I am one of the men she is writing about. Found Freya through Chris Williamson. Message noted loud and clear. Very good. Will do my best to implement this and focus more on stories/feelings. Again, excellent.
I’m afraid I don’t really understand how you are helping yourself and your fellow young women by seeming to focus on the pain and victimhood of what you perceive as your predicament. I hope, as an articulate woman and good writer with many followers you will start to share the solutions that you and they personally can take, as blaming society or others doesn’t solve things. I look forward to reading them.
To solve a problem one has to identify it. None of the dynamics mention in this essay would have occurred to me if I hadn't read it, and I'm sure that's true for other readers. And I don't think it's written from a "victimhood" perspective.
Perhaps you could offer some suggestions on how the problems identified here might be addressed.
I see from your profile you're 66, which maybe explains it. I'm 33, and I don't think any of the younger millenials or gen Z are unaware of this dynamic with hookup culture, ghosting etc. It's widely discussed in the culture.
It does strike as written from a "victimhood" perspective TBH - no one makes you have a hookup, you download the app, make a profile, match someone, text them, agree to go over, etc. There's a whole chain of events there that are your direct actions.
It’s true that no one holds a gun to your head to do these things but to say these are all “your direct actions” suggests a kind of naive individualism that is at odds with your first paragraph. “Everyone” acknowledges there are problems but it’s the culture. In theory you can opt out, but doing so is to make the isolation worse.
We need a counterculture. However, as Freya points out, the church has not yet been up to that task. In many ways, it has rather actively conformed itself to the prevailing culture.
No it doesn't. If you really get to know a guy, you start going on dates, he says he wants marriage etc. and months later you have sex and he ghosts you, you have all my sympathy and that is terrible. Criticising that person would indeed be "naive individualism".
I really don't think this is what's happening though. It's never happened to people I know. What has happened is meeting someone off tinder, having sex, and then one of them decide they don't want a relationship. Rinse and repeat ten times and you start getting jaded. Women need to understand that men will have sex with people they don't even really like or fancy that much, that's the reality of it. So if we want less hookups it's women that will have to make it happen. This is simple biology, it's not oppression.
I agree we need a counterculture, but that's my point. What should that counterculture be? I don't think this post moves us any closer at all.
What is this behavior a consequence of? Where is all this coming from? And why is it so common, widespread, and even pushed? What role models do we young girls, teens, and young women have nowadays? What about communities or people we can turn to for advice? I think accountability is necessary, but if we want to offer solutions and have young women listen, we have to listen and understand first, instead of turning to blame and ridicule. Realistically, that won’t make us more receptive to the same authority we have grown to distrust and, even mistake for oppression.
Conversations like the one in this comment section make real communication between men and women seem impossible. The point of the article—that is, “we want you to hear us”—has been missed. I read it as a plea for a space that is safe, but true, because women who want security are turning to other spaces they see as safe, even if those avenues are ultimately a dead end. And the response seems to be, “you women are such snowflakes, why don’t you take some responsibility?”
In a way, it’s analogous to those articles about loneliness, drug addiction and poor educational and career achievement among men, where one sees a bunch of women jump all over it to explain how men would be fine if they were less toxic, more responsible and, generally, not such obnoxious dickheads.
I'm not blaming Freya as a young woman in the dating market, I'm "blaming" (not really what I think I'm doing btw just using your words) Freya as a writer for writing doom-mongering articles that I think are likely to reinforce the cycle of "oh it all helpess, nothing can be changed, I might as well just join in the soulless hookup culture".
In other words, I think Freya should be one of those role models, this space should be one of those communities young women can to turn to for advice that they don't find offputting. Where is that in this article, or her other recent output? I don't see it, I just see a load of "woe is us" that is likely to make women less agentic, have more of an external locus of control, which we know from the literature and I know from personal experience are the worst things for mental health and getting the life outcomes you want.
These people don’t want advice or good role models. They want to be told that any and every decision they make as a result of their sex is “empowering”. Can you elaborate on what it is we need to listen to? Because when I listen, all I hear is how women are happy single, taking over the world with their careers, etc. what is the issue here?
“Women need to understand that men will have sex with people they don't even really like or fancy that much, that's the reality of it. So if we want less hookups it's women that will have to make it happen. This is simple biology, it's not oppression.”
This is a reductionist view of men. I fully believe men are adults who have self control and must exercise it, just like women.
“If you really get to know a guy, you start going on dates, he says he wants marriage, etc and months later you have sex and he ghosts you, you have my sympathy”
I actually have had guys do that to me, to make it even worse *they also knew* I hadn’t been sexually active before being dateraped at 33… I had been a complete virgin and tried to wait for the guy I truly felt was my husband.
Knowing that, I was still lead on and treated like trash after sex, the first guy I voluntarily slept with started seeing someone else when he got moved to Georgia with the Army, and didn’t tell me for a few months; the next spent 13 months pursuing me online and judged me for sleeping with him on our first date being in the same state.
You still can separate yourself from Culture, the dominant forces at play outside of your control like the marketisation of relationships, these are concrete and valid things to point out, not victimisation, but a reality check, human beings struggle to be human in these environments. Sure you can go and live in the woods, that's an option, it doesn't make you a hypocrite or a victim to choose to point out what's wrong. It's bloody helpful!
This is exactly what I mean, yes you can! You can choose to behave differently. As your mum would say, if all of your mates jumped off a bridge would you?
I just googled 'tinder hookup' and chose the first option, it's not hard to find. Women need to stop doing this if they want it to not happen, men certainly won't. This is mens' dream, look at gay culture for confirmation. Gay culture is what men would like to do if women would let them.
To choose differently one has to know what different paths are available. Has it occurred to you that many young people today don’t even know they can do things differently? The whole society is complicit from schools to TV to friends all telling them do more of what’s harmful to them. No one is telling them there are other ways.
Zoom out Phil, we are in a container built by nerds with profit driven eyes... The mum can't ask us to not jump off a cliff because the mum is also jumping off the cliff! Best thing we can do is, like Freya, start pointing it out
As an old guy, husband, father, grandfather and great grandpa and Lutheran (LCMS) Pastor, I would like to ask a question that I haven’t seen addressed in these responses: how can the Church help this stand-off that I am seeing happen. What would it take for men and women to take this situation to the Church? What kind of support do you need? What kind of people (men, women, peers, what ages) could the Church provide for a positive attitude grounded in the Law and the Gospel of God as revealed in Holy Scripture?
I believe she made very valid statements here. Personally, I read this article as acknowledgement, not victimisation. 'Young women need refuge, not ridicule' is exactly the point to be made. Mockery is not a sustainable way to capture the attention of women whose faith in authority has only been in decline, least of all, to capture the sort of attention that is conducive to help them find the direction they lack, and instead having them turned to defensive ways in response. Which is precisely why the other side has been so successful in reaching young women: they do actually try and reach them. What they lack in good and beneficial conclusions and advice, they make up for in their understanding and compassionate ways. I believe there is a lack of balance in the way these subjects are being approached, otherwise, why are you failing to reach us?
I didn't feel like reading the thread, but I did want to say, Freya, that I agree with this comment in the sense that we want to hear your ideas for solutions. Often, a solution isn't possible, as the world truly only degrades as a result of the Fall in the Beginning. Even though we can't obliterate problems, we can make progress, or at least progress bubbles.
Helen, many women *don’t* communicate how they are feeling. The right constantly harasses women who have had to work, and had to make a go of it, and had to be stoic, and had to be successful, whether they wanted to be or not.
Do you know I’ve been turned down for jobs because I refused to wear pants? Most women just wear the pants, and then in the next breath they’re criticized for wearing them.
Most of us would have liked to be married, but so long as we’re not, we have to at least pretend to be motivated. Freya is speaking for the women who don’t speak, and who in many ways can’t because if their boss finds out they’re on the hunt for a husband, they’ll be replaced by someone more ambitious than them
Not all women are leftists. I was a Republican in early 2000s California precisely because I wanted a traditional life; and yet I’ve spent the last 20 years being criticized for either being a sober prude, or lately, not being married (as if I control the level of commitphobia of men my age…) I absolutely am a victim; I didn’t even start drinking until after I was dateraped AT 33. Maybe try not punishing the women who did try to do the right things… I even stayed back and helped pay the bills when my dad got cancer. I’m really tired of being blamed for the 3rd wave feminism I did not promote, and in many ways have spent my life working against
It's not personal but general view. Most modern young women are leftists and support those things so creating narrative that today women turn left because of those stuff when they support them is ridiculous
How can you tell which young women supported what was going on in the 00s and 10s? And which ones were against it?
How do you tell which women support what’s going on now, and which ones are against it? Do you think we walk around wearing signs?
A lot of us are being punished and judged for things we never supported, just because we have had to work and make some kind of attempt at being successful
Like I said most do according to statistics. And narrative that women who are leftist are leftist because they are hurt by things left supports and propagates is ridiculous. I know that all women aren't leftist but article was why right is loosing women to left so we are talking about leftist women
I think you have the situation backwards. It is almost like when you ask a communist why communism failed and they say, "There wasn't enough collectivism and unionization," when those are precisely the reasons why communism fails.
Christians have gone out of their way to try to pander to women and it hasn't worked in large part because women cannot respect men who are not stronger than them, which includes having a will that won't buckle and crumble under the need to please a woman.
When feminism proper infiltrated the Christian church, it came by way of the general theological liberalism which made a religion of progressive causes while rejecting Jesus as anything other than an exemplar of progressivism (i.e. the virgin-born sinless Son of God). The conservative churches TRIED to stay conservative on theological issues and the gender issues but what they came up with was essentially a way to say, "Conservative gender roles are good for women, male strength is to serve women," and to propose a minimum viable gender role situation where outside of women not being elders it was functionally egalitarian.
In a context where women were not led by strong men they perceived any feeble attempts to lead as weak, manipulative, and abusive, and so it creates a self-reinforcing spiral of women feeling unseen and unheard when people are going out of their way to try to pander to them in an unwanted fashion. Its the HR meme about sexual harassment where the Alpha guy sexually harasses a woman and she likes it and the loser does the same thing and she calls human resources.
Women are generally happiest when they have a single "safe man" who leads them who they respect and trust (like a father or husband) who is able to translate the things that are happening around them into the woman's world. This sounds patronizing but a lot of women genuinely want this and don't want to have to worry about everything around them.
A religious conference is, essentially, made for men so that they can think through the important issues and mediate them to the realms of their own domain, which includes their families. The Bible itself has this in mind when Paul says of women, "Let them be silent in the churches and if they have any questions to ask their husbands at home." He could have said to ask the pastor after service. He knew that women genuinely need a personalized message from their safe man. Their safe man also protects them from things like Tinder culture.
I am genuinely interested in the female perspective, especially with things you mention like therapy culture. Don't hear me saying it is all a woman problem. I'm saying that more pandering to women's emotions is not the answer. We need both a different breed of men and of women.
You’re just illustrating her point tho. You took the message she gave, and then gave an intellectual response. She repeatedly brings up pain and you ignore that to focus on the logic. I’m not disagreeing entirely with your message because we need more strong men and good women, and the happiest relationships I’ve seen the man is the leader, but if you ask a lot of women even the idea of what Paul said would drive them away. I think she’s saying we need to address the pain while uplifting women not pointing the finger and saying that we need to translate the world for them, they can’t ask questions in church, etc.
This reply is "It's not about the nail" sketch in action. "Stop trying to fix it I just want you to listen and acknowledge my pain."
The problem is that this post is trying to demonstrate cause and effect and prescribe solutions. Either you can have an acknowledgement of pain and listening with no attempt to fix, or you can try to deal honestly with the problems and fix them.
When men offer general sympathy to women they are not related to, its usually a warning sign - unchecked emotional intimacy. Or else flattery/simping. If I don't express, "Oh Freya I am so sorry for what you are going through," it does not mean that I don't have sympathy for someone in pain, but its also not appropriate for me to be offering emotionally intimate connections with random women.
My reply with analysis is with the pain of people like Freya in mind, in balance with the general needs of Western society. We can't fix the problems without addressing their real causes. All of the sources of her pain are downstream from Feminism. No fault divorce was made possible by feminist activism, as well as the cultural environment that made it acceptable. Tinder sexuality is made possible by birth control - another aspect of feminist activism. This doesn't make the pain illegitimate and it doesn't blame all women for feminism itself when many of them didn't ask for it either. It does mean we need to deal with these root causes.
The problem is that the definition of "normal" has shifted so much so fast that the types of realistic solutions to our problems are not what people are ready to hear. Patriarchy is the scary word for the time when women didn't have this type of pain. The time when women were silent in churches was the time they were not confused and put off by their religion.
Women are solipsistic and genuinely have trouble considering ideas completely abstracted away from how it makes them feel. This isn't necessarily a defect in women, but it is one reason why women traditionally were not invited to be leaders, problem solvers, etc. because this depends on them being able to put their personal feelings aside and act on behalf of what they represent. Notice in this reply, you mention that women's feelings are a priority over pointing the finger and saying they cannot ask questions in church. In other words, prioritizing feelings over the word of God.
The right response for a woman when she is hurting is often, "Don't worry about it, I will handle it," from her safe man. It accepts that she has feelings but also doesn't let those feelings rule. It accepts her nature being weaker but rather than it being a point of shame, its a point of beauty, like a delicate flower or a porcelain vase. She doesn't need to be on the battlefield.
As a woman I don’t recognize myself in any way, shape, or form in the “women” you described at length. I hardly know any women like the “women” you describe. Your generalizations are completely wild. They’re your own views of women and nothing more.
Oh and I’m well adjusted, happily married, successful, and not an emotional pus guided by feelings TYVM. God bless.
I didn't describe women at length. I only referenced them in my first sentence and my second to last paragraph and the point I made was that women make decisions based on how it makes them feel personally.
Your reply was basically, "That's not how I feel personally and I don't know other women like that," presented in an offended tone.
It's funny because people know women are like this. There is no sense in denying it. Its really illustrating my point in that you're responding to my point about women being emotional and solipsistic by taking personal offense and responding accordingly - exactly the thing I am saying prevents these problems from being solved.
You're not dealing with the content of my argument because you're led by how you personally feel about me from having said this.
It’s incredible that the destruction of western civilization is going to be accomplished by an army of therapy-speak-enabled narcissistic women who will do anything to avoid personal accountability.
Yea, but the issue that I remember this article being about is messaging to women who think just as you described, “have trouble considering ideas completely abstracted away from how it makes them feel”. I’m not subbed so I can’t read the whole article, but again it’s about reaching them first, then convincing them of right wing ideas. You took what I said and put it in terms of the ‘don’t try to fix my problems just listen’ thing but I think the point of Freya’s article, and what I tried to convey in my comment, was you can’t lead with the intellectual and expect emotional people to listen. They have to trust that you have their interest at heart. For the women who have a hard time disconnecting their emotions, that is how you open the door, by addressing those emotions. I wish we could just talk intelligently and ignore emotional responses, but it’s not rational to think that’s the best way to approach every individual person.
Sort of but I think that’s because the left uses more emotional messaging. I think the whole point of the article is the right adopting more messaging that reaches the same people that the left messages to, not completely catering to them. Like for abortion while the left focuses on horror stories the right could focus on good outcomes like babies who would have been aborted, but weren’t, and grew up to do great things.
There is something to be said about adopting the strategies and frame of an opposition that is diabolical. The left uses emotional messaging detached from truth. Which results in really really heavy disortions. But distortions which appeal to a disordered appetite. It is unjust to ask the right to cater to a disordered appetite.
Even if the right will add a pathos flavour to their messaging, it won't still be as spicy as that of the left since they must do it in moderation and in mix with the truth. And the truth is bitter still. The problem is a malformed appetite. And a malformed appetite can only be corrected through reason and the intellect when it is well positioned to apprehend the truth of being.
This is a hard task. And arguing from feelings is not the answer. Roger Scruton was the best of conservatives; he was warm and deeply feeling. Hardly could he outdo the left.
Engaging the mentally ill on their own ground makes you mentally ill over time. It was only through recovery from the attempts to help such people that my life changed for the better. Instead, I employ boundaries.
People are responsible for helping themselves. I can't blame others for my issues and vice versa. If people are not ready for this message of rationality, then maybe it's just not time for them, and it may never actually be time.
Funny you automatically interpreted my comment as me "taking personal offense". That's your feeling, dude. You're projecting your feelings onto me. I commented to set the record straight.
You wrote two posts going on and on about how women should be. That woman is something that you want to exist. The whole persona of this helpless weak flower is such a caricature. It's a card board. I don't know any human being like that, woman or man. I for one cannot relate. At. All.
I don't know what some skits with views prove. Views can mean anything whether it's shown by algorithm or someone casually clicking on something. If that's your go to source of "facts", I can't take it seriously. 115k subscribers in the scheme of things is nothing. It means it's a draw for people just like you. We all live in echo chambers now.
Believe whatever you want. So don't believe me. What is it to me? The world moves on the way it does. Men with your views aren't helping your "cause", you're driving the wedge bigger and confirming the opinions of the "feminists" you hate so much.
>I don’t recognize myself in any way, shape, or form in the “women”
Unnecessary use of scare quotes.
> you described at length.
I described in one sentences, and one paragraph in a 7 paragraph response. You perceived it to be at length because it had more emotional impact than the rest of the comment.
> Your generalizations are completely wild.
Emotional description of a pretty common view, at least on the internet when women are discussed in right wing circles.
> Oh and I’m well adjusted, happily married, successful, and not an emotional pus
Defending yourself from things I never accused you of failing at.
>TYVM
Thank you very much. Classic sign of offense taken. Similar to "bless your heart."
I'm not aligned with what the other guy said, but the reason people go left is because feminism and the like tell them that anything they like or want to do is justified. Every vice is empowering with a feminist sticker on it. Christianity is the only creed that encourages virtue even when it feels bad and rejects vice even when it feels good. People who desire virtue and love in their personal lives and relationships will not be leftist.
And last thing...we are told that young women these days are strong independent boss women, taking over the world and no longer need men. So it all seems to be a contradiction against "women are hurting".
This article is likely discussing people in their 30s who bought into the feminist dream, only to realize not every makes it to the top and only to end up with dissapointment and regret. The intensity, fidelity, and confidence in the dream they bought into, all whilst making your life as a man hell in your 20s, makes it very difficult to have the emotional capacity to have sympathy for the same people responsible for moral decay. Somone who lived their lives sleeping around, drinking their lives to ruin, and pursuing a career as an end in itself or an end to buy designer clothing ought to deal with the consequences on their own actions. The traditional movement should focus on children, not adult women who have the freedom to choose.
I saw some of your other comments and there's much to takeaway from things you said about your generation's experience. Freya writes about GenZ (she is one) and I believe she's talking about GenZ gals.
What you said here boils down to one thing, with which I agree. At some point, the good intention of giving support became over correction, and morphed even further into empty trajectory. Participation trophies were the beginning. We're at the final stage where affirmations have become detached from reality.
Everything about modern feminism is wrong and I can go on about that too. But IMO modern feminism, for all its problems, has become a scapegoat when the results we're seeing today is a perfect storm of many current societal problems of equal and maybe even more dire weight. Because at the end of the day, how many people actually listen to feminists, ever? It is true that some of their ideologies have taken hold as part of the wider DEI and critical theory thinking that's been hoisted upon us. But nothing turns people off more than feminists. They don't have as much power as people are blaming them for. It might have been cool for 5 mins during #MeToo but the backlash has been fierce and nothing really came out of that except now Hollywood has intimacy directors.
Women living real life are not making decisions on day to day basis because of feminism or girl boss or its predecessor the snarky kick-ass heroine. Just like people of whatever kind living a real life are not making day-to-day and life decisions because of ideologies be it race or sexual orientation or even religion and what have you (exception for some with mental illnesses who can't think straight). We all make life decisions based on the people we're dealing with in our own life and unique circumstances. The series of actions and reactions arising from it all is what makes us. If we have good experiences, those serve to form our opinions one way. If we have bad experiences, we form our opinions differently. We then look to bigger societal narratives to reinforce our already formed opinions. There are some downstream effects from ideologies, sure, like schools teaching certain things. But the tech revolution with internet and social media probably has done a much bigger number on all of us than any ideology. The tech platforms greatly changed how we experience interactions with people. I honestly didn't realize how many men out there right now, in the USA, think women shouldn't have the right to vote. Without the internet as existed today, I would've thought all men even the most conservative ones had gotten past THAT. At least I'm not young and have a bigger frame of reference. But if a 16 yo girl keeps seeing men saying that (or things said by those like my friend who I was bickering with), what else are they supposed to think?
1st feminism completely changed understanding of reality in West at least 2 to 3 times.
2nd #Metoo succeeded, man's sexuality became demonized to ridiculous degree. One prove of that is that gen z men when asked why they don't approach women 50% said that would it make them creeps
3rd ideology and worldview quite obviously influences people's decisions
My main problem with article is that women pushed for no fault divorce and normalized hook up culture running on their "slut marches" in 2000s and now we get to know that they turn even more leftwing because society is more left-wing?
I agree with what you've said here and understand your perspective. I support Freya because I appreciate what she is doing and believe in her work. And thanks for sharing the article. Women I have dated have shared similar perspectives, but speaking of emotions, I and I assume many other conservative men, are frustrated by the behaviors we see before us. We are highly scandalized by this. We fundamentally see that women's behaviors are more downstream from institutions than that of men, in general. Men instinctively know not to trust government and know how power works, that the powers of the world are not your friend. We see that women are captive to the culture and easily influenced--so, of course, the solution is to either sanctify the state or limit voting rights. In our eyes, we see women rebelling against virtue and whatsoever is good in favor of low culture.
To steel man, the general sentiment of the men's perspectives in here, we don't understand why women are easily influenced, and we have a hard time being sympathetic to this because they are the most fierce in promoting and spreading the broken culture. At least in my generation, we perceive the culprits of moral decay are older millennial, Gen X, and especially boomer men.
What we are witnessing is the liquidation of the liberal project, that is, rebellion against the spiritual reality and belief in the supernatural--to be more explicit, all of these problems are derivative of Protestantism, which lack spirituality and a mystical life. Rebellion begets rebellion. What spiritual foundation is there a person in modern life today?
Reality is not intelligible without the spiritual / mystical life. To me, this is what Gen Z women are missing, this is what society is missing. I agree that raw facts and charts and data do not convey the fullness of true, love does. And how know true love without God, who is spirit? Once you come to believe in the power of prayer, divine miracles, that demons exist--you come to know the truth path you must take. The fundamental issue is secularism, and who spreads and promotes secularism the most if not women?
Andrew Tate is rebuked, the only fans women are praised. See the issue?
(Sorry for any typos or incoherence: I wrote this while at work)
You're making so many generalizations and defining groups of people, women in particular, based solely on your definition of women, that I can find fallacies throughout your comment. (And no, by definition, I'm not talking the leftist trans madness.) I don't know you, but frustrations are seething under your words. Maybe even rage? Hard to tell from a post so I won't assume.
On the one hand, you're an adult man (in your 30s, right?), so there's no need for me to say things to soothe you. OTOH, I have lived quite a bit longer than you, so there are some wisdom and perspectives I can offer for your consideration. The thing is, I don't know if it's worthwhile for me to even try, for the reason that I don't think anything I have to say will make any difference. It never does with these online discussions.
I've seen so many men like you online talk about God. But every single time, the God you want is a society with hierarchies and cultural ways that fit your particular needs. Faith never comes into any of your conversations. Your want your will to be done, not His will. And you have no faith that God is working through the world and because of that, hope is always on the horizon. You have no faith that God is making a world and a future that neither fits your desire or feminists or anyone else's desire, but only His. All of you fail to see that even the people you disdain, God loves.
I’m in my 20s. That’s one of many miscalculations on your part. Interesting how you make this personal and now presume to know things that you know nothing about, namely about me. Is this not folly? Or ignorance? The fact that I’m a paid subscriber ought to show you invested.
And seethe is not a word I would use, disgust and repulsed is more of what I would use. An aversion to the injustice these people spread. To use a word of my female peers, it gives the “ick”. Not because of how they live, but that they so desire the moral downfall and corruption of others. If someone wants to life a depraved existence, that is their business, though it would be better if they don’t, but to spread and promote degeneracy to the broader society, that is where these people serve the devil. In living such a low life, they do a disservice to not only themselves, but also their community, ultimately polluting society, which for sure ends up creating an environment unfriendly to innocence, especially to children. Who is responsible for the moral decay of our times and the destruction of spiritual health? The best argument you can make is that men like myself are not helping, but you cannot certainly place blame on us for how these people choose to live their lives. And to object to our disgust, as if it is unjust, while holding sympathy for the depraved is exactly why society is the way it is today. Anyone with sound morality instinct for what is good and to avoid evil would be repulsed at evil. Do you find an issue with this?
Personally, the first thing people know about me is my faith. And I’m always excited to share the wonderful ways the Holy Spirit has worked in my heart, in my soul. At work, at grad school when I attended, my brothers and sisters in Christ, even my LGBTQ friends, my Muslim friends, my Hindu friends and leftist friends—they all know my faith. Each person in my life is a gift, and joy. The secular circles of mine have only know Protestantism, which preaches rigidity and lacks spirituality, these friends do not know the wonders and mysterious of God, expressed poetically, beautifully through the mystical body Christ, holy mother Church. To find love, to find joy, is to find God. I have bonded with non-religious friends over the years and have seen their spiritual growth and conversion. I have seen first hand the glory of God.
And of course—the God I am talking about is the one true God. The world ought to imitate the City of God, truly eternal and eternally true. God loves hierarchy, the son is subject to his father, the wife to her husband, the people under government,. God loves order, as such the universe is intelligible. God loves beauty, as seen in His creation. Of course I believe society ought to reflect this. This isn’t out my needs, it’s about the salvation of souls. It is the exact will of God that a people should prepare themselves for His return. The culture of a people is the religion of the people, and so, yes, of course, society ought to stretch its arms out to God, instead of the idols of sexual pleasure, materialism, celebritydom and the like. What’s wrong with that?
What you fail to see is that God allows resolution and decay to show us that our thinking and way of life has been wrong. As my Lord has done many times over, bringing good out of evil, as He did with Rome, I have faith that He will take the present infrastructure and state of the world to fulfill His will. America is all but a vessel in preparation for His purpose. We were not made for this world, but another world, as such, we should not become accustomed to it, and worse yet, we should not be of this world, as the women discussed in this article are.
I hope you will be honest and examine who among us puts in the effort to uphold goodness in the world, and who among work to promote moral decay.
You’re talking about women and their multitude of weaknesses and problems as you perceive but then go on to say you aren’t accusing me, a woman, of anything. Logic much! 🤣
“TYVM” is taking offense??? That’s a new one. Ok boomer if you say so. You’re hearing tones in your head made up by how you want to hear it. Your views are so biased and you can’t even see it.
Everything you say is trite textbook sexism and I say this as one who don’t even agree with feminism today.
This conversation was a boring me as everything you regurgitate is same old same old and I’ve heard it all before so I’m going to leave it right here. There’s no point in carrying on anyway as the only thing you and I can agree on is to agree to disagree.
But just so you know, as I’m sure it feels good to you to state your righteous opinions 😀, the more you talk this way the more you’re convincing younger women that the side opposite you is correct. Keep at it! Works for me.
A great piece about the sterility of data that is, funnily enough, supported by data.
In 2007, a team of researchers — Deborah Small, Paul Slovic, and George Loewenstein — conducted a series of experiments on what moves people more: stories or statistics. The researchers gave each of the participants money to donate and presented them with two charity campaigns: one based on famine statistics in Africa and one based on the experience of a single starving girl named Rokia. Naturally, the participants donated much more to the girl than to the thousands of abstract entities, even though every one of them would've been suffering just as much.
I’ve known this for years, and yet I still instinctively fire off studies and statistics to convince people (as I did just now…)
This bias toward “facts over feelings” is also true of most male writers I know. When we’re told we should be more in tune with people's feelings, we instinctively retort that feelings can’t be trusted as well as hard data can. And this is often true. But I suspect it’s sometimes just another story we tell ourselves, in order to protect *our* feelings.
See, many of us men are emotionally inarticulate and tone-deaf, particularly with regards to women’s feelings. We find emotions disturbingly murky and mercurial — far beyond our comfort zone — so we take refuge in the calmness and concreteness of data, even when it’s not persuasive (or even rational!) to do so.
I don’t regard myself as a conservative, but I am an Ass-Burger, and ever since the left started cancelling people for not being able to “read the room”, I and many other Ass-Burgers who can’t read the room, most famously Elon, have become more sympathetic to conservatism, making the movement even more culturally autistic than it was before.
But the thing with this new, based, “facts don’t care about your feelings” conservatism is that it’s not actually emotionless; it just caters to emotions that men (and Ass-Burgers) feel comfortable with, like pride and outrage, while eschewing more “feminine” ones like grief and melancholy.
This is why I’m glad you’re offering a fresh approach. If rationality means anything, then it means succeeding, and that requires sympathy — the ability to understand what people are feeling, even if we can’t feel it ourselves. This is something I and many others need to improve at, and I’ll take your eloquent essay as a useful reminder.
It’s funny, I was just thinking about the conversation we had the other day when you commented this. I think what made it work so well was that we came at it from different angles, but were essentially saying the same things. You shared studies about the benefits of social interaction; I told stories about my neighbour. You explained, philosophically, how too much freedom can enslave us; I talked about how anxious and overwhelmed many young women feel today. Someone described it as a “duet”.
I’m definitely not an expert, or an intellectual like you are, but I do think there’s a place for feelings. As Paul Kingsnorth said to me once: “I’m starting to sound like a grumpy old man, but perhaps we need more grumpy old men, and women, to put things right again.” And maybe we need sensitive young women too, who can feel things changing, who notice what it’s doing to people, to children, to families, to the fabric of things.
Of course we need both - both men and women, progressives and conservatives, feelings and facts. And I think we need more conversations like the one we had, where two people can talk in slightly different languages, the language of feelings and the language of studies and statistics, but with respect for each other, and for the truth. That's how I think we get to the bottom of things
I think there needs to be boundaries in both directions, a separation of the personal and political that is ignored by both left and right.
On the left, there was (still is?) several years where an ideological subset of emotional people (primarily women? IDK) were given free reign to get their coworkers fired any time they were in a mood, like the Queen of Hearts. The power to make their personal emotions into someone else's problem.
On the right, there are obtuse people (primarily men) who think they can hector young women into marriages and children with general statistics and theories that have nothing to do with their individual life history and circumstances. I don't even call these obtuse people “logical,” because if they were truly logical they would realize — instead of putting the burden on the women — that it takes two to start a nuclear family, and furthermore, it is traditionally the man’s job to propose marriage!
I don't understand your point on right. If problem is that they don't respect separation of personal and political then it's not your business if marriages happen or not. And burden is put on women because today women control dating market and they don't want to get married
The issue is that *some* people on the right consider women unilaterally responsible for the decline in marriage rates or older average age of first marriages.
On one hand, from what I've heard, men have always outnumbered women on dating apps. (Part of this is some women, for safety and other reasons, prefer to be introduced by a trusted person in their life or getting to know someone gradually through work or church or school, rather than going online to find someone.)
On the other hand, once a couple has been dating for a while, the man is often more hesitant to commit, so it evens out in terms of who is the "gatekeeper" of marriage rates and how old couples are when they get married.
*some* people on the right remember 3rd wave feminism when naked women were screaming about being sluts. The point is not that women are only one's responsible for that (although definitely more than men because now many men struggle to date even) but that majority of women support those social changes, they see it as progress and good thing.
I'm a retired engineer so data is very important to me but I recognise that it tells only part of the story of our lives.
I am particularly taken with your comment -
"But the thing with this new, based, “facts don’t care about your feelings” conservatism is that it’s not actually emotionless; it just caters to emotions that men (and Ass-Burgers) feel comfortable with, like pride and outrage, while eschewing more “feminine” ones like grief and melancholy."
I agree entirely. As a conservative man who is very likely to express his sadness, I find that many people can't emotionally read even this one person, let alone a roomful!
I, too, feel more than a little tone deaf regarding feelings, am still struggling through Grade 1 primer on “reading the room” and I’m a little old lady!
You'd think it would be obvious that statistics and graphs wouldn't penetrate the hearts of young women, but so many conservatives continue to use this (and guilt, and ridicule) as their primary means of changing minds. They are failing miserably, and pushing so many girls further left.
It reminds me of what Tim Keller said about the gospel: "Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it."
That is well said, but which one is it--are women having a hard time and would appreciate friendship, community and love or are they strong independent women who are taking over the world, don't need men and overcoming adversity? Schrödinger's woman. From what I can see, women living their best lives and are happy, especially the ones on only fans who are constantly telling us how stunning and brave they are on social media.
That reminds me of a quote I read recently, presumably somewhere on Substack: “men bond by insulting each other and not really meaning it; women bond by complimenting each other and not really meaning it.”
Sounds like harshness and sentimentality, does it not?
Very well written, Freya! Thanks for the moving essay! Escaping the matrix isn’t easy for anyone and we all need one another. May we support one another with honesty and open hearts!
I didn't really like this piece, or a few others of your more recent ones. Sorry but it strikes me as a lot of whinging and blaming others, and no taking ownership of your collective situation and making positive changes in your own lives. Don't like hookup culture? Don't have sex with men off tinder!! This is something you could do right now, you could decide to go and try to find a man who you get along with really well on a personal level (and yes, are attracted to physically and emotionally) and let things build naturally. It comes across as a self-indulgent feigned helplessness. Nothing can be changed, it's all impossible anyway, I'll just go and shag a load of tinder dates and whinge about not being able to get married... and then somehow I'll magically end up with a husband, family, etc. No, you need to take ownership of your life and live in a way that makes your goals as likely as possible.
This isn't to downplay that the dating culture at the moment is bad and makes things harder. It's to say that at some point we have to start doing things about it. We, personally, need to do specific things. What should they be? Why should people (particularly women) follow the advice? What's in it for them? That's the article that will actually change things, and the article I'd be interested in reading from you.
The article you would like to read as a pragmatic male may not be the article that reaches young women, who like to know that someone understands their feelings. And I found this piece interesting as I don't talk to many young women and really have no idea what they are thinking.
I agree, the article I want may not reach young women. But, while this article may reach young women, I very much doubt it will help them. It enumerates their problems and why they've got it so bad in life, and that's that. ie. it plays into, and therefore is likely to exacerbate, this feigned helplessness cycle that I've described. Seriously, how does this article help a young woman?
As always, I may be wrong, and often have been in the past :)
Phil, I think the group this article will help the most are the parents of girls. We don't get have a clear view into their world. We are the ones who CAN help them and Freya is doing us a great service by articulating so beautifully how this world is harming them. Freya helps me to understand the context my kids and their friends are growing up in. Her insights are like gold and I for one am hugely grateful.
Hi Esther, you're not the first who's made similar comments, so clearly it's a useful piece for those not familiar with the modern dating world. I do think it would be much more useful if it contained actionable advice as well though.
I would just caution that young women are already taught that society is against them and it's psychologically really unhelpful. It will make things worse for your kids if what they take away from this is that there's no hope and nothing that they can do to have success in the dating world. Caution them, sure, but make sure they have a positive vision of what can be achieved and a feeling that they are able to influence the likelihood of the outcomes. Or you risk a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It seems we are operating under the assumption that young women are only able to be “reached” by content which enables their bad behavior and narcissism.
If that is the case then what is the point of “reaching”? The fact is the world that women need refuge from is the world that women chose for themselves when they were given the freedom to do so.
Freya, you continue to impress me with your voice and passion. I wish there was more I could do. I try to speak up about how becoming a mother made the sacred more true and beautiful… how important feeling and sensing are, becoming more emotionally attuned and living a more whole and complete life, which includes pain and sadness. Maybe we need our own conference? Sending you love and gratitude. Keep it up.
but the Gospel can also be understood and accepted by logic and reason. It depends on who you are preaching it too. You have to know your audience. Emotional? Logical? Both? Intelligent or ignorant? Big picture or self absorbed?
Absolutely, Juliana; but as CS Lewis experienced, he could logically conclude the Bible was true, and Jesus the Messiah, but it was the being ‘Surprised By Joy’ which really did it.
Freya, thank you so much for this. What you say is true - the question is... what do we do about it? I write as a wife and mother, as a conservative, as a Christian, as a therapist. I have been in the room with the girls you describe for thousands of hours. I have listened; I have explained that they are intrinsically valuable; that they are worth far more than the way they are being treated; that they can say no. We talk, we laugh sometimes. I'm often asked how long I've been married - and when I say nearly 30 years, I might as well be speaking a foreign language. They leave the counselling room and life resumes. These are girls for whom a 'stepdad' can be someone their mum met in the pub last Friday; some don't know how many siblings they have. They are wary and wounded, with no time or space to heal. Most emotional distress (a term I prefer to mental illness - it's more about broken hearts than broken brains) arises through experiences, environment and relationships. For a lot of young girls, all three areas of life are dysfunctional and they see no way out. It is our generation which has utterly failed them, including the church - but we desperately need to find some way back and fast. It doesn't have to be like this
As a non-Christian, non-conservative I enjoy reading your articles. They're insightful, well written, and I think capture the spirit of the age for women even from a right leaning perspective.
Additionally, as a non-Christian, non-conservative I enjoy perusing the comment sections to see men dismissing your argument, comparing women to sharks, arguing that thoughts are just too hard for women's brains, and classic misogyny. Literally exemplifying your opening sentence. Keep it up boys, that'll get the ladies coming to Church.
This is interesting. I am glad you wrote it. I think you might be on to something we should be discussing. I will admit that I am struggling with the premise given all we are dealing with today in gender relations, but I think this is a useful approach to start the needed dialog.
The basic problem I have with the premise, although I agree that there is this conflict, is the soft scold of males to step forward to change their behavior in accommodation of the hurt/pain that females are dealing with.
On one hand, I agree that males should shoulder the largest burden here. There is a long tradition of males needed to figure out how to navigate the minefield of female stronger emotions, while caring and protecting. But the landscape has changed due to the feminist movement "empowering" women who now directly compete with men for social and economic dominance. This new gender competition, really unprecedented within human history, has grown quite hostile, and I think that is because of the feminist movement.
It seems what you are advocating for, and I think what much of the woke/DEI movement has been about, is a special accommodation of men, the same men that have been statistically in socioeconomic decline while being pummeled with #MeToo attacks and claims that they are racist and misogynist brutes.
While I agree that females are hurting, I don't think this approach in scolding/shaming men (who trend conservative while females trend liberal) to be more sensitive to and accommodating of the negative emotions of females is the correct remedy to the problem.
Females have become angry, hostile and mean. Males have two acceptable choices; they can allow themselves to be abused by all those emotionally disordered aggressive females, or they can do their best to ignore having any relationship with them and protect themselves by only associating with those that don't attack them.
I think females are hurting because they are lonely. And they are lonely because of their bad behavior. And their loneliness makes them even angrier and more hostile toward men, and thus their bad behavior increases. It is a cycle of broken gender relations.
The culprit is the feminists. The top malcontents of the "female power" armies that have taken over the education system and many other institutions and keep brainwashing females to rage and attack to get what they want.
I see it clearly. It comes through my social media feeds. It infects not only young females, but my old school mates in their 60s. It is a constant drumbeat of promoted hate against any and all that oppose the female political power demand. It is also the Democrat party apparatus. The well-funded activist industry that is dominated by educated feminists.
I don't think shaming men into being more caring in this sea of manufactured hostility against them is a workable approach. It isn't until females themselves fight the radical feminists to stop vulnerable narcissist power grab program that we will see a repair of our broken gender relations.
The war is between family and state. Family led by a strong man will fail in a powerful state. When the man struggles against the state and falls short, the mother and children will turn to the state, strengthening the state. The man struggles to fulfill his promises to his family, the state lies to broken families. Women, being naturally dependent, are more susceptible to falling for the state lies. It is an ancient fundamental clash between man’s responsible love, and the lies and manipulations of slave societies.
CPS perfectly exposes this conundrum. They come into struggling families, promise support, then sell children into what amounts to slavery.
Congratulations on being published in First Things! It’s a pretty big deal and some of the readers of that magazine (even though it’s a pretty thoughtful and serious one most of the time) definitely need to hear this.
Freya, you say 'The people the message is supposedly for aren’t even in the room.'
This is one of the biggest problems - polarisation and echo-chambering.
Hardly anyone follows people they don't agree with.
The men you are writing about won't read this.
The girls won't hear or read the words of those men.
I haven't yet worked out how to solve this, but I think this is one of the problems we must solve before our world falls apart completely.
It doesn't just affect your audience, the girls.
It affects us all.
I am one of the men she is writing about. Found Freya through Chris Williamson. Message noted loud and clear. Very good. Will do my best to implement this and focus more on stories/feelings. Again, excellent.
We need to break the algorithm. It’s imprisoning minds into silos with destructive feedback loops.
When it comes to the gender war and blaming the other side, I know this from personal experience, and it was hard to break out of.
I’m afraid I don’t really understand how you are helping yourself and your fellow young women by seeming to focus on the pain and victimhood of what you perceive as your predicament. I hope, as an articulate woman and good writer with many followers you will start to share the solutions that you and they personally can take, as blaming society or others doesn’t solve things. I look forward to reading them.
To solve a problem one has to identify it. None of the dynamics mention in this essay would have occurred to me if I hadn't read it, and I'm sure that's true for other readers. And I don't think it's written from a "victimhood" perspective.
Perhaps you could offer some suggestions on how the problems identified here might be addressed.
I see from your profile you're 66, which maybe explains it. I'm 33, and I don't think any of the younger millenials or gen Z are unaware of this dynamic with hookup culture, ghosting etc. It's widely discussed in the culture.
It does strike as written from a "victimhood" perspective TBH - no one makes you have a hookup, you download the app, make a profile, match someone, text them, agree to go over, etc. There's a whole chain of events there that are your direct actions.
It’s true that no one holds a gun to your head to do these things but to say these are all “your direct actions” suggests a kind of naive individualism that is at odds with your first paragraph. “Everyone” acknowledges there are problems but it’s the culture. In theory you can opt out, but doing so is to make the isolation worse.
We need a counterculture. However, as Freya points out, the church has not yet been up to that task. In many ways, it has rather actively conformed itself to the prevailing culture.
No it doesn't. If you really get to know a guy, you start going on dates, he says he wants marriage etc. and months later you have sex and he ghosts you, you have all my sympathy and that is terrible. Criticising that person would indeed be "naive individualism".
I really don't think this is what's happening though. It's never happened to people I know. What has happened is meeting someone off tinder, having sex, and then one of them decide they don't want a relationship. Rinse and repeat ten times and you start getting jaded. Women need to understand that men will have sex with people they don't even really like or fancy that much, that's the reality of it. So if we want less hookups it's women that will have to make it happen. This is simple biology, it's not oppression.
I agree we need a counterculture, but that's my point. What should that counterculture be? I don't think this post moves us any closer at all.
What is this behavior a consequence of? Where is all this coming from? And why is it so common, widespread, and even pushed? What role models do we young girls, teens, and young women have nowadays? What about communities or people we can turn to for advice? I think accountability is necessary, but if we want to offer solutions and have young women listen, we have to listen and understand first, instead of turning to blame and ridicule. Realistically, that won’t make us more receptive to the same authority we have grown to distrust and, even mistake for oppression.
This ⬆️.
Conversations like the one in this comment section make real communication between men and women seem impossible. The point of the article—that is, “we want you to hear us”—has been missed. I read it as a plea for a space that is safe, but true, because women who want security are turning to other spaces they see as safe, even if those avenues are ultimately a dead end. And the response seems to be, “you women are such snowflakes, why don’t you take some responsibility?”
In a way, it’s analogous to those articles about loneliness, drug addiction and poor educational and career achievement among men, where one sees a bunch of women jump all over it to explain how men would be fine if they were less toxic, more responsible and, generally, not such obnoxious dickheads.
I'm not blaming Freya as a young woman in the dating market, I'm "blaming" (not really what I think I'm doing btw just using your words) Freya as a writer for writing doom-mongering articles that I think are likely to reinforce the cycle of "oh it all helpess, nothing can be changed, I might as well just join in the soulless hookup culture".
In other words, I think Freya should be one of those role models, this space should be one of those communities young women can to turn to for advice that they don't find offputting. Where is that in this article, or her other recent output? I don't see it, I just see a load of "woe is us" that is likely to make women less agentic, have more of an external locus of control, which we know from the literature and I know from personal experience are the worst things for mental health and getting the life outcomes you want.
These people don’t want advice or good role models. They want to be told that any and every decision they make as a result of their sex is “empowering”. Can you elaborate on what it is we need to listen to? Because when I listen, all I hear is how women are happy single, taking over the world with their careers, etc. what is the issue here?
“Women need to understand that men will have sex with people they don't even really like or fancy that much, that's the reality of it. So if we want less hookups it's women that will have to make it happen. This is simple biology, it's not oppression.”
This is a reductionist view of men. I fully believe men are adults who have self control and must exercise it, just like women.
As someone else has pointed out, these men find the rules of the game acceptable. Only women are upset by it lol.
The men who’re having the hookups are happy with the situation, why would they change?
It’s wishful thinking.
For women, that's a practical necessity.
For men, it's merely an ethical recommendation.
So why (religious faith aside) should they obey it ?
Esp when it is recommended as a haughty feminist Command (!).
After all, no one is saying that sexual self-control is easy for either sex.
“If you really get to know a guy, you start going on dates, he says he wants marriage, etc and months later you have sex and he ghosts you, you have my sympathy”
I actually have had guys do that to me, to make it even worse *they also knew* I hadn’t been sexually active before being dateraped at 33… I had been a complete virgin and tried to wait for the guy I truly felt was my husband.
Knowing that, I was still lead on and treated like trash after sex, the first guy I voluntarily slept with started seeing someone else when he got moved to Georgia with the Army, and didn’t tell me for a few months; the next spent 13 months pursuing me online and judged me for sleeping with him on our first date being in the same state.
Women, were especially leftist women were fighting for normalizing this culture so shaping narrative as they're victims of it is quite ridiculous
You still can separate yourself from Culture, the dominant forces at play outside of your control like the marketisation of relationships, these are concrete and valid things to point out, not victimisation, but a reality check, human beings struggle to be human in these environments. Sure you can go and live in the woods, that's an option, it doesn't make you a hypocrite or a victim to choose to point out what's wrong. It's bloody helpful!
This is exactly what I mean, yes you can! You can choose to behave differently. As your mum would say, if all of your mates jumped off a bridge would you?
Look at this, just to be clear what we're talking about when we say hookup culture: https://www.reddit.com/r/Tinder/comments/15h24fb/one_of_the_quickest_conversations_for_hookups_ive/
I just googled 'tinder hookup' and chose the first option, it's not hard to find. Women need to stop doing this if they want it to not happen, men certainly won't. This is mens' dream, look at gay culture for confirmation. Gay culture is what men would like to do if women would let them.
To choose differently one has to know what different paths are available. Has it occurred to you that many young people today don’t even know they can do things differently? The whole society is complicit from schools to TV to friends all telling them do more of what’s harmful to them. No one is telling them there are other ways.
Are you seriously implying the majority of young women are not aware that long-term dating and marriage are choices? Lol, lmao even.
They know there are other ways, they don’t like those ways
Zoom out Phil, we are in a container built by nerds with profit driven eyes... The mum can't ask us to not jump off a cliff because the mum is also jumping off the cliff! Best thing we can do is, like Freya, start pointing it out
I honestly don't know what you mean by that. My point is that we can do better than pointing it out, we can start behaving differently.
As an old guy, husband, father, grandfather and great grandpa and Lutheran (LCMS) Pastor, I would like to ask a question that I haven’t seen addressed in these responses: how can the Church help this stand-off that I am seeing happen. What would it take for men and women to take this situation to the Church? What kind of support do you need? What kind of people (men, women, peers, what ages) could the Church provide for a positive attitude grounded in the Law and the Gospel of God as revealed in Holy Scripture?
Can't*
I believe she made very valid statements here. Personally, I read this article as acknowledgement, not victimisation. 'Young women need refuge, not ridicule' is exactly the point to be made. Mockery is not a sustainable way to capture the attention of women whose faith in authority has only been in decline, least of all, to capture the sort of attention that is conducive to help them find the direction they lack, and instead having them turned to defensive ways in response. Which is precisely why the other side has been so successful in reaching young women: they do actually try and reach them. What they lack in good and beneficial conclusions and advice, they make up for in their understanding and compassionate ways. I believe there is a lack of balance in the way these subjects are being approached, otherwise, why are you failing to reach us?
I didn't feel like reading the thread, but I did want to say, Freya, that I agree with this comment in the sense that we want to hear your ideas for solutions. Often, a solution isn't possible, as the world truly only degrades as a result of the Fall in the Beginning. Even though we can't obliterate problems, we can make progress, or at least progress bubbles.
Helen, many women *don’t* communicate how they are feeling. The right constantly harasses women who have had to work, and had to make a go of it, and had to be stoic, and had to be successful, whether they wanted to be or not.
Do you know I’ve been turned down for jobs because I refused to wear pants? Most women just wear the pants, and then in the next breath they’re criticized for wearing them.
Most of us would have liked to be married, but so long as we’re not, we have to at least pretend to be motivated. Freya is speaking for the women who don’t speak, and who in many ways can’t because if their boss finds out they’re on the hunt for a husband, they’ll be replaced by someone more ambitious than them
Most younger women are leftist so they literally fight for this
Not all women are leftists. I was a Republican in early 2000s California precisely because I wanted a traditional life; and yet I’ve spent the last 20 years being criticized for either being a sober prude, or lately, not being married (as if I control the level of commitphobia of men my age…) I absolutely am a victim; I didn’t even start drinking until after I was dateraped AT 33. Maybe try not punishing the women who did try to do the right things… I even stayed back and helped pay the bills when my dad got cancer. I’m really tired of being blamed for the 3rd wave feminism I did not promote, and in many ways have spent my life working against
It's not personal but general view. Most modern young women are leftists and support those things so creating narrative that today women turn left because of those stuff when they support them is ridiculous
How can you tell which young women supported what was going on in the 00s and 10s? And which ones were against it?
How do you tell which women support what’s going on now, and which ones are against it? Do you think we walk around wearing signs?
A lot of us are being punished and judged for things we never supported, just because we have had to work and make some kind of attempt at being successful
Like I said most do according to statistics. And narrative that women who are leftist are leftist because they are hurt by things left supports and propagates is ridiculous. I know that all women aren't leftist but article was why right is loosing women to left so we are talking about leftist women
The “feelings” part IS the solution-oriented lens! Feelings shape incentives.
It’s this lens that actually explains the (unexpected & surprising) trend
She’s not writing to the girls though she’s writing to conservatives and the religious she described in her article
I think you have the situation backwards. It is almost like when you ask a communist why communism failed and they say, "There wasn't enough collectivism and unionization," when those are precisely the reasons why communism fails.
Christians have gone out of their way to try to pander to women and it hasn't worked in large part because women cannot respect men who are not stronger than them, which includes having a will that won't buckle and crumble under the need to please a woman.
When feminism proper infiltrated the Christian church, it came by way of the general theological liberalism which made a religion of progressive causes while rejecting Jesus as anything other than an exemplar of progressivism (i.e. the virgin-born sinless Son of God). The conservative churches TRIED to stay conservative on theological issues and the gender issues but what they came up with was essentially a way to say, "Conservative gender roles are good for women, male strength is to serve women," and to propose a minimum viable gender role situation where outside of women not being elders it was functionally egalitarian.
In a context where women were not led by strong men they perceived any feeble attempts to lead as weak, manipulative, and abusive, and so it creates a self-reinforcing spiral of women feeling unseen and unheard when people are going out of their way to try to pander to them in an unwanted fashion. Its the HR meme about sexual harassment where the Alpha guy sexually harasses a woman and she likes it and the loser does the same thing and she calls human resources.
Women are generally happiest when they have a single "safe man" who leads them who they respect and trust (like a father or husband) who is able to translate the things that are happening around them into the woman's world. This sounds patronizing but a lot of women genuinely want this and don't want to have to worry about everything around them.
A religious conference is, essentially, made for men so that they can think through the important issues and mediate them to the realms of their own domain, which includes their families. The Bible itself has this in mind when Paul says of women, "Let them be silent in the churches and if they have any questions to ask their husbands at home." He could have said to ask the pastor after service. He knew that women genuinely need a personalized message from their safe man. Their safe man also protects them from things like Tinder culture.
I am genuinely interested in the female perspective, especially with things you mention like therapy culture. Don't hear me saying it is all a woman problem. I'm saying that more pandering to women's emotions is not the answer. We need both a different breed of men and of women.
You’re just illustrating her point tho. You took the message she gave, and then gave an intellectual response. She repeatedly brings up pain and you ignore that to focus on the logic. I’m not disagreeing entirely with your message because we need more strong men and good women, and the happiest relationships I’ve seen the man is the leader, but if you ask a lot of women even the idea of what Paul said would drive them away. I think she’s saying we need to address the pain while uplifting women not pointing the finger and saying that we need to translate the world for them, they can’t ask questions in church, etc.
This reply is "It's not about the nail" sketch in action. "Stop trying to fix it I just want you to listen and acknowledge my pain."
The problem is that this post is trying to demonstrate cause and effect and prescribe solutions. Either you can have an acknowledgement of pain and listening with no attempt to fix, or you can try to deal honestly with the problems and fix them.
When men offer general sympathy to women they are not related to, its usually a warning sign - unchecked emotional intimacy. Or else flattery/simping. If I don't express, "Oh Freya I am so sorry for what you are going through," it does not mean that I don't have sympathy for someone in pain, but its also not appropriate for me to be offering emotionally intimate connections with random women.
My reply with analysis is with the pain of people like Freya in mind, in balance with the general needs of Western society. We can't fix the problems without addressing their real causes. All of the sources of her pain are downstream from Feminism. No fault divorce was made possible by feminist activism, as well as the cultural environment that made it acceptable. Tinder sexuality is made possible by birth control - another aspect of feminist activism. This doesn't make the pain illegitimate and it doesn't blame all women for feminism itself when many of them didn't ask for it either. It does mean we need to deal with these root causes.
The problem is that the definition of "normal" has shifted so much so fast that the types of realistic solutions to our problems are not what people are ready to hear. Patriarchy is the scary word for the time when women didn't have this type of pain. The time when women were silent in churches was the time they were not confused and put off by their religion.
Women are solipsistic and genuinely have trouble considering ideas completely abstracted away from how it makes them feel. This isn't necessarily a defect in women, but it is one reason why women traditionally were not invited to be leaders, problem solvers, etc. because this depends on them being able to put their personal feelings aside and act on behalf of what they represent. Notice in this reply, you mention that women's feelings are a priority over pointing the finger and saying they cannot ask questions in church. In other words, prioritizing feelings over the word of God.
The right response for a woman when she is hurting is often, "Don't worry about it, I will handle it," from her safe man. It accepts that she has feelings but also doesn't let those feelings rule. It accepts her nature being weaker but rather than it being a point of shame, its a point of beauty, like a delicate flower or a porcelain vase. She doesn't need to be on the battlefield.
As a woman I don’t recognize myself in any way, shape, or form in the “women” you described at length. I hardly know any women like the “women” you describe. Your generalizations are completely wild. They’re your own views of women and nothing more.
Oh and I’m well adjusted, happily married, successful, and not an emotional pus guided by feelings TYVM. God bless.
I didn't describe women at length. I only referenced them in my first sentence and my second to last paragraph and the point I made was that women make decisions based on how it makes them feel personally.
Your reply was basically, "That's not how I feel personally and I don't know other women like that," presented in an offended tone.
The skit I referenced got 27M views and its producer has 115k subscribers despite stopping making videos 9 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg
It's funny because people know women are like this. There is no sense in denying it. Its really illustrating my point in that you're responding to my point about women being emotional and solipsistic by taking personal offense and responding accordingly - exactly the thing I am saying prevents these problems from being solved.
You're not dealing with the content of my argument because you're led by how you personally feel about me from having said this.
Ben Mordecai:
73 year old grandma here agreeing with you ...
Did you recognize yourself at all in this line?
“Women are solipsistic and genuinely have trouble considering ideas completely abstracted away from how it makes them feel.”
Nice try. But actually, that’s you projecting your opinion on me.
It’s incredible that the destruction of western civilization is going to be accomplished by an army of therapy-speak-enabled narcissistic women who will do anything to avoid personal accountability.
Yea, but the issue that I remember this article being about is messaging to women who think just as you described, “have trouble considering ideas completely abstracted away from how it makes them feel”. I’m not subbed so I can’t read the whole article, but again it’s about reaching them first, then convincing them of right wing ideas. You took what I said and put it in terms of the ‘don’t try to fix my problems just listen’ thing but I think the point of Freya’s article, and what I tried to convey in my comment, was you can’t lead with the intellectual and expect emotional people to listen. They have to trust that you have their interest at heart. For the women who have a hard time disconnecting their emotions, that is how you open the door, by addressing those emotions. I wish we could just talk intelligently and ignore emotional responses, but it’s not rational to think that’s the best way to approach every individual person.
Isn't feeling and feeling lead us to our current situation?
Sort of but I think that’s because the left uses more emotional messaging. I think the whole point of the article is the right adopting more messaging that reaches the same people that the left messages to, not completely catering to them. Like for abortion while the left focuses on horror stories the right could focus on good outcomes like babies who would have been aborted, but weren’t, and grew up to do great things.
There is something to be said about adopting the strategies and frame of an opposition that is diabolical. The left uses emotional messaging detached from truth. Which results in really really heavy disortions. But distortions which appeal to a disordered appetite. It is unjust to ask the right to cater to a disordered appetite.
Even if the right will add a pathos flavour to their messaging, it won't still be as spicy as that of the left since they must do it in moderation and in mix with the truth. And the truth is bitter still. The problem is a malformed appetite. And a malformed appetite can only be corrected through reason and the intellect when it is well positioned to apprehend the truth of being.
This is a hard task. And arguing from feelings is not the answer. Roger Scruton was the best of conservatives; he was warm and deeply feeling. Hardly could he outdo the left.
Well said.
Engaging the mentally ill on their own ground makes you mentally ill over time. It was only through recovery from the attempts to help such people that my life changed for the better. Instead, I employ boundaries.
People are responsible for helping themselves. I can't blame others for my issues and vice versa. If people are not ready for this message of rationality, then maybe it's just not time for them, and it may never actually be time.
Funny you automatically interpreted my comment as me "taking personal offense". That's your feeling, dude. You're projecting your feelings onto me. I commented to set the record straight.
You wrote two posts going on and on about how women should be. That woman is something that you want to exist. The whole persona of this helpless weak flower is such a caricature. It's a card board. I don't know any human being like that, woman or man. I for one cannot relate. At. All.
I don't know what some skits with views prove. Views can mean anything whether it's shown by algorithm or someone casually clicking on something. If that's your go to source of "facts", I can't take it seriously. 115k subscribers in the scheme of things is nothing. It means it's a draw for people just like you. We all live in echo chambers now.
Believe whatever you want. So don't believe me. What is it to me? The world moves on the way it does. Men with your views aren't helping your "cause", you're driving the wedge bigger and confirming the opinions of the "feminists" you hate so much.
Evidence of offense taken:
>I don’t recognize myself in any way, shape, or form in the “women”
Unnecessary use of scare quotes.
> you described at length.
I described in one sentences, and one paragraph in a 7 paragraph response. You perceived it to be at length because it had more emotional impact than the rest of the comment.
> Your generalizations are completely wild.
Emotional description of a pretty common view, at least on the internet when women are discussed in right wing circles.
> Oh and I’m well adjusted, happily married, successful, and not an emotional pus
Defending yourself from things I never accused you of failing at.
>TYVM
Thank you very much. Classic sign of offense taken. Similar to "bless your heart."
I'm not aligned with what the other guy said, but the reason people go left is because feminism and the like tell them that anything they like or want to do is justified. Every vice is empowering with a feminist sticker on it. Christianity is the only creed that encourages virtue even when it feels bad and rejects vice even when it feels good. People who desire virtue and love in their personal lives and relationships will not be leftist.
And last thing...we are told that young women these days are strong independent boss women, taking over the world and no longer need men. So it all seems to be a contradiction against "women are hurting".
This article is likely discussing people in their 30s who bought into the feminist dream, only to realize not every makes it to the top and only to end up with dissapointment and regret. The intensity, fidelity, and confidence in the dream they bought into, all whilst making your life as a man hell in your 20s, makes it very difficult to have the emotional capacity to have sympathy for the same people responsible for moral decay. Somone who lived their lives sleeping around, drinking their lives to ruin, and pursuing a career as an end in itself or an end to buy designer clothing ought to deal with the consequences on their own actions. The traditional movement should focus on children, not adult women who have the freedom to choose.
I saw some of your other comments and there's much to takeaway from things you said about your generation's experience. Freya writes about GenZ (she is one) and I believe she's talking about GenZ gals.
What you said here boils down to one thing, with which I agree. At some point, the good intention of giving support became over correction, and morphed even further into empty trajectory. Participation trophies were the beginning. We're at the final stage where affirmations have become detached from reality.
Everything about modern feminism is wrong and I can go on about that too. But IMO modern feminism, for all its problems, has become a scapegoat when the results we're seeing today is a perfect storm of many current societal problems of equal and maybe even more dire weight. Because at the end of the day, how many people actually listen to feminists, ever? It is true that some of their ideologies have taken hold as part of the wider DEI and critical theory thinking that's been hoisted upon us. But nothing turns people off more than feminists. They don't have as much power as people are blaming them for. It might have been cool for 5 mins during #MeToo but the backlash has been fierce and nothing really came out of that except now Hollywood has intimacy directors.
Women living real life are not making decisions on day to day basis because of feminism or girl boss or its predecessor the snarky kick-ass heroine. Just like people of whatever kind living a real life are not making day-to-day and life decisions because of ideologies be it race or sexual orientation or even religion and what have you (exception for some with mental illnesses who can't think straight). We all make life decisions based on the people we're dealing with in our own life and unique circumstances. The series of actions and reactions arising from it all is what makes us. If we have good experiences, those serve to form our opinions one way. If we have bad experiences, we form our opinions differently. We then look to bigger societal narratives to reinforce our already formed opinions. There are some downstream effects from ideologies, sure, like schools teaching certain things. But the tech revolution with internet and social media probably has done a much bigger number on all of us than any ideology. The tech platforms greatly changed how we experience interactions with people. I honestly didn't realize how many men out there right now, in the USA, think women shouldn't have the right to vote. Without the internet as existed today, I would've thought all men even the most conservative ones had gotten past THAT. At least I'm not young and have a bigger frame of reference. But if a 16 yo girl keeps seeing men saying that (or things said by those like my friend who I was bickering with), what else are they supposed to think?
To some of your other points, this article might add another shade and might interest you: https://news.fairforall.org/p/the-dangerous-ssri-experiment-on-949
1st feminism completely changed understanding of reality in West at least 2 to 3 times.
2nd #Metoo succeeded, man's sexuality became demonized to ridiculous degree. One prove of that is that gen z men when asked why they don't approach women 50% said that would it make them creeps
3rd ideology and worldview quite obviously influences people's decisions
My main problem with article is that women pushed for no fault divorce and normalized hook up culture running on their "slut marches" in 2000s and now we get to know that they turn even more leftwing because society is more left-wing?
I agree with what you've said here and understand your perspective. I support Freya because I appreciate what she is doing and believe in her work. And thanks for sharing the article. Women I have dated have shared similar perspectives, but speaking of emotions, I and I assume many other conservative men, are frustrated by the behaviors we see before us. We are highly scandalized by this. We fundamentally see that women's behaviors are more downstream from institutions than that of men, in general. Men instinctively know not to trust government and know how power works, that the powers of the world are not your friend. We see that women are captive to the culture and easily influenced--so, of course, the solution is to either sanctify the state or limit voting rights. In our eyes, we see women rebelling against virtue and whatsoever is good in favor of low culture.
To steel man, the general sentiment of the men's perspectives in here, we don't understand why women are easily influenced, and we have a hard time being sympathetic to this because they are the most fierce in promoting and spreading the broken culture. At least in my generation, we perceive the culprits of moral decay are older millennial, Gen X, and especially boomer men.
What we are witnessing is the liquidation of the liberal project, that is, rebellion against the spiritual reality and belief in the supernatural--to be more explicit, all of these problems are derivative of Protestantism, which lack spirituality and a mystical life. Rebellion begets rebellion. What spiritual foundation is there a person in modern life today?
Reality is not intelligible without the spiritual / mystical life. To me, this is what Gen Z women are missing, this is what society is missing. I agree that raw facts and charts and data do not convey the fullness of true, love does. And how know true love without God, who is spirit? Once you come to believe in the power of prayer, divine miracles, that demons exist--you come to know the truth path you must take. The fundamental issue is secularism, and who spreads and promotes secularism the most if not women?
Andrew Tate is rebuked, the only fans women are praised. See the issue?
(Sorry for any typos or incoherence: I wrote this while at work)
You're making so many generalizations and defining groups of people, women in particular, based solely on your definition of women, that I can find fallacies throughout your comment. (And no, by definition, I'm not talking the leftist trans madness.) I don't know you, but frustrations are seething under your words. Maybe even rage? Hard to tell from a post so I won't assume.
On the one hand, you're an adult man (in your 30s, right?), so there's no need for me to say things to soothe you. OTOH, I have lived quite a bit longer than you, so there are some wisdom and perspectives I can offer for your consideration. The thing is, I don't know if it's worthwhile for me to even try, for the reason that I don't think anything I have to say will make any difference. It never does with these online discussions.
I've seen so many men like you online talk about God. But every single time, the God you want is a society with hierarchies and cultural ways that fit your particular needs. Faith never comes into any of your conversations. Your want your will to be done, not His will. And you have no faith that God is working through the world and because of that, hope is always on the horizon. You have no faith that God is making a world and a future that neither fits your desire or feminists or anyone else's desire, but only His. All of you fail to see that even the people you disdain, God loves.
I’m in my 20s. That’s one of many miscalculations on your part. Interesting how you make this personal and now presume to know things that you know nothing about, namely about me. Is this not folly? Or ignorance? The fact that I’m a paid subscriber ought to show you invested.
And seethe is not a word I would use, disgust and repulsed is more of what I would use. An aversion to the injustice these people spread. To use a word of my female peers, it gives the “ick”. Not because of how they live, but that they so desire the moral downfall and corruption of others. If someone wants to life a depraved existence, that is their business, though it would be better if they don’t, but to spread and promote degeneracy to the broader society, that is where these people serve the devil. In living such a low life, they do a disservice to not only themselves, but also their community, ultimately polluting society, which for sure ends up creating an environment unfriendly to innocence, especially to children. Who is responsible for the moral decay of our times and the destruction of spiritual health? The best argument you can make is that men like myself are not helping, but you cannot certainly place blame on us for how these people choose to live their lives. And to object to our disgust, as if it is unjust, while holding sympathy for the depraved is exactly why society is the way it is today. Anyone with sound morality instinct for what is good and to avoid evil would be repulsed at evil. Do you find an issue with this?
Personally, the first thing people know about me is my faith. And I’m always excited to share the wonderful ways the Holy Spirit has worked in my heart, in my soul. At work, at grad school when I attended, my brothers and sisters in Christ, even my LGBTQ friends, my Muslim friends, my Hindu friends and leftist friends—they all know my faith. Each person in my life is a gift, and joy. The secular circles of mine have only know Protestantism, which preaches rigidity and lacks spirituality, these friends do not know the wonders and mysterious of God, expressed poetically, beautifully through the mystical body Christ, holy mother Church. To find love, to find joy, is to find God. I have bonded with non-religious friends over the years and have seen their spiritual growth and conversion. I have seen first hand the glory of God.
And of course—the God I am talking about is the one true God. The world ought to imitate the City of God, truly eternal and eternally true. God loves hierarchy, the son is subject to his father, the wife to her husband, the people under government,. God loves order, as such the universe is intelligible. God loves beauty, as seen in His creation. Of course I believe society ought to reflect this. This isn’t out my needs, it’s about the salvation of souls. It is the exact will of God that a people should prepare themselves for His return. The culture of a people is the religion of the people, and so, yes, of course, society ought to stretch its arms out to God, instead of the idols of sexual pleasure, materialism, celebritydom and the like. What’s wrong with that?
What you fail to see is that God allows resolution and decay to show us that our thinking and way of life has been wrong. As my Lord has done many times over, bringing good out of evil, as He did with Rome, I have faith that He will take the present infrastructure and state of the world to fulfill His will. America is all but a vessel in preparation for His purpose. We were not made for this world, but another world, as such, we should not become accustomed to it, and worse yet, we should not be of this world, as the women discussed in this article are.
I hope you will be honest and examine who among us puts in the effort to uphold goodness in the world, and who among work to promote moral decay.
You’re talking about women and their multitude of weaknesses and problems as you perceive but then go on to say you aren’t accusing me, a woman, of anything. Logic much! 🤣
“TYVM” is taking offense??? That’s a new one. Ok boomer if you say so. You’re hearing tones in your head made up by how you want to hear it. Your views are so biased and you can’t even see it.
Everything you say is trite textbook sexism and I say this as one who don’t even agree with feminism today.
This conversation was a boring me as everything you regurgitate is same old same old and I’ve heard it all before so I’m going to leave it right here. There’s no point in carrying on anyway as the only thing you and I can agree on is to agree to disagree.
But just so you know, as I’m sure it feels good to you to state your righteous opinions 😀, the more you talk this way the more you’re convincing younger women that the side opposite you is correct. Keep at it! Works for me.
A great piece about the sterility of data that is, funnily enough, supported by data.
In 2007, a team of researchers — Deborah Small, Paul Slovic, and George Loewenstein — conducted a series of experiments on what moves people more: stories or statistics. The researchers gave each of the participants money to donate and presented them with two charity campaigns: one based on famine statistics in Africa and one based on the experience of a single starving girl named Rokia. Naturally, the participants donated much more to the girl than to the thousands of abstract entities, even though every one of them would've been suffering just as much.
I’ve known this for years, and yet I still instinctively fire off studies and statistics to convince people (as I did just now…)
This bias toward “facts over feelings” is also true of most male writers I know. When we’re told we should be more in tune with people's feelings, we instinctively retort that feelings can’t be trusted as well as hard data can. And this is often true. But I suspect it’s sometimes just another story we tell ourselves, in order to protect *our* feelings.
See, many of us men are emotionally inarticulate and tone-deaf, particularly with regards to women’s feelings. We find emotions disturbingly murky and mercurial — far beyond our comfort zone — so we take refuge in the calmness and concreteness of data, even when it’s not persuasive (or even rational!) to do so.
I don’t regard myself as a conservative, but I am an Ass-Burger, and ever since the left started cancelling people for not being able to “read the room”, I and many other Ass-Burgers who can’t read the room, most famously Elon, have become more sympathetic to conservatism, making the movement even more culturally autistic than it was before.
But the thing with this new, based, “facts don’t care about your feelings” conservatism is that it’s not actually emotionless; it just caters to emotions that men (and Ass-Burgers) feel comfortable with, like pride and outrage, while eschewing more “feminine” ones like grief and melancholy.
This is why I’m glad you’re offering a fresh approach. If rationality means anything, then it means succeeding, and that requires sympathy — the ability to understand what people are feeling, even if we can’t feel it ourselves. This is something I and many others need to improve at, and I’ll take your eloquent essay as a useful reminder.
It’s funny, I was just thinking about the conversation we had the other day when you commented this. I think what made it work so well was that we came at it from different angles, but were essentially saying the same things. You shared studies about the benefits of social interaction; I told stories about my neighbour. You explained, philosophically, how too much freedom can enslave us; I talked about how anxious and overwhelmed many young women feel today. Someone described it as a “duet”.
I’m definitely not an expert, or an intellectual like you are, but I do think there’s a place for feelings. As Paul Kingsnorth said to me once: “I’m starting to sound like a grumpy old man, but perhaps we need more grumpy old men, and women, to put things right again.” And maybe we need sensitive young women too, who can feel things changing, who notice what it’s doing to people, to children, to families, to the fabric of things.
Of course we need both - both men and women, progressives and conservatives, feelings and facts. And I think we need more conversations like the one we had, where two people can talk in slightly different languages, the language of feelings and the language of studies and statistics, but with respect for each other, and for the truth. That's how I think we get to the bottom of things
Couldn’t have said it better myself!
I think there needs to be boundaries in both directions, a separation of the personal and political that is ignored by both left and right.
On the left, there was (still is?) several years where an ideological subset of emotional people (primarily women? IDK) were given free reign to get their coworkers fired any time they were in a mood, like the Queen of Hearts. The power to make their personal emotions into someone else's problem.
On the right, there are obtuse people (primarily men) who think they can hector young women into marriages and children with general statistics and theories that have nothing to do with their individual life history and circumstances. I don't even call these obtuse people “logical,” because if they were truly logical they would realize — instead of putting the burden on the women — that it takes two to start a nuclear family, and furthermore, it is traditionally the man’s job to propose marriage!
I don't understand your point on right. If problem is that they don't respect separation of personal and political then it's not your business if marriages happen or not. And burden is put on women because today women control dating market and they don't want to get married
The issue is that *some* people on the right consider women unilaterally responsible for the decline in marriage rates or older average age of first marriages.
On one hand, from what I've heard, men have always outnumbered women on dating apps. (Part of this is some women, for safety and other reasons, prefer to be introduced by a trusted person in their life or getting to know someone gradually through work or church or school, rather than going online to find someone.)
On the other hand, once a couple has been dating for a while, the man is often more hesitant to commit, so it evens out in terms of who is the "gatekeeper" of marriage rates and how old couples are when they get married.
*some* people on the right remember 3rd wave feminism when naked women were screaming about being sluts. The point is not that women are only one's responsible for that (although definitely more than men because now many men struggle to date even) but that majority of women support those social changes, they see it as progress and good thing.
I'm a retired engineer so data is very important to me but I recognise that it tells only part of the story of our lives.
I am particularly taken with your comment -
"But the thing with this new, based, “facts don’t care about your feelings” conservatism is that it’s not actually emotionless; it just caters to emotions that men (and Ass-Burgers) feel comfortable with, like pride and outrage, while eschewing more “feminine” ones like grief and melancholy."
I agree entirely. As a conservative man who is very likely to express his sadness, I find that many people can't emotionally read even this one person, let alone a roomful!
Gurwinder:
I, too, feel more than a little tone deaf regarding feelings, am still struggling through Grade 1 primer on “reading the room” and I’m a little old lady!
You'd think it would be obvious that statistics and graphs wouldn't penetrate the hearts of young women, but so many conservatives continue to use this (and guilt, and ridicule) as their primary means of changing minds. They are failing miserably, and pushing so many girls further left.
It reminds me of what Tim Keller said about the gospel: "Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it."
Love me a good Tim Keller quote
That is well said, but which one is it--are women having a hard time and would appreciate friendship, community and love or are they strong independent women who are taking over the world, don't need men and overcoming adversity? Schrödinger's woman. From what I can see, women living their best lives and are happy, especially the ones on only fans who are constantly telling us how stunning and brave they are on social media.
That reminds me of a quote I read recently, presumably somewhere on Substack: “men bond by insulting each other and not really meaning it; women bond by complimenting each other and not really meaning it.”
Sounds like harshness and sentimentality, does it not?
Very well written, Freya! Thanks for the moving essay! Escaping the matrix isn’t easy for anyone and we all need one another. May we support one another with honesty and open hearts!
I didn't really like this piece, or a few others of your more recent ones. Sorry but it strikes me as a lot of whinging and blaming others, and no taking ownership of your collective situation and making positive changes in your own lives. Don't like hookup culture? Don't have sex with men off tinder!! This is something you could do right now, you could decide to go and try to find a man who you get along with really well on a personal level (and yes, are attracted to physically and emotionally) and let things build naturally. It comes across as a self-indulgent feigned helplessness. Nothing can be changed, it's all impossible anyway, I'll just go and shag a load of tinder dates and whinge about not being able to get married... and then somehow I'll magically end up with a husband, family, etc. No, you need to take ownership of your life and live in a way that makes your goals as likely as possible.
This isn't to downplay that the dating culture at the moment is bad and makes things harder. It's to say that at some point we have to start doing things about it. We, personally, need to do specific things. What should they be? Why should people (particularly women) follow the advice? What's in it for them? That's the article that will actually change things, and the article I'd be interested in reading from you.
The article you would like to read as a pragmatic male may not be the article that reaches young women, who like to know that someone understands their feelings. And I found this piece interesting as I don't talk to many young women and really have no idea what they are thinking.
I agree, the article I want may not reach young women. But, while this article may reach young women, I very much doubt it will help them. It enumerates their problems and why they've got it so bad in life, and that's that. ie. it plays into, and therefore is likely to exacerbate, this feigned helplessness cycle that I've described. Seriously, how does this article help a young woman?
As always, I may be wrong, and often have been in the past :)
Phil, I think the group this article will help the most are the parents of girls. We don't get have a clear view into their world. We are the ones who CAN help them and Freya is doing us a great service by articulating so beautifully how this world is harming them. Freya helps me to understand the context my kids and their friends are growing up in. Her insights are like gold and I for one am hugely grateful.
Hi Esther, you're not the first who's made similar comments, so clearly it's a useful piece for those not familiar with the modern dating world. I do think it would be much more useful if it contained actionable advice as well though.
I would just caution that young women are already taught that society is against them and it's psychologically really unhelpful. It will make things worse for your kids if what they take away from this is that there's no hope and nothing that they can do to have success in the dating world. Caution them, sure, but make sure they have a positive vision of what can be achieved and a feeling that they are able to influence the likelihood of the outcomes. Or you risk a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It seems we are operating under the assumption that young women are only able to be “reached” by content which enables their bad behavior and narcissism.
If that is the case then what is the point of “reaching”? The fact is the world that women need refuge from is the world that women chose for themselves when they were given the freedom to do so.
Freya, you continue to impress me with your voice and passion. I wish there was more I could do. I try to speak up about how becoming a mother made the sacred more true and beautiful… how important feeling and sensing are, becoming more emotionally attuned and living a more whole and complete life, which includes pain and sadness. Maybe we need our own conference? Sending you love and gratitude. Keep it up.
I agree. Love will bring them home, not logic, reason or duty.
Which is the entire point of the Gospel
but the Gospel can also be understood and accepted by logic and reason. It depends on who you are preaching it too. You have to know your audience. Emotional? Logical? Both? Intelligent or ignorant? Big picture or self absorbed?
Absolutely, Juliana; but as CS Lewis experienced, he could logically conclude the Bible was true, and Jesus the Messiah, but it was the being ‘Surprised By Joy’ which really did it.
This is an incredible essay. Thank you for writing this. I hope it is read widely and in a spirit of feeling rather than analyzing.
Freya, thank you so much for this. What you say is true - the question is... what do we do about it? I write as a wife and mother, as a conservative, as a Christian, as a therapist. I have been in the room with the girls you describe for thousands of hours. I have listened; I have explained that they are intrinsically valuable; that they are worth far more than the way they are being treated; that they can say no. We talk, we laugh sometimes. I'm often asked how long I've been married - and when I say nearly 30 years, I might as well be speaking a foreign language. They leave the counselling room and life resumes. These are girls for whom a 'stepdad' can be someone their mum met in the pub last Friday; some don't know how many siblings they have. They are wary and wounded, with no time or space to heal. Most emotional distress (a term I prefer to mental illness - it's more about broken hearts than broken brains) arises through experiences, environment and relationships. For a lot of young girls, all three areas of life are dysfunctional and they see no way out. It is our generation which has utterly failed them, including the church - but we desperately need to find some way back and fast. It doesn't have to be like this
As a non-Christian, non-conservative I enjoy reading your articles. They're insightful, well written, and I think capture the spirit of the age for women even from a right leaning perspective.
Additionally, as a non-Christian, non-conservative I enjoy perusing the comment sections to see men dismissing your argument, comparing women to sharks, arguing that thoughts are just too hard for women's brains, and classic misogyny. Literally exemplifying your opening sentence. Keep it up boys, that'll get the ladies coming to Church.
And I just commented to myself how surprised I was at the number of men replying who had such empathy for women.
This is interesting. I am glad you wrote it. I think you might be on to something we should be discussing. I will admit that I am struggling with the premise given all we are dealing with today in gender relations, but I think this is a useful approach to start the needed dialog.
The basic problem I have with the premise, although I agree that there is this conflict, is the soft scold of males to step forward to change their behavior in accommodation of the hurt/pain that females are dealing with.
On one hand, I agree that males should shoulder the largest burden here. There is a long tradition of males needed to figure out how to navigate the minefield of female stronger emotions, while caring and protecting. But the landscape has changed due to the feminist movement "empowering" women who now directly compete with men for social and economic dominance. This new gender competition, really unprecedented within human history, has grown quite hostile, and I think that is because of the feminist movement.
It seems what you are advocating for, and I think what much of the woke/DEI movement has been about, is a special accommodation of men, the same men that have been statistically in socioeconomic decline while being pummeled with #MeToo attacks and claims that they are racist and misogynist brutes.
While I agree that females are hurting, I don't think this approach in scolding/shaming men (who trend conservative while females trend liberal) to be more sensitive to and accommodating of the negative emotions of females is the correct remedy to the problem.
Females have become angry, hostile and mean. Males have two acceptable choices; they can allow themselves to be abused by all those emotionally disordered aggressive females, or they can do their best to ignore having any relationship with them and protect themselves by only associating with those that don't attack them.
I think females are hurting because they are lonely. And they are lonely because of their bad behavior. And their loneliness makes them even angrier and more hostile toward men, and thus their bad behavior increases. It is a cycle of broken gender relations.
The culprit is the feminists. The top malcontents of the "female power" armies that have taken over the education system and many other institutions and keep brainwashing females to rage and attack to get what they want.
I see it clearly. It comes through my social media feeds. It infects not only young females, but my old school mates in their 60s. It is a constant drumbeat of promoted hate against any and all that oppose the female political power demand. It is also the Democrat party apparatus. The well-funded activist industry that is dominated by educated feminists.
I don't think shaming men into being more caring in this sea of manufactured hostility against them is a workable approach. It isn't until females themselves fight the radical feminists to stop vulnerable narcissist power grab program that we will see a repair of our broken gender relations.
The war is between family and state. Family led by a strong man will fail in a powerful state. When the man struggles against the state and falls short, the mother and children will turn to the state, strengthening the state. The man struggles to fulfill his promises to his family, the state lies to broken families. Women, being naturally dependent, are more susceptible to falling for the state lies. It is an ancient fundamental clash between man’s responsible love, and the lies and manipulations of slave societies.
CPS perfectly exposes this conundrum. They come into struggling families, promise support, then sell children into what amounts to slavery.
Brutal !
Congratulations on being published in First Things! It’s a pretty big deal and some of the readers of that magazine (even though it’s a pretty thoughtful and serious one most of the time) definitely need to hear this.
I think women need to take responsibility for their own lives instead of blaming conservatives, men, or external causes.