May 29, 2015 § Leave a comment
If men face greater pressure from women to succeed financially and professionally because otherwise they would be weeded out of the mating pool and have no value, then men in board rooms or in politics would tell us nothing about male power but instead suggests male social weakness in mating.
Conversely, if women face less pressure from the opposite sex, they therefore can be said to have more choices regarding careers than men do, since they can factor in considerations other than simply what will make them the most amount of money. So this would actually be a female privilege and a male obligation rather than the other way around.
That is actually a more compelling explanation for women’s reluctance to enter particular careers, like STEM, while completely dominating others, like publishing or human resources, unless Mr. Wiley explain why the nefarious patriarchs saw fit to let women into publishing and not into STEM. According to the BLS, 90% of workplace injuries and deaths are attributable to men. Would Mr. Wiley have us believe this is the result of male privilege?
If married men out earn both women and unmarried men, what it suggests is that women select for breadwinners. Therefore, men model their lives and make career choices in anticipation of women’s expectations and demands. So, on the one hand, women leave men little choice but to succeed professionally and financially, and on the other, they use the consequences of this pressure, or greater male professional and financial success, as proof of women’s supposed oppression. Talk about institutionalized sexism!
This will be doubly true for politicians since they typically come from the top of the socioeconomic food chain. Marriage is declining far more at the bottom end of the spectrum than at the top, after all. Our strong independent women still statistically insist on marrying men who become congressmen and CEOs more than they insist on marrying men who are electricians and plumbers. Go figure.
In order for the SJW argument to make sense, they would have to prove that the only form of power that matters is political power, as if there are no other forms of power, and secondly, that men have gender consciousness in the way that feminists seem to imagine that women do, a gender consciousness which would result in in-group preference politically. But in reality, men do not. It’s quite the opposite. Men have out group preference which results in an inter male competition to appeal to women, one which manifests itself either economically, politically, and, often enough, militarily.
If this is the case, it may even be that women’s interests are more likely to be advanced by male politicians, especially if women are the majority of the electorate. After all, men, like Mr. Wiley, for instance, often defer to women in a way that other women do not because it’s not as if women themselves agree on much. Men may put them on a pedestal and imagine themselves as the heroes who save the damsels, but women very often do not think of themselves in relation to other women this way. As one commenter to this video pointed out, women aren’t in agreement about abortion, for instance. They are split on that issue like most other issues. So voting for a female candidate is not necessarily a pro choice, much less a pro female, vote.
In any case, there is simply no reason to believe that men vote for men’s interests to the exclusion or detriment of women’s interests and vice versa, as if men and women are competing teams and conscious of themselves as such. It’s an unsupported and entirely questionable premise, one which Mr. Wiley seem to nevertheless take for granted as if it is self evident.
You know, I’d love to support feminism and be an ally, but how can I when none of them can answer arguments like the one I’ve made here? And Mr. Wiley won’t be answering it because he can’t. Nor will he seriously think about what it means that he can’t and consider the wild and crazy idea that it may just constitute proof that he is full of shit.
Mr. Wiley provides a perfect example of the blue pill inability to see specifically female forms of social power and specifically male forms of social weakness. Phil Zimbardo provides another. The guy behind the 1971 Stanford prison experiment argues in his ridiculous new book that video games are “ruining men.” As ever, the sky is falling because young men are refusing to “man up” blah blah wonk wonk
What’s “ruining men” is a failing economy and a female population with expectations of the opposite sex that are rooted in a 20th century consumer culture characterized by stable, pensioned jobs. Men don’t “fail to launch” because they play video games, they play video games because they fail to launch in an economy where breadwinning jobs are disappearing, college costs as much as a mortgage, and marriage provides only profound risk and cost with very few – if any – benefits.
Women hate it when you point out the ugly truth. “We’re not gold diggers! Misogyny! Misogyny!” they wail. But, as I already explained, the fact remains that married men out earn women and unmarried men and marriage is eroding at the bottom end of the socioeconomic spectrum more than it is at the top. From this we can only conclude that the Strong Independent Women ™ still expect men to make as much if not more than them if they’re considering them for marriage. So much for that equality shit.
The sad truth is a lot of guys opt out and become invisible because they feel they have nothing to offer women. They give up, do bong rips, play video games, and watch porn instead. Others, I suspect, descend into drug and alcohol abuse and possibly even commit suicide when playing call of duty 14 hours a day no longer allows them to avoid thinking about their lives. The grim reality of it is probably a full scale social disaster that is quietly unfolding all over the county while we fret about getting girls into STEM fields they aren’t even interested in.
There’s no reason why a bullshit economy should “ruin men” in and of itself. Women could adjust their expectations or actually consider accepting some of the obligations of “equality” rather than shrugging them all off on to men and enjoying the benefits. But we all know that won’t be happening. Ever.