So I was reading an article on Psychology Today and was pleasantly surprised to read a rather red pill piece that was very much in line with The Suffering of the Lost Boys piece I wrote a few years back, be it that it's Psychology Today, I was expecting nothing but complete feminist tosh. But then Gad Saad and Roy Baumeister of Florida State have columns on there, so I suppose my preconception was wrong and they at least make a degree of effort to publish articles from psychologists all over the political spectrum. That aside, let's get into the analysis.
Everyone knows a young man who is struggling, either in school or afterward; "failing to launch," with emotional disturbances, in interactions with the opposite sex, or with drug use and gang activities.
He is observing the increase in boys and young men who are emotionally unstable, economically unsuccessful and incompetent with women. Low status males. The outlier here is the men who engage in gang activities, they very may well be emotionally unstable, but many have romantic and economic success. Regardless, they are all symptoms of the same thing - an absence of masculine influence in the lives of young men, an abundance of women in the education system and an epidemic of single motherhood leaving many young boys and men without any access to masculine influence. Gang activity, emotional instability, and an inability to talk to the opposite sex are byproducts of this.
In the animal kingdom, parents pass on their hunting skills to their young. The same concept can be applied to fathers and their boys. On the note of gang activity: many gang members tend to be from single mother households, and form the gang as a way of maintaining a male space to learn masculinity and climb what Peterson would call the dominance hierarchy.
Mass shootings have tripled since 2011, with the majority being carried out by young men, while young male suicide rates have increased 50 percent since 1994.
Here he tries to really emphasise the extreme degree of young male instability. Interestingly, the study he links to to support this statistic defines "young males" as aged 10-24 and the time range measurement for the occurrence of said suicides to be between 1994 and 2012. Suffice to say, at least one 10 year old boy somewhere out there found life so unbearable, he killed himself. Despicable.
Nobody sees investing in boys’ development as “worth it” and as a result boys today are growing up and deciding that it is not worth it for them to invest their time and energy back into their communities. For many, virtual reality has become a safe haven, and in some instances more structured and rewarding than reality. Thus we see the emergence of terms such as hikikomori, diaosi, bamboccioni, and NEETs, along with the rise of movements such as Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). Who can blame them for wanting to opt out?
I think MGTOW is the outlier here. A lot of MGTOWs are divorced men who simply cannot find it within themselves to trust a woman again, and have decided to opt out. Sure, there are some young MGTOWs, but I'm not entirely sure they comprise the majority of that RP demographic. Would need to conduct a survery to see representativeness distributions by age, but he's pretty on point with the other terms. NEETs are "Not in education, employment or training" and the hikkomori is a Japanese phenomenon where people don't leave the family home and start their own lives, but stay at home most of the time in a state of extreme introverted seclusion well into their 30's.
The rotten fruits of feminism have led to boys who are poorly equipped to deal with the world as men, and as such they escape from the difficulties of life by anaesthetising themselves with video games and porn. People often attribute these things as reasons for the rise in male underachievement, however I believe this to be an inversion of cause and effect, and that these things are rather the coping mechanisms of choice for dealing with the difficulties that face the young blue pill beta male, not the cause of those difficulties. The causes are mentioned by Zimbardo in the next paragraph:
Just one out of five elementary and middle school teachers is male, and fatherlessness in America remains above 40 percent. Among boys who do have fathers, the amount of time they spend in one-on-one conversation with their dads is only a fraction of the time they spend in front of a TV or on a computer, where they see men represented as emotionless warriors, hapless dads, or losers who can’t get anything right. In other words, many boys are going from male-absent home environments to male-absent school environments back to male-absent home environments where they then watch toxic male role models on a screen; this begs the question: what kind of future are they supposed to envision for themselves?
He somewhat subtly says boys and young men are failing in life, killing themselves more and engaging in more delinquent behaviour due to a lack of masculine influence in their lives, and that single motherhood has a lot to answer for in this regard.
If you're interested in reading the full article for yourself, you can read it here:
You can read my take on the subject here: https://illimitablemen.com/2014/05/08/the-suffering-of-the-lost-boys/