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.
This one doesn’t necessarily work though, because a post-work economy doesn’t necessarily translate into a post-scarcity economy as long as corporations have the ability to create scarcity and profit off it. Like if Star Trek replicators existed, you know they’d copyright the patterns to the replicator items and you’d need to pay to license the pattern or some shit, similar to software, which could also be post-scarcity but isn’t because profit.
For instance, the automation of the manufacturing industry didn’t create shorter work hours for higher wages, as a lot of people predicted; instead it concentrated more wealth at the top and created more competition for less secure, lower-paid jobs.
@ msexceptiontotherule
Hey, fellow gnarly WHTM reader, it doesn’t matter what wave you slash. Just so long as you’re catchin’ waves, dude! You’re totally rad to me no matter who your surfin’ buddies are, brah. Stay stoked and feminist!
Right. I’ll see myself out.
@Tragedy of the Commas
… please don’t leave (injections of un-serious are always welcome)
Katz, (@ Mortarius, et al.)
If you read sci-fi you might really like The Diamond Age (Or, A Young Lady’s Educated Primer) by Neal Stephenson. It’s got that exact premise of DRM-locked replicators and a plotline about gadgets designed to educate young girls either to run the system or to destroy it.
zoon echon logon
This is a biiiiig talking point among people that many would regard as progressive-greenie-leftie, and the majority of these people see themselves that way, but whose underlying authoritarianism shines out like a homing beacon when you’re talking climate change or related topics.
If you genuinely want to reduce population growth and to improve people’s lives, going all Mao’s China or Indira Gandhi’s India of decades ago is a pretty bad idea. Penalties for “too many” children along with compulsory abortions & sterilisations sounds like dystopia on steroids. The way to control &or reduce human populations is to concentrate on education of girls along with employment and business opportunities for girls and women – because you really want to increase the mean age at first birth for mothers. There are 40ish countries at the bottom of this list where the mean age at first birth is 20 or younger. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Mother%27s-mean-age-at-first-birth
What you really need to do is to reduce the number of generations of a family alive at the one time rather than take controlling &or punitive action against any woman or couple for exceeding their allocated quota of babies. If two cities-regions-countries have exactly the same number of children born per woman, they will have vastly different populations if women in one country have their first child at 20 and the other is at 30 years old. In the first, a 60 year old woman could be/ will soon be a great grandmother. In the second, a woman cannot become a grandmother until that age. One whole generation is omitted when you take that granny and first grandchild/whole family photo in the second group. (If all those countries at the bottom of that list had introduced such policies 10 or more years ago, the world’s population would be about a billion less than it is now – because 75-90% of children under 10 would not yet have been born.)
The difference being that the next generation has not yet been born — not that a heartless bureaucrat has decreed that some people are prohibited from having any, or more, children. And the country with the young/ too young mothers will have a much, much larger population than that with the 30 year old mothers within 25 years of them starting at the same population.
Strangely, the authoritarians don’t jump at the chance to slow population growth and make life better for women all in one neatly wrapped package. What a surprise! If they can’t get all bossy with people about when and whether they have children or turn on heating or travel to work, they’re not really interested. At heart, they’re really puritans, far too much like those original settlers in America for my taste.
PI, you know, I think I might have used that pic before. It’s hard to resist cat pics.
I, too, have done my part for the glorious feminist goal of bringing western civilization crashing down, as my lily-white uterus will never bear any children. Hail Katie!
@Tragedy of the Commas
You mean I should be going in the ocean?? EW. People pee in there! And it involves bathing suits…just because I wear one to give my dog a bath* doesn’t mean I go outside in the sun with it on (nor any other swimwear). I already use enough sunscreen daily to consider investing in company stock (my spending on Neutrogena alone…:P) I’d need a truckload annually if I were slathering it all over.
*I get into the tub to bath the dog, and it would be extremely weird to be naked in a tub with the dog. Well, for me it would. And anyone who has a different view that is gross, please don’t share it on here.
I’ve got nothing to add of a scholarly nature.
I just wanted to say that the kitty is majorly cute.
Like nearly everything from MGTOWs, it’s more of threat than it is a prediction.
“If you feminists don’t stop being so mean to us, we’ll stop providing sperm to make white babies! And that will destroy Western Civilization! And then you’ll be sorry!”
D’oh edit window over, that’s bathe not bath.
@Ddog
Thank you thank you thank you for neatly summing up the squicky feelings and thought processes that wage war with an open mind when my similar hair-triggers are touched on. To me it feels very telling that all of my slightly “conservative” instincts, or perhaps they are knee-jerk reactions, regarding issues such as sex work and porn come out of that place of damage and fear, not out of logic and data and non-abusive experience. It’s something to keep in mind as we boggle at the tantrums and teeth-gnashing of the manbaby faction.
Surfing the various feminist waves is exhilarating. I came of age during the tail end of the second, assimilated most of wave three over the following several decades, and now find myself struggling to keep up with wave four while scanning the horizon for the next one. I do wonder what the eighth will concern itself with! (And whether any of these backward-glancing MGTOWs will have up and taken their leave by then.)
4th wave it is then 😉
Thank you, Mortarius. That was genuinely interesting and I learned a great deal. One question if I may:
I read a pop-economics book a few years ago called The Age of Ageing, by George Magnus. Magnus argues, amongst other things, that a large issue we’ll see in the economics of our generation will be inter-generational equity, and in particular issues caused by a) an unfavorable working-age-people to retired-people ratio, and b) the concentration of capital in the hands of old (that is, retired people). Both of these factors may lead to political issues as production is dependent upon the young but its value is captured increasingly by the old.
Do you have a view on this?
White guy who’s married a black women here. We have two mixed race children, so are we contributing to the downfall of western civilisation? I hope so if it annoys the author of the subject of this delightful article.
Nah, apparently when white men do it, it doesn’t count because it’s a white man’s right to have sex with black women, and it’s all us uppity white feminist’s fault that white men want to have sex with black women in the first place, because we want to be treated like people.
So, in short: White men can do no wrong because white men.
PZ Myers has put forward his 2 cents on this guy’s concerns Seven billion problems, and declining fertility isn’t one of them
His takeaway is that if population numbers are important then White European types have already lost because only 16% of world population is white and the Sino-Japanese Asian types have “won”.
My view is that if it is European type civilisation that is needed then:
1) increase the cultural and legal defenses against prejudice and hate;
2) provide a good, sound rationally based education for everybody;
3) increase the availability of healthcare including reproductive health services;
4) ameliorate the effects of poverty with assistance programs
Hello.
Aah ! Civilization (II.0) crashed again !
Feminists, why BSOD !?
Fertility rates
I can not really comment the figures, i do not have any knowledge in this field. I just see that France is close to 2 (even over 2, if you can believe the French page, which use the CIA figures rather than UN ones), some figures are missing (no England and Scotland ? Are they as chaste as the Vatican ?). Less infant mortality leads to a lower rate, maybe ? Child expenditures higher also, maybe ? Lower fertility due to various endocrinian and hormonal alterations thanks to pollution and incrasing chemical and social behavior ? But i do not see how feminism can be invoked here. Are the MRM people not the ones refusing to have children because they fear about possible alimonies ?
Have a nice day.
@Mish
I made carbonara. (Although I tweaked it slightly and added mushrooms and spinach cooked in the pancetta.)
Sorry to derail the thread again, but when was it established Anita Sarkeesian was anti-sex or anti-sexwork? I’ve heard the gamergaters calling her anti-sex because they love to misuse terms and lack understanding of the arguments, but haven’t seen her seriously called that. Admittedly I’m mostly familiar with her video game stuff, but even before that I’d seen a few of her non video game tropes vs women.
Just wondering how many eras there have been in “Western Civilisation” when nobody has been predicting the apocalypse – none, that’s how many, given that one of our foundational documents says it’s definitely coming any time soon. And in some eras people were also certain that Western Civilisation had already collapsed, and that we were living in the twilight before the inevitable final shudder.
@ Tessa
My impression of criticisms I’ve seen is less that she’s anti-sex and more that she’s not as sex-positive as some might wish. With regard to sex work, what I’ve seen is mostly criticism of certain phrasings such as referring to sex workers as “prostituted women”. The objection is to the passive phrasing which contributes to the perception that all sex workers are victims of coercion to some extent which then bolsters support for policies which undermine sex workers’ safety.
Sadly, attempts to find specific quotes from her return mostly GG sludge so I couldn’t quickly find any sources. I need to start saving links to these things when I see them so I can find them easily later. D:
sevenofmine:
My question still stands. I’m not sure what this is based on.
Thanks! I was thinking it was more than that. I’d heard that one before, but she used that expression in a context about fictional characters with absolutely no agency and not presented with any actual in story contextual agency. She does the same thing by using “non playable sex objects” for other characters to point out that’s what they are in the context of the game.
@Tessa
In TvsW series, sex workers are only talked about in regards to the specific fictional portrayal as found in videogames, and shouldn’t be taken as being about real life examples.
“prostituted women” is precisely what those games show, from Hitman to Red Dead Redemption, the sex workers in question are either alienated background decorations, or shown being beaten by clients and pimps, they are women being used to make money for somebody else.
They aren’t sex workers because they themselves wish to be but instead, they are forced into it, “prostituted” means having been made into prostitutes by others, since in those games violence is about the only interaction a player has in that world, the player will be lead down a path of Violability. (The objectifier treats the object as lacking in boundary integrity, as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into)
Martha Nussbuam’s Seven Types of Objectification can be found across multiple games in their depictions of sex workers, that is what she takes issue with, I haven’t seen her express anything like a simple, if you pay or get paid to have sex then that is bad, and you are a bad person if you are involved in that.
(of course she may hold that view, it may just not have be included in her video work)
A lot of feminists I know, myself included, have at least one child. I have two. And yep, there are plenty of children being born every day.
My sons are super cool mini feminists though so not sure vikingdudebro would approve.
My eldest son has announced that he wants 100 babies (half his, half adopted) when he’s a grown up though so I’m sure he’ll single handedly decrease the growth of the decrease in birth rates (wording chosen purposely to mock viking, I’m better at constructing sentences than that, I think!).