A striking example of America's gerontocratic bias, and one that attracts remarkably little attention, is age-restricted housing. The Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 created an exemption to the Fair Housing Act to permit overt age discrimination in housing. It was this law that led to the proliferation of 55+ communities around the country. In some places, a significant fraction of the new housing units being delivered to the market are illegal for people of family formation age to occupy.
Since the law was only passed in the 1990s and the age-restricted communities only appeared gradually after that, its timing was perfect for the baby boomers. When they were young, all housing was available to them, but now that they are old, they have a category of housing reserved only for them.
This law is even more striking when you consider the fact that it's illegal to discriminate against the old in other contexts, such as the workplace. A 60-year-old in an "active adult" community can sue his employer if he's laid off due to his age and replaced by a 35-year-old, but he can also sue to block his neighbors from selling their house to that 35-year-old. There is no moral basis for this unprincipled exception.
The financial times is still obsessed with "harm to women". It is obvious they do not care about men or boys except as an utility. The manosphere wins like this windbag says by appealing to the truth about society and nature and advocating for male interests which, yes, will sometimes be against female interests. Unless the financial times is advocating against all artifical advantage in academics, employment and family law, they will still play second fiddle to the manosphere which has been discussing these issues since 2000 and probable before.
These days, I do find the manosphere to be littered with a lot of demoralization propaganda and third-world nonsense; however, I would not have found any success in relationships had it not been for some of the founding members of that sector of the internet.
What I find more concerning than the weak content they're putting out these days are the attempts to integrate its basic canon into the mainstream. They all like it when men have the trappings of success and go get degrees and make money and chase status and are then willing to transfer all of it over to women. What they don't like is any sense or hint of male identity formation. It's clear in this article, it's clear in Galloway's book, and it's clear in some of the inroads the manosphere has made into Evangelical culture. It's just the same old complementarian message (print dollars and give them to your wife to spend) with an added burden: pass all the random schizo frame tests she throws your way. Not, of course, so you can consummate the relationship, but so she gets the tingles. It's all so exhausting and tiresome.
It seems fairly clear, once one looks closely, that after a certain age boys learn that they are expected to start achieving things in life. These are pretty normal matters for most like grades and competing in sports and so on. Later in life the stakes grow much higher and they don't stop, especially after staring a family. As for girls and young women, the educational system is setup to cater to them. An augment can be made that it does not do so for boys and young men. Also, most young women can obtain much in life with just a nice smile and a pleasant demeanor. Life isn't fair and it never will be. Finally, who came up with the "hate all men" meme and others like it? So, it is a surprise and it makes people wonder why young men are looking for answers?
Life isn't fair but the scales are absolutely tilted towards the female in many matters that are artificial and detrimental. The article I linked goes through actual ways to get rid of that advantage and allow the natural market to work. The manosphere offers more than the financial times or other corporate garbage other than submit to the system. We've already made the draft automatic and still exempt females so the system will force you and not your sister if necessary.
Right, one hears “Women and girls” how we are supporting them, helping them, and so on.
This concept of helping young men and boys is really new and strange. It’s more of a “Hey let's stop the bleed” because too many have already fallen behind and enough mothers got upset about it.
One point: the manosphere is many things - it is not one big bad pigeonhole. And when these idiots claim that Jordan Peterson and Tate are the same thing, they are 1. being dishonest. 2. don’t know what they’re talking about.
As if the real problem with men failing to achieve success is how their mothers feel about it! Do the feelings of the men themselves simply not register? Or, forget feelings: what about the mere fact that these men haven't achieved success? What about the fact that conservatives are telling some of their best human capital to work in the trades or at Panda Express instead of e.g. going to law school?
I'm not trying to be hostile. I know you mean well, and Richard Reeves means well, and Jordan Peterson meant well. There's a whole host of people who mean well, and most will have directionally positive effects, but ultimately none of it will move the needle because of this fundamental linguistic problem: we cannot meaningfully communicate about the problems men face unless we state these problems and any proposed solutions in terms that appeal to women.
You say that the educational system caters to women, and that the career landscape is such that women can find success with a nice smile and a pleasant demeanor rather than intellect and a good work ethic. I would agree that this is the case, and I despair because of it, because it reveals that Americans now see jobs and careers as lifestyle experiences, as products to consume, rather than as vehicles to really DO things or accomplish things. It is precisely because they are consumer experiences that they are generally given to women over men -- a real man would just get a real job, see.
But nobody cares when I say this -- they only care when women complain about there being no men available for them to marry.
Part 2. Motherhood defines for the majority of their lives; this is so from the time that they were girls. The task of nurturing life is the defining characteristic of the female sex, even for those women who do not have their own children: What can women do that men cannot? The answer is as obvious as it is profound. Women can bear children. Today, there are sperm banks, and the government will step in as husband. As for those women who have good husbands - we don't hear much from them that much. Probably they're too busy.
You've raised some key points, most of which I agree with.
I think the evidence shows that women have been affirmed considerably. I could use the fingers of one hand - this is this female fighter pilot, this doctor, professor, writer who is female, has grandchildren and reached the top of her chosen field. This is a good thing. Yet these women are outliers. Most young women (and men) who attempt such things fail. Affirmative action for women to do so is counterproductive to society.
Yes, Richard Reeves means well, as does Jordan Peterson. The problem with Reeves; as I see it, is he genuflects towards feminism constantly (or used to anyway) without noticing that feminism also has a rather dark side. And why does he fail to acknowledge this point? Well, his program is a lot wealthier in funds because he doesn't.
Jordan Peterson apparently is the same as Tate? Anyone claiming such is a fool. So, you see there is much confusion going on. Mothers don't understand their sons' problems. Mothers are not fathers - how they got the idea that they should act like fathers is rather strange. Think about that one.
There is a disagreement on solutions because there isn't just one. There will be many. I see an overcorrection in favor of women or a feminization of society with a concomitant suppression of masculine virtues (including an odd denigration of fatherhood). Ultimately, men and women are complimentary. The sooner we get back to that the better.
"There is such a thing as the wrong woman. She makes a man a fraction.... But the right woman! She multiplies a man". Horace Holley
Which means anyone like Galloway or that moron from the Brookings institute dont really care. If you haven't been apart or read/watched the manosphere and red pill material going back to the 2000s and I'll include instapundits wife in the mix, than you are a shallow feminist grifter who thinks this is affecting things they actually care about. I dont believe Galloway, the Brookings idiot or others who started talking about these issues recently have mens issues at heart
A striking example of America's gerontocratic bias, and one that attracts remarkably little attention, is age-restricted housing. The Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 created an exemption to the Fair Housing Act to permit overt age discrimination in housing. It was this law that led to the proliferation of 55+ communities around the country. In some places, a significant fraction of the new housing units being delivered to the market are illegal for people of family formation age to occupy.
Since the law was only passed in the 1990s and the age-restricted communities only appeared gradually after that, its timing was perfect for the baby boomers. When they were young, all housing was available to them, but now that they are old, they have a category of housing reserved only for them.
This law is even more striking when you consider the fact that it's illegal to discriminate against the old in other contexts, such as the workplace. A 60-year-old in an "active adult" community can sue his employer if he's laid off due to his age and replaced by a 35-year-old, but he can also sue to block his neighbors from selling their house to that 35-year-old. There is no moral basis for this unprincipled exception.
Yeah, it’s completely nuts.
https://firstthings.com/the-myth-of-the-independent-girlboss/
At least aaron acknowledges the boomer fight against the young and the future. Will see what happens in the next 10 to 20 years.
The financial times is still obsessed with "harm to women". It is obvious they do not care about men or boys except as an utility. The manosphere wins like this windbag says by appealing to the truth about society and nature and advocating for male interests which, yes, will sometimes be against female interests. Unless the financial times is advocating against all artifical advantage in academics, employment and family law, they will still play second fiddle to the manosphere which has been discussing these issues since 2000 and probable before.
These days, I do find the manosphere to be littered with a lot of demoralization propaganda and third-world nonsense; however, I would not have found any success in relationships had it not been for some of the founding members of that sector of the internet.
What I find more concerning than the weak content they're putting out these days are the attempts to integrate its basic canon into the mainstream. They all like it when men have the trappings of success and go get degrees and make money and chase status and are then willing to transfer all of it over to women. What they don't like is any sense or hint of male identity formation. It's clear in this article, it's clear in Galloway's book, and it's clear in some of the inroads the manosphere has made into Evangelical culture. It's just the same old complementarian message (print dollars and give them to your wife to spend) with an added burden: pass all the random schizo frame tests she throws your way. Not, of course, so you can consummate the relationship, but so she gets the tingles. It's all so exhausting and tiresome.
It seems fairly clear, once one looks closely, that after a certain age boys learn that they are expected to start achieving things in life. These are pretty normal matters for most like grades and competing in sports and so on. Later in life the stakes grow much higher and they don't stop, especially after staring a family. As for girls and young women, the educational system is setup to cater to them. An augment can be made that it does not do so for boys and young men. Also, most young women can obtain much in life with just a nice smile and a pleasant demeanor. Life isn't fair and it never will be. Finally, who came up with the "hate all men" meme and others like it? So, it is a surprise and it makes people wonder why young men are looking for answers?
Life isn't fair but the scales are absolutely tilted towards the female in many matters that are artificial and detrimental. The article I linked goes through actual ways to get rid of that advantage and allow the natural market to work. The manosphere offers more than the financial times or other corporate garbage other than submit to the system. We've already made the draft automatic and still exempt females so the system will force you and not your sister if necessary.
Right, one hears “Women and girls” how we are supporting them, helping them, and so on.
This concept of helping young men and boys is really new and strange. It’s more of a “Hey let's stop the bleed” because too many have already fallen behind and enough mothers got upset about it.
One point: the manosphere is many things - it is not one big bad pigeonhole. And when these idiots claim that Jordan Peterson and Tate are the same thing, they are 1. being dishonest. 2. don’t know what they’re talking about.
"enough mothers got upset about it"
As if the real problem with men failing to achieve success is how their mothers feel about it! Do the feelings of the men themselves simply not register? Or, forget feelings: what about the mere fact that these men haven't achieved success? What about the fact that conservatives are telling some of their best human capital to work in the trades or at Panda Express instead of e.g. going to law school?
I'm not trying to be hostile. I know you mean well, and Richard Reeves means well, and Jordan Peterson meant well. There's a whole host of people who mean well, and most will have directionally positive effects, but ultimately none of it will move the needle because of this fundamental linguistic problem: we cannot meaningfully communicate about the problems men face unless we state these problems and any proposed solutions in terms that appeal to women.
You say that the educational system caters to women, and that the career landscape is such that women can find success with a nice smile and a pleasant demeanor rather than intellect and a good work ethic. I would agree that this is the case, and I despair because of it, because it reveals that Americans now see jobs and careers as lifestyle experiences, as products to consume, rather than as vehicles to really DO things or accomplish things. It is precisely because they are consumer experiences that they are generally given to women over men -- a real man would just get a real job, see.
But nobody cares when I say this -- they only care when women complain about there being no men available for them to marry.
Part 2. Motherhood defines for the majority of their lives; this is so from the time that they were girls. The task of nurturing life is the defining characteristic of the female sex, even for those women who do not have their own children: What can women do that men cannot? The answer is as obvious as it is profound. Women can bear children. Today, there are sperm banks, and the government will step in as husband. As for those women who have good husbands - we don't hear much from them that much. Probably they're too busy.
You've raised some key points, most of which I agree with.
I think the evidence shows that women have been affirmed considerably. I could use the fingers of one hand - this is this female fighter pilot, this doctor, professor, writer who is female, has grandchildren and reached the top of her chosen field. This is a good thing. Yet these women are outliers. Most young women (and men) who attempt such things fail. Affirmative action for women to do so is counterproductive to society.
Yes, Richard Reeves means well, as does Jordan Peterson. The problem with Reeves; as I see it, is he genuflects towards feminism constantly (or used to anyway) without noticing that feminism also has a rather dark side. And why does he fail to acknowledge this point? Well, his program is a lot wealthier in funds because he doesn't.
Jordan Peterson apparently is the same as Tate? Anyone claiming such is a fool. So, you see there is much confusion going on. Mothers don't understand their sons' problems. Mothers are not fathers - how they got the idea that they should act like fathers is rather strange. Think about that one.
There is a disagreement on solutions because there isn't just one. There will be many. I see an overcorrection in favor of women or a feminization of society with a concomitant suppression of masculine virtues (including an odd denigration of fatherhood). Ultimately, men and women are complimentary. The sooner we get back to that the better.
"There is such a thing as the wrong woman. She makes a man a fraction.... But the right woman! She multiplies a man". Horace Holley
Now, reverse the order of the two sexes above.
Which means anyone like Galloway or that moron from the Brookings institute dont really care. If you haven't been apart or read/watched the manosphere and red pill material going back to the 2000s and I'll include instapundits wife in the mix, than you are a shallow feminist grifter who thinks this is affecting things they actually care about. I dont believe Galloway, the Brookings idiot or others who started talking about these issues recently have mens issues at heart
Yeah. Follow Peterson's life advice and you'll actually be a functional human being.
Follow Tate's and you'll be an insufferable lecher.