Is Feminism Its Own Worst Enemy?

We in the manosphere have made plenty of fuss about the impact of modern western gender feminism on society, and much has been written regarding what should be done to cope with it. Given time to ponder the subject, however, I’ve come to wonder if much needs to be done at all. Feminism seems set to hurt itself absent any aid.

Low Fertility Rates

The closer a woman’s ties to modern third-wave feminism, the less likely it appears that she will reproduce herself. Those more distant from the movement (more conservative and religious populations) are, conversely, reproducing the most. The most loyal foot-soldiers of this movement are urban liberals. These people simply do not replace themselves, and sport some of the lowest fertility rates of any demographic.

They’re already slowly eroding themselves as a portion of the wider population, an action that has consequences in a democracy. I suspect that their failure to reproduce may not bode well for the persistence of their ideology, especially with their polar opposites multiplying so rapidly.

Female Unhappiness

A growing number of women who have bought into the modern feminist guide to life are apparently not all that happy. Many of them are succeeding financially (now often surpassing men) only to regret their lack of a family/mate (something that their adherence to modern feminist ideology often precluded).

They’re finding that they don’t actually want to work like men forever, and that they do want to be mothers even if it comes at the expense of career progression. They’re finding men even more unlikely to commit than they were before, since they’ve made sex so cheap and abundant (as sex-positive feminists have encouraged them to do), thus inadvertently giving men an upper-hand in the modern mating game.

Most importantly, they’re finding out that life is not actually like Sex and the City, where you can ride the cock-carousel until your mid-30’s and still somehow easily snag Mr. Big and then have a happy family once you’ve “had your fun” and “found yourself”.

In real life, Mr. Big either pumps and dumps you or just ignores you altogether for another (usually younger) woman, leaving you a) alone, b) regretting waiting this long and passing up other romantic opportunities before and/or c) settling for much less attractive men than were previously available (men who aren’t so good at turning women on). Much of the time, women find themselves unable to even locate “Mr. Right” at all. They’re settling more and more, and they are not happy about this.

The Infestation of Weak Men

Women have seen the bitch-made men produced within the last 30-40 years as a result of the efforts their mothers/grandmothers/aunts made to create a more “sensitive” form of masculinity. They’ve spent a lifetime growing up with and watching these men getting in touch with their “sensitive side” and placing them on a pedestal simply because they have vaginas.

Instead of settling for these “nice” dudes, they’ve rightfully friendzoned them and started openly fantasizing about Christian Grey, immortal/un-dead bloodsucking flesh-eaters, and ruthless criminals on bikes, among other less than nice things.

Their mothers thought they could burn a few bras, spout a few whimsical/fantastical truths and get around their own DNA. Their daughters (who are not boomers and have grown up in a much less ideal time with less room for fantasy/error) are realizing that this won’t work, and they’re just coming to terms with that…slowly.

They’re gradually starting to understand that the “have it all” meme they were sold is a lie-compromises must be made. They’re starting to understand that 40 is not in fact the new 30 when it comes to attracting the men they want and having the children they want.

They’re also starting to come to terms with the fact that, regardless of what the politically correct/feminist narrative taught them to hope for, they can’t stand weak men. The mass of modern “nice guys” born from the early feminist movement, who are above all nonthreatening and eager to satisfy the feminine imperative (as they were taught), simply don’t turn them on.

They try, but they just can’t warm to the weak men that feminism produced for them in the way they can for more traditionally masculine males.

Their vote to this end is being made quite clear in real life (masses of “nice guys” left twiddling their thumbs and jerking off or getting cuckolded/divorced raped) and in the media, where the men they worship are the polar opposite of the real “nice guys” whose company they are often forced to keep in daily life.

The younger generation of women is facing these pitfalls as they become more and more evident. Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but I’m not going to count on all of these girls failing to learn a lesson from their predecessors. Something has got to give.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read Next: The Power Of Feminism

48 thoughts on “Is Feminism Its Own Worst Enemy?”

  1. It’s not the Gen X women of my age cohort (say 35-50 now) who will “learn” the lessons. the daughters and granddaughter’s of the women of that generation who DO manage to breed will bear witness the sad, slow, LONG death of the Cat Lady Carrie generation in Eldercare condo complexes all over the country–and unless they take up suicide en masse or are finally cut off by the governemnt, this huge cohort of unloved single childless women are going to live for a veryyyyyyy long time, becoming more publicly repellent, crazier and more demanding by the day.

    1. I agree. I suspect that the younger women of my generation (I’m a millenial) will make up the first wave of “students” to really learn en masse from these developments as they watch their predecessors. It is a bit too late for Gen X as a whole, but there is hope for future generations to learn from their mistakes (and from those of the Boomers).
      Things won’t be perfect, but I don’t think that some cautious optimism for improvement over the next few decades (this will be a very gradual process) is unwarranted. Like I said, something has got to give.

      1. There is some hope for some millenial women, but many of them have actually made their peace with dying surrounded by cats. They expect that “every man they meet will eventually let them down,” and that careerism won’t.
        They’re wrong (because most companies will fire most worker drones
        without a second thought), and many young women also want nothing more than to have a family. But they feel like gender traitors for wanting to act on their biological imperative.
        What a sad, tangled web we’ve woven.

      2. yeah being a millenial sucks man, jobs are non existent and women are mongering gold diggers. And taxes and now this stupid obama health care shit is going to sap more money from me.

    2. Well stated and probably too true for too many. As a husband of 40 years with two daughters both thirtyish, both career-focussed, both childless I fear for their future.
      All my girls will be financially secure to the end. But who will truly care for my daughters when they get old? Friends just aren’t the same. We should have had more. They should have some. No one but family really cares about a little old lady.
      It often puzzles me that ideological tenets can subdue biological drive. At least my wife and I won’t die lonely.

  2. This is the SHEEETE!
    Love your posts,man. I am going to translate it into my own lingo and keep a reference the original.

  3. Lucky for Millenial men, international travel has never been so easy and accessible than it is now.
    Legions of feminine, beautiful, lovely foreign women for us to have. We also have to thank the internet.

  4. Very nice article, it reframes feminism into something that isn’t so negative for men.
    Feminism is bad for the average guy, but with some pickup knowledge a man can have extreme success.

  5. The kick-ass thing about this, for men anyway, is that all we have to do is what comes natural. Instead of trying to conform for some bobble-headed woman yammering on about how she wants a man who will cry and carry a purse, we can get back to growing beards and swearing when the mood strikes us.
    Even these Skanks in the City types, no, ESPECIALLY these Skanks in the City types, are all the more ready to cave to their evolutionary instincts when a man’s-man doesn’t cater to their bullshit. In a way its our own man-fault for thinking most women are capable of contributing anything beyond a lap-dance and a sandwich. To start setting things right, I vow to start telling women to shut the fuck up and maybe stop dressing so frumpy whenever it seems like the right thing to do…which is usually most of the time.

    1. What planet is Gronbach on?He needs to denife Latinos . He also needs to identify how many of the steady influx are coming here legally. Shear number of bodies (many of which end up on the public dole) shouldn’t give you warm fuzzies down your leg.So .let me get this straight. Latinos are a steady influx into the USA, and are great breeders. That will make our country strong. China, on the other hand is running out of population, so they will no longer be a world power in any arena ??Perhaps the reason for the reduced rate of marriage in China is because the available remaining women are possibly ugly. Better technique than legalized abortion.

  6. The point about low fertility rates is simply wrong. Christian counter-cultures have exceptionally high birth rates for obvious reasons, but average fertility rates among white women are higher in “feminist countries” where female participation rates in the work force are high and dual income is the norm. Compare France, the Netherlands, the Nordic States and the Anglo Countries with that of Germany, Eastern and Southern Europe. Check out this map: http://i.imgur.com/jhQNz.png And to head off the most obvious objection, you might notice that the high TFR areas are not necessarily the most immigrant-heavy areas, and you can also find some immigrant heavy areas (such as the large cities in Germany) that display low TFRs.
    The global norm for developed and urbanized nations is a fertility rate ranging from 1.2 to 2.2, and I doubt that ideology — be it feminism or anything else — has much to do with it. Fertility rates have fallen below replacement in theocratic Iran as well, probably because the same economic factor is at work there that is at play in any other urbanized nation: children are expensive and they don’t contribute to the income of the household. We don’t live in an agrarian society anymore where having children was actually an economic asset. The presence of dual income families seems to be the only factor that will raise the TFR to even as high as 2.0. Those who frequent these sites who expect a TFR of 5.0 will have to destroy industrial civilization and revert our primary mode of subsistence to agriculture to obtain their goal.

    1. “Christian counter-cultures have exceptionally high birth rates for obvious reasons, but average fertility rates among white women are higher in “feminist countries” where female participation rates in the work force are high and dual income is the norm.”
      Point taken, but it doesn’t stand to firmly in contrast to my overall argument. Here is what I said again for context:
      “The closer a woman’s ties to modern third-wave feminism, the less likely it appears that she will reproduce herself. Those more distant from the movement (more conservative and religious populations) are, conversely, reproducing the most. The most loyal foot-soldiers of this movement are urban liberals. These people simply do not replace themselves, and sport some of the lowest fertility rates of any demographic.”
      My point, essentially, is that urban liberal whites (those among whom feminism carries the most weight) have low fertility rates, especially when compared to their ideological opposites.
      You have noted here that certain feminist-friendly western European nations have higher fertility rates than others, but this does nothing to change the fact that these rates, though “higher” relative to some other related contexts, are still quite low (almost uniformly below replacement level with just a few exceptions in parts of western Europe) and remain much lower than those of the ideological “opposites” I mentioned.
      This point you’ve made simply doesn’t do much to damage the notion that a) these folks have low fertility rates in general (your map shows that areas towards the darker shade of the green color spectrum are a pretty clear minority in Europe-the exceptions, not the rule) and b) these low rates are much lower than those of folks on the other end of the political spectrum. You cannot successfully challenge my argument without damaging these notions.
      “And to head off the most obvious objection, you might notice that the high TFR areas are not necessarily the most immigrant-heavy areas, and you can also find some immigrant heavy areas (such as the large cities in Germany) that display low TFRs.”
      The obvious objection in this context would be the presence of ethnic minorities. One could simply argue that in those nations with relatively “higher” fertility that you mention, minorities are making most of the difference.
      You have chosen to head this off by noting first that higher fertility areas are not always (your words were “not necessarily”) immigrant heavy, and second that some immigrant heavy areas display low fertility rates.
      This preemptive argument is well intended (preempting such a blatantly obvious objection is a wise play here), but quite poorly played as it does nothing at all to preclude the very high possibility that the fertility in those nations is due in large part to a minority presence. With regards to your first point in this preemptive strike:
      “you might notice that the high TFR areas are not necessarily the most immigrant-heavy areas”
      This may be true, but it does not preclude the possibility that a disproportionate number of said high TFR areas are immigrant heavy, or that immigrants in general (not all of whom may live in immigrant heavy areas) are accounting for a disproportionate share of the fertility boost.
      In other words, it is entirely possible for a nation to have a disproportionate share of its fertility rate boosted by immigrants even though some of its high TFR areas are not immigrant heavy. In fact, this scenario is quite plausible. Pointing out that not all high TFR areas are immigrant heavy does little for your argument.
      Your next point:
      “you can also find some immigrant heavy areas (such as the large cities in Germany) that display low TFRs.”
      Some =/= most. We could have a nation in which immigrant heavy areas generally contribute disproportionately to the birth rate, and yet still have “some” (one or more) of those areas sport lower fertility rates. In fact, this is a very plausible reality.
      The fact that we have a couple of immigrant heavy areas with low fertility rates does not at all preclude a scenario in which immigrants generally contribute disproportionately to the national fertility rate relative to their native peers.
      All in all, your discussion here does very little to head off the objection regarding the disproportionate impact of immigrant fertility, so I will now put that objection forward: in the nations cited, ethnic minorities hold a disproportionate share of the birth rate and are largely responsible for the boosts seen in certain nations.
      In France, to use one example (home to a mass of the higher fertility areas on your map), there is ample evidence of a very wide gap between white and non-white fertility.
      Similar situations can be found in England and throughout the rest of Western Europe, including many of the few “higher” fertility regions of the area your map cited.
      “The global norm for developed and urbanized nations is a fertility rate ranging from 1.2 to 2.2, and I doubt that ideology — be it feminism or anything else — has much to do with it.”
      Ideological factors do not constitute the entirety of this picture by any means. I would, however, contend that they play a role, and not an insignificant one.
      Your example makes this clear:
      “Fertility rates have fallen below replacement in theocratic Iran as well, probably because the same economic factor is at work there that is at play in any other urbanized nation”
      There was a concerted effort by the Iranian government following the Iran-Iraq war to promote family-planning, with the aim of lowering the fertility rate. This very deliberate, thought-out, political and in large part ideological action is as much responsible for the rapid decline in Iranian fertility as economic factors are.
      Economics matter, but it is mistake to portray them as the be-all-end-all in fertility declines the way that you have attempted to do here. This is not an informed view on demographics. Recommended reading (for the purposes of improving your understanding of how non-economic factors can contribute to the rise and fall of fertility rates):
      http://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448
      “The point about low fertility rates is simply wrong.”
      I don’t think so.

      1. Your post is long and I am not even sure that I disagree with every point. I will note in response to your link to the Wiki article on the demographics of France that the TFRs for major North African groups have collapsed to an average of 2.42 (which I calculated) since 1990, although they are still above replacement. This collapse has coincided with a general rise in the total TFR since 1990, which could mean that the non-immigrant TFR has risen or that there are simply more immigrants who have a higher than average TFR (albeit lower than before). I think it’s both. The article only shows the data for the non-immigrant TFR for 1991-1998 — it doesn’t tell us what is currently. 1.7 in 1990 is still higher than that of Italy or Spain. France doesn’t collect data regarding ethnic demographics, and the only estimate the article lists is that of private marketing firm Solis, which puts France at 8.8 percent non-white. Lets suppose that they underestimated and the actual percentage is 10. If white French had a TFR of only 1.5, the non-whites would have to have a TFR of 6.5 to give France a total TFR of 2.0. They most certainly don’t. It’s probably lower than 2.4, as most data that I’ve seen indicates that second generation immigrants have lower TFRs than their parents. The article doesn’t include data on sub-Saharan TFRs, but my basic principle holds. Even if the non-white TFR in France were slightly higher at 2.5, the white TFR would have to be 1.94 to make France’s TFR 2.0.
        France might not even be the best country to look at. Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Ireland and even Norway might be better examples, as the non-white percentages of those countries are lower.
        (I am not a white nationalist, BTW. Although I’m fond of features like light eyes and light hair on women, I don’t have a specific preference for them and understand enough about genetics to know that they show up in mixed race populations. I don’t care about preserving the purity of white race per se, although there are certain elements of western culture that are prerequisites for the type of world I want to live in, I’m only emphasizing the race factor because I know that people who visit these alt-right/manosphere/HBD/whatever sites care about them. Also, the fact that I think people exaggerate the impact of feminism shouldn’t be taken to mean that I support that ideology either. Although I can’t blame women for trying to increase their options in life and don’t think that traditional gender roles are any better for men than they are for women, feminists are wrong that there is no biological basis for gender differences. Plus, I don’t take their commitment to equality at face value, even if they might genuinely believe it — the goal of life is to win the status game, not to be equal, and I have to favor my own side. Still, I think there are aspects of feminism that have been beneficial to men. Men have also been liberated from the role of being sole provider and protector, which was kind of a drag throughout most of history, as it usually translated into working dangerous jobs and becoming real life chess pieces in wars that the elite used to increase their status in relation to each other.)
        I have read reviews of “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth”, and I’ll have to revisit them to refresh my memory regarding the evidence that it presents. I do wonder if he makes the error of extrapolating current trends on to infinity. I have seen studies showing religiosity to be a heritable trait, and tight-knit religious groups certain have higher TFRs. However, they are operating from a small population base to start with and will have defectors. Heritability is never 100 percent, and also must account for environmental influences — religious counter-cultures do carry the weight of strong cultural and economic pressures against their practices. I guess we shall see.

      2. “It’s probably lower than 2.4, as most data that I’ve seen indicates that second generation immigrants have lower TFRs than their parents.”
        Assuming that a) the number of first generation immigrants did not grow significantly as well (immigration is ongoing) and b) second generation immigrants cannot hold a fertility rate higher than 2.4 and still maintain a generally lower TFR than their parents.
        “Even if the non-white TFR in France were slightly higher at 2.5, the white TFR would have to be 1.94 to make France’s TFR 2.0.”
        In which case a) white urban liberals have relatively low (below-replacement) fertility rates, b) these fertility rates are much lower than their ideological opposites and c) minorities are contributing disproportionately to the national birth rate.
        All of my points still standing.
        “I do wonder if he makes the error of extrapolating current trends on to infinity.”
        Read the book.

      3. That none of the “facts” preclude the possibility that population growth is due to immigrants,
        is evidence that they are constructed as misleading but true propaganda.
        The probability of something like that happening accidentally is very low.

  7. Rumors about the death of feminism are greatly exaggerated. all my friends moms and my friends have got it made and feel like they won. For every badboy womanizer on tv you can see 3 Housewives of Atlanta.

  8. Too bad they won’t learn their lesson until they are in their late 30s and 40s… I’m most hopeful for the lower birth rate, but that’s something that won’t fully play out for several generations, at least.

  9. People on the whole don’t learn lessons.
    What happens is one idea stops working as well as another idea and they switch sides. It cannot be considered a lesson learned.
    Take feminism. When the luxury of easy fake made up jobs is no longer a possibility and things get tough, women will simply start chasing beta provider earlier in their lives giving rise to beta-provider game for men.
    Women and men both simply choose what works at any given moment. Its not a lesson learned, win or defeat but people adapting to the environment.

  10. Excellent article! Sums up the flaws of feminism quite succintly, and well highlights how it hath sown the seeds of its own destruction.
    I am 27, and I have lived in Europe (Spain) since I was 20 years old. It took me a couple years to shake off the feminist-approved ¨be a pussy¨ style of masculinity, but as I became more unapologetically manly, I reaped the benefits in pussy indeed. More and more, I learned to openly abuse drugs, not shy away from violence, embrace weapons and MMA training, light heavy weights, eat meat, listen to good fucking music (NIN, Jim Morrison, whatever) and generally laugh at most social conventions and maximize my own happiness through whatever means I had short of the truly odious.
    And what I achieved through this personal reinvention was generally commitment-less sex from many dozens of feminine, thin women spread across the ideological spectrum. I´ll hit 100 nothces soon. I´ve lived with more than one girlfriend at once, almost always had at least one fuckbuddy, and regularly picked up new women in whatever milleu I was in. Women have regularly bought me things, done me many favors, and been happy to suck my dick with me many times not even offering to stay the night.
    I have not experienced monogamy in almost a decade. I have had, and do have, many more serious relationships – but I always demanded that I be allowed my pussy on the side as well. Why shouldn´t I? I´m a rare commodity in our modern society – a shameless, bold, often arrogant and charismatic male who is something the manboobs aren´t – highly attractive to women. And attractive men are rare these days – even here in western europe there are very few.
    Feminism has fucked our society, and it´s fucked many women. But if you are an unapologetic alpha, or at least can learn to act like one, pussy has never been cheaper and more abundant. I discovered the manosphere recently and heartily agree with most of it – I have lived it.
    Soldier on mothafuckaz… the pussy of this generation is ours.

    1. “More and more, I learned to openly abuse drugs, not shy away from violence, embrace weapons and MMA training, light heavy weights, eat meat, listen to good fucking music (NIN, Jim Morrison, whatever) and generally laugh at most social conventions and maximize my own happiness through whatever means I had short of the truly odious.”

      I must say, this is quality trolling—thoroughly enjoyed it.

  11. What I’m trying to understand is why exactly white women are not having children, while black women are. I’d say black women support feminism more than white women as a whole, but they tend to have more children (and more abortions) per capita than white women.
    What I’m trying to understand is why minority birth rates are higher. Children are expensive, and as a whole minorities are not as well off as whites, even if in absolute numbers there are more poor white people than poor minorities.

    1. well the blacks and latinos consider themselves more relgious than whites but ironically they have more babies outta wedlock
      white fertility..1.8 (beloe 2.11) black fertility 2.2 latin fertility 2.4
      well white women are more into feminism but remember the black an latin guys play more macho with theri women an keep on top of them while white boys are totally whipped by them
      the cultures where men are in charge for the most part fertility is doin well…men have to be in control
      but with the reccession minority women birth rates have hit the worst so a biger decline for them

    2. So-called minorities have low-IQ’s and low impulse control. Furthermore, they’re living off the welfare of whites. The welfare whites in the West have similar birthrates, low-IQ and low impulse control. Conversely, they’re the exception.
      Zimbabwe was Rhodesia.
      Detroit was the Motor City.
      Kevin MacDonald PhD has covered this better than anyone else.

    3. Because, if you’re living in poverty anyways, breeder becomes a viable employment option, given government salaries/welfare rates for single mothers.

  12. What was that article about a woman who only staffed women in her company and it became a huge catfest and subsequently went under?

  13. I love feminism… It guarantees and almost unending supply of young women, all of which have “daddy” issues – since they never had one growing up. So they crave the attention of an older, powerful man – who is unlike all of the childish men their own age.
    Of course, I like that they will pay their own way to travel with me and share my bed. I’m older than most of their mothers, and get to enjoy them, and others. If someone had told me when I was 30 – you’ll be fucking women who haven’t even been born yet, I would have told them they were nuts. But thanks to feminism – it really is a MAN’S WORLD.
    Thank you ladies… I love every second of it, and every inch of you…

    1. Maybe you like it less when you realise it teach young women to cry rape if they are disatisfied with any of your behaviour.

    2. Within a decade when morals are re established in America pedophiles like you will disappear

  14. You must remember that everything women do is for the perceived social status amongst their female peers. EVERYTHING. Even the dyke feminist lesbians are playing the ‘look how intellectual I am’ card amongst their peer group, totally forgetting of course that women not I their peer group don’t value brains the same way but instead value beauty and wealth. Feminists hate other women for being women. Even birds like shiny trinkets

    1. oh because men don’t care about their perceived social status among other men, whatsoever? i mean the fucking irony of claiming women don’t ‘value brains the same way but instead value beauty and wealth’ on a website dedicated to the attempt to somehow morally prove it is okay for men to be shallow dickheads who apparently see no reason for a relationship beyond primal instinct

  15. ”Low Fertility Rates” Wrong.
    Feminists (radical) who have children, will encounter their children to dislike or despise their mothers for not giving them a father figure. These souls will be crippled but will know full well the fallacy of feminism.
    None feminists will reproduce more but without careful guidance and vigilance on the state education they receive, these could rebel and become feminists which will fill the ranks of feminism.
    The only reversal I see possible is a shift in the sexual marketplace. For example, a large scale shift in men going abroad and finding a traditionalist wife.
    Another would be a rapid decline in population leading to a substantial loss of tax revenue which will force the hand of this or that government to cut spending in non essential areas such as female entitlements or farcial state jobs for women.

  16. The blind leading the blind and they both fall into a ditch. They’re getting what they had coming. Trying to convince women that they don’t have to be women despite their biochemical makeup is like trying to convince a cesium atom it’s free to be hydrogen. So they force themselves-the square pegs of society, into round holes and get bruised and frayed in the process. Let feminism kill itself. You don’t stop your worst enemy when he’s building himself a gallows and measuring rope to hang himself on it.

  17. There’s one BIG problem with the “they aren’t reproducing” argument. They don’t have to make a genetic copy to put their mess ideas all over it. Feminists don’t make their own kids; they steal yours by becoming public school teachers and training them to believe a big fat load of hooey.

  18. MGTOWs and feminists should be thrown,from helicopters, onto a deserted island surrounded by an electric fence.

Comments are closed.