I agree with your description of how things are for (many) men and clearly seem to them. Totally disagree with the woman side. I hate to tell you this, but women do not truly respect anyone, and certainly do not worship them. The only people women worship is their own kids. I have seen zero evidence that any woman respects, beyond the level of basic decency and empathy, any adult, and certainly doesn't worship. Those are both primarily male concepts and men have vastly greater capacity for both. They project their assumption that women have the same above/below hierarchy of respect and worship in their emotional repertoire, which they do not. Some merely play along with those expectations for other reasons, much like employees who laugh at their boss's jokes and kiss up to their boss, but make fun of and shred him apart as soon as he's not around. Women do admire, like, love, and have attraction, but respect and worship is not there. We are like cats, that's an appropriate metaphor. Dogs worship and respect, not cats. That's about how different the emotional writing is. I think men would be quite disturbed if they truly understood just how little women actually respect status. Luckily, they will mostly never believe it bc to them it feels so natural and inevitable.
FWIW, people pay tens of thousands to egg donors and select them on precisely the same metrics, favoring height, high test scores and IQ, and athleticism, just as they do when selecting among sperm donors.
Last, the most likely women to marry are the most highly educated and high in socioeconomic status. The top 15% of women on those metrics are almost 3x as likely to marry as those in the bottom 40%. If men just wanted pretty, easy-going, and nice, it would be the opposite.
Women are eugenic I suppose, depending on what traits you think qualify as eugenic. Most guys in prison are fathers and women have babies with a lot of enormous losers who they regardless find sexy and charismatic. I would not describe that eugenic, unless you're wanting to select for charismatic anti-social criminals and low-lifes.
women exercise better eugenic discretion than men. in part because they're vastly more sexually selective. due to stuff like this, that operates on a biological level: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-03414-004
> "I hate to tell you this, but women do not truly respect anyone"
and I hate to tell you this, but a lot of your remarks are equal parts the projection you think I'm doing here.
women respect authority and projections of power so readily and often unthinkingly it's frustrating. I'm not sure how you don't see this.
women don't respect status? what?? yes, all humans do. women are basically Manichean-lly deferential in defaulting to status as the trustworthy thing to look up to/listen to. it's everywhere. I could not disagree more with this statement.
"zero evidence any woman respects or worships".... "evidence"? you mean, you haven't found any anecdotes you can point to? how about my generalized anecdotes, the observations you're seeing in this essay, that come from experience, there's some evidence. how about the first image in the essay where a woman openly wishes to worship men and praises another woman who does? idk what evidence even look like here, but there's some more.
your comments seem to suggest you think women are basically functioning sociopaths, which is more commentary on the women you've encountered; same as my observations are.
this is not an evidence-based discussion. we are both essentially describing our experiences and observations about intersexual dynamics, and abstracting them. in doing so, we are both in a way telling on ourselves with our conclusions, and speaking to the kind of men and women we've surrounded ourselves with, and that we are ourselves.
I'm not projecting what all men think because I am one, because I know I'm unusual. frankly I don't have much of the "adore" gene in me. I'm aware I'm part of the substack/esoteric/online class and my preferences are atypical and not good proxies. you exist in the same sphere, you are girlboss adjacent, and I know she's not going to be happy with this post and does mostly see men as boorish stepping stones to extracting resources (...sociopathic). "well me and my NYC Product Manager substack sisters don't respect anyone so all the other women don't either"...
it's fine to object to some of these observations because I know they're not universally always applicable, but we should keep ourselves in mind when we think we definitively speak on behalf of all men or women. know when you're weird and almost certainly a misleading proxy. I'm keeping this in mind with what I write here; if I was projecting my own feelings, the 'male adoration' section would have looked dramatically different.
said with love btw. I appreciate you reading and the comments.
I think we are talking past each other and perhaps you don't understand what I mean when I say women only worship their own children and don't truly respect status. Of course they defer to authority, that's not what I meant, anyone who does not want to end up in jail or beat up or other bad things happening to them generally defers to authority.
I certainly do NOT mean that women are sociopathic, if anything I mean the opposite. It is more "sociopathic" to think that some humans are above or below others, are more important and better and worthy and deserving. I said that women DO love, like, and admire people for reasons, and also that they grant respect in the sense of how we all grant a basic level of decency and respect to everyone just for being a person. But I don't think they actually see certain people as being "above" or better than them, at least, they don't do so nearly as often or as strongly as men do, and it doesn't resonate with them emotionally the way it seems to with (many but certainly not all) men.
Let me give you some examples, that may illustrate it more clearly.
1. Men tend to actually "worship" and act like groupies for various powerful and high status males -- think Elon Musk or a sports hero or whatever titan of industry or war hero. Women almost never follow or care about those types of guys even like 10% of the amount that men do. The people women look up to are always seen as NICE, good people, expressive, artistic, and often downtrodden (even if this is BS). Look at Taylor Swift, her whole persona is basically crying constantly about all the people who have wronged her and all the ways she's an underdog. If her "brand" was I'm a tall beautiful ultra-rich powerful blonde who rules the world, women would hate her. They like her because she portrays herself as an underdog who is always being broken up with, disrespected, overlooked, and scammed. All of the celebrities that appeal to women portray themselves as nice and caring, or underdogs, or sometimes just emotional or hot. But never just powerful. Guys are the ones who go crazy for dudes just because they're rich or win wars or run counties. There are tens of thousands of ultra rich millionaire CEOs and founders and guys way up in the male status hierarchy whose names no women know, they don't chase after, and will never cross their lips or spend a second in their minds, even though they are actually high status. They're too busy pining over some guy with a man bun who's playing the guitar and singing emotional poetry at a bar somewhere even though he's basically homeless.
2. The above difference in how much resonates with power/status versus kindness and charisma/caring is very observable at a micro level in ordinary workplaces, where there is typically one or two guys who are the big swinging dicks and rain makers and they're often jerks. The younger men and underlings may hate him, but I've noticed they also usually actually respect them. The women don't, they usually hate him AND wish he would go away and would love to see him go down. I have known several secretaries to these guys who devote themselves to the BSD and one would think respect him because they serve his every need for decades, but once they retire, you can talk to them and they will have only bad things to say about what a terrible and ridiculous man he was. I've never seen one of these guys get a truly emotionally-devoted minion that wasn't a male. Men make much more devoted minions, women are entirely unreliable minions. Women do it because it's what needs to be done or what their paycheck relies on, and same with plenty of men, but there are also men who glorify and look up to the BSD and want to be him and actually have an emotional worshipful type attachment.
3. This is why all female workplaces are frequently dysfunctional and quickly fall apart. Because the entire point of hierarchy and status is to quickly sort out disagreements. Instead of having to resolve every conflict, the higher status person in charge just wins, period. That won't work with females because they DO NOT BELIEVE that the higher status person should "win" and here's my point: it's because they do not actually believe they are legitimately higher status or have any right or claim to be deferred to or receive more resources than anyone else.
4. This is also why the right-wing is composed of like 9 men for every one woman. Because one could describe the main difference between right wing and not as the right wing being comfortable with, and even insisting on, hierarchy and status differentials. If women were down with that, more would be right wing, but hardly any of them are, and the ones who are tend to EITHER have not through it nearly as much as the men have and just sort of belong in that tribe because everyone they know is, OR if they are the thought-through types, they rarely last and half the time they later come out against their former tribe.
5. Pretty much all women talk shit about their husbands and men almost never do that about their wives. I bet you could put out a poll asking men if they think their wife worships them and you would get an almost 100% "no" response, even in Afghanistan or someplace like that. I bet you would not get a 100% "no" response to the same poll asked of women. I don't want to be depressing, but I bet you would not even get a very high "yes" response if you merely asked men how many of them think their wife respects them as much as they hope. This is not a right/left thing as I think conservative women actually talk a lot MORE shit about their boyfriends/husbands. I also don't mean this as like a "women are terrible" thing, because it doesn't mean anything...women complain to each other and self-deprecate as a matter of course, but they also do NOT see their husbands as above reproach or feel inherent guilt about it being disrespectful to make fun at his expense to their friends, the way most men would feel if they did that about their wives. Not because of a differential in love/admiration but because of a differential in how each emotionally relates to the idea of "respect".
I think what you are writing about is some type of very temporary sexual infatuation that can occur in the beginning heady stages of a romance, which is about the only time that women may indeed feel worshipful and like their beau is actually better than them, or too good for them or whatever. But that's like a temporary hormonal cocktail, and men get the same way, and absolutely feel all "oh my god how did I deserve this perfect angel" about it. Again, a temporary delusion. And yes, most women will not be into the prospect of using her limited reproductive capacity to mix her genes with someone who is going to dilute them and make them worse, so on that measure, sure, they want the best they can get (but so do men with their long-term investments).
I think if you ask virtually any man regardless of his status who has been living with a woman for five + years if they think she thinks he's better than her, the answer will be no. There's a reason that even the highest status, rich and famous guys sing songs about things like "these hos ain't loyal." In a sense, that's silly because of course those guys are far LESS loyal when it comes to sexual fidelity. But what they mean when they sing that is that even they, as the guys at the very top, can't rely on women to maintain that initial hormonal "worshipful" stance. No one can, it's a silly thing to expect. But they reason they expect it is because they're the top guy, and to a man, the top guy in status deserves everyone below him to look up to him. But women don't actually think that, we simply do not believe in status hierarchies in the same hard-wired, emotionally resonant way that guys do.
Men evolved to fight in groups against other groups of men, and that results in hierarchy, which they like and feel comfortable with as it's actually a way of REDUCING violence by having a quick mechanism for resolving constant conflict. Women did not, we evolved to get along in groups via care-taking and consensus, and whenever women have more control. All mostly or all-male environments develop rigid hierarchies, while women's don't have them and when they get more power they try to get rid of hierarchies. The top men reify and make their status clear by doing things that show it. The top women constantly derogate themselves and try to show why they're not really on top. It's just different wiring and has nothing to do with girl-bossism. If anything, girl bosses are just wired and act more like men and more likely to respect and expect status. Just like some guys are wired more like women and hate status differentials and have the same pro-underdogism that desires to pull them down.
Kate has articulated her argument well, but I disagree with quite a bit of what she is saying, for instance:
Women don’t value status?
That’s actually funny. Who is richer? Who is prettier? Who is thinner? Who is in a better sorority? Who played varsity? Who has a bigger house? Whose children are smarter, more athletic, going to a better college? Who goes on better vacations? Who cooks better? Who has a career vs who is a stay at home mom? Who is a nurse? Who has better clothing, handbags, style? Who has a higher status husband?Who cares more about social issues? It’s my experience that women are just as competitive about status as men but many pretend they’re not.
Yes points that are well written but I don’t agree with either.
1. No Taylor Swift does not have millions of fans because she is an “underdog”. She may at times be relatable but her mass appeal does not come from that. Taylor has power and money she’s good looking she is rich she is white etc. and more importantly she has had a machine push her and her song writing puts center stage 21st century gender war resentments
She’s made a career singing about failed relationships with high status men like Travis Kelce future HOF, Jake Gylenhal a movie star and John Mayer a rock star for 15 years now. Why not a football player who sucks or a struggling actor or that guy with the bun playing guitar at the bar ? You think she’ll date Substack writer next?
2. Men want to be him and women want be with him.
Woman don’t worship men like Elon Musk but he has had no problem to have multiple women have his many children. No man on twitter can do that. Was his appeal his hot body? Was it his sense of humor? His kindness? Lmk what you think.
3. Women run HR and in the last 35 years work culture has so dramatically been feminized , but let’s just say this BSD boss is real and has some poor guy be his “minion” it’s certainly pathetic to be that man . But remember all of the women you’ve heard of or seen clearly in abusive relationships with men whether verbal or violent and or men with criminal reputations or multiple baby mothers.
After they break up the guy is an asshole dead beat abuser many times only for them to get back together. What explains this behavior? They see mistreatment by a man as something only a powerful dominant strong man can do and they may find it sexy or at times or scary but they attribute status to it.
4. Hoes ain’t loyal? Well they are hoes! The question is why are there so many hoes. The song sang by known woman beater Chris Brown isn’t about about guys at the top not getting a woman to stay loyal past the initial “worshipful” stance it’s that the stance was never there , it was never real. The top guy was a mark from the beginning to simply move to an even bigger whale.
5. Can love exist without respect? Woman shit talking there partners to friends is done to boost their own status in relation to their girlfriends . Either the guy was a great fuck and she wants to share how she can get attractive men or shell tell you about her pathetic sad sack bf who totally failed in satisfying someone as beautiful and incredible as them.
6. Not Everyone gives or gets basic respect and decency. Not everyone differs to authority. How else would people be treated so poorly in this world and how on earth would anyone have made a change?
Many mothers who may worship an infant or toddler child often resent sabotage and abuse their daughters and sons as they grow older for not reaching the status or standards they have set for them or for them not reaching a status they wanted to when younger.
Men opposed to hierarchy were raised in gynocentric feminist households and boss babes were raised in broken homes in which a male figure could not be trusted and the only control they can have is a career usually picked for status and respect….
Woman are painfully aware of status and respect. They will deny that such things affect women to simply play the game even better. Bravo .
I think I see what you're saying. Respect is part of hierarchy, structure, and women at a primal level don't work that way.
Is there any organizing principle at all for women? Throw a bunch of guys in a room, and the BSD is going to eventually assert dominance; then he'll come up with a mission. Throw a bunch of women in a room and... what? If it is true they are the stuff of chaos, and chaos is the stuff of them, then nothing happens. It takes a man (Perhaps ultimately The Man Upstairs) to light the spark of action. Women are the embodiment of primordial chaos. What do you think?
I can see why it might seem like chaos to you though there is a rationale to all of it. It's just not a rationale based upon capacity for violence/power (and let's be honest all power ultimately at it's most basic collapses down to capacity for inflicting violence). I think to truly *believe* in the fundamental rightness and goodness of a system for sorting out conflicts and competing claims on resources based on violence, one likely has to be in a position where one could at least hypothetically envision themselves in that position, and if one always automatically imagines oneself to not be in that position, it will necessarily seem unjust and illegitimate.
Women in groups certainly do come to a sort of "leader" though I have a hard time even using that word bc it's more like the person who will get their way most of the time in the event of a conflict, but not really a leader that either she or anyone else would admit to. Generally that would be the person with the best social skills at influencing others either in positive or negative ways (through rewards, reciprocity, offering value, manipulation, threats of social ostracism, reputational harm or enhancement, etc). But its never going to be set in stone and always subject to shifting depending on the circumstances and context. So I can see why it would just look confusing and chaotic if it's not how you're wired, but there is a logic to it. It's just the same as how the male way seems brutal, scary, and unjust if you're not part of it, much the way you'd probably view an alien species if they arrived and dominated humanity.
It somehow took my parents a decade to figure this out. I do blame propaganda, but it's still mindboggling how easily supposedly educated people never question such obvious nonsense.
the boomers had their brains sauteed and melted in the most rancid gender-bender porridge for so long and it's part of what led to these conditions were in.
My parents were Genx, but I have known a handful of boomers and yes, that is true. Particularly, the 'tomboy/sassy' archetype was a huge problem as my mother learned to navigate issues through an inherently combative lens. Granted, her boomer mother was the same, but it never occurred to her why no one wanted to be with my grandmother at the end of her life.
People tolerate your 'girlboss'/being unbearable when they fear they'll be crushed if they speak out. Tragically, many women I know only figure this out when their offspring/family can ditch them without remorse.
mostly right except for this: “Women come out of the oven ready made for adoration, whereas men require some elbow grease to unlock their worship.”
do you have any idea how much time women spend trying to make themselves cute and quirky to attract men? it’s not a natural state of being, women are trained to spend endless hours improving our appearances and cultivating hobbies/personality traits that appeal to men. what you think is a woman just “being herself” is the careful product of an entire lifetime spent catering to the male gaze…
yeah that's a fair point. I'm referring to feminine essence, the thing men adore for being, what's highlighted in that song or the 4chan greentext: that is not a product of makeup or skincare routines, and are a good proxy for the feminine adoration I'm highlighting. that is what exists readymade for adoration. if you highlight these things, you get adored even more.
whereas the masculine is fundamentally valued (worshipped) for its actions. what it produces.
but beauty does benefit and is amplified as a result of careful female maintenance and attention. I don't mean to discount the effort that takes. same with the quirky little mannerisms that smarter women intentionally cultivate, which is really just to say "I figured out being cute and feminine gets adored, so I learned to be more cute and feminine.". which is low-key my point.
consider the environment where feminism could even manifest. it would have to be peaceful, reasonably prosperous, safe, basic needs covered, not violent, etc.... domesticated.
this is an environment where the masculine has done such a good job both domesticating himself and his surroundings, that it allows feminism to occur (no atheists in foxholes, no feminists in poverty or war), and it encourages further domestication of men by emphasizing performance to gain female submission, rather than violence to gain female compliance.
feminism can exert positive selection effects on men by exerting hypergamous pressures; this encourages men to perform to gain sexual access, and it should produce eugenic effects both by the actions it incentivizes from men, and by which men are the most reproductively successful.
however, there's always too much of any good thing. the West is not a form of eugenic feminism (you'll note I distinguish between "reasonable feminism" and "radfem"), and it needs to be curtailed. when female morality/values dominate a society and political decision making, you get an erosion of hierarchical standards and entropic behavior (by eschewing masculine-minded order).
the masculine needs to reassert his territory, because we have become so domesticated that we're supine and feckless. too much feminism yields the longhouse. but there's a right amount that is indicative of a successful society, and conducive to eugenic behaviors.
productive application of masculine values should produce the kind of success that allows the feminine to express hers; if this never happens, you are almost certainly always in some form of war or poverty. meaning you are failing in some way. feminism is a poetic indicator of economic and societal prosperity, because it can only manifest in a backdrop of relative comfort.
masculine because you have to, feminine because you get to.
I think about the current crop of men who increasingly hold women in contempt and this rings true. I keep telling folks that balance is one of the most important aspects of life and it scales from the person up to the entire world.
The unbalance of feminism in its current form threatens to bring us back to a rather barbaric masculine backlash.
Meanwhile I am sitting here just wishing that all of us could have a woman who is cute, nice and interesting.
I agree with your description of how things are for (many) men and clearly seem to them. Totally disagree with the woman side. I hate to tell you this, but women do not truly respect anyone, and certainly do not worship them. The only people women worship is their own kids. I have seen zero evidence that any woman respects, beyond the level of basic decency and empathy, any adult, and certainly doesn't worship. Those are both primarily male concepts and men have vastly greater capacity for both. They project their assumption that women have the same above/below hierarchy of respect and worship in their emotional repertoire, which they do not. Some merely play along with those expectations for other reasons, much like employees who laugh at their boss's jokes and kiss up to their boss, but make fun of and shred him apart as soon as he's not around. Women do admire, like, love, and have attraction, but respect and worship is not there. We are like cats, that's an appropriate metaphor. Dogs worship and respect, not cats. That's about how different the emotional writing is. I think men would be quite disturbed if they truly understood just how little women actually respect status. Luckily, they will mostly never believe it bc to them it feels so natural and inevitable.
FWIW, people pay tens of thousands to egg donors and select them on precisely the same metrics, favoring height, high test scores and IQ, and athleticism, just as they do when selecting among sperm donors.
Last, the most likely women to marry are the most highly educated and high in socioeconomic status. The top 15% of women on those metrics are almost 3x as likely to marry as those in the bottom 40%. If men just wanted pretty, easy-going, and nice, it would be the opposite.
Women are eugenic I suppose, depending on what traits you think qualify as eugenic. Most guys in prison are fathers and women have babies with a lot of enormous losers who they regardless find sexy and charismatic. I would not describe that eugenic, unless you're wanting to select for charismatic anti-social criminals and low-lifes.
women exercise better eugenic discretion than men. in part because they're vastly more sexually selective. due to stuff like this, that operates on a biological level: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-03414-004
> "I hate to tell you this, but women do not truly respect anyone"
and I hate to tell you this, but a lot of your remarks are equal parts the projection you think I'm doing here.
women respect authority and projections of power so readily and often unthinkingly it's frustrating. I'm not sure how you don't see this.
women don't respect status? what?? yes, all humans do. women are basically Manichean-lly deferential in defaulting to status as the trustworthy thing to look up to/listen to. it's everywhere. I could not disagree more with this statement.
"zero evidence any woman respects or worships".... "evidence"? you mean, you haven't found any anecdotes you can point to? how about my generalized anecdotes, the observations you're seeing in this essay, that come from experience, there's some evidence. how about the first image in the essay where a woman openly wishes to worship men and praises another woman who does? idk what evidence even look like here, but there's some more.
your comments seem to suggest you think women are basically functioning sociopaths, which is more commentary on the women you've encountered; same as my observations are.
this is not an evidence-based discussion. we are both essentially describing our experiences and observations about intersexual dynamics, and abstracting them. in doing so, we are both in a way telling on ourselves with our conclusions, and speaking to the kind of men and women we've surrounded ourselves with, and that we are ourselves.
I'm not projecting what all men think because I am one, because I know I'm unusual. frankly I don't have much of the "adore" gene in me. I'm aware I'm part of the substack/esoteric/online class and my preferences are atypical and not good proxies. you exist in the same sphere, you are girlboss adjacent, and I know she's not going to be happy with this post and does mostly see men as boorish stepping stones to extracting resources (...sociopathic). "well me and my NYC Product Manager substack sisters don't respect anyone so all the other women don't either"...
it's fine to object to some of these observations because I know they're not universally always applicable, but we should keep ourselves in mind when we think we definitively speak on behalf of all men or women. know when you're weird and almost certainly a misleading proxy. I'm keeping this in mind with what I write here; if I was projecting my own feelings, the 'male adoration' section would have looked dramatically different.
said with love btw. I appreciate you reading and the comments.
I think we are talking past each other and perhaps you don't understand what I mean when I say women only worship their own children and don't truly respect status. Of course they defer to authority, that's not what I meant, anyone who does not want to end up in jail or beat up or other bad things happening to them generally defers to authority.
I certainly do NOT mean that women are sociopathic, if anything I mean the opposite. It is more "sociopathic" to think that some humans are above or below others, are more important and better and worthy and deserving. I said that women DO love, like, and admire people for reasons, and also that they grant respect in the sense of how we all grant a basic level of decency and respect to everyone just for being a person. But I don't think they actually see certain people as being "above" or better than them, at least, they don't do so nearly as often or as strongly as men do, and it doesn't resonate with them emotionally the way it seems to with (many but certainly not all) men.
Let me give you some examples, that may illustrate it more clearly.
1. Men tend to actually "worship" and act like groupies for various powerful and high status males -- think Elon Musk or a sports hero or whatever titan of industry or war hero. Women almost never follow or care about those types of guys even like 10% of the amount that men do. The people women look up to are always seen as NICE, good people, expressive, artistic, and often downtrodden (even if this is BS). Look at Taylor Swift, her whole persona is basically crying constantly about all the people who have wronged her and all the ways she's an underdog. If her "brand" was I'm a tall beautiful ultra-rich powerful blonde who rules the world, women would hate her. They like her because she portrays herself as an underdog who is always being broken up with, disrespected, overlooked, and scammed. All of the celebrities that appeal to women portray themselves as nice and caring, or underdogs, or sometimes just emotional or hot. But never just powerful. Guys are the ones who go crazy for dudes just because they're rich or win wars or run counties. There are tens of thousands of ultra rich millionaire CEOs and founders and guys way up in the male status hierarchy whose names no women know, they don't chase after, and will never cross their lips or spend a second in their minds, even though they are actually high status. They're too busy pining over some guy with a man bun who's playing the guitar and singing emotional poetry at a bar somewhere even though he's basically homeless.
2. The above difference in how much resonates with power/status versus kindness and charisma/caring is very observable at a micro level in ordinary workplaces, where there is typically one or two guys who are the big swinging dicks and rain makers and they're often jerks. The younger men and underlings may hate him, but I've noticed they also usually actually respect them. The women don't, they usually hate him AND wish he would go away and would love to see him go down. I have known several secretaries to these guys who devote themselves to the BSD and one would think respect him because they serve his every need for decades, but once they retire, you can talk to them and they will have only bad things to say about what a terrible and ridiculous man he was. I've never seen one of these guys get a truly emotionally-devoted minion that wasn't a male. Men make much more devoted minions, women are entirely unreliable minions. Women do it because it's what needs to be done or what their paycheck relies on, and same with plenty of men, but there are also men who glorify and look up to the BSD and want to be him and actually have an emotional worshipful type attachment.
3. This is why all female workplaces are frequently dysfunctional and quickly fall apart. Because the entire point of hierarchy and status is to quickly sort out disagreements. Instead of having to resolve every conflict, the higher status person in charge just wins, period. That won't work with females because they DO NOT BELIEVE that the higher status person should "win" and here's my point: it's because they do not actually believe they are legitimately higher status or have any right or claim to be deferred to or receive more resources than anyone else.
4. This is also why the right-wing is composed of like 9 men for every one woman. Because one could describe the main difference between right wing and not as the right wing being comfortable with, and even insisting on, hierarchy and status differentials. If women were down with that, more would be right wing, but hardly any of them are, and the ones who are tend to EITHER have not through it nearly as much as the men have and just sort of belong in that tribe because everyone they know is, OR if they are the thought-through types, they rarely last and half the time they later come out against their former tribe.
5. Pretty much all women talk shit about their husbands and men almost never do that about their wives. I bet you could put out a poll asking men if they think their wife worships them and you would get an almost 100% "no" response, even in Afghanistan or someplace like that. I bet you would not get a 100% "no" response to the same poll asked of women. I don't want to be depressing, but I bet you would not even get a very high "yes" response if you merely asked men how many of them think their wife respects them as much as they hope. This is not a right/left thing as I think conservative women actually talk a lot MORE shit about their boyfriends/husbands. I also don't mean this as like a "women are terrible" thing, because it doesn't mean anything...women complain to each other and self-deprecate as a matter of course, but they also do NOT see their husbands as above reproach or feel inherent guilt about it being disrespectful to make fun at his expense to their friends, the way most men would feel if they did that about their wives. Not because of a differential in love/admiration but because of a differential in how each emotionally relates to the idea of "respect".
I think what you are writing about is some type of very temporary sexual infatuation that can occur in the beginning heady stages of a romance, which is about the only time that women may indeed feel worshipful and like their beau is actually better than them, or too good for them or whatever. But that's like a temporary hormonal cocktail, and men get the same way, and absolutely feel all "oh my god how did I deserve this perfect angel" about it. Again, a temporary delusion. And yes, most women will not be into the prospect of using her limited reproductive capacity to mix her genes with someone who is going to dilute them and make them worse, so on that measure, sure, they want the best they can get (but so do men with their long-term investments).
I think if you ask virtually any man regardless of his status who has been living with a woman for five + years if they think she thinks he's better than her, the answer will be no. There's a reason that even the highest status, rich and famous guys sing songs about things like "these hos ain't loyal." In a sense, that's silly because of course those guys are far LESS loyal when it comes to sexual fidelity. But what they mean when they sing that is that even they, as the guys at the very top, can't rely on women to maintain that initial hormonal "worshipful" stance. No one can, it's a silly thing to expect. But they reason they expect it is because they're the top guy, and to a man, the top guy in status deserves everyone below him to look up to him. But women don't actually think that, we simply do not believe in status hierarchies in the same hard-wired, emotionally resonant way that guys do.
Men evolved to fight in groups against other groups of men, and that results in hierarchy, which they like and feel comfortable with as it's actually a way of REDUCING violence by having a quick mechanism for resolving constant conflict. Women did not, we evolved to get along in groups via care-taking and consensus, and whenever women have more control. All mostly or all-male environments develop rigid hierarchies, while women's don't have them and when they get more power they try to get rid of hierarchies. The top men reify and make their status clear by doing things that show it. The top women constantly derogate themselves and try to show why they're not really on top. It's just different wiring and has nothing to do with girl-bossism. If anything, girl bosses are just wired and act more like men and more likely to respect and expect status. Just like some guys are wired more like women and hate status differentials and have the same pro-underdogism that desires to pull them down.
Kate has articulated her argument well, but I disagree with quite a bit of what she is saying, for instance:
Women don’t value status?
That’s actually funny. Who is richer? Who is prettier? Who is thinner? Who is in a better sorority? Who played varsity? Who has a bigger house? Whose children are smarter, more athletic, going to a better college? Who goes on better vacations? Who cooks better? Who has a career vs who is a stay at home mom? Who is a nurse? Who has better clothing, handbags, style? Who has a higher status husband?Who cares more about social issues? It’s my experience that women are just as competitive about status as men but many pretend they’re not.
Yes points that are well written but I don’t agree with either.
1. No Taylor Swift does not have millions of fans because she is an “underdog”. She may at times be relatable but her mass appeal does not come from that. Taylor has power and money she’s good looking she is rich she is white etc. and more importantly she has had a machine push her and her song writing puts center stage 21st century gender war resentments
She’s made a career singing about failed relationships with high status men like Travis Kelce future HOF, Jake Gylenhal a movie star and John Mayer a rock star for 15 years now. Why not a football player who sucks or a struggling actor or that guy with the bun playing guitar at the bar ? You think she’ll date Substack writer next?
2. Men want to be him and women want be with him.
Woman don’t worship men like Elon Musk but he has had no problem to have multiple women have his many children. No man on twitter can do that. Was his appeal his hot body? Was it his sense of humor? His kindness? Lmk what you think.
3. Women run HR and in the last 35 years work culture has so dramatically been feminized , but let’s just say this BSD boss is real and has some poor guy be his “minion” it’s certainly pathetic to be that man . But remember all of the women you’ve heard of or seen clearly in abusive relationships with men whether verbal or violent and or men with criminal reputations or multiple baby mothers.
After they break up the guy is an asshole dead beat abuser many times only for them to get back together. What explains this behavior? They see mistreatment by a man as something only a powerful dominant strong man can do and they may find it sexy or at times or scary but they attribute status to it.
4. Hoes ain’t loyal? Well they are hoes! The question is why are there so many hoes. The song sang by known woman beater Chris Brown isn’t about about guys at the top not getting a woman to stay loyal past the initial “worshipful” stance it’s that the stance was never there , it was never real. The top guy was a mark from the beginning to simply move to an even bigger whale.
5. Can love exist without respect? Woman shit talking there partners to friends is done to boost their own status in relation to their girlfriends . Either the guy was a great fuck and she wants to share how she can get attractive men or shell tell you about her pathetic sad sack bf who totally failed in satisfying someone as beautiful and incredible as them.
6. Not Everyone gives or gets basic respect and decency. Not everyone differs to authority. How else would people be treated so poorly in this world and how on earth would anyone have made a change?
Many mothers who may worship an infant or toddler child often resent sabotage and abuse their daughters and sons as they grow older for not reaching the status or standards they have set for them or for them not reaching a status they wanted to when younger.
Men opposed to hierarchy were raised in gynocentric feminist households and boss babes were raised in broken homes in which a male figure could not be trusted and the only control they can have is a career usually picked for status and respect….
Woman are painfully aware of status and respect. They will deny that such things affect women to simply play the game even better. Bravo .
I think I see what you're saying. Respect is part of hierarchy, structure, and women at a primal level don't work that way.
Is there any organizing principle at all for women? Throw a bunch of guys in a room, and the BSD is going to eventually assert dominance; then he'll come up with a mission. Throw a bunch of women in a room and... what? If it is true they are the stuff of chaos, and chaos is the stuff of them, then nothing happens. It takes a man (Perhaps ultimately The Man Upstairs) to light the spark of action. Women are the embodiment of primordial chaos. What do you think?
I can see why it might seem like chaos to you though there is a rationale to all of it. It's just not a rationale based upon capacity for violence/power (and let's be honest all power ultimately at it's most basic collapses down to capacity for inflicting violence). I think to truly *believe* in the fundamental rightness and goodness of a system for sorting out conflicts and competing claims on resources based on violence, one likely has to be in a position where one could at least hypothetically envision themselves in that position, and if one always automatically imagines oneself to not be in that position, it will necessarily seem unjust and illegitimate.
Women in groups certainly do come to a sort of "leader" though I have a hard time even using that word bc it's more like the person who will get their way most of the time in the event of a conflict, but not really a leader that either she or anyone else would admit to. Generally that would be the person with the best social skills at influencing others either in positive or negative ways (through rewards, reciprocity, offering value, manipulation, threats of social ostracism, reputational harm or enhancement, etc). But its never going to be set in stone and always subject to shifting depending on the circumstances and context. So I can see why it would just look confusing and chaotic if it's not how you're wired, but there is a logic to it. It's just the same as how the male way seems brutal, scary, and unjust if you're not part of it, much the way you'd probably view an alien species if they arrived and dominated humanity.
Thanks!
Really good article! So much to unlearn.
It somehow took my parents a decade to figure this out. I do blame propaganda, but it's still mindboggling how easily supposedly educated people never question such obvious nonsense.
the boomers had their brains sauteed and melted in the most rancid gender-bender porridge for so long and it's part of what led to these conditions were in.
we must RETVRN to worshipful hierarchies.
My parents were Genx, but I have known a handful of boomers and yes, that is true. Particularly, the 'tomboy/sassy' archetype was a huge problem as my mother learned to navigate issues through an inherently combative lens. Granted, her boomer mother was the same, but it never occurred to her why no one wanted to be with my grandmother at the end of her life.
People tolerate your 'girlboss'/being unbearable when they fear they'll be crushed if they speak out. Tragically, many women I know only figure this out when their offspring/family can ditch them without remorse.
that was a powerful comment. very insightful.
This match very well my experience with my gen X mother and boomer grandmother.
My grandmother is insufferable under the fake niceness.
I am one of the last who kept making the effort to go see them but I give up, the psychological abuse is just too much.
Every generation after the Boomers as well.
I like the artwork on your articles. Do you make it yourself?
thank you for noticing. yes I make all the art myself, with midjourney.
Ah, I wasn’t sure if there was AI use or not. The colors and composition are really nice. You must have good taste and good prompting skills :)
Do you ever sell it?
mostly right except for this: “Women come out of the oven ready made for adoration, whereas men require some elbow grease to unlock their worship.”
do you have any idea how much time women spend trying to make themselves cute and quirky to attract men? it’s not a natural state of being, women are trained to spend endless hours improving our appearances and cultivating hobbies/personality traits that appeal to men. what you think is a woman just “being herself” is the careful product of an entire lifetime spent catering to the male gaze…
yeah that's a fair point. I'm referring to feminine essence, the thing men adore for being, what's highlighted in that song or the 4chan greentext: that is not a product of makeup or skincare routines, and are a good proxy for the feminine adoration I'm highlighting. that is what exists readymade for adoration. if you highlight these things, you get adored even more.
whereas the masculine is fundamentally valued (worshipped) for its actions. what it produces.
but beauty does benefit and is amplified as a result of careful female maintenance and attention. I don't mean to discount the effort that takes. same with the quirky little mannerisms that smarter women intentionally cultivate, which is really just to say "I figured out being cute and feminine gets adored, so I learned to be more cute and feminine.". which is low-key my point.
As a deadly romantic, I adore this.
<3
Excellent piece. I wish I’d read it a couple of decades ago!
I see feminism as anti-domestication, not pro
consider the environment where feminism could even manifest. it would have to be peaceful, reasonably prosperous, safe, basic needs covered, not violent, etc.... domesticated.
this is an environment where the masculine has done such a good job both domesticating himself and his surroundings, that it allows feminism to occur (no atheists in foxholes, no feminists in poverty or war), and it encourages further domestication of men by emphasizing performance to gain female submission, rather than violence to gain female compliance.
feminism can exert positive selection effects on men by exerting hypergamous pressures; this encourages men to perform to gain sexual access, and it should produce eugenic effects both by the actions it incentivizes from men, and by which men are the most reproductively successful.
however, there's always too much of any good thing. the West is not a form of eugenic feminism (you'll note I distinguish between "reasonable feminism" and "radfem"), and it needs to be curtailed. when female morality/values dominate a society and political decision making, you get an erosion of hierarchical standards and entropic behavior (by eschewing masculine-minded order).
the masculine needs to reassert his territory, because we have become so domesticated that we're supine and feckless. too much feminism yields the longhouse. but there's a right amount that is indicative of a successful society, and conducive to eugenic behaviors.
productive application of masculine values should produce the kind of success that allows the feminine to express hers; if this never happens, you are almost certainly always in some form of war or poverty. meaning you are failing in some way. feminism is a poetic indicator of economic and societal prosperity, because it can only manifest in a backdrop of relative comfort.
masculine because you have to, feminine because you get to.
the environment dictates the expression.
I think about the current crop of men who increasingly hold women in contempt and this rings true. I keep telling folks that balance is one of the most important aspects of life and it scales from the person up to the entire world.
The unbalance of feminism in its current form threatens to bring us back to a rather barbaric masculine backlash.
Meanwhile I am sitting here just wishing that all of us could have a woman who is cute, nice and interesting.
Some of this is complicated by the fact that the Longhouse is the most effective way to organize large corporations to date.