new

8 Factors That Are Destroying Healthy Relationships Between Men And Women

Corey is an iconoclast and the author of 'Man's Fight for Existence'. He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature. Visit his new website at primalexistence.com

Most men, even if they’re still swimming in ocean of blue pills, have some awareness that something has gone awry with the relationship between men and women. Statistics prove this as well as divorce has been epidemic for a while now with record-number of children growing up with single parent around the world while young people are having less sex than before. And whether you be a feminist or part of the manosphere, I think both sides can agree on one thing: that a war between the sexes have been heating up in the recent years.

Why is all this happening? While men and women tend to play the blame game to avoid taking any responsibility, there are greater forces at play. The fact is, the continuing transformation of our society is making the antagonism between the sexes inevitable. Feminism is just a symptom, not the cause of our problems.

Before we look at why today’s sex relations are in a dismal state, consider the single factor that makes relationships prosper: Mutuality based on different but compatible roles.

All relationships work best when two parties have something different to share for their mutual benefit. For example, humans and horses have enjoyed a close relationship together throughout history (unlike, say, humans and bears). The relationship works because in exchange for food, protection, and care that humans provide, the horses offer themselves as transportation.

The relationship between men and women was also mutually beneficial for the entirety of human existence with men offering their services in exchange for having the women bear their children. But now, with the advent of modern society and its conditions, things have changed drastically.

1. “Equality”
image
At least these men had their male privilege.

“Equality” for women is the most abominable lie to have ever perpetuated on mankind.

Men have always provided for women. Men hunted for food, labored to build everything, and fought battles to defend their tribe. To say that men oppressed women throughout history is an insult to all those who sacrificed themselves in the factories, the coal mines, and the trenches. If women didn’t have certain rights that feminists like to cherry-pick, it’s because women weren’t drafted to fight wars. In exchange for their toil, the only thing men asked of women was to be supportive in their roles as wives and mothers.

But fast-forward to today, now that women have “achieved” social and political “equality” and even various advantages just for being born a female, many women today no longer feel that it’s necessary to exchange values with men for mutuality. It’s like when humans developed automobiles and didn’t need horses anymore. The difference is, humans and horses don’t need to be together; men and women do.

However, men’s sexual desire—which is greater than that of females—is still alive and kicking. So what we have today is a situation where women have gotten their social equality while sexual inequality persists for men (which is why many men choose to give up sex entirely to level the playing field). This is what happens when you standardize human beings into economic units.

2. Education and career over family

Stressed out from balancing between work and family? Yup, it’s the men’s fault that you tried to do both.

To maintain their advantage over men, women today are dedicating themselves to their education and career. Western women, in particular, have been so thoroughly sold on the idea of status and consumerist orgy that they are no longer interested in relationships. More and more women today are delaying marriage (if not outright rejecting it). And when they do get married, they are using it as a means to trap men into donating their sperm and cash, only to bail out when they want to.

3. Slut culture
image
Wow, what an achievement! I’m sure your failed parents are just as proud.

The advent of contraception and the decimation of whatever feminine decency that was left has turned the vast majority of young Western women into drunken sluts. The increasing number of sluts is diminishing the availability of quality women that men want to start a family with and has social implications for the society as a whole.

4. Government supplanting men
image

The only way women were able to “liberate” themselves from their supposed oppressors was by latching themselves on to a new alpha provider: the government. As said before, men form relationships with women by exchanging values, with his strength to provide and protect being his greatest asset. But now, the government (along with corporations and education system) fulfills those roles that men previously occupied. And not only that, but the government is deeply involved in the affairs of marriage, sending professional white-knights to extort and arrest men who’ve been used up and thrown away by women.

It also doesn’t help that the government is increasingly monopolizing violence, one of the most important value that a man possesses. And that leads to my next point.

5. Too few wars, too many men
image
I doubt these men had to think of ways to entertain women like a monkey to get their attention.

The recurring theme across patriarchal societies of the past and present are violence and warfare. And the most commonly associated traits of masculinity are also traits of warriors such as strength, bravery, aggression, discipline, and so on. It’s quite simple: the more violent the environment is, the more masculine men become. And the more conflicts and wars there are, the more the women depend on men—thus keeping the collective value of male population high.

It’s no coincidence that Western societies have started to feminize as they endured decades of relative peace since the end of WWII. The lack of warfare also means that there are now more young men per woman (practically 1 to 1) than there normally would have been under a warring society. Excess of men—who are also emasculated and feminized—means that the collective value of average men has dropped to a historical low, upsetting the balance of sexual marketplace in the process. Only the top 5-10% of men with the warrior traits and wealth are able to enjoy a semblance of a balanced relationship with women—and even they have to play the game.

6. The decimation of Western women

Declining marriage rates? Don’t worry, some simps will try to put a ring on their fingers.

Many Western women have been corrupted by our toxic materialist society. They are fatter, uglier, more narcissistic, more entitled, hedonistic, superficial, less faithful, and seem to think that having bitch attitude makes them hip. Women can afford to stoop low because their sex drive isn’t the same as men’s, while they couldn’t care less for love and companionship when they’re too busy with their travels and careers.

And because of all the thirsty men, women’s collective sexual market value hardly suffers while the value of those who are merely average becomes inflated beyond their real value. You only need to check out the gross discrepancies between the sexes in dating sites and apps to see how bad things are.

7. Anti-male culture

Men are all rapists waiting to be hatched out of their facade, men merely uttering a word to a woman is a harassment, men are always “mansplaining” to women, men are insecure cry-babies, men open their legs too much when they sit, men and their toxic masculinity need to be controlled, men have to do more for women, men are dominating in tech fields because of sexism, men shouldn’t say this, men shouldn’t do that, etc, etc— And of course, if men push back, they’re “misogynists.”

And we’re we still wondering why relationships are getting harder to form these days?

8. Lack of shared values

As social beings, we humans need more than economic incentives and passions to form a relationship for a family to prosper. There must be shared values.

With traditional family values under constant attack from all directions, the bonding between males and females have been reduced to mere hook-ups and economic unions. To make matters worse, many from both sides are resorting to predatory behaviors to exploit one another for either money (for women) or sex (for men), augmenting the distrust between the two sexes. Others, who either don’t want to play games or have become overtly hostile to the opposite sex, have given up on relationships entirely. This is the end result of atomization and extreme individualism under a system that destroys all values for the sake of economic advancement.

Conclusion

The destruction of sex relationship is having a negative effect on society as a whole and is transforming the demographic landscape of many Western nations. Unlike what the aesthetically-challenged feminists and the man-children crying their own way believe, men and women are not adversaries. You don’t have to be a traditionalist to see that the sex relations have gone awry due to the development of modern society and its destructive cultures.

Many Western men have already checked out or gone out to find traditional women elsewhere. But that is merely adapting to the situation; it doesn’t solve the problem at a societal level. The continuing antagonism of the sexes will eventually spread around the world. Unless the current course is somehow reversed, we can only wait and see how far the damage will run its course.

Re: Benevolent Sexism Attractive To Women, Study Shows

(hirayama_ronin)
Just a comment to posters, why post studies without a comment of your own?

The purpose of the following observations is to situate what counts as benevolent sexism, according to the study's authors. The purpose of the study is to meet research into what is called benevolent sexism (the definition of which the authors may or may not agree with), with "parental investment theory."

However, the definition of "benevolent sexism" is eye-watering.

The following is quoted in the article, word for word from the study.

“Hostile sexism (HS) encompasses overtly prejudiced attitudes, whereas benevolent sexism (BS) involves subjectively positive attitudes (e.g., “women should be cherished and protected by men”), chivalrous behaviors, and attempts to achieve intimacy with women.”

Benevolent sexism includes attempts to achieve intimacy with women. This is either an Andrea Dworking-style, "all sex is rape" definition of sexism, that categorically places normal gendered behavior into a politically hostile ghetto (of rape or sexism), or it's a very poorly worded definition on the part of the study's authors.

There isn't a single example of benevolent sexism offered in the introduction that would situate the author's definition. It moves immediately to supposed consequences of BS (a convenient short-hand).

Here are the studies in support of this idea:

Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764-779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491

I don't have access to this literature to see how their work grounds this definition.

Here are some examples found in the "Supplemental Materials" section at the end of the study:

Study 1a, BS condition

He feels that, no matter how accomplished he is, he is not truly complete as a person without the love of a woman. He thinks that a woman should be set on pedestal by her man. He is convinced that in general women are more pure than men and they tend to have a superior moral sensibility. Mark thinks that women should be cherished and protected by men. In case of a disaster or emergency situation, he thinks that women should be helped before men.

Study 1a, non-BS condition

He feels that he can be truly complete as a person without the love of a woman, especially if he is personally accomplished. He doesn't think that a woman should be set on pedestal by her man. He is convinced that neither sex is superior with respect to purity or moral sensibility. He thinks that women should not necessarily be cherished or protected by men. In case of a disaster or emergency situation, he thinks that a person's sex should not be a factor determining who is helped first.

Despite the “romantic” undertone, researchers noted, benevolent sexism still reinforces the notion that women are inferior.

In Study 2a, we find BS in how a man might help a woman. The study participants were offered two men, Robert and John, who were identical in every way, except in particular behaviors:

Robert/John and John/Robert are both colleagues of yours. You have got to know them both a bit because you have often worked in pairs with one or the other and you have attended a few meetings and short business trips with each of them. They both look about the same physically and they are both about as competent at their job as each other.
You have noticed that they behave slightly differently at times though. For example, on one occasion when you were attending a short business trip with Robert/John, you had to get from a train station to the hotel where your conference meeting was being held. The taxi had not turned up so you decided you had to walk in order to get there in time. It was December and it was very cold. [BS condition] After saying something about how cold it was, Robert/John took his coat off and gave it to you, even though he only had a thin suit jacket on underneath. On another occasion later that same month, you had been on another short business trip with John/Robert. It was still very cold and you were walking from the train station back to your office and it was about the same distance you had to walk in the cold last time. [non-BS condition] After saying something about how cold it was, John/Robert, who was wearing a thin suit jacket under his coat, did not offer to give you his coat.

Reading into this, I assume "attempts to achieve intimacy with women" means "attempts to charm women (into intimacy) by giving them preferential treatment."

Discussion

What feminism-driven research is attempting to do, which the authors of these studies is disrupting, is to position the preferential treatment of women as politically damaging treatment. This is actually a position I tend to agree with. I personally believe men's preferential treatment of women makes them weaker, lazy, less desperate to achieve success, thus less successful.

The problem is that feminism allows women to problematize the preferential treatment shown to them (turning a prima facie positive into a subtle negative), while benefiting from preferential treatment. It's grabbing resources, attention, and affirmation from men, while punishing men for offering those resources, attention, and affirmation, packaging it up as a form of political oppression (patriarchy), which men are solely responsible for.

Studies like this cut through the nonsense. It says: benevolent sexism may have negative consequences, but it's desired by women:

We propose an alternative explanation drawn from evolutionary and sociocultural theories on mate preferences: women find BS men attractive because BS attitudes and behaviors signal that a man is willing to invest.

If women express this unconscious bias toward BS men, even when they have conscious knowledge of the supposed negative effects of BS upon women politically, feminists can no longer claim BS is a product of male supremacy. It is a joint product of deep reproductive politics, for which women must take their share of the responsibility, as they take their share of the benefits of being placed on the pedestal.

As always,

feminism == equality + pedestal =/= equality.

(SophisticatedBean)

personally believe men's preferential treatment of women makes them weaker, lazy, less desperate to achieve success, thus less successful

Not doing so appears to cause PMS though.

feminism == equality + pedestal =/= equality

I guess we can shorten that to feminism ? equality.

Women will always be on the pedestal because men are hardwired to care for women and women are not hardwired for reciprocity. Instead, they are hardwired to exploit and to be unwilling to settle with a partner of lower rank. (The alternative would also be unstable anyway as a stronger male in her mating pool would be able to threaten her decision if she decided for a weaker male.)

So the patriarchy is exactly a means of counteracting this innate anti-(beta)-male bias; it is basically egalitarianism. It basically artificially makes men more attractive by rituals, affirmative action (e.g. boys-only domains/clubs), strict rank enforcement and economic dependence such that women more likely feel like actually having a valuable/high-status partner. This should also allow women to experience more orgasms in a monogamous society as they orgasm more the higher the economic status and confidence of their partner is. Not doing so should theoretically make monogamous bonds unstable and we are indeed seeing a growing divorce rates. Another prediction is that more men should be rendered unable to impress a woman by their relative socioeconomic rank; and fewer males should be motivated by classical courtship and incentives for achievements of founding a family, both of which should reduce overall reduce cultural drive, which we are likely seeing too (incels, Hikikomoris, opioid crisis; though all of those have an economic component).

Now, one might expect the negative utility listed above might have been canceled out by the utility of an improvement of women's lives, but it looks like feminism has not even made women happier as career-oriented women seem to often find themselves in positions in which they are not very satisfied because they cannot find a satisfying mate or because their career conflicts with motherhood. I also suspect feminism even increases BS, because men are being raised to be so agreeable, intimidated and soft that they fulfill any wishes. There is positive utility in shape of increased economic productivity, but it's questionable to which extent that has actually made us happier. Positive emotion is mostly associated with goal pursuit (cocaine, emphatemine), and as goals are becoming diffuse, gender-incompatible or unattainable, it obviously makes us less happy.

.
.
.

That said, the study posted by OP surprised me since even self-described feminists preferred the explicitly sexist hypothetical male.

Some women are sneaky like that. I think it is a result of the lack of true female-male or female-female competition. We are seeing the same in the lack of true competition due to declining economic growth in the West: things start to become corrupt, improper and sneaky because the free market does not eliminate behavior and assumptions that are misaligned with reality. The raise of bullshit jobs. Women are basically chronically in this position because they are mostly always desired by men for their reproductive organs largely irrespective of their behavior and assumptions. Which does not mean that this expresses in all women to pathological degree or that men do not have their own gender-specific pathologies, but feminism, even though it probably had the intention of improving this has actually made it worse by making men more feminine/agreeable and by eliminating corrective feedback targeted at women.