sharp-rosee - Tumblr blog

sharp-rosee · 12 hours ago

Text

Why "male loneliness epidemic" is a male supremacy psyop

I said in a former post that the "male loneliness epidemic" is not real and is a male supremacy psyop, and I want to explain more broadly why it is.

Manosphere

If you don't know about it yet, there is a thing called "Manosphere", a name that stands for a group of communities created by men and oriented towards men. Manosphere is composed by incels, redpill, blackpill, MGTOW and MRA ideologies.

Incels are "involuntarily celibates", men who want to date but can't do it. The term was created by a woman called Alana (invcel) and mostly refered to people who felt isolated and incapable of forming romantic relationships or trapped on a dying relationship.

Redpill stems from the Matrix scene where Neo has to choose between the redpill and the bluepill, being the redpill the one who will awaken him. The whole ideology started to take its form in pick up artistry forums such as SoSuave, and states that in order to mate and get laid a lot you have to become a "high value male", while also understand "female nature". The original big three exponents of these ideology were Rollo Tomassi, Chateau Heartiste and Roosh V, but nowadays only Rollo remains moderately relevant.

Blackpill is the most pessimistic and nihilistic version of the redpill, it is tied to incels but is not exclusive of them. It focuses on biological determinism, and states that the most important thing on mating is looks.

MGTOW started as an independent community, with a first manifesto written in 2001 in a male forum. In the manifesto they advocated in favor of a society with enforced gender roles and a smaller state. But nowadays they are connected to redpill and blackpill. It is mostly overlooked, but in spanish communities there are also two other manifests, MGTOW 2.0 and MGTOW 3.0. I don't know if there is a fourth one, but both help to understand the transition MGTOW has made over the years and how manosphere ideologies have been adopted by this group.

MRA stands for Men's rights activism, also called Men's rights Movement (MRM). The father of the movement is Ernst Belfort, who wrote against women's rights and the "legal subjection" of men, in response to feminists and John Stuart Mill. Nowadays is also tied with redpill, given that prominent figures of the movement promote or believe in redpill ideology, such as Paul Elam or Karen Straughan.

In 2014, Cassie Jaye who was allegedly a feminist by that time, did a documentary on MRA called "The Redpill". It's not clear why she called it that way, but it is suspected that it was with the purpose of dragging more people on the redpill. It is also said that she received money from Theredpill subreddit. The documentary was international, since it reached both english and spanish audiences (I don't know much about other languages/countries). It exposes a lot of problems men face, such as dying in war, losing custodies and domestic violence, but never explains what MRAs do to help those men.

That term

Once you become familiar with all these communities, you start to see how they are all the same. They share the same stats, the same studies, the same terms, the same narratives. The only thing that changes is the label, if the members can or not to have sex with women, if the members want or not to have sex with women, and if the members "care" or not about society.

One of the core terms that is transversal to almost all communities is "Hypergamy". (The central one on MRA is Gynocentrism). And is a tricky one.

Men on these communities are used to gaslight and belittle external people, but also they bully each other constantly. In spanish, for example, MGTOW ones used to dedicate each other long livestreams and called each other cucks, betas, manginas, etc. One point of discussion and "artistry" on the manosphere is hypergamy. It has inspired long videos, livestreams, books, blogspots and debate among its members. Entire communities have been divided over this concept, and others have been created.

In their videos and "private" spaces they call any woman hypergamous. MacKenzie Scott divorced Jeff Bezos, and she was called hypergamous by these people, arguing that she planned it all and ignoring that she divorced because Jeff cheated on her. Women who date men who are more attractive than them are hypergamous, women who date men who are less atractive than them but have money are hypergamous, women who date men with less education than them are hypergamous. Women who rate men "below average" (another male bullshit story) are hypergamous.

Women's nature is hypergamous and male nature is not, even if men also leave their geriatric wives for 20 year old women, even if men also cheat with a more attractive mistress, even if men marry more educated women, even if men marry women with more money. They are not hypergamous, they are polygamous, but also don't mind to settle with a woman given that "women choose" and men barely have any chance with women.

Are you getting it, right? Anything a woman do is hypergamy. Except when you call them out and tell them it's all fake. Then, they come with studies on hypergamy. "How can you say that women are not hypergamous if this study say that they 'marry up'?". Suddenly the term only applies to marriage.

Here's the deal. Hypergamy is a term used by social scientists that is related to marriage and the act of marrying up in social class, annual income or status. Since superior education in the west is a high sign of status (repeated two times in a list of status signals among men and women across 14 countries), studies on the subject account for income and degrees.

The research found that women are married to men who earn more than them, but don't have more education than them, so men are "marrying up" in status. Such trend has no substantially changed among decades. Nevertheless, it is recognized that it doesn't translate on men being the breadwinners, given that most marriages are dual income.

But it's enough to them, even when the second they provide those studies they make it clear they are being dishonest. The seeds have been planted; women are choosing only the rich ones to marry, leaving poorer men single. The one who is debating them and the ones watching the exchange, only have to start to believe that female hypergamy is rising, being amplified by technology and being extended to other aspects of relationships.

The Lie

The manosphere term is not the one that social scientists use. It is whimsical and doesn't have sense...on the surface. The magic is on repeating that women are hypergamous, that they will choose all the time only a few men and let the rest sexless, single or childless, that sexual revolution and women's freedom of choice is a disaster and contrary to civilization. If the lie is repeated enough times, people will start to believe it.

And well, it worked. It worked so well that feminists, instead of checking the data, see the male strategy and debunk the nonsense, decided to repeat the same lie. Women are choosing better, women are making men single and sexless! Pussy Power! There is literally a book on this.

White supremacists also adopted the term, and the manosphere also adopted white supremacists perspective; they quote the work of Roger Devlin, Sexual Utopia in Power from time to time.

Normal people also believe in it. They say that there is a male sexlessness crisis, singleness crisis, marriage crisis, birthrate crisis. And women are the problem, they should lower their crazy standards, they should stop being delusional.

Women are rating 80% of men below average! They are delusional! Their simps make them believe they are 10/10!

It's extremely easy to fall in the rabbit hole. They start hearing about a disbalance on the distribution of sex, or dating, or in dating apps matches. They start hearing about a singleness crisis among men, and they have already accepted that such disbalance, such crisis is a modern thing, because no one seemed to talk about it in the past. (right?)

They hear about male loneliness and mental health issues, and they understand that the disbalance is a bad thing. So they are one step away from start believing that mating is a process that should be regulated and controlled by the state, religion or cultural norms. Like, one click away from watching Jordan Peterson saying exactly that.

The manosphere have been repeating this idea for more than 10 years. At least one decade feminists had to stop this shitshow and they didn't, which is surprising given that the whole thing is perfectly summarized in the white supremacist essay I linked above.

The ones who spread and believe in this idea don't care about the data, they want the narrative, and it can be used to promote diverse agendas. So, instead of debunking and calling out, they prefered to use the narrative for the feminist cause and they are now losing. Women are losing. Women lost.

The truth

While the General Social Survey graph from 2018 is made viral again and again on social media, the same survey on more recent years is completely ignored.

The most repeated bunk of the last couple years.

Reality is that in both 2021 and 2022, the sexless in those years where below the 20%, which is consistent with former years. Most men and women were having sex. In 2021, women even reported being slightly more sexless than men.

The survey also included a variable to measure people who were sexless for the last 5 years. Less than 10% of men and women reported being sexless.

It is also repeated constantly that there are more single men than women, and it is suggested that it is because women are part of soft harems with High Value Males. This idea has been repeated so many times that even researchers have adopted it.

But the truth is that this disparity has been a thing for decades, even a century.

Before the sexual revolution, when everyone was married (right?) there was also a disparity between single men and single women. The key here is that the disparity exists between young people, and the most near explanation is age gap relationships. But also, nowadays people report less interest in having a relationship.

I't curious how the "women and men are different" crowd swear that single women are looking for casual dates with "high value males" when it has been proven over and over than men have a higher sexual drive.

Dating apps don't seem to aggravate any human mating tendency, hook up culture has remained the same since the 80's. Here's a deep dive on dating apps and dating.

Academic naiveté(?

Manosphere gives a final push for the hypergamy narrative by quoting the experts on the matter. And somehow, researchers don't have a problem with it.

It has been said that there is or will be a mating crisis among educated women, because there will be a shortage of high income husbands. They say "women don't marry because there are not enough economically attractive men". And with "don't marry" they understand "remain single and childless".

Such crisis doesn't exist. Marriages between college educated people are the longest ones, even there are less widows and divorces. Educated women are more likely to be married than the opposite.

Their focus is on marriage, and I don't know why. They willfully ignore that between 40% and 60% of children are born outside of marriage in most European countries and how american women see children as a need and marriage as a luxury.

In the US, the poor are cohabitating and having children together, but they can't afford to marry or are afraid to marry and divorce just a couple of years later. Women are mating and having children with men that barely can pay bills, but they keep pushing for the "women are too picky" narrative.

The real crisis is happening among classes, the poor are poorer and the rich are richer. They are sharing their assests with each other and forming strong families while the poor live paycheck to paycheck.

Ironically, equality and women's choice have achieved what these men are apparently longing for. The secretary marrying her boss or the nurse marrying the surgeon is becoming a thing of the past. The doctor is marrying other doctor, the boss is marrying a woman with a Phd. Notice how rich men are not dating down, even when rich they marry rich women, not the cashier 20 years younger than them.

To counteract this they quote Leonardo Dicaprio and his creepy behavior, without noticing that the man is not marrying or having children with those women. While even richer men are married and with kids with women at their level.

The future

It's clear to me that the agenda is settled, and they will do anything that can reinforce it. They won't be able to use sexlessness or singleness gap as a thing, so they have created a new term: "dysphoric singlehood". And they will start measuring it soon.

The stats, the terms, the memes will change. But the core will remain the same; "women will destroy civilization" at worst and "women's nature cause pain to men -and only men- and it should be controlled or put in check" at best. And there are and there will be groups who will propose tight control over women as a solution.

Conclusion

It is important to understand that evolution doesn't allow everyone to reproduce. It's nothing new that some men and women didn't pass their genes, this was a thing in the past and will always be.

The influence of women on reproduction is discussed, but given that even in cultures with arranged marriages the future wife has a word on it and mothers, who are also women, have also a said in who the husband should be, I highly doubt that there was a long period of time in human history where women had no choice at all. But even if that scenario is true, the whole genetic side of mating still plays a role on it; female bodies reject embryos who are not fit or genetically compatible with them.

Mating, having sex and therefore, reproducing is not a right. The whole point of evolution is that only fit subjects can make it, and the few remaining ones are left behind. This process is not being blow up by technology or women having more freedom.

The most important lesson about data on human relationships, is to be careful with the word "single", because most of the time it is about unmarried people. There is a default focus on married people and anyone who is not married is put in the "single" cage and overlooked. The second lesson here is to not believe a great narrative that relies on only one source or one result obtained in only one given year.

Finally, I think this whole deal exposes feminism as a fraud. They are not rooting for women. Women have been terrorized and killed by men who genuinely believe that there is a crisis caused by women. Instead of thinking on this, they chose to integrate the same narrative for ideological purposes and give women a false sense of power and victory over men.

130 notes · View notes