Ok, so I don’t want to alarm you or anything but one of those Men’s Rights Activists they have so many of over on Reddit has some genuine concerns about western civilization, specifically with regard to its possible imminent collapse, due to feminists being so damn feministy and making men so mad — totally justifiably, bros! — that they’re going to stop wanting to have babies with ladies any more, thus leading to the end of civilization, as referred to earlier in this sentence.
Well, shoot, I think that might have been his whole argument right there, but let’s take a look at his post anyway, which he has helpfully if ungrammatically titled “Genuine concern that due to the actions of 3rd wave feminists and the rise of MGTOW The western world is reaching a point of possible collapse.”
Oh, and if you’re wondering about the viking beard thing, I looked at some of his older comments and he seems to like talking about his beard, so I thought I would mention it.
So let’s move right along and get into the meat of Mr. BlightedArrow91’s warning re. that impending end of civilization thing.
Mr. BlightedArrow91 starts off his post, which as you may recall was entitled “”Genuine concern that due to the actions of 3rd wave feminists and the rise of MGTOW The western world is reaching a point of possible collapse” by noting that he’s worried “that the actions of feminists and SJW’s … will lead to the decline of western civilization.”
Ok, so like the first thing you need to sustain a civilization is babies. Specifically, 2.1 babies per family. But alas, feminists hate babies! And so, due to
the lack of and attack on new families and the family lifestyle, and several other factors caused and perpetuated by feminists as a whole, I’m genuinely worried that western civilization will be dead within the next 30-100 years.
Ok, so to sum up what we’ve learned so far: feminists hate babies and, wait, what was the other thing? Oh yeah, this dude is apparently worried about western civilization, with regard to the whole “possible collapse” thing. I think he might have mentioned that a couple of times.
Now bear with me, I know this sounds a little crazy at first, but let’s take a look at a few of the finer details here, Over the last 20 years there has been two major surges of sjw and third wave feminist culture, it’s been there the whole time, it was just much bigger during the 90’s, and now.
Ok, twenty years, two big surges of feminism.
During both surges the birthrate and marriage rate of the western world has dropped significantly.
Uh oh!
With the current justifiable rise and increase of MGTOW and the ever increasing craziness, aggression, and regressive nature of third-wave feminists,and the needed TFR(total fertility rate) of 2.1 annually, This number of decreased births and decreased marriages will grow and grow.
Ok, look, you just have to get used to the fact that this dude doesn’t really understand when to capitalize words. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, oh no!
If that number does grow, the likelihood of a TFR and subsequent population replacement level decline will be inevitable, which will eventually lead to the fall of western civilization.
In other words, there’s going to be a baby shortage. I don’t want to cause a panic or anything, but you may need to start hoarding babies.
Luckily, they’re generally pretty small, if noisy and a bit smelly.
Now, obviously — obviously! –feminism can’t last forever. I mean, even a viking-bearded manbaby who can’t capitalize words correctly can see that.
Now don’t get me wrong, I do understand that the SJW and third-wave feminist cultures will die down eventually, but will the backlashes created from both movements be let go of, and will we not see another resurgence of them in the near future afterward?
I don’t actually understand the question, so let’s just say “maybe?”
Now that MRA’s actually are making headway and will eventually show the average male exactly how stacked society is against them are we going to see an even larger rise of MGTOW and men just saying fuck it?
I guess maybe yes? I mean, the standard reaction most dudes have when they hear about or run into MGTOWs is “I want to be more like these bitter manbabies who spend their entire lives complaining about the women they supposedly totally don’t need and that means you too mom, I hear you out there in the hall!”
I mean, it’s not like most dudes hear about MGTOW and say, what the hell is wrong with these sad, angry doofuses?
Anyway, Mr. BlightedArrow91 isn’t done talking yet.
Going by the fact that two PC culture and SJW surges have happened both in 1991-2000, and 2011-present, is it not possible to surmise that by 2031 we will see another rise of both?
Wait what? I’m going to go with “maybe” again.
I fear, that if the future follows the past 20 years history of whining over trivialities,lies,and myths, and the constant demonizing of men, we will see this pattern continue, and we will see a large population decline from men refusing to mate, which could possibly lead to the same happening from the opposite gender, and if this does happen, we very well may be on the beginning trail of the end of the west.
Wait, is this just the first paragraph again?
Are we in some kind of weird Groundhog Day time loop, but instead of gallivanting around Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania and rescuing kids who fall out of trees and learning how to ice sculpt and play the piano and basically get in touch with our own soul, we have to read half-baked MRA manifestos over and over again until our brains fall out?
I’m going to go with “maybe” again.
EJ,
Like you, I tend to conflate the 2nd to 3rd wave transition with the feminist sex wars and assume the 2nd waver was anti-porn and the 3rd wave was “sex-positive.” Actually those were different things. I checked Wikipedia and it looks like the feminist sex wars were originally fought among second-wavers, and the rise of the “3rd wave” was an actual generational change. The 3rd-wavers just happened to be coming of age around the same time their mothers were fighting the porn wars.
That said, based on personal observation the “sex-positive” camp seems to be ascendant, and several of the most iconic 2nd-wavers were of the anti-porn faction, so perhaps it’s a fair association.
So nice to know I’m doing my part to contribute to the downfall of Western Civilization by refusing to have any (not even white) babies.
Also, David, have you used that header image for an article before? I distinctly remember you using that for another article, but it was some time ago.
Samesies. And really, given the mess it’s made of the world, “Western Civilization” can’t go kaplooey soon enough for me.
Now, mere opposition or sex work, pornography, and fanservice isn’t definitely 2nd or 3rd wave (Well, nothing is *definitely* 2nd or 3rd), but underneath all that I sometimes see a profound distrust of all our culture’s constructs of sex and romance that feels a bit MacKinnon or Dworkinesque. I’m used to seeing contemporary feminist critics calling out sexist tropes in individual stories, but sometimes Sarkeesian appears to take it as given that depictions of romance are harmful as a rule.
For example, in “5 creepy and/or sexist christmas songs,” she listed “All I Want For Christmas Is You,” which she deemed sexist merely because it portrays romance as something desirable. It doesn’t make sense unless it’s grounded in an Intercourse-style assertion that all existing romantic narratives are tainted by patriarchy.
@Orion
I think those topics are primarily 3rd wave ones.
Due to the online nature of her work she fits very much in the fourth wave category.
Kira Cochrane, editor of All the Rebel Women, defines fourth wave feminism as a movement that is connected through technology.[2] Researcher, Diana Diamond, defines fourth wave feminism as a movement that “combines politics, psychology, and spirituality in an overarching vision of change.”[3]
Fourth wave feminism is often associated with online feminism, especially using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Tumblr, and other forms of social media to discuss, uplift, and activate gender equality and social justice.[4]
The internet has created a ‘call-out’ culture, in which sexism or misogyny can be ‘called out’ and challenged.[5]
This culture is indicative of the continuing influence of the third wave, with its focus on micropolitics and challenging sexism and misogyny insofar as they appear in everyday rhetoric, advertising, film, television and literature, the media, and so on.[6]
This online feminism aspect of the fourth wave has impacted how companies market to women so that they are not “called out” for sexism in their marketing strategies.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-wave_of_feminism
Point [6] is pretty much her videos and her twitter combined, along with the political leanings.
Mostly 4th wave is about strategies using modern technology and it’s effects on the discourse.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter, she is who she is and she does as she does, no person neatly fits in any box, which is fitting to anyone that considers the metaphysical gender binary to be fundamentally flawed by this false belief.
Sex work hasn’t been featured in her work excessively, in nearly every game she has featured, the sex workers were always targets of abuse, and to me her criticisms were like those people had of Game of Thrones, it wasn’t that they disagreed with any fictional rape, but instead objected to the specific nature of how the show constantly used it for cheap ratings or just to advance a male characters narative.
It strikes me as implausible to think that James, EJ, and I are the resident experts on feminist history, especially when James is pasting in Wikipedia articles and I’m ineptly paraphrasing them.
James, I’m tempted to push back on your take but I feel like maybe I should just wait for an actual expert to bail me out.
I’m glad to be contributing to the downfall of western civilization by not planning on having kids and never growing a beard.
Yes, I said it… I will keep shaving until I die. I will never grow a disgusting looking lump of hair that looks like a dead animal on my face.
Because elf > viking.
But really, don’t people realize that children are not play things and that there’s a such thing as overpopulation? I always think about the quote that Keanu Reeves says in Parenthood about the issues of parenting (this may not be accurate by the way):
“You need a license to drive a car, a license to own a pet, hell, you need a license to fish… But any asshole can by a parent.”
Child abuse and neglect is a problem that most manospherians pretend doesn’t exist it seems.
@Orion
I’m not an expert, just offering a perspective, Only she can truly answer this question.
To me her wider social justice credentials (would like to see her also move towards addressing ableism too) makes her 3rd wave and maybe beyond.
Fourth wave is in the modern era and thus it cannot be placed in a history framework like 2nd wave can be, it’s young, growing and evolving.
But.. but, Dragon, we put figureheads of you on our ships and made you into flags and everything! How could you?
:C
I think that Sarkeesian is very modern in her feminism. I find some things she’s said or opined on to be at odds with my own opinions but overall I quite enjoy her work.
TW for abuse/sex negative attitudes
That said I am battling my own deeply ingrained negative attitude to sex/sex work. Sex always frightened me and when I first developed thoughts on it and feminism I kind of fell into the mindset of most sex work being a form of abuse because I couldn’t envision someone not being frightened by it. That probably sounds very convoluted but basically I’m trying to battle my own mixed up feelings toward some aspects of feminism, and I’m especially trying to work on my feelings of sex as an extension of abuse. I know that it isn’t right but my gut reaction (like the emotional reaction) is nearly always opposite to my thoughts once I’ve stepped away from the feelings any mention of similar subjects bring up. I think my own history of abuse has left me feeling overly cautious or fearful.
Sorry for the babble, I think this is an interesting discussion and my thoughts just flowed out
“Because elf > viking. ”
Amusingly, I know of at least one game where elf *are* vikings.
Which make sense, because in older myths they were superior to human in every aspect. The archetypal wood-loving elf is a very recent construction. As is the effeminate, very culturate but degenerate one (I look at you, World of Warcraft).
I’m raising a house full of feminists. Somehow I don’t think this guy aproves of me either.
Good.
feminsity
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/01/19/the-feminsit-menace-as-big-a-threat-as-correctly-spelled-feminists/comment-page-1/
Something, something Pat Robertson.
Well, 3 and 3/4 out of 7 isn’t too bad, I suppose.
I mean, I am a socialist, I don’t have a husband, I don’t have children (and even if I did, I don’t condone ever harming a child, let alone murdering them), I do practice witchcraft, I do want to destroy capitalism, and I’m a pansexual, not a lesbian.
Not claiming expert status for myself, but some knowledge re feminism and its ‘waves’ (from teaching & researching feminism & sexuality for 20-odd years). Also, this comment is not a corrective to anything that’s been said here – just adding my own thoughts.
Agree with lightcastle, first, that the whole ‘wave’ thing is problematic (deeply so, imo). I try to only use it as a very general, heavily qualified term. It tends to create more difficulties than it solves, & this is especially pronounced with the notions of 2nd, 3rd (& now 4th?) wave feminism.
Anyhoo, 2nd wave F was not as blinkered about differences between women as is often assumed, but it was an issue, yes. Debates over lesbianism and its relation to F were there almost from the start, & women of colour were contributing & critiquing also basically from the beginning.
2nd-wave F was absolutely not anti-sex, as some have already pointed out. The Dworkin-style pov was influential, certainly, but much of 1970s feminism was robustly … well, raunchy :). The sex debates, which took up the late 70s and much of the 80s, are an incredible illustration of the range of F ‘takes’ on sexuality issues. However, heterosexuality and/in feminism was & continues to be unresolved in some ways (in theory, not necessarily in practice).
I wanted to say some stuff about Sarkeesian, too, but this is already one of those tl;dr comments. Abbreviated, it would be something like: not sure how valuable/useful it is to place her work within the wave concept of feminism.
Enjoying all today’s comments hugely!
Thanks, Mish Singh.
You know, if these dudes were really actually concerned with the birthrate, they’d suck it up and breed with a post-wall former carousellor, who according to their narrative is sad and lonely and owns a lot of cats and would leap at the chance of having a man around and a bun in the oven. I mean, I know fertility drops off after a certain point, but it’s not immediately gone as soon as you blow out thirty candles. But that would require an honesty that these dudes aren’t ready for — they’re not worried about babies per se, they’re worried about having a hawt young thang keeping house for them.
But then, we all already know this, so… *resumes semi-lurk mode*
[quote] None that I know of, but in fairness, there haven’t been a lot of historical civilizations based on the giant Ponzi scheme that is capitalism. I can theoretically imagine a capitalist system collapsing when it turns out people can’t keep consuming more and more products every year for eternity. But IANAE. Any actual economists want to weigh in? [/quote]
This comment will be long sorry.
Actual Economist here! It is theoretically possible for capitalism to collapse if the population levels off, falling consumption could lead to a persistent weakness of demand -> falling interest rates to stimulate investment and borrowing to spend -> A lot of those investments going bad and loans not being paid due to weakness persisting -> deflation as prices and wages are cut -> people putting off spending because prices are falling all the time and increasing the stock of savings which only exacerbates the previous.
However, this is theoretical. In practice Europe and Japan have seen interest rates at zero for some time now. Europe has demonstrated that, contrary to theoretical models, deflation is very difficult in practice as workers will not accept wage cuts and most businesses will not concede the defeat of lower prices across the board. That is prices are stickier than we imagined in theory. Japan saw some actual deflation and a seriously aging population but has sort of slumped into a low-growth capitalist equilibrium.
So collapse due to birthrates being weak is unlikely in practice, even in a nation like Japan that largely excludes immigration.
As for growing forever, you kind of can consume more and more for eternity. Yes growing forever in the sense of simply turning out more stuff by consuming more resources and selling it to a growing population is unsustainable, but there is no reason why growth can’t be achieved in sustainable ways:
– Increasing efficiency, producing more with fewer resource inputs raises growth.
– Improving quality without greater resources, people don’t have to consume more every year if they consume better things. Consumption can rise by for example improving internet services.
– Increasing durability and recyclability, items that need to be replaced less often and that can be reused will depress growth in the short term but raise it long term by reducing churning costs (churning costs include the unnecessary labour/transaction costs involved in repair/replacement of items and disposal of waste items).
However nothing guarantees this will come to pass, as a human system nothing is certain except that the choices are ours.
Oh god, I forbid there being a fourth wave. The first three are poorly understood enough.
Would it be overly reductive to say that third-wave feminism is the feminism we live in now, and anyone who is a feminist and participates in the general modern feminist community is a third-waver? Because it seems more clear and useful to me to divide by era instead of tenets.
My personal opinions (shared by some papers/books I read in my degree) on how capitalism could collapse:
1. (The Bad Way): Policies pushing unsustainable growth and capture of policy making by rent seekers and an increasingly wealthy super-elite produces rising inequality coupled with inefficiency, persistently weak growth and an endless creep of the market into non-market/common good areas of life which only makes impoverishment more oppressive and inescapable than the past. Eventually this becomes politically untenable and is one way or another overthrown.
In the bad way as an example of oppressive: Consider a scary world where everything you do charges your credit card and your life is reduced to a constant calculation of the price of every movement. The footpath costs a few cents but the road with the AI car costs a few dollars based on distance, only items and services rentable by the minute are available to the poor, creating a constant time pressure stress. Parks charge entry when you enter the radius and public seating costs extra. Capitalism crushes us enough already. This logic is hard to fight as user-pays is strictly speaking more efficient and appeals to a logic of personal responsibility and individualism.
2. (The Good way): Technological progress outpaces the above, increasing automation and the development of AI and 3D printing (matter compilers) replaces more and more jobs. Capitalism responds by producing more “pointless jobs” (to sponge up this excess wealth) which we already see in the explosive growth of finance, middle managers, supervisory roles, lawyers, marketers, social media managers, SEO specialists, CEO/Executives and many more. Eventually we reach a breaking point where too many jobs are automated and so few remaining jobs are “real and necessary” that a transition to a kind of post-scarcity socialism occurs where only a few people who want to be necessary are required to work and everyone else does what they want to varying success.
As an example consider how ad revenue supports blogs like this and many artists and works of art in our world today, this is effectively capitalism subsidizing a class of people who do what they want. A combination of AI’s and 3D printers could destroy capitalism because if these items can re-create themselves then ownership of the means of production immediately diversifies in the same way ownership of music diversifies as soon as a home computer could make infinite copies of a record. In the bad way future we would legislate to inhibit such reproduction by IP law.
Oh man I went overboard.
I don’t get this one. Sure, there’s reduced cost, but I’m not sure how that promotes growth. If you take it to the theoretical extreme where everyone buys something once and then never needs a new one ever, then there’s no wasteful costs, but there’s also no growth, is there?
Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense, but it does seem opposite of the American model of capitalism, where they try to get everyone to replace everything more and more often.
I was going to circle back after cooking but I see that Mish Singh has basically made any further points I was going to. 🙂
Over time, (although I am quite sure my study of the history is far less rigorous), I’ve grown to dislike the wave model more and more, and dislike it the most when it becomes about tenets rather than the time frame and main focus of what battles are about. (That “first wave” sometimes gets extended back to the mid-1800s also bothers me, since that predates the naming of the movement and even back in the early 20th century you had people saying the equivalent “All feminists are suffragists, but not all suffragists are feminists” to distinguish themselves as a new movement. )
As has become my mantra more and more as I get older, “Actually, it’s more complicated than that.” *grin*
So….when does 4th wave feminism start? It seems like we’d have gotten to 5th wave by now. So many things with ‘othering’ to change into “Us”*.
*Does not refer to the United States.
lightcastle, exactly, yes (ps what did you cook? I’m hungry).
The wave thing has its uses if it’s referring to historical periods, but not so much as a catch-all description of feminisms. One of my colleagues once said that the problem with the wave metaphor is the implied assumption of ‘troughs’ (i.e. absence of feminism) in between.
Re some of the earlier comments on Sarkeesian et al, I think that use of technology has had significant impacts on how feminism is theorised & practised, but again I wouldn’t use another ‘wave’ to describe this.
“It’s more complicated than that” can be applied to just about anything. I love it 🙂