Last Updated on September 13, 2019
Various publications ran pieces following a study where women were shunning marriage due to a dearth of ‘economically attractive’ men.
Of course, the superficiality of the claim indicates wider societal problems brought about by policies and cultural shifts mostly favored by women.
However, this narrative is part of a broader metanarrative which emasculates men on a daily basis; excoriating so-called ‘toxic masculinity,’ and politicizing women as fairer moral superiors.
It’s quite simple really: women, until they marry, tend to hold more liberal views.
In a post-third-wave-feminist world where memes, information, and different viewpoints are available at a touch of a button; media narratives blaming pitiful marriage rates on men seems rather futile and often comical.
We are led to believe that womxn are infallible benevolent angels–the media scours the globe for stories confirming their biases; the entertainment industry treats us to multiple Mary Sues, capable of doing it all; academia feeds us constructivist fallacies, often arguing about the existence of an oppressive patriarchy hamstringing women, preventing them from realizing their full potentiality.
The problem is, in the current year, people–women, in particular–want to have their cake and eat it, too.
There are calls for direct action to empower women, but, sadly, due to the hypergamous nature of a lot of women, marrying up becomes difficult when women graduate at higher rates than men.
In addition to woman’s hypergamous nature, the most popular sources of information advise women they can have it all–the husband, the sex life, the car, the high-flying corporate job, the kids, the fling on the side, the holidays, and anything the set their mind to do.
This is a truly wicked narrative to promote, as the vast majority of individuals will fall short as there are only a certain amount of hours in a day.
Besides, if empowerment were truly sought, how come strong independent women need a well-to-do man?
Naturally, the market becomes saturated with empowered women and ‘economically attractive’ men are fewer and further between.
Moreover, the sexual market value of men increases with resourcefulness and age–women, by contrast, aren’t as lucky.
For biological reasons, that sexual market value nosedives after a certain age.
Aggressive, politically-loaded, sub-cultures such as feminism, with a dash of pseudo-empowerment, mixed with prevalent hyper-materialist philosophies du jour, has rendered a lot of women inadequate marital prospects.
Some of the attitudes expressed by modern women has permeated the male consciousness.
Higher divorce initiation rates, false sexual abuse accusations, alimony, infidelity, and a whole range of other risks associated with picking the wrong woman have created demand for movements such as MGTOW.
Funnily enough, men are scapegoated as the problem behind this phenomenon, despite outspoken female empowerment.
However, one of the many prevailing narratives dictates that women can do no wrong. So, by default, the other sex must be to blame.
It’s sadly ironic that ‘woke’ individuals who wish to marry an ‘economically attractive’ man have promoted political policies which have created that very scarcity.
Policies such as mass immigration, high tax rates to cover the costs of a generous welfare–a by-product of sexual liberation’s consequences: single motherhood–, rent controls, affirmative action, abortion, etc, have all thinned out the availability of ‘economically attractive’ men.
Furthermore, the predominance of materialist worldviews has disconnected both men and women from duty, consequence, and romance.
The goal of relationships used to be marriage and family; now, it is relegated to the pleasure derived from intercourse.
Although it’s something of a cliche, romance IS dead–but feminism didn’t kill it, materialism did.
Feminism, in its current form, could only exist in a postmodern society, pampered with material wealth.
But feminism is only a symptom.
For romance to return, society would have to return to a time where value, on a wider scale, existed beyond the material.
This is something many will be unwilling to do, but I digress.
