School has actually gotten far easier. The adaptation part is true though but elite men tend to be the trailblazers for creating new environments. A lot of male corpses are left behind though.
“He’s not going to adapt and pivot and change his life and his identity over and over. He’s going to resist change. And he’s going to be passed by because the rate of change has gotten pretty damn insane.”
Because maybe, just maybe, constant change isn’t a good thing? Take a look at the world right now. In this highly feminized world, are things going swimmingly? Maybe there is a reason for all this “tradition” and “culture” and you burning it all down in the name of “progress” is an act requiring violent resistance.
LOL. Sorry, but cosplaying isn't actually real life, no matter how much you wish it to be. The question isn't just how military-aged men feel about this issue but whether enough military-aged men feel strongly enough to lay down their life over this issue.
Let's just say I'm skeptical there are a huge number of guys willing to die over this.
Would you like to check your assumptions against the historical record? Men are pissed off, very pissed off, about a whole lot more than just feminism.
The historical record shows that no country with such a high percentage of old males (and such a high percentage of out of shape males) as the US has every successfully launched a revolution.
You answered it in the first half of your title- everything isn’t getting harder. If everything were getting objectively harder, women would be failing at increasing rates because the IQ distribution for women is more tightly clustered around the average.
Before someone freaks out, men and women both have about the same average intelligence- I am not saying that men as a whole are smarter. But because the distribution for men is flatter, it is more likely that both the very smartest and very dumbest people in a given population are men.
If things got harder and you shifted the median IQ requirement for a given task to the right of the average line, the shape of the distribution for women means you’d be leaving behind the women first due to the parabolic shape of their distribution.
The reason women are leaving men behind is because once a space becomes increasingly female, men just don’t really want to be there. This is well-documented across professions and institutions. The problem with the way people look at things like this is when there is an innate difference between men and women, it is the men who are expected to change their nature- never women. It’s always masculinity that’s viewed as toxic, never femininity.
I think this is the wrong way to look at it. Men are trying too hard these days to be like women, and that's their problem. Men are supposed to just do things. Women are supposed to follow guidance.
Men should just start doing things again and worry less about what they're supposed to do. Yes, do what you must, but then do something novel.
I have a daughter who's very good at doing what she's supposed to do. That's great -- I'm all for it. But my sons should do more imo, or maybe less in some ways and more in others.
Why should we judge men by their compliance and conformity? This has never been the case. Judge them instead by their spirit and audacity.
All true, great piece. Though also, girls always did better than boys in school, that was always the case historically, going all the way back to one room schoolhouses and sex-segregated schools. It's just that no one really gave a fuck back then bc 90% of people weren't going to college anyway, and 100 years ago most people didn't even make it past 10th grade or so. So how well you did in school simply wasn't a relevant metric anyone but a tiny slice of people cared about. They're only freaking out about this (totally not new) "new" educational circumstance because nowadays your eventual income is much more likely tied to whether and where you go to college and also grad school.
Plenty of other shit that young online angry nerds don't really get about how things used to work in their glorified past where things were easier/better for men. Like this idea that competency was all that mattered and social skills weren't important in work hierarchies. Never the case outside of highly technical fields. The unionized jobs MOST men did and supported their families with last century were ALL ABOUT being popular and in with the cool crowd who ruled the union and decided to let you in or not. If you weren't well liked in the bowling league and while going out for beers and weren't accepted by the gang and willing to go through their hazing rituals, you weren't getting in to the union, period, and weren't getting the well paying job. This applied to non-union jobs too and even in the military...you weren't going anywhere if the other dudes above you didn't like you, and their reasons for liking you very well may have more to do with how much fun you are at poker night than any legitimate skills or competence. And everyone back then was expected to attend social dances and dinner parties and get togethers and to be social...50s and 60s adults spent massively more time socializing with each other than they ever did again once color TV happened and then the internet...and it was always the popular guys accepted by the group who got their pick of dates, same as it ever was. Idk what reality people think used to exist but they should try talking to some senior citizens and just find out.
“My first wife was a teacher, and her teacher friends from work were horrible promiscuous drunks who hated kids and only ended up as teachers because they failed at life and couldn’t get better jobs, and also couldn’t get a man with a decent job to marry them so they could quit.”
Mostly true. My ex-wife taught (HS) English but liked the boys more because she recognized that boys are actually nicer.
I teach not but boys and freaking love it because boys are so unconsciously entertaining.
Me: Yes, Coleman…
Coleman: Hey Coach, when I graduate I’m going to invent Coleman Math…
Me: By all means, elaborate.
Coleman: …where x squared equals the square root of x for all real numbers…
Me: When you get to the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, please let me know what the faculty thinks about your stroke of genius.
This is laughable. I would go through and outline all of the baseless assertions or an accuracies, but let's be honest: No female substack author is going to adapt & pivot based on critique or changing circumstances.
That’s all true and I understood all this long ago. But men can exist with less and still be happy. One bedroom. Average money. It’s all good. Let all the queens slay. Mazel tov
How would any non-white student do in an Aryan ideologically based school?
They would probably disengage because they are being indoctrinated as to how they are not of the ‘in’ group and therefore damaged in some way that is both uncontrollable by them and inherently part of their natural identity. Now, understand the increasing ideological framework of most schools, administrators, and teachers - pro-feminism or feminity, and anti-masculinity.
Then you can understand why so many boys and young men are not ‘succeeding’. The environment is not designed for them. Further, the environment mandates that ‘success’ includes renouncing the nature and essence of who they are born to be. That they are not part of the ‘in’ group because of characteristics that are uncontrollable by them and inherently part of their natural identity.
Perhaps we could get back to basic education (reading, writing, arithmetic, etc) and throw out the indoctrination and ideological grooming. Most likely, as in the past, boys and young men will flourish along with girls and young women.
I totally agree. Men, namely white men, are setup for failure in the current society. It all sounds so easy chanelling the reasoning towards "fast change". Men can adapt to fast change (-> wars, anyone?), yet, giving all those men a tinfoil hat who criticize the current society which actively works against them is at least academically improper.
School definitely hasn't gotten harder. If anything the lack of rigor is causing half the problems we see.
Teaching staff has also shifted toward domination by women, it's not just the students. I think k-12 teachers are something like 80/20 female to male now.
This has brought a pretty drastic change in environment even if you try to ridicule it with 'recess every 20 minutes' scenarios.
I think the basic problem is that women will tend to dominate an environment where social dynamics are the deciding factor in generating the hierarchy, and once this female style hierarchy is established, men will try to escape it because they prefer hierarchies based on competence.
But that's not true. On standardized tests men still do better than women. We do see a convergence in income but men still make more. We do see men having an increasingly harder time with community however, and that really brings down men's relative position in life to women though I guess.
School has actually gotten far easier. The adaptation part is true though but elite men tend to be the trailblazers for creating new environments. A lot of male corpses are left behind though.
As always, the lower 95% of men are invisible and uncared-for. If they died, the world would be a better place.
We used to have wars in which we would grind our lowest 95% against their lowest 95%. Then we stopped doing that for some reason.
Now, presto, we have the manosphere and incels opening fire at movie premieres.
“He’s not going to adapt and pivot and change his life and his identity over and over. He’s going to resist change. And he’s going to be passed by because the rate of change has gotten pretty damn insane.”
Because maybe, just maybe, constant change isn’t a good thing? Take a look at the world right now. In this highly feminized world, are things going swimmingly? Maybe there is a reason for all this “tradition” and “culture” and you burning it all down in the name of “progress” is an act requiring violent resistance.
Best of luck in your shieldwall.
Best of luck in your over crowded polyamorous long house, faghot
“Best of luck in your FCS brigade”
He won’t need luck if the majority of men feel exactly the same way, especially the military aged men.
LOL. Sorry, but cosplaying isn't actually real life, no matter how much you wish it to be. The question isn't just how military-aged men feel about this issue but whether enough military-aged men feel strongly enough to lay down their life over this issue.
Let's just say I'm skeptical there are a huge number of guys willing to die over this.
Would you like to check your assumptions against the historical record? Men are pissed off, very pissed off, about a whole lot more than just feminism.
The historical record shows that no country with such a high percentage of old males (and such a high percentage of out of shape males) as the US has every successfully launched a revolution.
Yeah, we are gonna get swarmed by foreigners, that's the whole issue bud
You answered it in the first half of your title- everything isn’t getting harder. If everything were getting objectively harder, women would be failing at increasing rates because the IQ distribution for women is more tightly clustered around the average.
Before someone freaks out, men and women both have about the same average intelligence- I am not saying that men as a whole are smarter. But because the distribution for men is flatter, it is more likely that both the very smartest and very dumbest people in a given population are men.
If things got harder and you shifted the median IQ requirement for a given task to the right of the average line, the shape of the distribution for women means you’d be leaving behind the women first due to the parabolic shape of their distribution.
The reason women are leaving men behind is because once a space becomes increasingly female, men just don’t really want to be there. This is well-documented across professions and institutions. The problem with the way people look at things like this is when there is an innate difference between men and women, it is the men who are expected to change their nature- never women. It’s always masculinity that’s viewed as toxic, never femininity.
Female "failure" is less visible. We simply don't hold women to the same standard we hold men.
But we also don't hold boys and girls to the same standards of expectation in schools.
Your average schoolboy is just not as motivated in the classroom.
Education is not the benchmark we think it is, either.
I disagree with notion of educationl getting harder. Average IQ of college student dropped.
I think this is the wrong way to look at it. Men are trying too hard these days to be like women, and that's their problem. Men are supposed to just do things. Women are supposed to follow guidance.
Men should just start doing things again and worry less about what they're supposed to do. Yes, do what you must, but then do something novel.
I have a daughter who's very good at doing what she's supposed to do. That's great -- I'm all for it. But my sons should do more imo, or maybe less in some ways and more in others.
Why should we judge men by their compliance and conformity? This has never been the case. Judge them instead by their spirit and audacity.
All true, great piece. Though also, girls always did better than boys in school, that was always the case historically, going all the way back to one room schoolhouses and sex-segregated schools. It's just that no one really gave a fuck back then bc 90% of people weren't going to college anyway, and 100 years ago most people didn't even make it past 10th grade or so. So how well you did in school simply wasn't a relevant metric anyone but a tiny slice of people cared about. They're only freaking out about this (totally not new) "new" educational circumstance because nowadays your eventual income is much more likely tied to whether and where you go to college and also grad school.
Plenty of other shit that young online angry nerds don't really get about how things used to work in their glorified past where things were easier/better for men. Like this idea that competency was all that mattered and social skills weren't important in work hierarchies. Never the case outside of highly technical fields. The unionized jobs MOST men did and supported their families with last century were ALL ABOUT being popular and in with the cool crowd who ruled the union and decided to let you in or not. If you weren't well liked in the bowling league and while going out for beers and weren't accepted by the gang and willing to go through their hazing rituals, you weren't getting in to the union, period, and weren't getting the well paying job. This applied to non-union jobs too and even in the military...you weren't going anywhere if the other dudes above you didn't like you, and their reasons for liking you very well may have more to do with how much fun you are at poker night than any legitimate skills or competence. And everyone back then was expected to attend social dances and dinner parties and get togethers and to be social...50s and 60s adults spent massively more time socializing with each other than they ever did again once color TV happened and then the internet...and it was always the popular guys accepted by the group who got their pick of dates, same as it ever was. Idk what reality people think used to exist but they should try talking to some senior citizens and just find out.
This. I come from a long line of autistic mechanical engineers. There’s a reason we chose that field.
“My first wife was a teacher, and her teacher friends from work were horrible promiscuous drunks who hated kids and only ended up as teachers because they failed at life and couldn’t get better jobs, and also couldn’t get a man with a decent job to marry them so they could quit.”
Mostly true. My ex-wife taught (HS) English but liked the boys more because she recognized that boys are actually nicer.
I teach not but boys and freaking love it because boys are so unconsciously entertaining.
Me: Yes, Coleman…
Coleman: Hey Coach, when I graduate I’m going to invent Coleman Math…
Me: By all means, elaborate.
Coleman: …where x squared equals the square root of x for all real numbers…
Me: When you get to the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, please let me know what the faculty thinks about your stroke of genius.
Coleman: Yes, sir!
School hasn't got harder, most English majors can barely read
https://open.substack.com/pub/kittenbeloved/p/college-english-majors-cant-read?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2z5b75
Well then getting an English major degree isn’t about reading, is it?
This is laughable. I would go through and outline all of the baseless assertions or an accuracies, but let's be honest: No female substack author is going to adapt & pivot based on critique or changing circumstances.
Were they Substack writers ten years ago? Or did they adapt and pivot to Substack based on changing circumstances?
That’s all true and I understood all this long ago. But men can exist with less and still be happy. One bedroom. Average money. It’s all good. Let all the queens slay. Mazel tov
How would any non-white student do in an Aryan ideologically based school?
They would probably disengage because they are being indoctrinated as to how they are not of the ‘in’ group and therefore damaged in some way that is both uncontrollable by them and inherently part of their natural identity. Now, understand the increasing ideological framework of most schools, administrators, and teachers - pro-feminism or feminity, and anti-masculinity.
Then you can understand why so many boys and young men are not ‘succeeding’. The environment is not designed for them. Further, the environment mandates that ‘success’ includes renouncing the nature and essence of who they are born to be. That they are not part of the ‘in’ group because of characteristics that are uncontrollable by them and inherently part of their natural identity.
Perhaps we could get back to basic education (reading, writing, arithmetic, etc) and throw out the indoctrination and ideological grooming. Most likely, as in the past, boys and young men will flourish along with girls and young women.
I totally agree. Men, namely white men, are setup for failure in the current society. It all sounds so easy chanelling the reasoning towards "fast change". Men can adapt to fast change (-> wars, anyone?), yet, giving all those men a tinfoil hat who criticize the current society which actively works against them is at least academically improper.
I've said it before; I'll say it again - I LOVE your writing style.
School definitely hasn't gotten harder. If anything the lack of rigor is causing half the problems we see.
Teaching staff has also shifted toward domination by women, it's not just the students. I think k-12 teachers are something like 80/20 female to male now.
This has brought a pretty drastic change in environment even if you try to ridicule it with 'recess every 20 minutes' scenarios.
I think the basic problem is that women will tend to dominate an environment where social dynamics are the deciding factor in generating the hierarchy, and once this female style hierarchy is established, men will try to escape it because they prefer hierarchies based on competence.
But that's not true. On standardized tests men still do better than women. We do see a convergence in income but men still make more. We do see men having an increasingly harder time with community however, and that really brings down men's relative position in life to women though I guess.
No…