Is It Really That Bad Out There, Guys?

     I’ve been “out of the game” for more than thirty years, so I don’t really know what it’s like to be unwillingly unmated. I do know that there are a lot of men, from young adults all the way up to my age and beyond, who are either in that category or in an even more painful one: mated to a woman who’s turned cold and indifferent toward them. The search for a woman’s love – real love, the sort that provides him the physical affirmation and emotional sustenance he needs when he needs it – has become a truly agonizing feature of male Americans’ existence.

     In great part, that agony stems from the twisting of American women’s psyches. Forces have converged on American women that have warped them into a unique variety of solipsism. The majority of them are psychologically wrapped around themselves as “victims,” “oppressed,” “underappreciated,” “marginalized,” et cetera ad nauseam infinitam. Simultaneously, those forces have done their damnedest to denigrate American men and masculinity generally. That pincer attack on love practically guaranteed the chilling of male-female relations into something resembling a demilitarized zone.

     I could spend a hundred thousand words on this, but it’s sufficient that my Gentle Readers see the outlines of the problem. What has my boiler lit this misty moisty morning is something I’ve only just learned about, courtesy of Misanthropic Humanitarian: a technological response to the subject that’s had interesting consequences:

     Artificial intelligence-powered girlfriends, or chatbots programmed to provide companionship, are gaining traction.
     This is especially the case with those who are struggling with loneliness or navigating the complexities of real-world relationships.
     These AI companions can engage in conversation, offer words of encouragement, and even adapt their personalities based on user interaction.

     That’s intriguing and somewhat worrisome all by itself, but we haven’t yet reached the Sunday punch:

     My.Club, specifically, provides a similar experience to any online chat interaction you would have on social platforms.
     Except, the platform, which uses an AI feature called “Digital Twin,” doesn’t create AI girlfriends out of thin air.
     Instead, the virtual models are replicas created by real-life models who have brought them to life with their personalities, images, and minds.

     I added the emphasis. Ponder the implications while I make more coffee.

     The universe of opinion writers will provide every sort of analysis, justification, riposte, and rebuttal of the whys of this phenomenon. But for me, the tragic heart of the thing is implied by that emphasized sentence above.

     A woman who has a “personality, image, and mind” that appeals to the emotional needs of men, and can be implemented as an AI chatbot, isn’t necessarily a rare thing. It’s quite possible that there are many such women, and that many of them are unmated. But we must assume that the women who allow themselves to be used in this fashion are unavailable to the men who interact with their AI avatars. Possible reasons abound; I need not enumerate them here. Still, if they’re available as chatbot-implementations, they must be out there in the flesh.

     He’s searching, or has searched, for her real instantiation. Why is his search so frequently in vain?

     To be fair, sometimes it isn’t in vain. Sometimes he can’t offer her what she needs. And sometimes the problem is one of space, time, or circumstance. Still, the existence, and rising popularity, of those pseudo-women suggests that the larger problem – that “demilitarized zone” between the sexes that has caused so much frustration and sorrow – is soluble.

     Frustration is not indefinitely sustainable. If he becomes convinced that she’s not really available to him, he’ll look for a substitute, or an alternative outlet, or some combination thereof. The AI chatbots are an example of what men desperate for love and support will accept, temporarily if not permanently.

     Yet we know from the above that the problem is soluble: i.e., that there are real women capable of the sort of constructive, sustainable romantic relationship he seeks. I’d go further: I maintain that the great majority of women are capable of it. However badly contemporary pressures and trends have warped women’s beliefs and behavior today, they could un-warp tomorrow should they choose to do so.

     Attack my proposition from the contrapositive. If it were not so – if the knowledge of what it takes to be a good companion and helpmeet to a decent man were for some reason unavailable – would the chatbots be possible?

     There are important non-emotional obstacles to the restoration of “traditional” romantic expectations and accommodations. Have a snippet from an analyst in the far future:

     “[A]s a people grows wealthy, it ceases to breed. Earth data does indeed suggest that. The richest of Earth’s nations had fertilities below replacement level—below the rate at which the population could sustain its numbers, much less increase them.
     “As it happens, those very rich societies had become obsessed with what they called ‘youth culture,’ and the concomitant assumption that the young deserved whatever they might happen to want. What the young mostly wanted, then as now, was playthings. Families with young children routinely buried themselves in children’s toys, some of which were crafted to appeal to an adult’s frivolous side as well.
     “Now, we know from historical data that predators of all sorts will concentrate where the prey is fattest. The State, which is merely an organized band of predators with a veneer of legitimacy derived either from tradition or from a manufactured appearance of the consent of its subjects, took a huge fraction of its subjects’ annual production from them in taxes. A typical State would increase its exactions on its subjects faster than those subjects could increase their own fortunes. That compelled wage earners to strive ever harder just to run in place, with obvious consequences for production and marketing. Of course, after some point has been reached, the economic frontier will be purely discretionary items: entertainments, diversions, toys, and the like. Thus, the ever-accelerating production of junk was reinforced by two powerful impetuses.”
     […]
     “Families are the fundamental building blocks of a stable society. Extended families—clans—are the best conceivable environment for the rearing of children, the perpetuation of a commercial forte, and the germination of new families and their ventures. A clan like yours, Miss Albermayer, conserves a brilliant genetic line and a priceless medical specialty at the same time. A clan like yours, Mr. Morelon, makes possible a benign agricultural empire and produces natural leaders one after another while connecting Hope to its most distant origins. And all healthy families, which cherish life and bind their members to one another in unembarrassed love, can find far more to occupy and amuse them than they need.
     “When Earth’s regard for families and their most fundamental function deteriorated, her people ceased to enjoy the sorts of ties that had held them together throughout the history of Man. Without families, and especially without children, they groped for other things to fill their time, whether to give them a sense of purpose, or to distract them from the waning of their lives. Some invested themselves in industry or commerce, but without the sense of the family line to be built up and made prominent, those things failed to satisfy. Others immersed themselves in games, toys, fripperies, and increasingly bizarre forms of entertainment, which palled on them even faster. Still others made a fetish out of sex; there was a substantial sex industry on Earth, though it tended to operate in the shadows and was seldom openly discussed. They needed emotion and substance, but all they could contrive was sensation and novelty, and they pumped an ever greater share of their effort and wealth into seeking them. That’s my thesis, for what it’s worth.”

     Listen to the man. The most prestigious university on Hope didn’t give him the Genet Chair in Sociology for the elegance of his haircut.

     I could go in many directions from here, but I’ll spare you. It’s Monday, after all. I’ll conclude with this: Consider the burgeoning of the “traditional wife and homemaker” pattern, which is now being adopted by an increasing number of young women. One of its best known practitioners, Estee Williams, has a fair number of pieces on YouTube. If she’s faking it, I can’t tell, and I fancy myself a good judge of sincerity.

     But having noted Mrs. Williams and the pattern of which she’s an exemplar, allow me to note this as well: Angry voices are being raised against her and that pattern. Some of them are familiar from decades past; others are artifacts of more recent trends. They’re united in their hostility to her message and their determination to turn young women away from it. Their ideological standard-bearer is Simone de Beauvoir:

     “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

     If you were wondering about the “death cults” tag at the start of this essay, there’s your explanation.

     I’ll end this screed with a few questions for the ladies in the Liberty’s Torch audience:

     Should you find yourself wondering whether there might be something more satisfying and enduring than money and work, in what direction will you look?
     Should you find yourself beset by nameless anxieties and formless fears, to whom will you turn for protection and security?
     When you look up from your transient personal concerns to contemplate society’s grand vista, and you see the sweet and pretty women going in one direction, and the “angry ugly girls” (Duyen Ky) going in the opposite one, which will you prefer: for your children, your young friends, or yourself?

     Need I say more?