And like a bad coin, or like Freddy Krueger, I am back.
And today we are going to discuss misogyny, the hatred of women, but not by men, by other women.
Women who hate women.
This is the topic of today's video.
And I propose women who hate women.
My name is Sam Bachlin.
I am the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited.
I am a former visiting professor of psychology and currently on the faculty of CEAPs, Commonwealth Institute for Advanced Professional Studies.
So anecdotal evidence strongly indicates a rise in misogyny, but not only among what is known as toxic masculine men, especially so among women.
At this stage, there are not many studies.
There's a dearth of studies, a paucity of studies regarding this phenomenon.
But any woman would tell you that this is by and large quite true.
Women hate on women as much and very often more so and more virulently than men.
Wait a minute, Bachlin.
Some of you say, some of you who are still awake say, what about the #MeToo movement?
Isn't this, wasn't this a shining exemplar of solidarity among women?
No.
In my view, the #MeToo movement has been exactly the opposite of solidarity.
It was an example of a lack of solidarity among women.
First of all, the #MeToo movement is a patronizing, condescending movement.
The underlying assumption is that women are somehow more fragile, more brittle, more vulnerable and generally more childlike than men and in need of special protections in the law, in social institutions, among each other and especially from men.
The #MeToo movement, as basically and virtually all other victimhood movements, has been infested with dark personalities, subclinical psychopaths, subclinical narcissists, Machiavellian types, manipulative types and straight out narcissists, covert narcissists, psychopaths, you name it.
There have been quite a few studies on this topic and I encourage you to search my channel for "woke" or for "victimhood" and you will find all the literature and so on and so forth.
So now, the #MeToo movement is actually a narcissistic psychopathic movement, not a solidarity movement.
Number three, the #MeToo movement has been founded on what we call negative identity.
That's a very fancy way and politically correct manner of saying "men hatred".
The #MeToo movement is misandrist.
It's a movement of the hatred of men.
Now, of course, they would immediately deny it vociferously and vehemently.
We don't hate men at all.
We just hate men who are perpetrators and predators, but we love the rest of men as of now.
Any woman will tell you, any woman will tell you that men hatred is spreading far and wide.
It's a wildfire.
It's not containable anymore.
Exactly as woman hatred is spreading among men, there's a hatred between the genders.
It's a gender war.
And the enemy, like in any war, the enemy is being demonized and devalued.
So a movement that is founded on negative identity has nothing to do with positive identity and solidarity is definitely a determinant and dimension of positive identity.
You are in solidarity with someone because you are the same.
You're not in solidarity with someone because both of you are not like a third party.
So men hatred is a very sick, pathological foundation to build solidarity on.
And finally, the #MeToo movement is coercive.
It uses a variety of techniques and strategies and strategists to coerce many women into behaving in ways which they find extremely uncomfortable.
There are quite a few incidents like this in public view where women initially did not want to proceed with, for example, prosecution of men and so on and so forth, and were forced to by representatives or self-pointed representatives of the #MeToo movement.
So the #MeToo movement has nothing to do with female solidarity.
If anything, in my view, the #MeToo movement is founded on self-loathing, self-rejection of women, a kind of pathological relationship with the self, with the selfhood of femininity.
It's a rejection of femininity, in effect.
It's not to say that some of the goals of the #MeToo movement are not laudable.
It's just that the way the movement went about it has nothing to do with female solidarity.
So why the rise in female misogyny?
It's the outcome of six reasons, in my view.
Number one, the masculinization of women.
Women are becoming more and more like men. When women were asked to describe themselves using a series of nine adjectives, in 1980, they chose eight out of nine adjectives which were essentially stereotypically feminine. In 2020 or 2018, they chose eight out of nine adjectives which were absolutely masculine, such as competitive, ambitious, ruthless, and so on. So today, women self-perceive as men, as in masculine terms. So that's why I keep saying we are in a world of unigender. Everyone is a man. Some men are possessed of a penis and others are possessed of a vagina, but we are all men. So gender is no longer a determinant, a meaningful determinant in almost anything, in sexual streets, in social behaviors, in social learning, in modeling, and even in mental health. Only 40 years ago, 75% of people diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder were men. Today, 50% are. And it seems that women are going to overtake men in terms of narcissism, at least. The same is happening in psychopathy. This used to be male mental health diagnoses, and now women are taking over. We live in a unigender world. Now, in a way, ironically, this is going back full cycle to the beginning of mankind. Initially, we were organized, mankind, humanity was organized, in hunter-gatherer societies. And the stereotype, the dominant stereotype, even in scholarly literature, was that women stayed behind in the camp, or the encampment, or the clearing in the woods, or whatever, the village. They stayed behind, they raised their children, they took care of domestic chores, and they were gatherers. They gathered roots, and they gathered fruits, and you name it. This was the stereotype. Recent studies demonstrate conclusively that this is not true. In hunter-gatherer societies, women hunted with men, definitely. So women hunters were common, and this undermines the image of the stereotype of women as quintessential housewives by nature, prone to domestic chores, and so on. What's happening in postmodern society is we are going back to the hunter-gatherer times, pre-organization, pre-civilization, tells you a lot. So the first reason for inter-feminine hatred, internecine inter-feminine hatred, is the masculinization of women. Women are becoming men, and men are more aggressive. Men are more assertive.
Men are more territorial.
And men are more, much more, conflictive in nature.
Number two, I mentioned the rise in female narcissism and psychopathy.
Women have chosen alpha male role models.
Women didn't choose to adopt a role model of a hardworking, ethical, loving, caring, compassionate, and empathic man.
They adopted the role models of predators, role models of Wall Street financiers, role models of fighters and warriors, role models of narcissists and psychopaths and bullies.
These are the role models that women have adopted.
The girl boss, the future is female.
The ranch culture, these are all actually male stereotypes of loose promiscuous women.
Yet women have adopted, I'm proud to be a slut.
So now women are narcissistic and psychopathic, and this is the predominant model that they've adopted.
The model, the modeling, the social learning theory is that women should become vicious, aggressive, ruthless, callous, reckless men.
If they want to survive, and if they want to prevail and thrive in a men-dominated world, they should outmen men.
And this, of course, creates a lot of conflicts, a lot of aggression, and so on and so forth.
Number three, there's a scarcity of eligible male partners.
And this creates a lot of competition among females for the same rare male.
There are so few men who would make a catch that huge throngs and crowds and mobs of women are competing for the same men in a very vicious, vitriolic, virulent way.
And this asymmetry between the number of eligible men and the number of eligible women is further exacerbated by the fact that men can marry younger women, but women can rarely marry younger men.
So there's no symmetry in the age distribution in the population.
Men have a much larger reservoir of available women than women.
The older a woman gets, the fewer and fewer eligible mates it has, and her mate selection process becomes more and more convoluted and problematic.
So warfare, literally warfare between women on eligible males causes a lot of friction, a lot of hatred, a lot of gossip, a lot of vitriol, a lot of diatribes, a lot of hatred, a lot of loathing, a lot of sabotage among women, just fighting over men.
Now why this discrepancy, why the number of eligible male partners has declined so precipitously?
This gender asymmetry is because of disparities, differences between the genders.
For example, women are more educated than men.
So that makes it difficult.
They want to talk to someone after the sex.
They want to be intellectually challenged.
They want to be exposed to thought-provoking exchanges and so on.
And they don't have partners for this because today many more women graduate, universities and so on, than men.
Men are less educated.
Similarly, women are beginning to earn more money than men.
In the age group under 25, women make more money than men.
And this is spreading.
And probably by 2050, women will make a lot more money than men because they are more educated and education is the best predictor for future earnings.
And finally, there's a question of elevated standards, not hypergamy.
Hypergamy is a myth.
By the way, hypergamy is also the wrong word.
The right word is hypergene.
But hypergene is a myth.
Even according to studies in the past 40 years, women are settling for less.
Women are compromising.
Even in one-night stands, women prefer what the intellectually challenged monosphere call "betamails." Even for one-night stands.
Chards, alpha males are jerks and women reject them.
These are the studies.
I'm sorry.
And the data emanating from dating apps is wrong and misinterpreted.
Everything the monosphere says is counterfactual, nonsensical myths.
Actually what is happening?
Women have elevated standards.
So consequently, they're unable to find a long-term partner.
And so they compromise on casual sex and one-night stands.
Last year was the first year where women were more into casual sex than men.
And I dealt with it in a video that I posted a few days ago.
Many men are perceived by women as effeminate losers.
No slackers.
No horizon there.
No future.
And no reason to be together.
So women choose to be alone.
The number of women who are lifelong singles is staggering, absolutely staggering.
We're talking about 34 to 38% in Western societies, according to studies by the Pew Center.
The number among men is even much higher because many men can't find the woman to even have sex with.
So we're talking about 62%, 63% of men haven't had any contact with members of the opposite sex if they are heterosexual the year, the preceding year.
The vast majority of people are schismic, atomized.
They're self-sufficient and they avoid other people, even for sex.
So people are defining themselves via negative identities.
There's a lot of identity politics, but identity politics is founded on negative identities.
The other is an enemy.
The other is a perpetrator.
The other is an abuser.
The other is not interesting.
It's boring.
The other is burdensome in a nuisance, in an annoyance.
So this is negative identity formation.
I am not like the other and that's who I am.
And this creates a lot of atomization in the sense that people remain single.
And their singlehood and loneliness and aloneness have become a lifestyle and gradually a lifestyle of choice.
So in such a society, women would resent women and hate women as much as they do men.
There would be no distinction because everyone is the same.
Everyone is a man.
It's unigender.
So the hatred of women would be directed at women as much as it would be towards men.
There's an intolerance among women, an intolerance of variance and nonconformity and hierarchy.
Variance, rebelliousness, hierarchy.
These are male attributes, male organizing principles.
And women haven't fully adopted to the male world or the male model.
They're trying to imitate males.
They're trying to become men.
But they've chosen the wrong role models, narcissists, psychopaths and so on.
So they are not fully functional in the male world.
The world is still male dominated.
Not for long, not for long.
Matriarchy is coming.
Women are going to take over.
But at this stage, it is still male dominated.
And yet women haven't succeeded to plug into male institutions and adopt male mores and values.
And so this creates a lot of friction because many women have become narcissists and psychopaths.
And yet they are unable to form institutions and structures that accommodate their newfound narcissism and psychopathy.
And this creates a lot of peer pressure.
Women exert peer pressure on each other and on men to conform, to be politically correct, to compromise, to suppress the truth if necessary, to be empathic in an ostentatious way, performative empathy.
So this is virtue signaling, which is essentially a female thing and so on and so forth.
And this intolerance of male mores and male values and male beliefs and male organizing principles and so on, this intolerance leads to a lot of conflicts between men and women, but also among women.
Because in the absence of structured institutions, there is a lot of anomie.
There's a collapse of norms and normative behaviors, which result, and this results in aggression and in friction and in mutual antagonism.
And this is what's happening between women.
And finally, women have subjected themselves to identity politics.
There's competitive victimhood among women, performative victimhood, vulnerability signaling kind of virtue signaling is a subspecies of vulnerability or victimhood signaling.
And it's very competitive because women have become men.
So they have brought male attributes, male qualities, male characteristics, including psychological traits.
They brought all these into victimhood movements.
And now victimhood movements have become the new corporate field.
Victimhood movements are now money spinning, money making enterprises and competitive victimhood is actually a competition for relative positioning in a society that makes sense of itself, imbues itself with meaning, not via God, not via dignity, not via reputation, not via true arguments, not via hard work, not via ethics, but via victimhood.
Today the greater victim you are, the more accomplished you are.
And the higher your relative positioning in society.
And women have plugged into this big time because women have been victimized really, for example, like the blacks in the United States, like African Americans, and like the Jews.
So these groups, these cohorts, these populations who have been actually victimized throughout the ages to this or that degree, they find it easier to express themselves via victimhood.
But this, of course, creates a lot of internal friction because victimhood is competitive.
So women resent each other because of this competition.
Women become each other's enemies because they vie and they compete for scarce resources.
For example, attention, entitlement, rights, reparations, money, and so on.
Internal competition among women in victimhood movements is a major driver of female misogyny.
Okay, this is women.
What about men?
How are men reacting to all this?
There's a new study from the University of British Columbia and it came up with a few fascinating insights.
They found out that men, contemporary men, postmodern men, can be classified into, broadly speaking, into three distinct categories of masculinity.
And each category is reactive to female behavior and to modern vagaries and exigencies of life.
So the first type of men is the neo-traditionalist man.
It's the guardian of tradition.
It's an archetype.
This kind of man perceives himself as a provider, a protector in relationships.
And this is anchored in traditional gender roles.
These individuals find fulfillment in playing the role of guardian, savior, healer, rescuer, fixer, nurturing relationships through the lens of time-honored scripts and norms and behavioral dictates and prescriptions.
The problem is this.
Many misogynistic men, especially covert narcissists, fit into this neo-traditionalist role.
Covert narcissists regard women as inferior.
And actually many other misogynistic men, not only covert narcissists, they regard women as inferior.
They hold them in contempt.
They're contemptuous towards women.
But they're contemptuous in a highly specific way that allows them to feel good with themselves, to feel comfortable with their own racist, if you wish, convictions.
They say, "I regard women as inferior.
I hold them in contempt." Not because there are some things wrong with them, not because they're evil, not because they are not, but simply because they are childlike.
They're undeveloped.
They're primitive.
They are not like men.
Men are revolved.
Men are developed.
Men are mature.
Men are adults.
Men are responsible for 99% of human progress.
Women are childlike.
They're infantile.
They're incapable of taking care of themselves.
They're incapable of defending themselves.
So I need to protect them.
It's a bizarre combination of misogyny, perhaps the most egregious, virulent form of misogyny, which involves also contempt, loathing, coupled with a compulsive, aggressive need to protect women, to defend them, to rescue them, to save them from other males who are predators or perpetrators or in danger or whatever.
So the neo-traditionalist men nowadays is highly narcissistic, misogynistic, contemptuous, and at the same time, very protective of women and very invested, affected, emotionally invested in the traditional role of men.
He is the provider and he is the defender of the woman's physical and mental safety.
Now this is not in the study.
The study just identifies the neo-traditionalist type of men, one of three.
I'm adding to it my insights.
Now the second type is the egalitarian type of men.
So you remember this is a study in British Columbia.
They identified three types of men, postmodern men, neo-traditionalist and now egalitarian.
It's when the man perceives his partner to be his equal.
There's a perfect balance between them.
Equality, reciprocity, egalitarianism, a relationship built on shared responsibilities and mutual understanding, always negotiated, always consensual building.
These men view their partners truly as equals and believe that relationships should be based on give and take, even as they navigate the intricacies of modern partnerships and life and so on and so forth.
This is a very healthy approach.
The last type of men is the progressive men and progressives are focused on gender equity.
It's a kind of masculinity which champions gender equity and open communication.
These men engage in discussions with their partners.
They try to collaboratively in a cooperative way define roles and responsibilities.
They forge a dynamic that transcends societal norms and fosters a sense of empowerment in both parties.
Now what's the distribution?
About one quarter of men identified as neo-traditionalist, which sits well with what I've said by the way, because personality disorders is about 15 to 20% of men.
About 20% of men have personality disorders.
The neo-traditionalist men, even though they have defined themselves in conservative terms, protected provider, this and that, they still knew that they have to pay lip service to third and fourth wave feminism.
So they distance themselves from the traditionalist perception of men as superior and women as inferior.
So that's not the case.
It's not the case here.
It's just that we are better suited to provide and to protect than women.
It doesn't make us superior.
It's just a different distribution of skills and capacities.
Now about half identified themselves as the egalitarian types and about one quarter as progressive.
So it's an interesting distribution.
One quarter are neo-conservative, neo-traditionalist when it comes to male roles.
One quarter are progressives when it comes to male roles, actually denying that there is such a thing as a male gender role.
The progressives don't see any difference whatsoever, not even biological difference between men and women.
And genitalia mean nothing to them. They don't predispose the owner of the genitalia to any specific trajectory in life, traits, behaviors and so on. There's no correlation between specific genitalia and anything else as far as they're concerned.
So the progressives are the champions of the unigender world.
The traditionalist or neo-traditionalist are the champions of harking back to the past, Jordan Peterson style, to a more conservative definition of gender roles.
And in the middle, we have about half of men who settled into a relatively healthy modus vivendi where both parties maintain gender roles but leverage these gender roles to create an equal partnership that yields beneficial outcomes, a self efficacious partnership.
I'd like to read to you a few quotes from some of the participants in the study.
Neo-traditionalist said, "Most of the time she does the house chores while I do the menly duties like maybe washing the car.
Also sometimes I do go for groceries and I also do paint jobs in the house." Another guy who identified as neo-traditionalist said, "The man is the head of the family.
He is responsible for the relationship, being equitable." Some egalitarian voices.
Before there were conflicts where my girlfriend, she felt like she was cooking more often than I was, which was true.
How we resolved that was we will schedule days ahead of time.
For example, if you cook three days, I cook three days.
Then I think by having a more rigid schedule like that, more quantifiable schedule, we were able to sort of divide it more equally.
Another egalitarian voice.
She doesn't like my cooking straight up.
She doesn't like meat and potatoes.
And I like her cooking.
So it's not a matter of needing her to cook.
It's a matter of we are both happy with the result.
It's just whatever you are best at.
A progressive voice. A progressive voices. It requires work to be a person who has an equitable relationship. It requires self-reflection. Reflection on our society. Reflection on what you want as a person. What your partner wants as a person. And it requires a lot of emotional introspection to develop a relationship that is equitable. Safety where vulnerability is treasured, where intimacy is built in. Another progressive voice. I was speaking with my partner a month ago and she told me that now it's a triple burden for women because you have to be a good mom, a good worker and a beautiful woman at the same time.
So it's becoming more of a burden for women as I see and it's highly dependent on the social policy of the country.
Dr. Olif, who managed this study in British Columbia, said, "We set out to understand how different types of masculinity shape men's relationships and their mental health."
What we found was that these masculine types were associated with different benefits as well as challenges. So he gave as an example men who actively promoted gender equity and social justice reported improved mental well-being.
But men who challenged these ideals faced isolation and criticism from others and this impacted adversely their mental health.
So nowadays to be a neo-traditionalist, it has a cost.
You pay a price for this.
You are ostracized and shunned and criticized and mocked and ridiculed by other men as a Neanderthal.
And so many men are coerced into pretending to be egalitarian or progressive when actually deep at heart they are neo-traditionalists.
And this of course creates dissonance, very dissonance.
And when you are a covert narcissist or a psychopath or borderline or in short when you're mentally ill or you have mental health problems, your ability to suppress who you truly are is much diminished.
And so you conjure up a kind of narrative, a kind of compromise where you are who you are but actually you are not who you are.
So you hold women in contempt, you regard them as inferior, as fragile, as brittle, as vulnerable, as intellectually challenged, as childlike on the one hand but on the other hand you are afraid a friend of women.
You protect them, you provide for them, you defend them and this way you resolve the cognitive dissonance if you're mentally, if you're faced with mental health problems.
The study also found that some men with an egalitarian style still struggle to grasp the concept of achieving gender equality through splitting domestic tasks 50/50.
That's a strong indication of dissonance.
While outwardly they paid lip service to equality, in reality domestic chores were more the females' domain than the males, even in egalitarian households. "These shifts and stresses," says Dr. Olif, "These shifts and stresses have implications for mental health.
To promote meaningful change we need to address the structures that influence men's behaviours." He runs a men's health research program at the University of British Columbia and they focus on the connections between gender roles and mental health.
He says while men are becoming more involved in promoting gender equity, little is known about how younger men work to build partnerships in their private lives.
With this research we hope we have helped map that uncharted space and point a way forward.
By the way there's an online photo exhibition titled "Men Building Intimate Partner Relationships" it's 120 photographs which depict these three types of masculine.
Dr. Nagaou says, one of the participants in the study says, "There are photos depicting new traditional egalitarian or progressive masculinity and visitors are invited to take a quiz to decide which images fit with each masculinity.
We are not only highlighting our research outcomes, we are also inviting input from visitors about how they see themselves and how they build gender equity in their intimate partner relationships." The article is titled "Neotraditionalist, egalitarian and progressive masculinities in men's heterosexual intimate partner relationships" and as I said the lead author is John Olif, I will provide you with a citation in the literature section in the description to this video but I would like to come to the conclusion of my lecture by reading to you extensive excerpts from the excellent introduction to this article.
One of the best encapsulations of gender relations or the history of gender studies that I've come across, so I don't want to miss the opportunity, I want to read it to you.
The introduction to the article that I've just mentioned. Shifts in gender roles, identities and relations since the 1980s are continuing to influence the organization and practices of masculinities within and between societies worldwide and they refer to studies by Pringle 2011. While women's freer entry to the workforce and access to birth control continue to be hard fought human rights, changes to boys and men's lives indicate both emergent challenges and opportunities.
Kimel, for example, in 2008 pointed to young men's delayed and or absent traditional masculin markers, career, marriage, breadwinner, home ownership, they're all delayed nowadays.
And this is entwined with their collective avoidance, avoidance by men of adult responsibilities and fixations on the trappings of boyhood amid trying to prove their manhood.
Contrasting these problematic opportunities for pro-social masculinities embodied by promoting gender equality and gender equity within intimate partner relationships have surfaced.
So one solution, one new definition of masculinity could be the promotion of gender equity.
I beg to disagree, but this is what the study suggests.
There is a need for new and improved contemporary norms for boys and men and they refer to studies by Greg Flod, 2020.
Further, says the article, men's lobby and actions for gender transformative practices are increasingly visible in public debates, social activism and policy development.
They point to a survey by Prasad, 2021.
Also pushing gender equality and gender equity agendas are promises for mental health gains to prevent negative downstream outcomes, including intimate partner violence and suicide.
And this is the view of the World Health Organization in 2021.
And yet, says the article, within the personal and ordinarily private domesticities where intimate partnerships tend to operate, masculinities are poorly understood.
The current study maps masculinities in men's heterosexual intimate partner relationships to advance understandings of gender equality and gender equity and guide future health research.
Masculinities, socially constructed practices, beliefs, perform activities normed with being a man.
Masculinities have been described and debated for decades, oftentimes hypothesizing the degree to which traditional masculine norms might be changing and diversifying in and across societies.
In the specific context of heterosexual relationships, the gender dimensions of men's intimate partnerships have drawn research attention.
For example, men's instrumental approaches to intimate relationships, showing love and care through actions rather than through words, have been claimed a byproduct of men's collective inability to express emotional needs and/or read and support their partner's feelings.
Men's limited empathy and emotional restraint have also been linked to traditional masculine norms, synonymous with strong and stoic protector and provider roles.
Alignments to traditional masculine norms have, however, been somewhat disrupted by contemporary societal demands for men to more fully participate in their intimate partner relationships.
Men are now expected to share, parental leave, sustain continued contributions and routine contributions to domestic work.
They are supposed to display or exhibit emotional openness and expressiveness.
These shifts have invoked discomforts, with some men harboring and expressing concerns about their flailing provider roles amid women's empowerment for securing equitable conditions to independently pursue their own goals.
It's a fancy way of saying that men are terrified by women's ascendancy and empowerment.
They dread it.
They don't know how to cope with it.
They feel insecure.
They're worried, and many of them fight back. Continuing with the article, contrasting these challenges, researchers have pointed to men's opportunities for freedoms to employ practices that break with the restrictive and socially policed performativities characterizing and sustaining traditional masculine norms. Here, work norming men's emotional lives as flexible and expressive is explained as inclusive masculinities. Also debated are hybrid masculinities, which suggest men's experiences and justifications of privilege have transformed, making available new identities. Contextually, men's drawing acceptance of and security with an equal intimate partner, commitment to contesting patriarchies and solidarity with feminism for garnering equitable relationships, all these are growing, according to Lamont 2015. Contemporary heterosexual intimate partner relationships have also increasingly emerged as eclectic, with family diversity, dual-earned couples, child-free marriages, and expectations for emotional maturity. Forefront in men's shifting heterosexual relationships have been calls for gender equality and gender equity. Gender equality idealizes equal workloads, where partners contribute the same or similar labor to mutually benefit the relationship. Gender equity, a focus in current research, by the way, is differentiated.
It is defined as the provision of fairness and justice in the distribution of benefits and responsibilities between women, men, and all genders.
This is the definition of the European Institute for Gender Equality.
So while matching contributions and opportunities gender equality, while these might ease some traditionally uneven divisions of domestic labor and career progressions for partners in heterosexual relationships, they can also be called out for shorting actions that ensure each partner's needs are known and fairly met, gender equity.
And here the ontological security and psychological stability of both partners are prized outcomes of and drivers for gender equity.
What they're trying to say is that gender equity is good for mental health of both partners, men and women.
Both gender equality and gender equity demand attention to diverse agency structure processes in the social cultural context that entwine to influence men's intimate partner relationships.
Structures supporting gender equality and gender equity include positive adjustments to women's income and employment opportunities and men's paternity leave.
Though predicted as diverse, men's gender equality and gender equity practices have drawn little research attention, levering calls for strength-based and asset-building approaches, etc.
The mental health gains through gender equality and gender equity are also key drivers for change with evidence that distressed and/or disrupted intimate partner relationships heighten women's and men's risk for mental illness.
Specific to men's mental health risks, separated and divorced men often engage maladaptive practices, especially substance abuse, and relationship breakups or a significant risk factor for male suicide.
By contrast, for men, being married confers protective health benefits that are absent among single men.
These mental illness risks and health benefits underscore the importance of research into men's experiences of and perspectives about heterosexual intimate partner relationships.
Sharing insights on men's heterosexual intimate partner relationships can also lobby reflexive practices to promote mental health as upstream contributions to healthier communities.
I must say the University of British Columbia is emerging as a major pioneer in mental health studies on a variety of topics, including victimhood movements, including virtual signaling, including the victimhood self-identity, including male-female relationships, gender roles.
I would pay attention to this University. It's at the forefront of many of the hottest button issues nowadays.
So this is the story of men and women today. As men, as women become more like men, men are lost. They haven't found a new identity. They denuded of their past roles. They don't know how they should behave and what they should do. They opt for one of three solutions. None of them is optimal, actually. None of them is optimal.
And contrary to what this study says, I think heartbreak, depression, anxiety, and mental illness actually increase in marriages and relationships, don't decrease.
And I think that's precisely why these institutions, romantic relationships, intimate relationships and marriages, formalized intimate relationships, why these institutions are dying, because they are no longer functional and they no longer provide the benefits that they used to well into, let's say, the beginning of the 21st century.
We need new models, new institutions, new arrangements, and a new understanding between what used to be women and who used to be men. We're heading towards a new era where people with vaginas will be in control and bring with them a totally different psychological profile and baggage.
And we need to get adopted to this. We need to develop positive adaptations, both as men and as women. And we are very late in doing this. And this is a much bigger risk, much greater threat than climate change, because the tension and attraction between men and women has been the driving force, the engine and the fuel of all civilizations bar none.
The very concept, very construct of civilization is an outcome of this intricate interplay between the respective charm and magic of both genders. Okay, so we've taken away gender roles, we've obliterated sex differences. And now what?
What's the alternative?
All these movements, feminism, at the forefront, but not only feminism, me too, all these movements are about negative identity. These movements know what they want to fight, they know what they want to destroy, they know what they wish to reserve, to reverse.
But none of them came up with a positive identity, with a vision of the future, with how things might look optimally, with a utopia.
And so we've ended up in a dystopia.
Yes, we have ruined and demolished and destroyed and eradicated and obliterated many, many things, many of which were bad, some of which were good. And we destroyed everything.
So now we look around and it's a wasteland, not a single tree inside, not a brook or a stream bubbling anywhere. Everything is dead, Martian landscape. And no one seems to have come, succeeded to propose a plan for renewal, resurrection and renovation.
And this might spell the very end of the human species.
So I regard this as a much bigger threat than climate change. And that we are sanguine about this, that we accept our current way of life as nothing serious, it's going to cost us dearly, very dearly. Either we will be swamped, invaded and taken over by hyper-conservative societies driven back to the Dark Ages or worse. Or we all are going to perish gleefully, incrementally, over the next thousand years. But we are going to be no more. It's now or never. We are already very late. ###