>>14962055My current working theory goes something like this:
the early 2000's peak of male sexual market efficiency was driven primarily by a lack of female agency within the dating/sexual market. Everything was male-driven (as was western tradition), but the advent of the internet, text messaging, and the exponential curve of that social network efficiency (social network referring not just to digital media, but the entire social network you engage in) that increased - it all synergized around the same time.
Mix into that context two things: the surplus of female material agency driven by late-stage feminist movements, and the significant and resultant decrease in male material agency driven by societal status quo/middle children of history assertions, and you get a perfect storm of system-wide retaliation against that late-90's/early-00's male dating/sexual market efficiency.
On a less macro level, it's laughable *why* women don't see themselves as equal. We live in an era that encourages the desire to be pacified, usually borne out of fear. Violence is obviously and plainly the ultimate legal authority (something I wish wasn't the case, but won't ever be true because humanz gon hoom) - in every material sense, women have the same ability as men, now, to work and earn a place in society. Like never before, there exists access AND MEANS for women to reach the same ends as men.
The hypocrisy comes from the obvious and plain fact that women will never be as strong or as capable as men. Not as an argument about true social darwinism, but plainly the fact that they have to operate subversively to counteract the obvious legal underpinning of legal violence. What are they left with? Sociological and emotional means of accomplishing their goals. This is how the extremely rabid medicalization of mental illness came about in the late 00's and early 10's (read between the lines on Szasz). More in a moment.
