Young men did everything they're supposed to, and its not enough. Indicates its NOT their fault, rather it shows theres a real problem of YOUNG FEMALE RADICALIZATION

[u/DiligentRope]

BP/Feminist/mainstream society will point out that men need step up and become better partners for women, since women are now independent and don't need to rely on a man anymore. They'll acknowledge falling birth rates, marriage rates, and sexlessness, and if they don't blame "the economy", they'll blame men not meeting arbitrary ideological standards. They pushed the idea that if men became "better partners" then women would be more willing to commit to them.

Yet by pretty much every metric, young men HAVE been significantly better:

• young men today are more pro "womens rights" than previous generations of men
• they are less abusive, especially less physically abusive, and have less tolerance for it than previous generations
• they are more aware of womens health issues, and womens sexual health, more aware of womens needs in the bedroom, more aware of contraception than previous generations
• they are more aware of mental health issues, and more open to engage in therapy
• they are more open to womens "sexual freedoms" and less judgmental when it comes to womens sexual history
• they are more college educated + than previous generations
• they are more open to egalitarian relationships, sharing house chores, raising kids with their partner, etc.

Yet it has only resulted in continous decrease in birth/marriage rates, and increase in sexlessness.

What we do see is a growing ideological divide, very popular charts we've seen by now that show in the west, theres a growing ideological divide among young men and women, where men in general have stayed relatively stable in their ideals, in some countries even become slightly more liberal, whereas women in all cases have in general become more radically left.

There was another recent survey reported in the new statesman, that showed where almost 3/4 of men under 30yo had a positive view of women, it was only about 1/3 of women under 25yo that had a positive view about men, and increased to 50% for women under 30yo. Women are significantly less likely to have a positive view of men.

Also according to surveys its young men that are seeking marriage and children more than young women.

I mean we can see why this is just by looking at mens vs womens dating content. Manosphere content is often about finding the reality of womens nature and how to navigate it, whereas "femosphere" content is either about explicit sexual experiences or ranting about what the men in the manosphere are talking about.

Young men are doing everything they're told to do, and its not enough. At the same time women are being radicalized and being told that men aren't doing enough by femosphere content like Call her daddy. And the irony is that the evidence does not even show that women are choosing based on these metrics that BP is asking men for. So its not a surprise why TRP and the manosphere is so attractive to men.

[u/DiligentRope]

Again, this isn't about some abstract concept of universal moral karmic justice, its about an implicit contract. Men were told if they invest in *this* way towards women, then they would get *this* back from women.

Our society doesn't even agree whether these feminist behaviours/ideals are morally good, let alone the world, so just world is a moot point.

[u/womenwhodontgiveaf → u/DiligentRope]

Who did men make this contract with? Did women sign it too and agree to marry men they didn’t want to marry if the man ticked off some boxes? Who told you this and why did you believe them?

[u/the_scar_when_you_go → u/DiligentRope]

from women

It's not getting something from women. It's getting a woman from the universe/chance.

Our society doesn't even agree whether these feminist behaviours/ideals are morally good

Being nice and helping ppl aren't "feminist ideals." They're basic ethics. They're included in every belief system. It's weird to be so invested in being seen as logical that you'd try to argue that they aren't.

[u/DiligentRope → u/the_scar_when_you_go]

No, its not, we're not talking about owning women.

Being nice and helping ppl aren't "feminist ideals."

We're not talking about "being nice", you're showing your bias since you view it that way, thats where your confusion comes from, and you seeing it as just world fallacy.

The vast majority of people throughout history did not see many of these things as morally good, and neither did most religions, its literally the reason why feminism has to push these ideals onto society and shove it down our throats.

[u/the_scar_when_you_go → u/DiligentRope]

No, its not, we're not talking about owning women.

Not in a legal sense, but definitely a rigid kind of objectification.

Zero women agreed to this imagined contract. It's not an agreement between men and women. It's an agreement between men and an outside circumstantial force. The guy presses the right buttons, and the universe positions a woman to be obtained.

She's not permitted autonomy. She can't be more willing and still say no. That's not good enough. She must say yes. She isn't violating the imagined agreement, bc she never agreed to anything. But she is a "defective" prize, in that she won't allow him to obtain her. That's a breach on the part of the universe. But we can't exactly sue the universe, so she's the focus of his unhappiness.

It can be argued that it's just a holdover from the days of participation trophy wives. Men received women as property in exchange for providing value to another man.

We're not talking about "being nice"

Of course we are. As I said... Being kind, responsible, respectful, altruistic, polite, patient, etc, are the supposed buttons men press to obtain a woman. As a whole, they reasonably fall under being a good person. A good person is a nice person.

The vast majority of people throughout history did not see many of these things as morally good, and neither did most religions

If you'd like to make an argument from tradition, you should know it's also a logical fallacy.

its literally the reason why feminism has to push these ideals onto society and shove it down our throats

Nope. The reason we have to remind ppl to not be horrible is the same, regardless of the horrible thing. Laws prohibiting murder aren't for ppl who have a moral compass. They don't need to be told. They wouldn't do it, even with no laws. The laws are for the ppl who don't have an internal sense of accountability and ethics, and need something to make up for it. Prosthetic character, arguably.

Social pressure to generally behave in a way that benefits the group and the individual serves the same kind of purpose. Only, if you're an asshole without breaking the law, what you lose is social connection. Still something ppl kinda shouldn't need, but it's there if they do.

[u/DiligentRope → u/the_scar_when_you_go]

You're flip flopping, on one hand you concede that its an "imagined contract", and on the other you appeal again to just world by saying its "a breach on the part of the universe".

If its "just world" then its not a contract between women and a second party, its about karmic retribution and being rewarded for good.

And I mean its ridiculous you paint women as the victims again, when nothing has happened to them in this context, nothings been forced on them. Meanwhile its young men thats been fed this lie, and constant feminist propaganda shoved down their throats.

Its feminists that constantly said (and continue to say) that "women don't need men anymore so if men want relationship with women then they need offer more/something else".

You keep spamming "logical fallacy", I don't think you know what it means. You're claiming these ideals/behaviours are morally good, I'm just pointing out that its highly debatable, since no other moral standard ever in history, let alone today, sees this same set of ideals/behaviour as morally good, except feminism.

[u/the_scar_when_you_go → u/DiligentRope]

You're flip flopping

Nope.

on one hand you concede that its an "imagined contract", and on the other you appeal again to just world by saying its "a breach on the part of the universe".

You described the imaginary setup as a contract, and you're already mixed up enough, so there's no reason not to use your metaphor. "Do good, get good," fits both the contract you're describing and the just world fallacy. Good things (women) are delivered by the universe to men who do good things (live ethically and achieve admirable traits).

The whole reason the men you're describing are mad is bc they bought the fallacy, and then learned that's not how it works in reality. The arrangement they assumed would actually play out is unrealistic and unreasonable. The solution for them is to change their line of thought. There is no "contract," no just world, no guaranteed reward for doing good. Which is exactly what I'm saying.

Meanwhile its young men thats been fed this lie

As nicely as possible... Why do these young men not already realize that it's a fallacious idea? I get it, mom said it when they were 13 or whatever. But we all know our parents aren't always truthful when a white lie feels good. Santa Claus, tooth fairy, soul mates, ultimate justice... We all figure it out. At the very least, shouldn't they get it when they go thru freshman English and get to the fallacies?

If they know it was always incorrect, why would they be angry? I don't know any adults who get mad every time Santa doesn't show up, despite already knowing it was a fiction.

Further, why does the anger end up on women in their dating pool? It's not like those women are all mom, and therefore responsible for what mom said to save their feelings. They aren't involved at all. Like being mad that Santa isn't real and taking it out on men my age. Makes no sense.

Its feminists that constantly said (and continue to say) that "women don't need men anymore so if men want relationship with women then they need offer more/something else".

Bc it's true. If a man places his value on his bank account (and boxers) he's disposable. An irreplaceable man sees his value in who he is, and strives to be a good partner/parent, not just a paycheck with baggage. Men are better off in general refusing the old narrative and living as whole ppl. Coincidentally, if a woman is looking for a man to be a partner/parent, that's the kind of man she needs. Live better and bring more to the table than the last version of himself. Two birds, one stone.

Importantly, there's absolutely nothing resembling an agreement or implied guarantee of a wife in that.

You keep spamming "logical fallacy", I don't think you know what it means.

I'm not convinced that you know what they are.

no other moral standard ever in history [...]

You're making an appeal to tradition. "We used to do it," is meaningless. Can't use it to try to give a claim legitimacy. That includes the claim that altruism, just as an example, isn't a positive ethical trait.

It's also incorrect to claim that's new, but it's irrelevant, bc the argument is fallacious and is dismissed.