#female separatism

[lebensmudewing]

I made a correction in this post, I developed a bit some things and added a new section.

Why "male loneliness epidemic" is a male supremacist psyop [corrected ver.]

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 of incels, redpill, blackpill, MGTOW and MRA ideologies.

Incels are "involuntary celibates", men who want to date but can't do it. The term was created by a woman called Alana (invcel) and mostly referred to people who felt isolated and incapable of forming romantic relationships or trapped in a dying relationship. But nowadays it is tied to a broad ideology that I will explain later.

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 understanding "female nature". The original big three exponents of this 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. That seems innocent at first sight, but this ideology also states that most men are not attractive to women, and they are having a soft harem relationship with “Chad”, a highly attractive man, in detriment to average men and creating incels in the process.

MGTOW started as an independent community, with a first manifesto written in 2001 in a male focused 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 nowadays, but they 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 it 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 r/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 it is a tricky one.

Men in 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 long livestreams and called each other cucks, betas, manginas, etc. One point of discussion and "artistry" in the manosphere is hypergamy. It has inspired long videos, live streams, 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. I remember when MacKenzie Scott divorced Jeff Bezos, and she was called hypergamous by these people, arguing that she planned it all - “they marry the provider and once they secure their money, they go with someone they really like”- and ignoring that she divorced because Jeff cheated on her. 

“Hypergamy” in short, is mating “up”, but the manosphere twists this term to make it fit anything women do. Women who date men who are more attractive than them are hypergamous, women who date men who are less attractive 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 settling with a woman given that "women choose" and men barely have any chance with women. 

Anything a woman does is hypergamy. Except when you call them out and tell them it's all fake, or where is the inner consistency, given that they call marrying a poor man and a rich one “hypergamy”. Then, they come with studies on hypergamy. "How can you say that women are not hypergamous if this study says that they 'marry up'?". Suddenly the term only applies to marriage, behind are left all those theories over “Chad” being picked by all women.

Hypergamy, in academia, 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 a trend has not 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, and that hypogamous marriages, where the man has less education than the woman, are becoming more common.

Nothing about women making heartless plans on marrying with the rich one, divorce him and then mate with “Chad”, nothing about women sleeping mostly with “Chad”, certainly nothing about hypergamy being exclusively female. But it's enough for 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...

...and how everyone decided to believe it

As we have seen, the manosphere term is not the one that social scientists use. It is whimsical and doesn't make sense...on the surface. The magic is in 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, seeing the male strategy and debunking 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. 

Authorities regarded as “thinkers”, such as Jordan Peterson, and a long list of influencers also adopted the narrative and repeated it to the public. 

Normal people also believe in it, in 2019 The WaPo decided to craft and release a graph that, until today, is made viral countless times in social media, indicating that “men are in crisis” given that “ a third of them are sexless”. They repeat that there is a “male loneliness epidemic” and it’s implicit that 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 starting to believe 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 has 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. But they didn’t, because at some level, this meme also can benefit liberal feminism. 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 chose 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 were below 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 -but no one threw a tantrum over a “female loneliness epidemic”.

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 that amount of time. It indicates that there is not “soft harem” around “Chad” or “Alpha males”, but people are having sex in a 1:1 ratio, and that most of the time, for every sexless man there is a sexless woman.

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; young men are more single because their female counterparts are dating slightly older men. But also, nowadays single people report less interest in having a relationship; men are not suffering for their “involuntary celibacy”, they are not into it.

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.

It’s also said that Dating apps have caused a disaster on the “dating market”, given that women nowadays have instant access to “high value males” and can ignore average men, while they are there longing for the minimum chance. Again, the idea that women are into a soft harem with “Chad”. This idea doesn’t hold reality, it’s true that by taking into account raw data, it seems that women have much more matches than men, but the major factor ignored is the gender ratio within dating apps; when adjusting that, matches become even, again fulfilling the expected 1:1 ratio between men and women.

It’s also stated that dating apps have increased “hook-up culture”, but that doesn’t seem to be true. 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 -by prominent figures like David Buss- 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".

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

The focus also is steady on marriage, and I suspect that’s because their narrative perishes if they actually start to value mating and reproduction instead. In the US, at least 40% of all births are out of wedlock, and that figure increases if we take into account other American and European countries. Maybe women are not marrying out of “lack of economically attractive men”, but they are still reproducing with them. More bluntly: women are having kids with men that can’t buy a ring, but they keep saying that women are “too picky”.

The real crisis, if there is any, is happening among classes, the poor are poorer and the rich are richer. They are sharing their assets with each other and forming strong families while the poor prioritize reproduction since they can’t afford marriage and everything that entails.

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 -or probably it was never a thing. The doctor is marrying another doctor, the boss is marrying a woman with a Phd. 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. If we push for the truth to be known, they probably won't be able to use sexlessness or the 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’s choice is dangerous, it leads to the creation of more incel men and to degeneracy. "Women will destroy civilization" at worst and "women's nature causes pain to 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 from men over women as a solution.

Call to action

Nowadays, as I have said, this conspiracy is shared by a lot of different groups with different interests, but are more tightly enforced by male supremacists.

As feminists are interested in women's well being and freedom, they shouldn’t make male supremacists work easier by repeating their lies. Sadly, I have seen countless times feminists, here and in other places, spreading manosphere lies, mostly because it serves to a temporal sense of victory over men or because it can feed the “patriarchy hurts men too” libfem bit.

But feminism shouldn’t prioritize fantasy over reality, even if it’s rough; almost everything remains the same in the heterosexual world, women are still dating, having sex, marrying and having kids with men in large numbers. Incels are tiny outliers in the big scheme of things: nothing is rising.

Our sisters should know the truth, our nature is not contrary to civilization, our choices are not detrimental, we shouldn’t be controlled. Nature runs its course.

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. 

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

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. It doesn’t seem to be consistent with reality to believe that women are programmed to only like a few men.

About data on human relationships, I think it’s important to be skeptical from now on of every viral graph and any “too perfect and bright” theory. If it relies on a result given in only one year, it’s bunk. If it incites a moral panic, it’s bunk. If multiple sources don’t show a clear trend, it’s bunk.

Doesn’t matter if it comes from your respected professor, that influencer or popularizer that you like, that intellectual that always transforms big chunks of information into easy concepts to get. Don’t trust, they are probably wrong. If your grandma knows about it, you are late in your contact with reality by at least 20 years.

[theimmigrantschild]

Sad loser who wants to date her brother omg

I don't have brothers.....

[cherryvampyre]

“bbbbbut rap is good” I will shoot you 🩷

Rap fans just cannot ever admit their genre is misogynistic as hell Like look if you wanna listen to that loser tupac fine but at least acknowledge he’s a dirty scumbag rapist and that majority of rap music is trash and only talks about fucking women and degrading them

[aalexan]

seeing women come out as nonbinary and then start just dressing a certain way. and I just want to tell them that you can not shave and have short hair and not wear makeup and wear androgynous clothes and still be a woman. and the fact that people are trying to sell you the idea that you can’t look that way and still be a woman is misogynistic

[reincarnatedvaleriesolanas]

I fucking ADORE it when women PEAAAAAKKKKK and speak their truth. The fact that i saw this on tiktak restored my faith in humanity

[korns299]

Sex work debates within feminism often revolve around the tension between protecting workers and dismantling the industry. Radical feminists argue that while sex workers should be protected, the ultimate goal should be to eliminate the conditions that force women into these roles. They advocate for systemic change that addresses poverty, abuse, and exploitation, rather than merely regulating an industry that profits from women's vulnerabilities. But suddenly, when it's a 19 year old girl, she's so mature for her age, she just gets him, she knows what she's doing. Men 's dismissal of women 's safety concerns reflects a broader societal issue of control and dominance. When women take steps to protect themselves, men may mock or undermine their efforts, revealing a desire to keep women feeling unsafe. This behavior is rooted in a need to maintain power over women, making it difficult for them to assert their autonomy and independence. Radical feminists argue that sex work should not be normalized or celebrated but dismantled. While protecting workers is essential, they believe that the real solution lies in addressing the systemic issues that force women into the industry. By targeting the demand for sex work and providing women with alternatives, feminists hope to create a society where women are not exploited for their bodies. Why? Why are you for sex work? Why do you think that sex work should exist? Why do you think that there should be laws in place that protect not only the sex workers but also the pimps and sex buyers? I didnt PINGAS for this squogulous banana, it found me in The hotdog stand.I didnt PINGAS for this squogulous banana, it found me in The hotdog stand.I didnt PINGAS for this squogulous banana, it found me in The hotdog stand.! Ive had enough of Eggman always trying to peang in under my bed. The funny part of The Miscarriage shack is where the Firestar likes to slomp. Go to my house.

[fishnanigans]

Before I became a radfem, I was genuinely confused on why people became terfs. Bc to me sexualities were

Straight - attracted to cis opposite

Gay - attracted to cis men

Lesbian - attracted to cis women

Bi - attracted to cis men and women

Pan - attracted to non binary, agender, trans and anyone

So I was like, why does it matter, trans and others people stay in their lanes. Until I started reading radical feminism and realised that trans women (men) are actually trying to include themselves in every aspect of womens spaces. Then I learned how men can't be women and women can't be men.

It's crazy how much ppl lie for men.

Although I agree that alot of radfem discussion is about trans these days. I also believe that dismantling or educating others on how trans ideology harms women is the first step to feminism being taken more seriously. If ppl would realise how extremely crazy it is that men are allowed to be women and kids/women are encouraged to change their sex/have surgeries in response to their very normal and expected feelings of their body, maybe then they would realise how much we need radical feminism.

But I also find it funny how she says "radfems make slides with amazing feminist theory" then later on goes "why don't you work on dismantling the patriarchy".

Radfems are constantly talking about feminist theory's and have for years been telling yall how to dismantle the patriarchy. But yall care too much about men's feelings and not being able to date them. If you can't handle 4b or 6b4t, then I don't want to hear your opinions on radical feminism, or feminism at all.

[fairymischief]

I've noticed that men usually only see what things are on a very superficial level, and women are able to see not just what they are but what they 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯. We see the larger picture, the symbolism that men either can't see or choose to ignore.

For example, when a woman tells her fiance 4,897 times that when they feed each other cake at the wedding, to please not smash the cake all over her face. She couldn't be clearer that this is immensely important to her. He says, "Okay" - and when the time comes he smashes the cake all over her face, guffawing.

Or when a marriage is on the rocks because a wife feels consistently disrespected and unappreciated, and she gives her husband one last chance to demonstrate that he loves her - and she comes home to a trail of rose petals that lead to a sink full of his dirty dishes. And he calls it a joke.

Men in the comments of these videos say things like, "Gosh, if she gets that mad over a little frosting/a joke, he's better off without her!" But women can understand in a flash that of COURSE its not about frosting or a poor joke - because what buffoon would think that? Its about the total disregard for her feelings; the way that all these things say, "You can plead with me about something that's important to you a million times, and I'll deliberately disregard it and laugh in your face about it. Why? 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦."

And you can't get men to understand any of this. Try it. They'll just say things like, "you obviously can't take a joke just like the other woman here" and eventually trot out some misogynistic slurs. They're literally just not at a level of evolution to understand these things that are so easily grasped by women. As someone once said, "You can't speak butterfly language to caterpillar people."

[erebusvincent]

[cheeeeep]

I genuinely believe that even at the best of times a heterosexual relationship will always leave the woman dissatisfied.

Men will always lack an emotional intelligence that I believe is crucial for a woman to feel fully satisfied in her heterosexual relationship.

Even the ones who are "happy" will always make excuses and accept a certain amount of bullshit.

I am not talking about abusive relationships I am speaking on a general settling and dissatisfaction even with a "good man".

[misandresther]

[womenaremypriority]

Remember that men will try multiple manipulative techniques to turn you against 4B.

“You’ll be miserable when you’re old just like all single women!” Don’t care. Blocked.

“I’m a virgin, how does it affect me? I haven’t even been hugged.” Don’t care. Blocked.

“We’re all just glad you’re no longer sleeping around.” Don’t care. Blocked.

“Are you that angry you can’t kill babies that you’re no longer having sex?” Don’t care. Blocked.

“We’ll have sex with you anyway, you don’t have a choice.” Don’t care. Blocked.

“I didn’t vote for Trump! I’m a good guy!” Don’t care. Blocked.

4B is against male interests. Don’t be intimated by male whining in any form.

[radfemnotfemme]

CAN WE BE FR😭

[aalexan]

the fact that there’s thousands of easily accessible sites filled with videos of women being hurt and abused on camera for men to get off to and it’s considered normal is insane to me.

[fleeing-moonlight]

I genuinely cannot fathom how anyone can be romantically attracted to men, knowing what they're capable - and, statistically, guilty - of. I cannot look at a man without wondering if he has assaulted someone, if he watches women be brutally assaulted and gets off on it, if he thinks rape jokes are funny. Just the thought of being close to a man and then discovering he's a raging misogynist makes me want to never interact with any of them, just being friends with one would make me feel guilty for having ever given him the impression that he has any place whatsoever in a civilized society.