A Darwinian catalogue of the most dangerous specimens of Affluent White Female Liberal Dry Egg Incels, plus diverse AWFL DEIs and pro-human Elon at the end
You post comments on almost all of the substacks I visit.
You don’t appear to have a staff, or co-authors.
Is there something you’re not telling us?
By the way thank you for this terrific post. - I have always thought that there should be someplace where normal people can go and see a comprehensive annotated list, with photos, of all of our woke enemies (military intel. calls this “order of battle”). This is the closest thing yet, a great start.
100%! What I worry about is Yuri is an absolute phenom rapidly rising and will soon be public enemy no 1 for dem Nazis. They’re going to come after him big time.
Totalitarianism both. I think the Nazi comparison apt because they came to 100% control through “democratic” means. Using the system. Once in power (as the dems are now) tighten the vice.
Absolutely - and look at the parallels of Weimar to today. The attempt to normalise transsexualism. The gay men who were a major part of the NAZI party until the night of the long knives. The use of democracy for totalitarian socialists to gain power as they gave away free stuff to build the support of the people. This is very much what’s happening in Scotland right now. Ironically with a party that is also both Nationalist and Socialist in their ideology. Both parties (and the communists) obsessed with removing individual liberty, encouraging identity politics and identify group based hierarchies to back up their fallacy of oppressor versus oppressed. All of them keen in rewriting history to rationalise their irrational beliefs. Because if people understood history then they would do their best to avoid the mistakes of the past. The NAZI’s and Soviet’s are an inconvenient truth to those looking to re-create the horrors of the past as a result of their own individual insecurities and anxieties
Not true. Bolshevism is Globalist, Materialist, Anti Nation, based on Class Warfare and other divisions between people, Anti Religion, Total Central Planning. The individual is a cog in the machine under Bolshevism
Of course they’re not the exact same thing. Just the point was how achieving power by hitler 1933 democratically transforming the nation and all institutions according to Nazi party, shutting down dissent lawfare owning media, taking individual liberties away etc. I obviously would agree the Democrats are Marxist adherents, and because as you say globalist is the goal.
I think this is a fun post because it makes fun of women we don't like... but there just aren't as many men capable of supporting a family as there are women capable of having kids. There never have been.
There aren't even as many men who want to become capable of supporting a family as there are women wanting children. Ignore the women who don't want kids, there's plenty who want them who have no options. If you want to see more marriage with kids, it's men who have to step up and become marriageble. Women become more liberal the longer they stay single and childless out of necessity.
There are a limited number of men making enough income to support a stay at home wife and multiple children.
Women, particularly educated women who don't want to give up their careers, need to understand that marrying up isn't as easy as it once was, and most of them are not the prize heifers that society has told them they are.
Two of the happiest women I know have college degrees, pretty good white collar jobs, and are married to blue collar guys who make less money than them. The guys wanted a woman who wasn't going to be a burden on him, and the women wanted a stable guy who could be a good partner and father to their children.
Neither of these women are particularly attractive, by the way, but they're smart. They realized that if they tried to land a high-income prince charming, they were competing against chicks that they couldn't realistically compete against, so they changed their criteria to "reasonably attractive guy who's fun, has a sense of humor, is kind, and works hard."
I think a lot of women, particularly college-educated women, could learn from those examples. It's not about "lowering" their standards, but rather making their criteria realistic and compatible with what's available in the dating market given the currency they have to exchange for it.
Lot of working-class guys want a woman who doesn't cause a lot of financial/relationship drama through sheer low-class stupidity and a poor upbringing. Lot of college-educated women who want a real man need to re-evaluate what will actually make them happy in a relationship.
i am a college educated woman who married a college educated man who i out-earn. we have two children together. this is a VERY common situation - where even college educated men are being outearned by the women they partner with. I chalk it up to this - at some point the duties split where women had to do some earning and men had to do some housework - and from what it seems, women have done a much better job adapting to this new world order. Most friends i have are in a similar scenario, where their ambition outperforms that of their male counterpart - and they become the primary breadwinner, on top of primary parent, home administrator, etc. Unfortunately that pressure burnt out my mothers generation, but luckily corporations seem to be catching on that its smarter to allow their most ambitious the time to also adequately take care of home duties too.
I don't think men lack ambition. What I think is lacking is white collar work that is rewarding to men.
I've been in marketing project management for a fair amount of time now, and that means I work with far more women than men since that's simply how marketing is.
The amount of tedious work that's asked of us is more than a bit ridiculous, and then we also have to sit through meeting after meeting where everyone gets to give feedback and arrive at some kind of consensus even though there's generally only 1-2 people in the room who actually understand the customer demographic we're marketing to.
I think in the modern corporate office, it caters far more to women than it does men, just because of the workflow processes. Meetings, consensus, more meetings, getting input from people who's input isn't valuable just so they feel included, etc. All that is exhausting and demotivating to men.
thats so interesting. i also work in a corporate environment, specifically in legal and contract compliance - and find the opposite to be true of my surroundings. that we have to listen to some men give input just to keep their ego intact, when otherwise the women are great at sticking and moving around those individuals whenever possible. the culture does lean more heavily towards "make a decision and move" which i personally love. must just be a difference in career culture.
I 100% agree with you that college educated women and blue collar guys can make a good match and raise great kids. In fact I think the best match is a woman who also came from a blue collar background but went to college and got a white collar job.
But when I say men should "step up" I include guys who should consider marrying a woman who makes more money than him and not worry about it. Partnership is the goal.
Great point. It's important for guys to drop some of the ego and just accept that the world has changed and it's perfectly acceptable to partner with a good woman who makes more money than he does. It doesn't make him less of a man.
I'm one of those - I'd like a good husband and maybe a child or two. But the guys who can actually do this, whether or not I'd be a working wife/mother - are nowhere to be seen. They're perpetually adolescent, not serious at all. They go on dating apps with phrases like "trying to figure out my dating goals". They may not make very much money, and have very little skills, much less social ones. Men just aren't marriageable in a lot of ways. The blame has quickly been assigned to women for not wanting to marry - but over and over we see in the world, even in non-Western countries, that women aren't marrying because of the men in their society that don't step up to the plate. Look at Japan - something like 1 million people are considered "hikkikomori", or basically shut-ins who depend on their parents and others for shelter and sustenance, and live online. Most are younger men. On what planet would you ask a Japanese woman to marry and have children with a man like this? Do men even consider what women do when it comes to marriage and children? It's a HUGE investment - mentally, physically, and financially. It needs to be WORTH it and it's just not in a lot of ways in our society. So, I'm a 35 year-old single woman. Not woke, thankfully, and no, I do not hate children. My sister-in-law is due in May for my first nephew and I am VERY excited. But I'm afraid it may not be in the cards for me. Who knows.
i completely understand what you are saying and agree - i don't know why so few men are encouraged to step up and lead a family these days. it perplexes me. i am married with children and my millennial husband even required considerable persuasion to have a second child because the first one caused extra work for him. dont get me wrong - hes a good man and father but it just feels like men are encouraged to lead a life of least resistance these days.
THIS comment! I was reading up on the fertility issue in Russia and the women are saying the exact same thing the derided modern western woman is saying. It’s crazy.
“Ignore the women who don't want kids, there's plenty who want them who have no options. If you want to see more marriage with kids, it's men who have to step up and become marriageble.”
Women are just picky by nature (hypergamy). There are plenty of options, it’s just that a majority of women don’t want to “date down”, ie partner with a man at their own level. This is borne out empirically by data from dating apps.
Do the bare, biological math. How many women 18-30 are capable of making babies? Nearly all. How many men 18-30 can be good fathers with a stable income? Half? Maybe? So by biological necessity women are hypergamous. This gets worse when men don't even try, or get scared off by the fact that a woman might have a career.
There are SO FEW marriagable men that men are often shocked to find when they finally give it a try (instead of dating with sex in mind dating with marriage in mind - and real marriage, not high romance) they are actually overwhelmed with interested women. As long as they open to marriageable women who want to be mothers and aren't wasting time with the hot chicks at the club.
Right. Being single and childless isn’t a preference most of the time. It’s seen as a survival tactic in a time of wage stagnation and rising rental prices. The most financially stable and adaptable women are going to be those who are childless. That’s just the reality.
And you’re right, the image of a provider/head of household has fallen out of favor with some young men in a post-feminist, individualistic culture. They want to embrace the sexual revolution and play around in their youth just as much as the notorious modern women do. Yes, they are men with no biological clocks. But this dating model still wastes precious years of women’s prime reproductive window. We aren’t supposed to rush them because it’s “pushy”, but society has no problem rushing us.
On the economic front, they don’t understand that while many women now work and COULD just marry lower income men, we’d still have to lower our work hours or sometimes quit once we have at least 2-3 children. Even when women are working, they still do most of the domestic and childcare activities. They’d break even for their time if they just quit, which some do because the exorbitant costs of daycare often isn’t worth the contribution of the woman’s income. So, accounting for maternity, many mothers will end up working part-time, remotely, or leave the workforce after they have more than 2 kids.
So, even if all women compromised on their standards for education and income in male partners, a critical mass of men would still need to embrace ambition and become boy-bosses after women give up the girlboss grind.
Dismissing college education as a ‘scam’, not working towards home ownership, and making themselves appear unstable for marriage isn’t the move. If they think it’s all a burden, then maybe they need to grow up and help us “save western civilization”.
It’s like they’re not doing anything on their end, while complaining about what women do to keep themselves afloat. 😑
In part it's that the young men of today were raised by single moms. They have not seen a husband in action. Given 70% of divorce in my generation (x) is initiated by women, I imagine this is another luxury before AWFLs have gifted us...I call us the eat pray love generation. Finding ourselves in our late thirties took priority over finishing our kids. Alas, the boys no longer have fathers.
I hated that book so much. It was self-indulgent claptrap. That said, I initiated the divorce. Here’s why: My husband moved out so he could spend more time with his girlfriend, who I didn’t even know about until he moved out. He did not want a divorce, he just wanted to “figure things out.” I finally realized he did not want a divorce (I did) because his girlfriend was pressuring him to marry her and he wanted the excuse that his Evil Wife would not give him a divorce. He was happy with the way things were and didn’t want them to change. Of course, girlfriend got pregnant (who didn’t see that coming?), he finally signed the paperwork and that was that. Women initiate divorce because men think things are fine because they are fine for him and he doesn’t care what she thinks.
Salary isn't important. Partnership is. There aren't enough tech and pharma bros to go around - and most of them are just dating for sex anyway. So when men show up and offer partnership and marriage and fatherhood to future kids, they get more interest.
That would be the Jewish Zionists. Study up who is behind DEI. Who do you think indoctrinated those liberal white women? Liberalism always devolves to communism with enough time.
Both you and fsy above should read up on the Frankfurt School, and the personal backgrounds of the people who invented Critical Theory. DEI is directly built on Critical Theory and the Marxist oppressor/victim worldview.
Speaking of Karl Marx…his real birth name was Mordechai Levi.
Could you provide some examples of when liberalism devolved into Communism? No society, that I am aware of, has moved from a liberal state to become a communist state. All of them were feudal states before turning communist. Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos etc
Since you mentioned Gloria Steinem, I have been looking for a quote of hers from the '60s where she stated (approximately) that "by 1963, all obstacles to women's achievement in every field had been removed in America".
This is what I've experienced in big tech UXR leadership, especially a former Elon Musk payment processor. They have no actual skill in research, coding or humanity. The only thing they're good at is cat fighting and being hall monitors.
I knew as soon as I heard the google ai snaffoo exactly who, why, and which department it was that fucked up.
I wish it was managed! It's really just the dilbert effect. Plus the passive aggressive pushing out of people who are actually competent because their reality testing is actually based on reality but can't or won't play the mean girl game.
I found this account yesterday as a longtime reader of Peachy and can't express how happy I am, although my work productivity is suffering. I'm on here anon and have been "coming out" on many of my text chains with screaming progressive friends about some of these issues but these posts are honestly funny enough that I can share them with normies.
My idyllic suburban Boston town is going through a school budgeting crisis that simply can't be real/random as it's the playbook from the teachers union for all well resourced towns that have great public schools. They are trying to ruin our town's school system and so many good people here are falling for it. Yuri we need you to cover this stuff on the ground level!
I grew up in an idyllic Massachusetts town. The residents of that state turn their brains off whenever the topic turns to education. Years ago, my hometown proposed building a second elementary school because the student population rose quickly in a short period.
In the town meeting where it was being debated, people who pointed out the town was running out of buildable lots, and asked what percentage of new property owners were retirees or people building vacation homes, were shouted down as being anti-education.
So the school got built, the student population peaked a year after it opened, and now the taxpayers are still paying off the bond on a completely empty school that gets used a few nights a week for bingo and knitting circles for old people. They paid millions of dollars just to virtue signal “for the children”
This is hilarious/depressing. Since moving to this down 10 years ago the student enrollment has dropped by almost 500 kids to about 3,600. Meanwhile the school budget has increased from $40mm to $70mm with seemingly all those funds going to special ed (which I'm learning includes the psychological SEL industrial complex) and full time administrators. Teachers have an average salary of $100k and the kids in our community are exceptionally well behaved and ready to learn.
Last year the schools pushed through a property tax increase of 32% on a residential real estate base that has nearly tripled in the last ten years. They threatened to cut gym class and freshman sports if it wasn't approved. All over town people are knocking down and building homes that are selling for $4mm+. this also adds to the RE tax base, but not through tax increase. Everyone just fell for this increase because it's "FoR the KIds!!" I have no problem paying taxes, but what is it for?
Now we inching towards a new contract and a large increase in pay for para educators (who are worth it!) to get them "out of poverty wages." Additionally they are asking for $3mm in override funds for 2025 year to add several more SPED teachers to implement some trendy psychological curriculum that I see is peddled by a cadre of dreadlocked pseudo Ph.Ds and apparently had some success in...wait for it.... Houston Public Schools.
If you even question these things in town you get hissed at. I have a three children ages 10, 8, and 3. My 10 year old 4th grader gets 15 minutes of recess and 20 minutes of lunch. The rest is teaching towards the state standardized test and god knows what else. All I know is that neither of my older children have legible handwriting.
My kids flourished in COVID because we were able to get about 90 minutes of real school work finished and then they had the day to screw around. I have no idea what they do all day.
I taught for three years. Realistically, a teacher with 25 years of experience provides almost the same learning experience as a teacher with 3 years of experience. There's a plateau after the first few years that most teachers stay on for the rest of their careers. A fair number of 3rd year teachers can outperform their much older and experienced colleagues simply because they still give a fuck or maybe they have an engaging personality that the students respond to. Meanwhile, some crusty old miserable hag hates her job and is counting the years to retirement and expects to earn like she's a senior manager at a large company.
My first year was rough, my second year was way better and I really developed my classroom management and dialed in my lesson planning. My third year was cruise control. This is a common professional growth curve for teachers.
The problem is that teachers don't want to accept this. Their college friends who went into white collar professions got promotions over the years, and by the time they were 30 their college friends were often making 30-50% more than them. By the time they're 40 their college friends are often making 100-150% more than them.
It's because teacher pay scales are based on the fact that whether you're a teacher with three years experience or 30 years experience, you're teaching the same state-approved curriculum to K-12 students. When you work a job where your 30 years of experience can effectively be replaced by someone with a few years experience, you can't expect massive leaps in pay as the years go by and your responsibilities remain the same.
Do Walmart cashiers who man the register for 20 years get paid the same as the store manager who worked their way up from stocking shelves to their current position during that same 20 years? No, and people would tell you you're a fool if you believe that. Yet that's exactly what teachers are asking for: massive pay raises just for doing their time year after year.
I totally agree with you, it's basic economics that you accept job stability an non-merit pay raises in exchange for upside.
The older ones are so jaded I remember from high school. If teachers can learn to live within their means and not look over the fence, and also be a little entrepreneurial with side hustles and summer jobs they can have a great life. Two 40 something teachers won't make enough to live in the priciest town but they can earn $200 - $300k per year combined with summers off and a clear path to retirement. I'm a financial planner/retirement advisor by trade and teachers have great retirements because they manage their spending and have a pension.
My sister has been a public school teacher since 2004 and by all metrics is very successful. She taught high school for a few years and now teachers 7th and 8th grade English. She was a finalist for Massachusetts teacher of the year a few years ago and had wanted to be a teacher since she was like 10 years old.
She is totally jaded and depressed by the system but only in the last five years or so. She said even in a suburban town with relatively low issues it's very difficult to just teach. She is forced to placate to the emotional whim of middle schoolers and whatever gender/name they want to be called. She also is no longer allowed to meaningfully discipline disruptive students and the other kids pay the price. She's actively looking to find another career which is really sad.
She makes over $100k and has a hairdressing licenses where she does weddings over the summer.
Yeah, teaching at a private school was nice because I wasn't a babysitter, I was a teacher. Any disciplinary problem got handled by the front office. If a kid acted out, I'd give them a warning. If they did it again I sent them to the front office.
This is a GREAT post, Yuri! But…when I bravely clicked on the E. Jean link, I soon began to fear I’d never escape from it and find my way back to your post! That woman is a disaster. I kept reading the comments to her “astrological sign” post with utter dismay. Wow! All of these women (and the men too) are sad shells of humanity.
Brilliant and as Gad Saad mentioned on one of his interviews - he has a special term for men who support the ideological madness of these women - he calls them 'sneeky fuckers'.
Somewhere back in the dusty stacks of the hate-filled manosphere, which has apparently been so memory-holed at this point that people are getting "redpilled" by covid without any idea of what had been raging for 25 years prior, but anyhow this slippery sexual strategy was called "Cuttlefish Game".
From PBS.org, without a shred of irony on my sourcing,
"Giant cuttlefish off the coast of Australia, long known as masters of camouflage, can use their color-changing abilities in a remarkable act of sexual deception: smallish males, unfit for winning wrestling matches with stronger rivals, disguise themselves as females in order to elude their adversaries and discretely mate with the genuine article."
Much cleverness blossomed under the duress of the sexual dystopia. When your people are slow suiciding, you gotta laugh so you don't cry I guess.
I had several old friends who took up the cuttlefish game. Many an EDM-festival, man-bun, yoga posing, and "dear women" apologetics indeed led to success with leftist and other feral women.
Though not so much in birthrates or oppressive vestigial patriarchal prisons like "marriage", as much as HPV Bingo and cereal* polyamory.
At least Keith Olbermann is a running joke. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, unfortunately, is taken seriously by liberal journalists and often given a big platform to promote her stupid fucking ideas.
Indeed, I have observed this childless white woman smothering myself, from the infantilizing shit that goes on at the university where I teach, to braying like sick donkeys over blatant propaganda regarding their precious migrants. They use narcissistic overreaction to control everyone around them, wailing logical fallacies at the slightest provocation. Want to lay down the factors on these illegal migrants coming in? RACIST! Point out the context in which Trump said "bloodbath"? Unfriend. Share heartbreaking stories of parents whose daughters ran away from home to chop their breasts off? That's not happening (even though they're promoting it).
They are so tolerant in their fury to protect people who'd gut and hang them from "harm."
Great article but the use of “Karen” for childless dem harpies of child bearing years is off the mark. The baby name Karen was popular in the 60s which makes sense because the only Karen’s I know are somebody’s mom (age 55-65 yrs & mostly conservative). The group of women you’re referring to have zero association with the name “karen” & therefore have no idea that your description refers to them. In fact they also utilize “karen” for people they don’t agree with. Dem friends use the term in a completely different context - they just think it’s a woman who complains or bitches. I don’t know what the appropriate name would be for the era of women you’re referring to because there are so many of them!
Yuri, how do you do it?
You generate long coherent posts, almost daily.
You post comments on almost all of the substacks I visit.
You don’t appear to have a staff, or co-authors.
Is there something you’re not telling us?
By the way thank you for this terrific post. - I have always thought that there should be someplace where normal people can go and see a comprehensive annotated list, with photos, of all of our woke enemies (military intel. calls this “order of battle”). This is the closest thing yet, a great start.
I am the honey badger of subverting subversion. When you enjoy what you do, you never work a day in your life ;)
100%! What I worry about is Yuri is an absolute phenom rapidly rising and will soon be public enemy no 1 for dem Nazis. They’re going to come after him big time.
You mean democracy Bolsheviks
Totalitarianism both. I think the Nazi comparison apt because they came to 100% control through “democratic” means. Using the system. Once in power (as the dems are now) tighten the vice.
Absolutely - and look at the parallels of Weimar to today. The attempt to normalise transsexualism. The gay men who were a major part of the NAZI party until the night of the long knives. The use of democracy for totalitarian socialists to gain power as they gave away free stuff to build the support of the people. This is very much what’s happening in Scotland right now. Ironically with a party that is also both Nationalist and Socialist in their ideology. Both parties (and the communists) obsessed with removing individual liberty, encouraging identity politics and identify group based hierarchies to back up their fallacy of oppressor versus oppressed. All of them keen in rewriting history to rationalise their irrational beliefs. Because if people understood history then they would do their best to avoid the mistakes of the past. The NAZI’s and Soviet’s are an inconvenient truth to those looking to re-create the horrors of the past as a result of their own individual insecurities and anxieties
Not true. Bolshevism is Globalist, Materialist, Anti Nation, based on Class Warfare and other divisions between people, Anti Religion, Total Central Planning. The individual is a cog in the machine under Bolshevism
Of course they’re not the exact same thing. Just the point was how achieving power by hitler 1933 democratically transforming the nation and all institutions according to Nazi party, shutting down dissent lawfare owning media, taking individual liberties away etc. I obviously would agree the Democrats are Marxist adherents, and because as you say globalist is the goal.
Same same but different - it’s different shades of socialism
Yes. Totally different
My point was more they are the same - just different versions of the same ideology.
They are not the same. There is no common ideology either.
source Merlin, operation Witchcraft.
I think this is a fun post because it makes fun of women we don't like... but there just aren't as many men capable of supporting a family as there are women capable of having kids. There never have been.
There aren't even as many men who want to become capable of supporting a family as there are women wanting children. Ignore the women who don't want kids, there's plenty who want them who have no options. If you want to see more marriage with kids, it's men who have to step up and become marriageble. Women become more liberal the longer they stay single and childless out of necessity.
There are a limited number of men making enough income to support a stay at home wife and multiple children.
Women, particularly educated women who don't want to give up their careers, need to understand that marrying up isn't as easy as it once was, and most of them are not the prize heifers that society has told them they are.
Two of the happiest women I know have college degrees, pretty good white collar jobs, and are married to blue collar guys who make less money than them. The guys wanted a woman who wasn't going to be a burden on him, and the women wanted a stable guy who could be a good partner and father to their children.
Neither of these women are particularly attractive, by the way, but they're smart. They realized that if they tried to land a high-income prince charming, they were competing against chicks that they couldn't realistically compete against, so they changed their criteria to "reasonably attractive guy who's fun, has a sense of humor, is kind, and works hard."
I think a lot of women, particularly college-educated women, could learn from those examples. It's not about "lowering" their standards, but rather making their criteria realistic and compatible with what's available in the dating market given the currency they have to exchange for it.
Lot of working-class guys want a woman who doesn't cause a lot of financial/relationship drama through sheer low-class stupidity and a poor upbringing. Lot of college-educated women who want a real man need to re-evaluate what will actually make them happy in a relationship.
i am a college educated woman who married a college educated man who i out-earn. we have two children together. this is a VERY common situation - where even college educated men are being outearned by the women they partner with. I chalk it up to this - at some point the duties split where women had to do some earning and men had to do some housework - and from what it seems, women have done a much better job adapting to this new world order. Most friends i have are in a similar scenario, where their ambition outperforms that of their male counterpart - and they become the primary breadwinner, on top of primary parent, home administrator, etc. Unfortunately that pressure burnt out my mothers generation, but luckily corporations seem to be catching on that its smarter to allow their most ambitious the time to also adequately take care of home duties too.
I don't think men lack ambition. What I think is lacking is white collar work that is rewarding to men.
I've been in marketing project management for a fair amount of time now, and that means I work with far more women than men since that's simply how marketing is.
The amount of tedious work that's asked of us is more than a bit ridiculous, and then we also have to sit through meeting after meeting where everyone gets to give feedback and arrive at some kind of consensus even though there's generally only 1-2 people in the room who actually understand the customer demographic we're marketing to.
I think in the modern corporate office, it caters far more to women than it does men, just because of the workflow processes. Meetings, consensus, more meetings, getting input from people who's input isn't valuable just so they feel included, etc. All that is exhausting and demotivating to men.
thats so interesting. i also work in a corporate environment, specifically in legal and contract compliance - and find the opposite to be true of my surroundings. that we have to listen to some men give input just to keep their ego intact, when otherwise the women are great at sticking and moving around those individuals whenever possible. the culture does lean more heavily towards "make a decision and move" which i personally love. must just be a difference in career culture.
I 100% agree with you that college educated women and blue collar guys can make a good match and raise great kids. In fact I think the best match is a woman who also came from a blue collar background but went to college and got a white collar job.
But when I say men should "step up" I include guys who should consider marrying a woman who makes more money than him and not worry about it. Partnership is the goal.
I think that’s right. Much rarer I would think m
for a woman from white collar family marrying a blue collar guy. Women from blue collar families can relate due to their dad.
Great point. It's important for guys to drop some of the ego and just accept that the world has changed and it's perfectly acceptable to partner with a good woman who makes more money than he does. It doesn't make him less of a man.
I'm one of those - I'd like a good husband and maybe a child or two. But the guys who can actually do this, whether or not I'd be a working wife/mother - are nowhere to be seen. They're perpetually adolescent, not serious at all. They go on dating apps with phrases like "trying to figure out my dating goals". They may not make very much money, and have very little skills, much less social ones. Men just aren't marriageable in a lot of ways. The blame has quickly been assigned to women for not wanting to marry - but over and over we see in the world, even in non-Western countries, that women aren't marrying because of the men in their society that don't step up to the plate. Look at Japan - something like 1 million people are considered "hikkikomori", or basically shut-ins who depend on their parents and others for shelter and sustenance, and live online. Most are younger men. On what planet would you ask a Japanese woman to marry and have children with a man like this? Do men even consider what women do when it comes to marriage and children? It's a HUGE investment - mentally, physically, and financially. It needs to be WORTH it and it's just not in a lot of ways in our society. So, I'm a 35 year-old single woman. Not woke, thankfully, and no, I do not hate children. My sister-in-law is due in May for my first nephew and I am VERY excited. But I'm afraid it may not be in the cards for me. Who knows.
i completely understand what you are saying and agree - i don't know why so few men are encouraged to step up and lead a family these days. it perplexes me. i am married with children and my millennial husband even required considerable persuasion to have a second child because the first one caused extra work for him. dont get me wrong - hes a good man and father but it just feels like men are encouraged to lead a life of least resistance these days.
THIS comment! I was reading up on the fertility issue in Russia and the women are saying the exact same thing the derided modern western woman is saying. It’s crazy.
“Ignore the women who don't want kids, there's plenty who want them who have no options. If you want to see more marriage with kids, it's men who have to step up and become marriageble.”
Women are just picky by nature (hypergamy). There are plenty of options, it’s just that a majority of women don’t want to “date down”, ie partner with a man at their own level. This is borne out empirically by data from dating apps.
Do the bare, biological math. How many women 18-30 are capable of making babies? Nearly all. How many men 18-30 can be good fathers with a stable income? Half? Maybe? So by biological necessity women are hypergamous. This gets worse when men don't even try, or get scared off by the fact that a woman might have a career.
There are SO FEW marriagable men that men are often shocked to find when they finally give it a try (instead of dating with sex in mind dating with marriage in mind - and real marriage, not high romance) they are actually overwhelmed with interested women. As long as they open to marriageable women who want to be mothers and aren't wasting time with the hot chicks at the club.
Right. Being single and childless isn’t a preference most of the time. It’s seen as a survival tactic in a time of wage stagnation and rising rental prices. The most financially stable and adaptable women are going to be those who are childless. That’s just the reality.
And you’re right, the image of a provider/head of household has fallen out of favor with some young men in a post-feminist, individualistic culture. They want to embrace the sexual revolution and play around in their youth just as much as the notorious modern women do. Yes, they are men with no biological clocks. But this dating model still wastes precious years of women’s prime reproductive window. We aren’t supposed to rush them because it’s “pushy”, but society has no problem rushing us.
On the economic front, they don’t understand that while many women now work and COULD just marry lower income men, we’d still have to lower our work hours or sometimes quit once we have at least 2-3 children. Even when women are working, they still do most of the domestic and childcare activities. They’d break even for their time if they just quit, which some do because the exorbitant costs of daycare often isn’t worth the contribution of the woman’s income. So, accounting for maternity, many mothers will end up working part-time, remotely, or leave the workforce after they have more than 2 kids.
So, even if all women compromised on their standards for education and income in male partners, a critical mass of men would still need to embrace ambition and become boy-bosses after women give up the girlboss grind.
Dismissing college education as a ‘scam’, not working towards home ownership, and making themselves appear unstable for marriage isn’t the move. If they think it’s all a burden, then maybe they need to grow up and help us “save western civilization”.
It’s like they’re not doing anything on their end, while complaining about what women do to keep themselves afloat. 😑
In part it's that the young men of today were raised by single moms. They have not seen a husband in action. Given 70% of divorce in my generation (x) is initiated by women, I imagine this is another luxury before AWFLs have gifted us...I call us the eat pray love generation. Finding ourselves in our late thirties took priority over finishing our kids. Alas, the boys no longer have fathers.
I hated that book so much. It was self-indulgent claptrap. That said, I initiated the divorce. Here’s why: My husband moved out so he could spend more time with his girlfriend, who I didn’t even know about until he moved out. He did not want a divorce, he just wanted to “figure things out.” I finally realized he did not want a divorce (I did) because his girlfriend was pressuring him to marry her and he wanted the excuse that his Evil Wife would not give him a divorce. He was happy with the way things were and didn’t want them to change. Of course, girlfriend got pregnant (who didn’t see that coming?), he finally signed the paperwork and that was that. Women initiate divorce because men think things are fine because they are fine for him and he doesn’t care what she thinks.
Luxury *belief.
Hard to “step up” as a man when our salaries have been priced out by tech and pharma bros…
Salary isn't important. Partnership is. There aren't enough tech and pharma bros to go around - and most of them are just dating for sex anyway. So when men show up and offer partnership and marriage and fatherhood to future kids, they get more interest.
Gabe you are good at excuses, aren't you? Your specialty?
I’m in the Bay Area it’s the reality out here
SUBSTACK JEOPARDY
A: Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, liberal white women.
Q: Who are the "Destroyers of Civilizations."
That would be the Jewish Zionists. Study up who is behind DEI. Who do you think indoctrinated those liberal white women? Liberalism always devolves to communism with enough time.
Those Jewish Zionists must be pretty smart and talented to brainwash a whole society of goyim. I'm impressed.
More like sociopaths.
You are so confused LOL. DEI is rabidly anti-zionist.
Both you and fsy above should read up on the Frankfurt School, and the personal backgrounds of the people who invented Critical Theory. DEI is directly built on Critical Theory and the Marxist oppressor/victim worldview.
Speaking of Karl Marx…his real birth name was Mordechai Levi.
And his parents converted to Christianity before he was born (which makes it doubtful if he had a Hebrew name at all.)
Shills all up in here. Smells like NYC SINagogue tunnel rat with a side of soiled mattresses.
Could you provide some examples of when liberalism devolved into Communism? No society, that I am aware of, has moved from a liberal state to become a communist state. All of them were feudal states before turning communist. Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos etc
Since you mentioned Gloria Steinem, I have been looking for a quote of hers from the '60s where she stated (approximately) that "by 1963, all obstacles to women's achievement in every field had been removed in America".
Sometimes, they let the truth slip out.
Thanks for the likes, but can anyone find the source?
This is what I've experienced in big tech UXR leadership, especially a former Elon Musk payment processor. They have no actual skill in research, coding or humanity. The only thing they're good at is cat fighting and being hall monitors.
I knew as soon as I heard the google ai snaffoo exactly who, why, and which department it was that fucked up.
Managed decline. DIE Longhouse destroys all. And so we must subvert them ;)
I wish it was managed! It's really just the dilbert effect. Plus the passive aggressive pushing out of people who are actually competent because their reality testing is actually based on reality but can't or won't play the mean girl game.
I found this account yesterday as a longtime reader of Peachy and can't express how happy I am, although my work productivity is suffering. I'm on here anon and have been "coming out" on many of my text chains with screaming progressive friends about some of these issues but these posts are honestly funny enough that I can share them with normies.
My idyllic suburban Boston town is going through a school budgeting crisis that simply can't be real/random as it's the playbook from the teachers union for all well resourced towns that have great public schools. They are trying to ruin our town's school system and so many good people here are falling for it. Yuri we need you to cover this stuff on the ground level!
I grew up in an idyllic Massachusetts town. The residents of that state turn their brains off whenever the topic turns to education. Years ago, my hometown proposed building a second elementary school because the student population rose quickly in a short period.
In the town meeting where it was being debated, people who pointed out the town was running out of buildable lots, and asked what percentage of new property owners were retirees or people building vacation homes, were shouted down as being anti-education.
So the school got built, the student population peaked a year after it opened, and now the taxpayers are still paying off the bond on a completely empty school that gets used a few nights a week for bingo and knitting circles for old people. They paid millions of dollars just to virtue signal “for the children”
This is hilarious/depressing. Since moving to this down 10 years ago the student enrollment has dropped by almost 500 kids to about 3,600. Meanwhile the school budget has increased from $40mm to $70mm with seemingly all those funds going to special ed (which I'm learning includes the psychological SEL industrial complex) and full time administrators. Teachers have an average salary of $100k and the kids in our community are exceptionally well behaved and ready to learn.
Last year the schools pushed through a property tax increase of 32% on a residential real estate base that has nearly tripled in the last ten years. They threatened to cut gym class and freshman sports if it wasn't approved. All over town people are knocking down and building homes that are selling for $4mm+. this also adds to the RE tax base, but not through tax increase. Everyone just fell for this increase because it's "FoR the KIds!!" I have no problem paying taxes, but what is it for?
Now we inching towards a new contract and a large increase in pay for para educators (who are worth it!) to get them "out of poverty wages." Additionally they are asking for $3mm in override funds for 2025 year to add several more SPED teachers to implement some trendy psychological curriculum that I see is peddled by a cadre of dreadlocked pseudo Ph.Ds and apparently had some success in...wait for it.... Houston Public Schools.
If you even question these things in town you get hissed at. I have a three children ages 10, 8, and 3. My 10 year old 4th grader gets 15 minutes of recess and 20 minutes of lunch. The rest is teaching towards the state standardized test and god knows what else. All I know is that neither of my older children have legible handwriting.
My kids flourished in COVID because we were able to get about 90 minutes of real school work finished and then they had the day to screw around. I have no idea what they do all day.
I taught for three years. Realistically, a teacher with 25 years of experience provides almost the same learning experience as a teacher with 3 years of experience. There's a plateau after the first few years that most teachers stay on for the rest of their careers. A fair number of 3rd year teachers can outperform their much older and experienced colleagues simply because they still give a fuck or maybe they have an engaging personality that the students respond to. Meanwhile, some crusty old miserable hag hates her job and is counting the years to retirement and expects to earn like she's a senior manager at a large company.
My first year was rough, my second year was way better and I really developed my classroom management and dialed in my lesson planning. My third year was cruise control. This is a common professional growth curve for teachers.
The problem is that teachers don't want to accept this. Their college friends who went into white collar professions got promotions over the years, and by the time they were 30 their college friends were often making 30-50% more than them. By the time they're 40 their college friends are often making 100-150% more than them.
It's because teacher pay scales are based on the fact that whether you're a teacher with three years experience or 30 years experience, you're teaching the same state-approved curriculum to K-12 students. When you work a job where your 30 years of experience can effectively be replaced by someone with a few years experience, you can't expect massive leaps in pay as the years go by and your responsibilities remain the same.
Do Walmart cashiers who man the register for 20 years get paid the same as the store manager who worked their way up from stocking shelves to their current position during that same 20 years? No, and people would tell you you're a fool if you believe that. Yet that's exactly what teachers are asking for: massive pay raises just for doing their time year after year.
I totally agree with you, it's basic economics that you accept job stability an non-merit pay raises in exchange for upside.
The older ones are so jaded I remember from high school. If teachers can learn to live within their means and not look over the fence, and also be a little entrepreneurial with side hustles and summer jobs they can have a great life. Two 40 something teachers won't make enough to live in the priciest town but they can earn $200 - $300k per year combined with summers off and a clear path to retirement. I'm a financial planner/retirement advisor by trade and teachers have great retirements because they manage their spending and have a pension.
My sister has been a public school teacher since 2004 and by all metrics is very successful. She taught high school for a few years and now teachers 7th and 8th grade English. She was a finalist for Massachusetts teacher of the year a few years ago and had wanted to be a teacher since she was like 10 years old.
She is totally jaded and depressed by the system but only in the last five years or so. She said even in a suburban town with relatively low issues it's very difficult to just teach. She is forced to placate to the emotional whim of middle schoolers and whatever gender/name they want to be called. She also is no longer allowed to meaningfully discipline disruptive students and the other kids pay the price. She's actively looking to find another career which is really sad.
She makes over $100k and has a hairdressing licenses where she does weddings over the summer.
Yeah, teaching at a private school was nice because I wasn't a babysitter, I was a teacher. Any disciplinary problem got handled by the front office. If a kid acted out, I'd give them a warning. If they did it again I sent them to the front office.
This is a GREAT post, Yuri! But…when I bravely clicked on the E. Jean link, I soon began to fear I’d never escape from it and find my way back to your post! That woman is a disaster. I kept reading the comments to her “astrological sign” post with utter dismay. Wow! All of these women (and the men too) are sad shells of humanity.
Brilliant and as Gad Saad mentioned on one of his interviews - he has a special term for men who support the ideological madness of these women - he calls them 'sneeky fuckers'.
Somewhere back in the dusty stacks of the hate-filled manosphere, which has apparently been so memory-holed at this point that people are getting "redpilled" by covid without any idea of what had been raging for 25 years prior, but anyhow this slippery sexual strategy was called "Cuttlefish Game".
From PBS.org, without a shred of irony on my sourcing,
"Giant cuttlefish off the coast of Australia, long known as masters of camouflage, can use their color-changing abilities in a remarkable act of sexual deception: smallish males, unfit for winning wrestling matches with stronger rivals, disguise themselves as females in order to elude their adversaries and discretely mate with the genuine article."
Are you being sarcastic with the "hate-filled" adjective or not?
(And PBS doesn't seem to know the difference between 'discrete' and 'discreet'.)
Brilliant - the evolutionary tale of the 'sneeky fuckers' :)
Much cleverness blossomed under the duress of the sexual dystopia. When your people are slow suiciding, you gotta laugh so you don't cry I guess.
I had several old friends who took up the cuttlefish game. Many an EDM-festival, man-bun, yoga posing, and "dear women" apologetics indeed led to success with leftist and other feral women.
Though not so much in birthrates or oppressive vestigial patriarchal prisons like "marriage", as much as HPV Bingo and cereal* polyamory.
(*Vegan, gluten free)
Ruth Ben-Ghiat kind of looks like Keith Olbermann. Have they ever been seen in the same room together?
Sounds like a fascist conspiracy theory, comrade. Off to the gulags with you.
No, me and gulags don’t mix.
At least Keith Olbermann is a running joke. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, unfortunately, is taken seriously by liberal journalists and often given a big platform to promote her stupid fucking ideas.
Let’s face it, we’re all actually glad these people did not make more of themselves. As Barney Fife would say,”Nip it in the bud.”
Don’t have babies to own the cons!
Mic drop.
But they use all their time to convert our kids.
This post is pure gold. Thank you, for calling out these privileged, self-important harridans. I hope more commentators will do the same.
Indeed, I have observed this childless white woman smothering myself, from the infantilizing shit that goes on at the university where I teach, to braying like sick donkeys over blatant propaganda regarding their precious migrants. They use narcissistic overreaction to control everyone around them, wailing logical fallacies at the slightest provocation. Want to lay down the factors on these illegal migrants coming in? RACIST! Point out the context in which Trump said "bloodbath"? Unfriend. Share heartbreaking stories of parents whose daughters ran away from home to chop their breasts off? That's not happening (even though they're promoting it).
They are so tolerant in their fury to protect people who'd gut and hang them from "harm."
They also love their pet homeless, also known as “our unhoused neighbors.” Gag.
Great article but the use of “Karen” for childless dem harpies of child bearing years is off the mark. The baby name Karen was popular in the 60s which makes sense because the only Karen’s I know are somebody’s mom (age 55-65 yrs & mostly conservative). The group of women you’re referring to have zero association with the name “karen” & therefore have no idea that your description refers to them. In fact they also utilize “karen” for people they don’t agree with. Dem friends use the term in a completely different context - they just think it’s a woman who complains or bitches. I don’t know what the appropriate name would be for the era of women you’re referring to because there are so many of them!
Specifically, a white woman who complains or bitches.
I think the Karen reference comes from the television show Tiger King
Wasn’t her name Carol? Brings back so many memories. 😂
You’re right, my bad. Don’t watch but one episode.
Absolutely spot on in the context of commieism and totally hilarious truths!
Wait was that Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes 2/3 of the way down? We need some WaPo fact checkers in here Yuri! 🫃🫃🫃🫃
Is Michael Moore transitioning?