There is ‘unfairness’ in the mating experience for both sexes." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired