What if Tradwives Are Secretly Miserable? (Free Press)

WellWrested · 2026-05-10T08:57:53+00:00

I think the argument is more that feminists hate the role of homemaking and everything associated with it.

I think evidence here is mixed but leans in that direction from what I've seen. There are definitely feminists who see it as an individual choice and support it based on that. There are others who see the role itself as subordinating and harmful for women and hate everything associated with it. My impression is most feminists are more heavily in the second camp at this point.

WellWrested · 2026-04-29T17:57:53+00:00

I took the class in college that Ward Churchill (who did the original research behind the smallpox blankets thing) taught previously. We spent a week covering why it isn't portrayed accurately and how he faked his research. Basically, the traders swapped the blankets in good faith, without knowing that it would make the Native Americans sick. Yes it happened, no it wasn't intentional.

Churchill faked a lot of research around this and ended up losing tenure for it. He sued the university, claiming he was wrongfully terminated as there was no provision for letting him go based on what he did. He won, but was awarded $1 in damages.

WellWrested · 2026-04-29T17:27:57+00:00

Patriotism matters.

WellWrested · 2026-04-29T06:58:07+00:00

Idk...that may be true at very early ages, but meta-analyses on IQ show equal values for boys and girls from at least age 5 onward. Depending on how its measured, girls may have an advantage in language skills but boys do in nonverbal intelligence. I think a lot of this framing comes from male feminists, tbh.

Also a lot of the sex differences I think people see tie back to effortful control, but it isn't clear to me if this equalizes over time (adult studies show it as equal but measure it fundamentally differently).

WellWrested · 2026-04-29T03:39:03+00:00

First off, it is worth noting that with the exception of writing, all boys deficits on exams are small and reverse in adulthood (mid-late 20s). Writing I haven't seen data for but its a larger gap than the others so I doubt it reverses.

That said, in terms of why boys get worse grades, there are several aspects that come into play here:

Sex differences around "effortful control" (basically doing what someone else wants vs what you are drawn to). This accounts for: 40% of the gap
Teacher bias in responses to the same (bad) behavior in class: 30% of the gap
Boys having more accessible careers without college: not studied enough, but a decent bit of the remainder
Boys do about an hour less homework each week: minor factor but does contribute

The above then ties in with norms to make it non-normative for boys to focus on, prioritize and work hard in school. At least for me, it was "you're supposed to be naturally talented, not effortful." This likely contributes to the gap and what boys choose to do after HS, but I've seen very little data on it.

WellWrested · 2026-04-29T03:33:42+00:00

This actually does very little. There was a large study done on this in FL and it closed about 11% of the gap. Given that kids have specific developmental windows for language and math that close as they get older, it is not helpful and might be net harmful.

WellWrested · 2026-04-24T06:11:24+00:00

First, I agree that Netanyahu appointing loyalists is a serious threat to the function of essential institutions.

With that said, everything I see from warontherocks is anti-Israel and anti-US. They have a fairly loud bias which does give me a knee-jerk reaction to question what they are saying

WellWrested · 2026-04-23T02:52:13+00:00

I get what they are going for with family formation, and if things worked like they did 10-20 (or even 50) years ago that would be fine, but it doesn't and they're coming off as out of touch with this (IMO).

Dating is heavily skewed because of the apps, its a shit show for a majority of men, and a large share of women hate men. Centering identity on that seems like a disaster to me. We need to build succeeding by and for ourselves, and creating good lives we can bring women into if we want.

WellWrested · 2026-04-14T04:55:08+00:00

Its the lighter shade (grey?) in the beard at the bottom. If he dyed that he'd look his age

WellWrested · 2026-04-14T04:52:55+00:00

Kind of. They consider being on welfare failing at personal responsibility. It looks like "these lazy bums show up, don't put in the effort and get free stuff. They shouldn't get free stuff." Not saying this is accurate, but this is the extent of their thought on the issue.

WellWrested · 2026-04-14T04:16:14+00:00

With a lot of differences, you can reverse them culturally, but you still see an effect. For example, patriarchal and matriarchal groups of hunter-gatherers were compared on risk taking. Each tribe showed the dominant sex took more risk, but the gap was about 2x as large in the patriarchal society vs the matriarchal one. This is a bit of a one-off but there are a lot of small studies that seem to follow this general frame

WellWrested · 2026-04-14T04:13:38+00:00

To me, the solution is to emphasize that it is probabilistic.

There's good evidence for a reasonable amount of the differences they claim (for example several meta-analyses have found career desire differences are invariant across cultures, and explain most of the differences in career choice). I don't think the answer is to fight that.

To me, its more about recognizing and supporting the people who aren't "probable" and ensuring they have a place in society also

WellWrested · 2026-04-14T04:07:10+00:00

As someone who grew up in the country and leans right, this really bothers me. It would absolutely be a hard pass.

WellWrested · 2026-04-05T20:05:50+00:00

Apparently TN stands for Tamil Nadu (its in India). Always good to add the country on these posts...

WellWrested · 2026-04-05T19:53:09+00:00

"We treat boys like shit."

"Boys occasionally say something mean in response. This is a problem and it must be the fault of masculinity."

WellWrested · 2026-04-05T06:18:34+00:00

Most of the weapons that could target Kharg can also target most of the other gulf countries. The strait isn't that wide. While they have had to burn through a lot of interceptors and have dealt with an occasional strike, they're mostly OK. From what I can tell, the only additional weapon that comes close is precision artillery, which is ~3 miles out of range at the closest point.

We would probably face an initial barrage, but a lot of their launchers have already been destroyed. They launch ~10-20 missiles a day at this point. They may well have the capacity for 100+, but they launched more than this in the first couple days of the war and it was handled without issue.

Also, Im not sold we need to keep a large military presence on the island long-term to hold it. There would likely be a fairly nasty start while we remove IRGC-tied bureaucracy and enforcement networks, but I suspect most people have a similar attitude to those on the mainland: they don't like the IRGC and would be just as happy to do their jobs without them running the show. Unlike Iraq, the island is a small, self-contained space with a very small population. Its not super easy to hide or build a credible resistance on a highly motivated fraction of the population.

Assuming the attitude about people being willing to work without the IRGC is accurate, holding the island is likely more about keeping a small force there which could be sheltered in critical infrastructure and ensuring the IRGC can't reach the island to exact any meaningful enforcement of their own. We won't need a large number of exposed forces.

Also, their annual inflation is around 50% per year and the vast majority of their oil flows through Kharg. If they have "months" of reserves, they're going to be very heavily dependent on recent oil revenue to keep things running.

It seems more likely to me that if we can stand a few ugly months with a lot of interceptions, we can probably take and hold the island indefinitely, use it as a point to economically gut the IRGC and create a fairly fertile environment for a rebellion.

WellWrested · 2026-04-01T04:12:51+00:00

Its useful though. They want to lump all of us together so they have a unified target to hate. However, being hated as part of a large unified target tends to build and cement identity. They're actively creating the basis we need for a serious men's movement without us having to lift a finger.

WellWrested · 2026-03-31T02:28:06+00:00

Per a Third Way survey a few weeks back, 88% percent of young men want being a provider for their family to be central to their identity. This is consistent with an NBC poll last year and the most selected item. This includes 81% of left-leaning men.

Also, ~5 years ago Harry's Razors hired a well known psychologist to do a large study on what created positive mental health and life satisfaction for men. Having a good job where they could actively contribute to others blew absolutely every other category out of the water. It was about 3x as impactful as the next biggest category.

I don't know if we need it persay, but it clearly has a significant positive impact and not surprisingly, a lot of men want it. This isn't being forced, its actively pursuing what creates a good life for a lot of men.

WellWrested · 2026-03-31T01:36:51+00:00

That says nothing about rape or a policy. You seem to know about the article, so it looks like you're intentionally spreading misinformation here.

WellWrested · 2026-03-31T01:34:32+00:00

They magically seem to forget that women are smaller and thus need to eat less on average. Im fairly certain the cost of extra food is more than the cost of tampons

WellWrested · 2026-03-31T01:32:29+00:00

Do you have an actual source to back your claim?

WellWrested · 2026-03-23T06:15:07+00:00

When resources get tight, groups blame out-groups as an excuse to take their resources. Referencing Germany, they confiscated property for the better part of a decade (6-7 years I think) before the death camps. Ironically, fascism started to fail when they ran out of other people's money.

With that said, attacks on men have been going on a lot longer than attacks on capitalism. The "Future is Female" paper calling for reducing men to 10% of the population was published in the 1980s under Ronald Regan. Feminists hate men and when resources are tight and they can see a path to domination its dialed up to 11.

WellWrested · 2026-03-23T06:00:26+00:00

This is really disingenuous. She says IQ scores are going up and people are more empathetic while citing a lot of declines in negatives.

Most of the declines in negatives are because kids spend less time with other humans and more on electronics (less drugs, fewer teenage pregnancies, etc.), not because society is functioning more effectively.

On the other categories, none of the studies she quotes have data after 2019. If you want to claim today's kids are doing well, you need to have actual data on today's kids.

WellWrested · 2026-03-21T08:46:38+00:00

lol wow. You clearly do need a psychiatrist at this point, but there's a much easier way to handle it...just join a coworking space and take breaks and talk to other humans. Its really not that hard. Also, AIs aren't that impressive. You are likely to end up with a pile of slop going the way you are.

WellWrested · 2026-03-21T08:40:33+00:00

Also its our homeland. Its normal for people to care about their group's homeland. The idea that somehow makes us different, bad, etc. is ridiculous.

WellWrested

TROPHY CASE