I am an early zoomer and I mostly agree. I think the phenomenon is basically unsophisticated. The unfortunate reality is that the larger part of the socially disenfranchised zoomer boy dissy right—even when restricted to the “sensitives” of the first quartile—is as philistine and as aesthetically unformed as The World that it resents. The formula is: pretty blonde girl + mediaverse that they feel home in + postmodern characteral subversion + arousal + substantive but incomplete social license for arousal = girl-brained post-hoc moralization of arousal, except further sublimated as aestheticization. In other words, Malfoid is Barnes & Noble “romance novel” goyslop pornography except for dissyright faggotboys.
This is also what we would expect. The impulse to cope with low status by universalizing one’s gaze into that of a critic doesn’t obviate the fact that these boys are begotten as much as they are pariahed. Why are we surprised that a bunch of modern creatures who (correctly) describe the modern world as creating mostly retards are also mostly retards?
Malfoid makes sense from a real-world perspective when you consider that the people who peddle it have never been bullied in their lives because we banned bullying. And so to project any kind of personal experience onto the books as they read them, they project the concept of The Simp—because they are simps.
Something seems to have gone wrong in the analysis, because it isn't capturing a certain odd but crucial difference between Zoomer and Millennial boys. Zoomer boys have to contend with much more sex equality than Millennial boys did (everything you pointed out about girls earning more, having greater affiliation with prestige dispensaries, etc), but Millennial boys speak in and purport to the register of 2000s-era Sheryl Sandberg sex equality more than Zoomer boys, whereas Zoomer boys talk about their female peers in the language of Mad Men era male chauvinism while being the secretaries to their female peers who are sitting in the corner offices.
If anything I would've expected Millennial boys to go in for Malfoid much more?
With Millennial guys it's often a john mulaney bo burnham thing where he's obviously higher status than her and makes her feel better by constantly self depreciating whereas with zoomer boys you frequently have a dynamic where his lower status is held in a rakish or oppositional container. Ultimately what's salient is that Millennial men want a companionate container and are more comfy seeing her as the prize whereas zoomers find that degrading and the default courtship script is kind of adversarial like it was for Gen X
I am an early zoomer and I mostly agree. I think the phenomenon is basically unsophisticated. The unfortunate reality is that the larger part of the socially disenfranchised zoomer boy dissy right—even when restricted to the “sensitives” of the first quartile—is as philistine and as aesthetically unformed as The World that it resents. The formula is: pretty blonde girl + mediaverse that they feel home in + postmodern characteral subversion + arousal + substantive but incomplete social license for arousal = girl-brained post-hoc moralization of arousal, except further sublimated as aestheticization. In other words, Malfoid is Barnes & Noble “romance novel” goyslop pornography except for dissyright faggotboys.
This is also what we would expect. The impulse to cope with low status by universalizing one’s gaze into that of a critic doesn’t obviate the fact that these boys are begotten as much as they are pariahed. Why are we surprised that a bunch of modern creatures who (correctly) describe the modern world as creating mostly retards are also mostly retards?
Malfoid makes sense from a real-world perspective when you consider that the people who peddle it have never been bullied in their lives because we banned bullying. And so to project any kind of personal experience onto the books as they read them, they project the concept of The Simp—because they are simps.
Malfoid makes me upset :(
hmm
Something seems to have gone wrong in the analysis, because it isn't capturing a certain odd but crucial difference between Zoomer and Millennial boys. Zoomer boys have to contend with much more sex equality than Millennial boys did (everything you pointed out about girls earning more, having greater affiliation with prestige dispensaries, etc), but Millennial boys speak in and purport to the register of 2000s-era Sheryl Sandberg sex equality more than Zoomer boys, whereas Zoomer boys talk about their female peers in the language of Mad Men era male chauvinism while being the secretaries to their female peers who are sitting in the corner offices.
If anything I would've expected Millennial boys to go in for Malfoid much more?
With Millennial guys it's often a john mulaney bo burnham thing where he's obviously higher status than her and makes her feel better by constantly self depreciating whereas with zoomer boys you frequently have a dynamic where his lower status is held in a rakish or oppositional container. Ultimately what's salient is that Millennial men want a companionate container and are more comfy seeing her as the prize whereas zoomers find that degrading and the default courtship script is kind of adversarial like it was for Gen X