Are Men "In Crisis" For Not Doing What Women Expect?

Reality is not conforming to ideology, yet again. Men behaving in ways women do not expect, or understand, or demand, does not a crisis make. Neither does effeminate men not liking the way other men are behaving. Men are watching podcasts and porn instead of reading the newspaper, going to church, or watching broadcast TV. They've swapped phone calls for Discord gaming. They're learning high-paying trades instead of taking on university debt, and self-teaching with AI. They're dating immigrants with traditional values instead of social media obsessives. They're repulsed by workplace DEI programs, Hollywood fan-blaming, and "progressive" mainstream conversation topics (trans, equity, etc).

Are men really being "left behind" here?

When you're unmarried/divorced, childless, in $100k of student debt, watching bad true crime on cable TV, scrolling a dating app you hate, in a city apartment paying your own mortgage with your HR job, on SSRIs - and your truck driver ex-boyfriend is making $200k/year married to a young Latina housewife with three kids, playing video games in the countryside - who exactly is being left behind?

Why Are Leftist Writers Penning This Garbage?

One thing is extremely clear when you take a brief look at any of these articles. Almost all of the authors - who have appointed themselves experts on men - are either effeminate men or female. With the same politics. Exactly who these boys and men have turned their back on. And each of them writes with the same agenda: portraying men who do not share female interests as being diagnosable with a pathology.

A small selection:

• https://www.salon.com/2024/01/06/yes-men-and-boys-are-in--but-traditional-masculinity-wont-help-them/ - Mary Elizabeth Williams
• https://thepointmag.com/letter/on-the-crisis-of-men/ - Jon Baskin
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/10/christine-emba-masculinity-new-model/ - Christine Emba
• https://www.vox.com/the-gray-area/23813985/christine-emba-masculinity-the-gray-area - Sean Illing
• https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/14/josh-hawley-masculinity-crisis-00105436 - Virginia Hefferman
• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/opinion/crisis-men-masculinity.html - David Brooks

Their case is:

1. Boys are paying less attention at school and getting lower grades.
2. Men aren't enrolling in university as much.
3. Men are experiencing higher unemployment rates.
4. Drug overdoses and suicides of men are up.

A closer look reveals something else: these useless "social science" graduate writers are starting with a conclusion and working backwards. They are desperate to talk about so-called "toxic masculinity" being to blame, and it not being a "solution".

What they apparently don't do is actually talk to any boys or men about it.

If it is men who are the ones in crisis, what explains....

The paradox of female being unhappier the more "equal" ideology they suffer?

.... and staggering difference in SSRI usage?

MGTOW: The Canary In The Coalmine

Around the turn of the millennium, a bizarre male separatism trend emerged in online circles which was labelled "Men Going Their Own Way" (MGTOW). The men involved in these discussions cited multiple factors influencing their thinking:

• A strong opposition to the damaging effects of feminism;
• The perception of a social bias in favour of women, particularly in family court;
• A dislike of promiscuous and/or exploitative behaviour;

In Gen Z, this perception has been steadily increasing.

The description from FarLefipedia sums up the rabid, deranged reaction to this social backlash:

An anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and society, which they believe has been corrupted by feminism. The community is a part of the manosphere, a collection of anti-feminist websites and online communities that also includes the men's rights movement, incels, and pickup artists.

At the center of MGTOW ideology is the notion of male separatism and the belief that society has been corrupted by feminism. MGTOW groups are misogynist and anti-feminist, believing that feminism has made women dangerous to men, and that male self-preservation requires dissociating completely from women. MGTOW and other manosphere communities overlap with the reactionary, white nationalist alt-right and other white supremacist, authoritarian, and populist movements worldwide.

This resentful, venomous language is, of course, familiar. "Reactionary" is communist rhetoric.

In other words, men reacting negatively to extremist left-wing ideology were denounced as "white supremacist, authoritarian, populist, misogynistic, alt-right, incel" fascists because they would not accede to the feminist desire to dominate. We all know who these people are. We don't need studies. They're 20-35, female, university-educated, middle-class, humanities graduates. Typically programmed with the "one story to explain it all" semi-religious subroutine, derived, in one way or another, from some strain of Marxism flavoured with existentialism.

Usually the postmodern (de Beauvoir, Foucault) Francophone wing of feminist radicalism, mixed with the racial revisionism of black civil rights sociology.

How we do collectively value different traits in either sex? Fascinating question. In men, we value morality. In women, we value physical beauty and nurturing. "Nurturing", "empathy", "kindness", "intelligence", and "attractiveness" are not exactly traits anyone would associate with student feminists.

MGTOW itself - a nebulous idea, at best - may well possess individuals with these negative traits which deserve criticism. There's always a kernel of truth.

But...

68% - two-thirds, or 7/10 - of women in some studies who are unmarried subscribe to left-wing ideology. Only a third of conservative women - with the opposite belief system - are unmarried.

The demographic most likely to virulently demonise this male criticism of the female-ruled utopia is the most detached from men as a whole.

Is it a surprise men might avoid marrying anyone who would think and speak this way? Why would you support, love, or pair-bond with anyone who hates and resents you?

Who Likes HR Karen's Ideas About DEI And Pronouns?

The employment selection process in Western corporations is dominated by women. Women are now almost entirely in control of the selection of men for roles in the labour force. That's going to have some implications, and a lot of them aren't good: https://www.resumebuilder.com/1-in-6-hiring-managers-have-been-told-to-stop-hiring-white-men/

More women entering the workforce has increased competition with men, and resulted in less men entering it overall. That's a simple point of arithmetic.

Most interestingly, both neither men or women enjoy working under a "female leader" at all. Although Gen Z women are increasingly disagreeing. The "record high" to date has been 23%. This particular statistic is unbelievably damning, as even radical activists have to admit it: https://hbr.org/2013/11/who-wants-to-work-for-a-woman

Would you want to work for this?

This may well be a crisis for employers, and possibly for men in general in terms of employment and income. But it is not men themselves "in crisis". Workplaces are transforming into places men don't want to be.

Who Reads The Newspaper Or Watches TV/Radio Anymore?

Men have historically been slightly more interested in news content than women (src: https://www.statista.com/statistics/915103/most-popular-news-platforms-by-gender/). The majority of weekly newspaper readers are 55 and older. In 2020, only 3% of adults aged 18–29, 4% of those aged 30–49, 11% of those aged 50–64, and 25% of those aged 65 and older got their news from print. 27% of NYT subscribers are Canadian.

They are a Greatest Gen and Boomer hobby:

They're dying.

Women now dominate publishing, which is another dying industry (see: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/04/04/1164109676/women-now-dominate-the-book-business-why-there-and-not-other-creative-industries). What are they writing about? Things men aren't interested in.

Men have also historically watched slightly more TV than women (src: https://www.statista.com/statistics/411745/average-dialy-time-watching-tv-us-by-gender/)

In 2023, the average American aged 15 and older watched almost three hours of TV per day. Adults aged 65 and older watch the most TV, averaging over four hours per day. In contrast, 15 to 19-year-olds watch TV for less than two hours each day. Men average 3.06 hours per day and women average almost two and a half hours per day.

TV is a Boomer and Gen X hobby.

And it's also dying.

The pattern is different in radio, where women listen more than men (src: https://www.insideradio.com/battle-of-the-sexes-how-women-and-men-use-radio-differently/article_f08a6c9e-0c31-11ea-a0b6-cbad1edef930.html), but men tend to listen longer. This pattern is also found in pornography, where men show a preference for visual stimulation, compared to women, who prefer audio material.

Women make up 55.7% of public radio listeners, while men make up 44.3%. Men aged 12 and older listen to the radio for an average of 13 hours per week, while women listen for 11. The reasons given are "companionship, local news, humor, and interesting stories".

Similar to TV, it is a Boomer and Gen X hobby.

But interestingly, it's dying less quickly than TV.

Right-leaning and conservative voters (both male and female) are switching off faster than anyone else.

Where are the men going? Social media, gaming, and podcasts.

This isn't a "crisis" unless you work in the dying industries of print and broadcast. Which men aren't interested in anymore, because they're elsewhere.

The Rewards Of Sex Without The Effort

For some reason, many very stupid writers think young people having sex when they're not married, with lots of different people, is a good thing. This a new idea from the Sexual Revolution, which has been more catastrophic for women than it has been for men themselves - as Louise Perry explains in detail:

moral libertinism and callous disenchantment of liberal feminism and our contemporary hypersexualised culture represent more loss than gain. The main winners from a world of rough sex, hook-up culture and ubiquitous porn – where anything goes and only consent matters – are a tiny minority of high-status men, not the women forced to accommodate the excesses of male lust.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Sexual-Revolution/dp/1509549986

One in four women aren't having sex. One in three men aren't.

This is part of a broader pattern of declining sexual activity in younger people. That is GOOD.

There are plenty of reasons for not being promiscuous or sharing your body before you are married, all of which make good common sense:

• Disease;
• Unplanned pregnancy;
• Unplanned paternity;
• Lack of emotional maturity;
• Severe emotional trauma after a break-up;
• Damage to social reputation;
• Less ability to pair-bond;
• Making it special and exclusive to your spouse.

The price of sex is high, and there is no such thing as "free love". Later generations seem to be arriving at this sensible view. Unrestrained promiscuous sexual activity is NOT normal to the human species and has never been socially commended.

Abstinence until you are in the safety of marriage is not a "crisis", it's beneficial.

Most people do not have many sexual partners during their lifetime.

In most studies (from what we trust of self-reporting), 60% of men do not average over four sexual partners in their lifetime. Neither do 75% of women.

Double source: https://www.womens-health.com/average-number-of-sexual-partners-statistics

Which is in stark contrast with homosexuals, despite the absolutely staggering levels of manipulative propagandising by activists and their attempts to poison the available data.

But of course, there's another issue at play here: pornography.

And the effects of pornography on the reward system of the brain?

Here’s how the Coolidge effect works: The rat’s reward circuitry is squirting less and less dopamine with respect to the current female, but produces a big dopamine surge for a new female. Does that sound familiar? Not surprisingly, rats and humans aren’t that different when it comes to response to novel sexual stimuli.
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/miscellaneous-resources/start-here-evolution-has-not-prepared-your-brain-for-todays-porn/

Pornography offers all the rewards of sex and unlimited novel mates, without any of the associated chase, maintenance, or difficulties. Why deal with the eccentricities of a girlfriend when your sexual drive can be satiated from your computer screen? Or you can subscribe to the girl you like on her OnlyFans?

This persists in women too, as witnessed the surge in young girls treating hardcore pornography as a "religion": https://www.inverse.com/input/culture/goonettes-gooning-women-porn-sex-addiction

This is a crisis for women who want a boyfriend or a husband, who will never be able to compete with endless novelty of the ideal screen fantasy. Is it good? No. But it is not a symptom of men in "crisis" unless you define the opposite as them giving ordinary women their endless sexual attention.

$100k Of Debt For A Useless Degree?

Girls tend to like school. They generally do better in structured environments which require agreeable compliance than testosterone-fueled unruly boys. Those types require a far more rigid environment like the military. Academic intellectual life is useful for getting a comfy office job, but it doesn't help on an oil rig.

Shouldn't the increase in female-led teaching correspond to boys doing better, instead of worse? Or at least the same? Why aren't boys doing at least as well with more female teachers?

Who ends up doing does what? Let's ask GPT. It's a machine. Not a man or a woman.

This distribution is one of the actual reliable facts in "social science" which has any real use.

In the most simplified form, boys are truck drivers and girls are nurses. There are some female truck drivers and some male nurses, but the divide is so stark even the most insane radical couldn't mitigate it with equivocation or cope.

What are women studying in university? Nursing, psychology, business, and biology. And a whole world of anti-intellectual nonsense.

What are men studying? Guess what: engineering, computing, numbers. And a lot less nonsense.

Women are wracking up enormous levels of student university debt on non-essential "office" degrees which are less likely to be applicable in the workplace. Nobody is going to employ you outside of HR on the basis you studied sociology or art.

Women are doing better in university at graduating with nothing which could provide any value in the workplace or any cultural intellectual value. Men not going through the university system to take on debt for something they can't use to make a living is not a "crisis".

Now let's contrast that without the debt, where you can listen to your favourite podcast like a radio show, in the sun, and not have to deal with Karen in HR.

Home: Why Buy A Bubble Or Throw Away Rent?

It shouldn't come as any surprise, after the 2008 housing crisis, more men and women are living at home with their parents. But more men are staying at home rather than spending out on a buying a house.

But is this such a bad idea? Is it really a sign of male failure, or sensible economic policy?

In California, more women have been buying houses, at the worst time in history to do it.

California has 42% more women who are single homeowners than men vs. a 33% difference nationwide. The nation’s biggest gap was found in Maryland at 51%, then New Jersey at 49%, Massachusetts at 49%, Vermont at 47% and Rhode Island at 46%, And just two states had more single male owners than female: North Dakota with 13% more men owners and South Dakota at 6%.

Single women were just 11.4% of all California owners, the eighth-lowest among the states. Utah was at the bottom at 9%, then Texas at 10.4%, Idaho at 10.8%, New Hampshire at 11% and North Dakota at 11.1%.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/02/10/california-is-no-1-for-single-female-homeowners/

It's hard to tell whether those stats are correlated or causative with the average, but one thing is abundantly clear: 2010-2025 is absolutely, categorically the worst time to buy real estate in living memory. The average house price in immigration-infested California is $860k.

From a financial perspective, the deal is dreadful:

• Downpayment: $172,060
• 30-year interest APR: 6.5%
• Monthly: $4,350
• 1.25% property tax P.A: $10,754
• Insurance P.A: $1,200

Home ownership is good and should be celebrated. It's not obvious men are "in crisis" for not signing up to a deal this bad instead of conserving economically for buying with their wife together. And it's not obvious women need to be celebrated for buying on their own - particularly if they have student debt. But is very clear who is paying the deposit: Dad.

Left Female Vs Right Male

Another apparent gender gap is how men and women vote, and what parties are coming to represent. Men lean conservative, but women have strikingly adopted left-wing consensus favoured in the university system, media, and political institutions.

Women are getting more left-wing. Men are largely staying the same.

Everywhere.

Young men are getting more conservative within their own demographic. Which is perfectly understandable, given they have liberal parents to rebel against.

Women are leaving religious institutions which emphasise family at a greater rate, inversely correlating with their age.

When it comes to what they care about, the results are unsurprising. Both are worried about the economy, national security, government spending, and social reforms.

Women are concerned about reproductive selectivity (their ability to kill offspring they don't want), criminal violence involving firearms, existential threats, and healthcare. They don't particularly care about free speech or immigration.

Men are concerned about "civilisational" issues like crime, immigration, free speech, education, and how much things cost. They don't care at all about climate, whether they are injured, or abortion.

The partisan nature of this divide can be seen within women by party affiliation:

This persists across countries even in political membership.

This is only a "crisis" if you're a left-wing activist.

The Passport Bro

What is this offensive creature? A "Passport Bro" is the trend of men looking for "trad" wives from other countries who are not like Western women. Marriage as a whole is declining, but what's interesting is the rise in foreign spouses. Local women are not happy about it. At all.

In 2020, Tinder recorded a 7x increase in member's use of the Passport feature, with 16% of all active members engaged with people overseas: https://financesonline.com/online-dating-statistics/ .

An interesting dataset here is "Marital Histories Differ Between Native-Born and Foreign-Born Adults" from the US census which provides evidence marriages between Americans and foreign spouses tends to last longer (which doesn't necessarily imply happy or successful).

mixed nativity marriages (a native-born married to a foreign-born) were more common among Asian and Hispanic women than among non-Hispanic White women and Black women.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/05/marital-histories-differ-between-native-born-and-foreign-born-adults.html

The data suggests they are seeking out Asian women, who shown more agreeable behaviour, and women from Catholic countries with a strong focus on families.

Men appear to have found an answer to this "crisis". They're outsourcing, and tapping the reservoirs of new immigrants from conservative countries.

More women are unmarried and childless at 30 than in human history. Is this their new ideological choice, or because men are avoiding marrying them? It depends on who you ask. If you ask the men at all (highly unlikely), they'll give you one answer. If you ask the women who are unhappy about it, they'll give you another.

Men appear to be expressing a strong gender-based preference, as women express another. And they have explaining why for years. One of them is Westernised women instigate 70% of all divorces (src: https://www.asanet.org/women-more-likely-men-initiate-divorces-not-non-marital-breakups/) and the figure rises to 90% in university-educated women. A Swedish study found Winning a lottery predicts divorce in women, but marriage and children in men (src: https://www.nber.org/papers/w31039).

Is this a crisis? Or is an over-conservative anxiety about economic disaster in a culture where people's lived and careers are ruined by being "cancelled" and digital photos are forever?

Interestingly, this trend is even more evident in lesbian couples. It's spectacular. Women marry each other more per capita, but divorce each other at higher rates than men.

Remember: reality is not happening, and if you say it is, you're a bigot.

But I Covered Up And Tried To Find One At Church?

There's no mystery here. Men have been explaining their dislike for church for decades, where they freer to talk about it. There's even a book.

Women comprise more than 60% of the adults in a typical worship service in America. Some overseas congregations report ten women for every man in attendance.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Hate-Going-Church/dp/078523215X

Men don't like modern church services because... they are men. Men only like to sing loud boorish songs before war. And the services cater to the sensuality and self-help wants of young women, who are more easily retained with sentimentality and feel-good motivational seminars.

Which men hate. So where are they going?

Podcasts and sports.

Are women to blame? Of course not. Is this men "in crisis"? No.

Prison Behaviour: Studying The Extremes

If you want to study men and women at their most.... male and female, well, prison, or the human rat cage, is a fascinating and horrifying place to look. Men and women behave very differently in prison, and in extreme ways towards one another as opposites. Things are intensified to a truly insanely-amplified degree.

Male Prison Culture

In male prisons, hierarchy and dominance are linked to maintaining status or survival. Gang affiliation and the assertion of power through physical intimidation or violence are routine. Fights (or even murders) can break out over minor slights or as part of gang politics. Sexual violence is used as a tool for dominance. Mental health problems manifest in violence, substance abuse, anger, and depression.

Female Prison Culture

Female inmates tend to form pseudo-family structures, with roles like "mother," "sister," or "daughter" offering emotional support and protection. Violence is more likely to be relational, stemming from personal disputes or conflicts within close-knit social groups. Female sexual behaviour becomes hyperactive, with prisoners engaging in sexual relationships with each other because of emotional need. Mental health problems manifest as internalising behaviors such as self-harm, depression, or anxiety.

More on this:

• "Men's and Women's Prisons: Gender Differences in Inmate Behavior," Journal of Criminology
• Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Sexual Victimization in Prisons."
• "Gender Differences in Mental Health and Violence in Prisons," American Journal of Psychiatry

Explosion Time

When you put men and women together in jail buildings, things take an insane turn.

1. Male and female inmates attempt to assert dominance or manipulate each other using sexual advances which are far more overt than normal life.
2. Male inmates use physical intimidation or violence to control female inmates.
3. Women become more compliant or submissive in response to the threat of male aggression.
4. Sex is exchanged for protection, resources, or favours. Basic needs and personal safety are directly tied to them. Female inmates with histories of abuse experience increased emotional dependence on males.
5. Opposite-sex staff and inmates take advantage of each other at much higher rates. Male inmates exploit the emotional vulnerabilities of females, while women manipulate male by using their emotions or perceived vulnerability, to gain resources, protection, or other benefits.

More:

• Smith, B. "Gender Dynamics in Co-Ed Prisons: A Comparative Study," Journal of Prison Studies.
• Haney, C. "The Impact of Gender and Sexuality in Co-Ed Correctional Facilities," American Psychological Association.

Incidentally, homosexual predisposition is correlated in a rather uncomfortable way for the LBT1234948303+ "community", which is one of those awkward data points everyone would rather no-one talk about. The LGBTs are 300% more likely to be in jail than the straights.

This is apparent because of all the "adversity" they suffer. The more "adversity" you suffer, the more likely you are to be a drug addicted, suicidal convicted criminal with psychiatric problems. Who is gay.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have consistently shown that non-heterosexual individuals have an elevated risk of abuse in childhood (Friedman et al., 2011), other forms of criminal victimization with age (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012; Myers et al., 2020; Toomey & Russel, 2016), vulnerability to substance use (Goldbach et al., 2014; King et al., 2008; Marshal et al., 2008), elevated risk of psychiatric problems (King et al., 2008; Semlyen et al., 2016), as well as an increased vulnerability to suicidal behaviors (King et al., 2008; Miranda-Mendizábal et al., 2017).

Decades ago, some indications emerged suggesting that lesbians were, for example, more likely to be involved in physical aggression and crime compared to heterosexual females (Ellis et al., 1990; Pinhey & Brown, 2005).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-024-02902-9

Remember, reality has a strong far-right fascist bias. It's not happening, and if you say it is, it's because you're a racist incel bigot.

Wider Choice = Wider Gender Split

As one infamous study made clear long ago, the more you allow men and women to be "equal" and express their own choices, the more polar their choices and preferences become. They do not merge into one "same" type of human as ideology predicts, they express increasingly disparate preferences based on their personality and the traits of their natural sex.

The reported evidence indicates that higher levels of economic development and gender equality favor the manifestation of gender differences in preferences across countries.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aas9899

Put simply, the the wealthier and more equal things get, the more men and women diverge in what they pursue. It's known as the "gender equality paradox": https://nordicparadox.se/

Men not engaging in things women naturally prefer is not a "crisis".

Are men in crisis for not collecting home decor pictures?

Are men "in crisis" for not liking social media?

They are watching things about video games.

But women are watching something completely different.

And they think differently about the intent behind an action than the act itself.

And they like teaching smaller children.

Are women "in crisis" for not taking on hazardous jobs?

Are men "in crisis" for not doing their "fair share" of prostitution?

Or their fair share of performing pornography?

Should men be changing their method of serial killing to be more equitable?

Are men "in crisis" for being underrepresented in homosexual behaviour?

Should they be doing their bit to level up the diagnoses of serious mental health disorders?

Are men "in crisis" for not restricting their dietary intake enough?

Just which sex has a "loneliness epidemic" in the country with the "happiest" quality of life and most fashionable female prime minister?

How should we deal with the crisis in drug addiction?

Or the suicide rate for this crisis?

Are women, in general, as a sex, to blame? Of course not. Are "unrealistic beauty standards" and "social constructs" to blame? Obviously not. Does any of it have to be a battle of the sexes? It's absurd.

What is hilarious, and sad, about the "gender neutral" activism across industries and institutions is it is self-defeating due to its paradoxical nature which we've known forever. Our biology dictates almost everything. The more you make things "equal", the wider the gender preference distribution becomes. Which means the current attempts to remove "gendered language" and gender distinctions will not achieve the activists utopia of 51/49 - ahem, 50/50 so-called "representation" and distributive "fairness", will exacerbate the divide. If you make descriptions the same, it won't encourage more women to do things, it will make them want to do more "woman-things" or make their activities more "woman-like".

Make it easy for women to become CEOs, and the less of them will choose to - because the ability to choose will produce the exact opposite. When you have a free choice (without having to work, for example), you actually make the choice you want to do rather than what you need to do.

You'll get female CEOs of companies based around female interests (people, generally-speaking), and male CEOs based around everything else (or "things'). Because largely, most women don't want to be CEOs or enjoy it. When they are free to choose it, they won't. Good for them.

And it will end up a bit like this:

This obviously annoys activists greatly, because women are supposed to do what they want and make the choices they demand. Reality is supposed to bend around ideology and experience is to submit to their "theory".

But of course, it makes the whole thing self-perpetuating, which is great for business!

Are men "in crisis" because they are not enjoying female school teachers, and not getting the grades they need to take university course they don't need or want? No.

Are men "in crisis" because they are participating less in corporations engaging in DEI and employing micro-aggression police? Unlikely. Possibly, but the risk/reward equation is variable. Or are they voting with their feet?

Are men "in crisis" because they're not going to church? Possibly.

Are men "in crisis" for avoiding the risks associated with pre-marital sex, or helping themselves to sexual reward not requiring any effort? No.

Are men "in crisis" because they are looking for marriage which is less likely to last longer or end in economic disaster for them? No.

Are men "in crisis" with opiates and suicide? Possibly, these things are also correlated to the prosperity of a society (see Finland's suicide epidemic).

So if they've checked out, where are they then?

• Instead of the classroom, they're self-educating with AI and YouTube.
• Instead of working at corporations, they're looking at manual trades and e-business.
• Instead of dating domestic women obsessed with social media, they're watching porn, dating immigrants, and looking for wives overseas.
• Instead of renting in the crowded cities, they're working remote and aspiring to build homesteads in cheaper rural areas, or emigrating.
• Instead of reading newspapers and watching TV, they're watching podcasts.
• Instead of going to nightclubs or talking on the phone, they're playing video games and chatting on Discord.
• Instead of drinking or meth, they're buying off-label prescription meds (Adderall or opiates).
• They're not going to church, and they're finding it hard to replace. Philosophy and history lectures counter-culture on YouTube make up a little for sermons.

Could it be that it's not men in crisis? Could it be it's women in crisis, wanting it to be men? Or wanting men to join them in it?

Could it be women are (rightly and understandably) distressed at being left behind, don't know where the men are, or where to find them? Because as our choices have increased, the common ground where we meet is much wider and thinner than before, and nobody is to blame?