“Progressivism” doesn’t truly exist in the West, despite how sensationalist media likes to portray it. If the objective of progressivism is to improve the human condition for all people, then how can you justify the marginalization of straight young men in developed countries? Answer: You can’t
The Left is not progressive, and I find it difficult to believe they ever truly were. I think it was always about subjugating the average man and suppressing him to the point of psychological castration, while concurrently empowering the wealthy elite and their ordinary female servants
Feminism led to the marginalization of young men in modernity. But feminism was initially marketed as an initiative to achieve “gender equality”
Now across the whole western world, you have a bunch of sexless young men with no prospects of owning a home or having a loyal wife with a low body count
Even in the United Kingdom, zoomer men are now twice as likely to be unemployed than zoomer women, and zoomer men in employment are paid less than zoomer women in employment. Most jobs which are essential to the maintenance of infrastructure are done by men. Yet zoomer women are now being paid more to work than zoomer men. Zoomer women are more likely to be employed than zoomer men, AND are more likely to have moved out of their parents’ house by 30 y/o.
If progressivism really existed in the West, then why are zoomer girls being paid more than zoomer boys? Why are zoomer boys twice as likely to be unemployed than zoomer girls? Why are zoomer boys twice as likely to be sexless and single than zoomer girls? Why are zoomer girls over-represented in bullshit jobs that serve as a gatekeeper against other men seeking employment aka human resources?
Feminism was marketed as a progressive movement for gender equality in society, but this was a deceptive strategy
There was an ulterior agenda behind the feminism movement, and it was to establish a matriarchal, radical left-wing order, where men are either:
If you’re a straight male, but you’re neither Chad nor a betabuxing normie, you are worthless and deserve to rot alone in a small box until you die. The radical Left may not openly say this, but they give this impression by how they treat young men in modernity, especially directed at normies and sub5 males
They rationalize the destitution of young men by saying things like “You’re not entitled to [insert variable here]”, or “Being [insert variable here] won’t help you in becoming desired by women”. It’s like they see men as nothing more than a tool to keep the economic machine running
But they'll continue to malign young straight males in the mainstream media with anti-
/ anti- propaganda, rather than attempt to identify and rigorously address the core issues that enabled a large share of young males to become hostile and contemptuous towards members of the opposite sex
Actually I have an idea. Let’s send those sexless NEETs back into the wagie cage so they can recurrently pay taxes for the upkeep of single mothers with loads of mileage on them and zero aptitude for pairbonding. Chud will wage slave for peanuts, so that self-empowered Becky can eat all the candy she likes, while she puts less effort into doing her job than Chud does
Becky will play, Chud will slave. Now get back in wagie cage, Chud
The Left is not progressive, and I find it difficult to believe they ever truly were. I think it was always about subjugating the average man and suppressing him to the point of psychological castration, while concurrently empowering the wealthy elite and their ordinary female servants
Feminism led to the marginalization of young men in modernity. But feminism was initially marketed as an initiative to achieve “gender equality”
Now across the whole western world, you have a bunch of sexless young men with no prospects of owning a home or having a loyal wife with a low body count
Even in the United Kingdom, zoomer men are now twice as likely to be unemployed than zoomer women, and zoomer men in employment are paid less than zoomer women in employment. Most jobs which are essential to the maintenance of infrastructure are done by men. Yet zoomer women are now being paid more to work than zoomer men. Zoomer women are more likely to be employed than zoomer men, AND are more likely to have moved out of their parents’ house by 30 y/o.
If progressivism really existed in the West, then why are zoomer girls being paid more than zoomer boys? Why are zoomer boys twice as likely to be unemployed than zoomer girls? Why are zoomer boys twice as likely to be sexless and single than zoomer girls? Why are zoomer girls over-represented in bullshit jobs that serve as a gatekeeper against other men seeking employment aka human resources?
Feminism was marketed as a progressive movement for gender equality in society, but this was a deceptive strategy
There was an ulterior agenda behind the feminism movement, and it was to establish a matriarchal, radical left-wing order, where men are either:
(a) pressured to constantly live up to the expectations of women in order to “prove their worth” (by betabuxxing, jestermaxxing / orbiting, simping, etc.), or
(b) conditioned to convert to homosexuality / transexuality which allows women to feel “safer” around biological males that they are not sexually attracted to (unless of course you’re Chad or Tyrone)
If you’re a straight male, but you’re neither Chad nor a betabuxing normie, you are worthless and deserve to rot alone in a small box until you die. The radical Left may not openly say this, but they give this impression by how they treat young men in modernity, especially directed at normies and sub5 males
They rationalize the destitution of young men by saying things like “You’re not entitled to [insert variable here]”, or “Being [insert variable here] won’t help you in becoming desired by women”. It’s like they see men as nothing more than a tool to keep the economic machine running
But they'll continue to malign young straight males in the mainstream media with anti-
/ anti- propaganda, rather than attempt to identify and rigorously address the core issues that enabled a large share of young males to become hostile and contemptuous towards members of the opposite sexActually I have an idea. Let’s send those sexless NEETs back into the wagie cage so they can recurrently pay taxes for the upkeep of single mothers with loads of mileage on them and zero aptitude for pairbonding. Chud will wage slave for peanuts, so that self-empowered Becky can eat all the candy she likes, while she puts less effort into doing her job than Chud does
Becky will play, Chud will slave. Now get back in wagie cage, Chud
Last edited:
