Is the collapse of American male-female relationships due to social media?

This video seems to make that case. Roosh appears (time indexed).

I disagree and invite others' opinions and analysis. IMO, it was feminism, "equal rights", and a consumerist culture which after 2 centuries had metastasized into the train wreck in the 1990's where I observed increasing numbers of attractive, successful career women winding up (unwanted) single and childless in their 30's even before dating apps took off.

But something else occurred to me is that beyond feminism, there's a Matriarchy where women's social connections tends to drive their thinking more than their natural inclinations. I think most women can love most men, but their emotional bonding is with other women/girls from childhood and THIS is the bond they're chained to even as feminism claims it's the evil Patriarchy that controls them. I observe my wife cares a great deal about what her friends think even as my opinion of what my friends think is mitigated by my own opinion. Ironically, I've given my wife the freedom and encouragement to express herself, and draw her own conclusions, more than the society that claims to be "liberating" her.

A woman commentator on USENET claims that women are less "rigid" in their sexuality. Namely, it was possible to socialize a woman to be lesbian moreso than a man could be socialized to be gay (aside from childhood trauma, etc.)

Question: If social media hadn't arisen, would things be much better/worse than today?
 

kel

Pelican
It's a self-feeding cycle. Any argument in right-leaning circles about where things went wrong will always devolve in trying to find a moment that explains everything, and thus keeps going further and further back as people draw connections from one to another - "it was the social degradation of the sixties", "no, it was the creation of the fed", "no, it was the French Revolution", on and on and on, and everybody is kinda right but are missing the point.

Social media plays a big part of it, of course, because it opens women up to quick, easy, gamified validation and status seeking. The smartphone, particularly, made this terrible because now it's beamed into their pocket 24/7, rather than Facebook being a place people went and then left like any other website up until the last decade.

Of course, you can trace that back to feminism and the welfare state making this possible in the first place, breaking down the social contract wherein women were given special protections and a privileged place in society because of their crucial roles (child rearing, social harmony) but weaker physical and intellectual capacities. Thanks to feminism and the welfare state, women have gotten rid of all expectations of themselves while holding on to the special privileges (and acquiring new ones) accorded to them.

Social media is just the latest, most extreme expression of that. I'd say it's particularly bad and extreme, so in that sense, yes, it's due to that. But, it's just the latest, most extreme expression, as I say. Even the acceleration is now accelerating.
 

Elipe

Woodpecker
Question: If social media hadn't arisen, would things be much better/worse than today?
I think this is a matter of degree. Social media is most certainly one of the poisons of modern society, but it is far from being the only. If it wasn't social media, (((they))) would have found something else to confound male/female relations. But definitely, our society would look a lot better if social media didn't exist, but it wouldn't quite be the Garden of Eden either. You would still have bitchy feminist hags, you would still have hookup culture, you would still have the labor force implosion of career women + immigrants, and not to mention the demographic implosion.

But I definitely do think that without social media, the left would be missing a major component of the feedback loop system they've built that amplifies leftist rage. I do not think these BLM riots would have happened without social media, because they would be missing that ability to quickly mobilize mobs across geographically distant locations. You would be missing a lot of that core command and control capability that Antifa currently exhibits through social media.

On the other hand, social media did enable the rise of President Trump, so that is the flip side. Trump wouldn't have done what he did if it wasn't for social media and internet memes. We would probably have been looking at President Jeb 'Guacamole Merchant' Bush instead. Television would have a relatively, significantly more powerful influence than it does today.
 

EndlessGravity

Kingfisher
I would place it more around two issues. The first is a cliche: Millennials inability to leave home due to economic factors. They lack social skills or any sense of autonomy. Many are effectively children at 35, at least to a Gen Xer in his 40s.

However, for the second issue, when they do leave home, the rise of co-habitation. Take a look at this:

CNS-THURS-2-COHABITATION.jpg

As we got to the 2000s, we hit what I'd call the point of no return. Today the numbers are probably in the 70s and it's becoming a cliche itself. Because the institution of marriage no longer held significance, money was tight, and sex was easy, young people have increasingly come to believe they can just "try out" living together, like you try out an outfit. This isn't how healthy relationships work and that was probably a big mistake.

They're unaware of it but they actually have very little incentives, such as the future prospect of marriage, for their relationships to work. So, they don't work. You could almost sum up Millennials entire existence with this self-fulfilling prophecy: they have no future because they see no future beyond immediate gratification.

However, future marriage isn't the result of successful relationships; successful relationships are the result of future marriage.
 
I would place it more around two issues. The first is a cliche: Millennials inability to leave home due to economic factors. They lack social skills or any sense of autonomy. Many are effectively children at 35, at least to a Gen Xer in his 40s.

However, for the second issue, when they do leave home, the rise of co-habitation. Take a look at this:

View attachment 25502

As we got to the 2000s, we hit what I'd call the point of no return. Today the numbers are probably in the 70s and it's becoming a cliche itself. Because the institution of marriage no longer held significance, money was tight, and sex was easy, young people have increasingly come to believe they can just "try out" living together, like you try out an outfit. This isn't how healthy relationships work and that was probably a big mistake.

They're unaware of it but they actually have very little incentives, such as the future prospect of marriage, for their relationships to work. So, they don't work. You could almost sum up Millennials entire existence with this self-fulfilling prophecy: they have no future because they see no future beyond immediate gratification.

However, future marriage isn't the result of successful relationships; successful relationships are the result of future marriage.
I don't know why the living together fallacy still has any believability. Get rid of that safety net and people will need to work things out somehow.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
I don't think social media has made much difference. And something like 40% of relationships are formed online now. So in that sense it offers some sort of balm.

This stems from a whole host of factors, going back to the 1920s, at least. It's cultural influences for institutions, media, changes in divorce law, feminism, encouraging women to work, expanding uni entry, atomisation via mass migration and immigration and so on.

Women are looking for a man who is exceptional in at least one field and the list of things women want is very long. While the list of things men want is about 1-3 items. Formerly women possessed few of the things they liked in men, but now the are being redistributed to them and men are held back with the threat of ostracisation. So it is now much more difficult for women to find a man who they think is better than them. There is no dampener put on the Darwinian drives of female mate selection, which used to come from the church, family and community. While men are encouranged to debase themselves.

For modern women - what does the modern man offer - someone to do something with as an equal or lesser - like traveling, splitting bills, bringing home the bacon together. Most things women valued in men are no longer notable or exceptional. There is little reason to commit. Their own life, a life together, their family and society offer no reason to commit and many not to - pleasure.

If you take Malaysia as an example, women there are encouraged into the workforce, but there is a much slimmer welfare state, stricter social standards, closer family and community ties, expectations of marriage etc. Getting women into the workforce and maybe other factors are likely reducing mens' value, but it is not full spectrum, it's 20%. While men's value is being reduced on every possible vector + the degradation of society, family values.

My experience with modern women (and this includes EE city women) is that there is nothing about me that means much to them. They may be happy to spend time with me, but they are all more interested in being a man than fulfilling the role of a woman with me, which I am perfectly able to bankroll. In particular one girl, who was from a village, and went to university. She was earning around $300 pm in Russia. I didn't give specifics but I said in a life together I would pay for everything and she could stay at home raising children and practicing her hobby (photography). But she was more interested in trying to earn $600 pm, which means nothing to me. Then she moved to Moscow and was on $600 commuting about 1-2 hours per day. And I could tell there was a big difference between her living in a 2nd tier city and the capital.

They need to be broken, like horses, in their early 20s. It's the kindest thing you could do to them, rather than let them be broken by their 30s, or worse 40s. But breaking women is not in my repertoire; and the kind of guys who do have it in their repertoire are too busy pumping and discarding.

Mikhayla Peterson is a perfect example of this. A guy was with her when she was ill. She married him and had a baby, after curing herself. But then a huge world of opportunities opened up. Then her loyal, more than serviceable, but beta husband did not seem like much. She dumped him and dialed up a sex cam operator and flew half way round the world to have sex with him. She later posted multiple times online about how it it has taken FOUR years to trust her painfully loyal husband, but could trust some random sex guy enough to instabang him.

One man cannot keep a woman in line. Only enforced social rules regarding social and sexual conduct can keep women in line. Without that, good, but not alpha men will have increasingly worse cast offs to marry.

The last point I've not really heard mentioned much, but under the veneer of female empowerment is a torrent of pain at what is being done to them at the behest of fat dykes, oligarchs and globalists. If I told you I'd had ten foster parents you'd assume I'd probably be a bit of a mess and likely mentally ill. However society thinks nothing of a women having ten relations, of any kind from gangbang to LTR. Women are virtually incapable of going against social norms. It is not natural or healthy for them to be battle hardened from corporate boardrooms and ONSs. This is making women into messes and mentally ill.
 
My take:

Getting sex is as easy as it's ever been. Some reasons AF is easy these days-

1. So many out of shape men. All one has to do is hit the gym hard and they are going to physically dominate the majority even if they do nothing else.
2. So many beta/blue pill men out there. Just being masculine separates a man from the pack.
3. Zero social stigma anymore for women to have sex out of wedlock.

Relationships/BB is harder than it has ever been. Some reasons-

1. Financial. No one can afford to support a family anymore. The part that makes it a double bubble is that social expectations have not caught up to reality, so you still have women that expect the middle class lifestyle that is largely out of reach for the majority.
2. BIG ONE- Anti male, anti masculine toxic masculinity and misandry programming causes men to be held in low esteem other than the stratosphere/ top 1%. Women don't respect their man, and they leave or don't couple in the first place because of it.
3. Porn and hook up culture. Women are destroyed by the time they hit 25 from having sex with too many guys. Very sad, indeed.
4. No fault divorce/family industrial complex that will send droves of lawyers, police, and bureaucrats to a woman's aid for financial and emotional support if she doesn't want husband/ baby daddy.

I don't really agree that it has much to do with social media or attention because women want and need sex just as much as men.
 

Towgunner

Woodpecker
Is the collapse of male to female relationships due to social media?

No.

This started a long time ago. I'd say with the 1960s cultural "revolution", which spawned feminism, among other things. The notorious RBG wrote about removing terms like man-made, mankind, mom, dad etc., years ago. So, though this seems like its new, its been going on for years. What has caused the disconnect between us is feminism. It is based on the idea that men have kept women down and that women are actually superior to men in all ways, even though they also say that men and women are equal in all ways. It tells women to be as promiscuous as men, because, they say so. Basically, its a female supremacy movement.

As this thing made its way through the institutions it demanded things like equality of outcomes enforced by things like affirmative action and quotas. They contend that things are not a zero sum game, but they are, and that means for every woman hired by affirmative action, quota or diversity etc., there is a non-woman (a man) that has been displaced. Plus the combination of all the above has created an attitude among many women that is not appealing (to anyone).

What do you expect from an ideology that pits women against men and accuses men as being horrible abusers and oppressors. What do you expect you get when there is an ideology that is openly antagonistic towards men and justifies revenge for some kind of "injustice".

This is the cause of the breakdown between men and women.
 
I don't really agree that it has much to do with social media or attention because women want and need sex just as much as men.

That provided me with an interesting insight.

First, an analogy. Imagine sex as being either like food or companionship. We need food to survive. After, say, 2 months or so without food we're dead. But we can survive without companionship although for most of us, it will cause severe psychological issues.

For men, the psychological issues feel more urgent. Despite the claim that women are more in touch with their feelings, when it comes to sex, men are more proactive/aware of their sexual urges and responsible for them (sort of like food). While this huge psychological mind-game experiment that is feminism has shown that women, who experience sexual withdrawal symptoms including grouchiness and hormonal issues, will not directly relate to action. If a man is horny, he will approach women. He'll look into changing himself whether the "easy" way (simping/white knighting) or self-improvement (working out, earning money.) If he's hungry, he'll go fishing.

But women, who aren't getting sex, will feel bad and act out their grouchiness but sort of like someone whose out of shape, instead of exercising to feel better, they'll eat junk food. (I know, awful analogy) but my point is that women's reaction to a lack of sexual companionship isn't rational (at least not on a surface level).

Where I'm going with this, if you got this far, is that we as men (and society) look at how women approach sex from a masculine point of view. Women are incapable of "feeding" themselves after millions of years of men determining who women mate with whether a tribe/father picks her mates or the she submits to the alpha male who beats off rivals. When a woman on a dating app picks a chad and lets him have have sex with her, it's not that she "picks" him, but rather she is familiar with chads PICKING WOMEN and she reaches out to him to PICK HER. She goes to a store to "buy" food which means someone PROVIDING food for her. But she can't "hunt" the way us men do.

So here's the thing: feminism, among many unnatural heresies, provides women with the RIGHT to pick a man for sex which is something most women don't want nor can handle. It's like us men fighting for the right to shop for shoes all day. Women CRAVE being picked by men. For all the talk of escaping the Patriarchy, most women crave to be picked up by chads, the ultimate elites of The Patriarchy.

I have a 4 year old girl right now and one thing my wife and I battle over is how to teach the girl to eat. She wants to hand feed her if the daughter isn't eating right but I argue that if we don't let the child go hungry, even overnight, at least she will be FORCED to learn to eat (which women are capable of doing :) Women's ability to handle sexual choices is due to millions of years of men "hand feeding" them those choices. They are biologically incapable of doing so on their own.
 
giving a platform for the prostitution of a vast majority of the female population during its most fertile and beautiful years doesn't affect intersexual relationships at all, in the same way that planes do not affect how we travel.

It's my contention that line was crossed with the introduction of the "dinner date" a century ago. Back then, it was properly likened to prostitution where men paid women via food and a night out for the right to attempt to get into her pants (or back then, skirt :)

It's even WORSE than prostitution because men were encouraged to try to cheat women (spend as little as possible to seduce her) and women regarded men taking them out as chumps.

I coined the term "dinner whore" about 30 years ago. I don't know if I'm the first to use it.
 

CH-Toronto

Kingfisher
But women, who aren't getting sex, will feel bad and act out their grouchiness but sort of like someone whose out of shape, instead of exercising to feel better, they'll eat junk food. (I know, awful analogy) but my point is that women's reaction to a lack of sexual companionship isn't rational (at least not on a surface level).

This analogy is pretty good. Although I think "getting sex" could actually be replaced with "proper upbringing/desire to rebel".

Ironically I think pendulum will swing soon. As a black pill video as this is for young teens/zoomers there is light.
My reasons:

1. "Rebelling" has become so mainstream that it feels 'normal'. Tattoos are "normal". OnlyFans is "normal" and now being conservative/Christian has become alternative/punk.
2. This is the big one - millennial are about to hit 40. Millennial WOMEN. There will probably the largest number of unmarried/childless adults in WESTERN HISTORY (20%+ maybe more?). The feminism lie will catch up and serve as the biggest cautionary tale for future generations. All those articles you see where the woman says, "I'm 40, successful and can't find a man etc etc." -- That used to be the exception. THAT will become the new normal and will be fun to watch it all unfold.

Of course, the women may double down and go into "cope mode" and say, "I'm fine, I'm fine everything is fine" deluding herself.

Be ready. THE DAY OF THE WALL is upon us.
 
This analogy is pretty good. Although I think "getting sex" could actually be replaced with "proper upbringing/desire to rebel".

Ironically I think pendulum will swing soon. As a black pill video as this is for young teens/zoomers there is light.
My reasons:

1. "Rebelling" has become so mainstream that it feels 'normal'. Tattoos are "normal". OnlyFans is "normal" and now being conservative/Christian has become alternative/punk.
2. This is the big one - millennial are about to hit 40. Millennial WOMEN. There will probably the largest number of unmarried/childless adults in WESTERN HISTORY (20%+ maybe more?). The feminism lie will catch up and serve as the biggest cautionary tale for future generations. All those articles you see where the woman says, "I'm 40, successful and can't find a man etc etc." -- That used to be the exception. THAT will become the new normal and will be fun to watch it all unfold.

Of course, the women may double down and go into "cope mode" and say, "I'm fine, I'm fine everything is fine" deluding herself.

Be ready. THE DAY OF THE WALL is upon us.

Let's look at how men have largely (and continue to handle) the destructiveness of mainstream dating: The most negatively affected are the losers, of course. For men, those without good jobs or unattractive or shy, they're the incels. Many men including here will blame them for being lazy, blue pilled or well, losers. And there's some merit to that observation. In addition, men compete for women, particularly in the PUA community, so there's an attitude of "I'll get mine first."

Although women are hivemind/social driven creatures, they also may have an opinion that women who don't land the perfect guy are losers but THEY'RE special so perhaps THEY'LL get the ideal man they want. To see themselves as "moral" is ultimately to shatter a narrative of feminist entitlement that's more than a century old. And they'll go into DEEP denial before that happens.

I had hoped this was going to shatter back in the 1990's.
 

Amwolf

Newbie
I do not think these BLM riots would have happened without social media, because they would be missing that ability to quickly mobilize mobs across geographically distant locations.

On the other hand, social media did enable the rise of President Trump, so that is the flip side. Trump wouldn't have done what he did if it wasn't for social media and internet memes.

Excellent analysis. What transpired with BLM was strikingly similar to the Arab Spring. Social media was a useful tool that helped catalyzed both uprisings. Further, social media did provide a foundation for the Alt Right movement who ultimately put Trump in office. While I don't use social media and believe that it's inherently toxic, like TV, it's difficult to disagree that it's been useful in certain situations.

But it's usefulness can become obsolete very quickly as we've seen with the extreme censorship against Dissident and Christian alt media outlets leading up to the 2020 election.
 

Advorsor

Sparrow
I disagree and invite others' opinions and analysis. IMO, it was feminism, "equal rights", and a consumerist culture which after 2 centuries had metastasized into the train wreck in the 1990's where I observed increasing numbers of attractive, successful career women winding up (unwanted) single and childless in their 30's even before dating apps took off.

I'm in the exact boat as you. Social media has made things worse but these seeds were sewn long before. "Women's Lib" may be the worst thing to ever happen to this country/the 1960s as a whole.
 

Blade Runner

Kingfisher
This analogy is pretty good. Although I think "getting sex" could actually be replaced with "proper upbringing/desire to rebel".

Ironically I think pendulum will swing soon. As a black pill video as this is for young teens/zoomers there is light.
My reasons:

1. "Rebelling" has become so mainstream that it feels 'normal'. Tattoos are "normal". OnlyFans is "normal" and now being conservative/Christian has become alternative/punk.
2. This is the big one - millennial are about to hit 40. Millennial WOMEN. There will probably the largest number of unmarried/childless adults in WESTERN HISTORY (20%+ maybe more?). The feminism lie will catch up and serve as the biggest cautionary tale for future generations. All those articles you see where the woman says, "I'm 40, successful and can't find a man etc etc." -- That used to be the exception. THAT will become the new normal and will be fun to watch it all unfold.

Of course, the women may double down and go into "cope mode" and say, "I'm fine, I'm fine everything is fine" deluding herself.

Be ready. THE DAY OF THE WALL is upon us.

Especially if you are from Toronto.
 
Top