Stefan Molyneux Is Back, And Even He’s Tired Of Men Complaining On The Internet

Of course, in the interest of being fair to Molyneux, this biological clock hysteria isn’t necessarily borne out of malice, but a philosophical advocation for pronatalism; something he sees not only as a societal good, but something that would make most men and women happier and more fulfilled than if they were to miss the reproductive boat. 

Nevertheless, it has prompted some ominous tweets “egging” on famous women with major influence, such as Taylor Swift, upon her 30th birthday, to hurry up and have kids before it’s too late. “She’d be a fun mom :)” Molyneux tweets. Almost amicable enough to make you forget the previous sentences: “It's strange to think that 90% of her eggs are already gone - 97% by the time she turns 40.”

The philosopher-king I’m sure would insist my claiming these tweets were incredibly creepy is “not an argument.” In fact, he maintains his belief that, somehow, that tweet “summoned 60,000 babies into existence.” “Few understand my methods,” he teased. Indeed, few do. Some might even argue his methods have placed disproportionate pressure on conservative ‘trad’ identifying women to reproduce prematurely or contrary to their instinct that they weren’t ready or hadn’t chosen the right partner yet lest they become “wasted goods.” 

The fearmongering around women’s dwindling fertility had ramped up significantly in right wing intellectual spaces in the late 2010s, Molyneux being one of the chief proponents. While I’m certain he’s successfully influenced some proportion of people to have kids, I’d also argue his rhetoric is responsible for a non-insignificant number of women resigning themselves to problematic arrangements against their better judgment, out of fear that their pronatalist, conservative audience would judge them for their shortcomings of the marital and procreative variety.

His years-long departure from major platforms like X and YouTube following multi-platform bans for “spam and platform manipulation” and “promoting hate speech” have left him in a bizarre ideological cryochamber, frozen in time. At least, that’s how disenfranchised young men in right wing ideological bubbles that congregate on X see it. It might shock you then to find that the latest target of his reproductive ire is actually modern young men. Maybe a new meme genre will be borne out of this discourse—dwindling sperm reserves, perhaps? 

Given Molyneux’s legacy leaning decidedly more Men's Rights Activist than feminist, it's been amusing to watch younger men, who perhaps weren't politically engaged during Molyneux’s peak or who have been radicalized by Gen Z Boss and a Mini videos, accuse him of posting “boomer feminist nonsense.” 

To clarify, yes, Molyneux, the infamous "empty egg carton" guy, still soft-harassing Taylor Swift over her purportedly 95% depleted egg reserves is now deemed too “milquetoast,” “feminist,” and liberal for contemporary X discourse. That alone should indicate how severely gender relations have regressed. At least, in these online political echo chambers.

Molyneux’s apparent "crimes"? Refusing to indulge young men’s victim complexes or reinforce their diminishing sense of agency through learned helplessness. He’s spent a considerable amount of his career dedicated to eviscerating modern feminism and its cascade effects. Namely, single motherhood, women prioritizing careers over family formation, anti-male bias in schools and the legal system. It would be accurate to characterize his content as explicitly “anti-feminist.”

Upon his return, one of his first notable interactions was a minor spat with the prolific poster RFH, whose radical feminist identity is somewhat of a misnomer—more of a bit than an avowed ideology. She owes much of her rise to the incoherent ramblings of popular manosphere and red-pill communities. Her account often serves as a mirror to expose the absurdities that are so often uncritically parroted by red pill accounts, mocking them with references to men “riding the pussy carousel.”

Their disagreements ranged first over supposed anti-male bias in schooling contributing to falling birth rates. Molyneux claimed, "Moms turned their sons over to an anti-male school system, then wonder why no grandkids..." then they squabbled over whether people who have wronged you are entitled to forgiveness, evolutionary psychology, and Molyneux couldn’t help but squeak in a “girly emotions are not an argument” quip in there.

When Molyneux last dominated the online culture war, the socio-political landscape was, well, different, to say the least. I've documented how the right’s once-righteous pushback against third-wave feminism’s excesses gradually became co-opted by actors whose resentment toward women devolved into outright sadism. It brings me no joy to report that a good brunt of contemporary cultural cringe is no longer spewing out of the woke establishment (largely defunct after the 2020 election). A lot of it is now coming from inside the house.

In the 2020s, a good portion of the online right has shamelessly descended into overt misogyny, persecution complexes, entitlement, and eroded personal agency. For every toxic, unproductive, and incoherent axiom feminists lauded and mainstreamed in the 2010s, the right’s new MGTOW-inspired offshoots now present their own equivalent brands of learned helplessness. Perhaps the most fitting example of this is the sort of accounts that Molyneux’s unobjectionable tweets have inspired, with names like Gender Studies for Men spamming his mentions with biased documents full of lists of reasons men are not getting married, including such objective reasons as "men have NO rights in marriage."

Molyneux clocked this vibe shift swiftly, oscillating from his trademark smarmy anti-feminist snarks about women’s emotionalism, societal destructiveness, or maternal culpability in abuse, to outright incredulity at the degree of demoralization wafting over young men online. It was like watching someone frozen in a cryogenic time capsule, slowly unfreezing, processing real-time updates, and hastily adjusting his talking points accordingly.

In an ironic twist, he started to enter his radfem era after encountering these resentful, terminally online doomers who whine about women but refuse to improve themselves or take any modicum of responsibility for their lives. It's like you could see him realizing in real time why RFH was a much-needed cultural response to this toxicity and how he couldn't believe the quality and morale of right wing men had disintegrated so extremely. These guys have an excuse for everything and a scapegoat for every situation. It’s always someone else’s fault they can’t get a girlfriend or get married or have children. They’ll blame the government, feminism, the Me Too movement, divorce rates, the economy, family courts, and modern women. 

He could smell the stench of nihilism emanating off their anon accounts. It’s not that he didn’t recognize their unique struggles. It’s the hysterics he can’t contend with—the insistence that these men face the most extreme, unrelenting suffering any generation of men have ever faced. That their opting out is the rational choice due to the untenability of finding a suitable woman to settle down with in this modern world.

In a subtweet clearly about Molyneux, Margzilla says, "If you haven't been in the dating game since post 2020, respectfully, shut the f*** up. You legitimately have no idea what's going on out there." Molyneux responds, "Oh shut up. My generation faced the imminent threat of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War. You face some fat feminists." In keeping with the histrionics, another replier claimed social media has "been the equivalent of nuclear holocaust" on the dating scene. Totally measured takes!

Molyneux amusingly responded, "Does that seem like a bit of an excessive analogy?" Terra Draca replied to inquire where exactly you’re supposed to go meet women these days. “Online dating is a complete wasteland. Bars aren't much better. Flirting at work or in most public settings has become expressly forbidden."

Molyneux’s followers began making fun of him, "wow a war that never happened?" "The destruction of all life on the planet was far more likely than going to jail for saying 'hi' to a woman in a coffee shop," Molyneux replied. Some men with hundreds of thousands of followers unironically countered Molyneux's call for rationalism with the sentiment that because the risk isn't zero, it isn't worth it. Molyneux was dumbfounded by the poor risk assessment. "You are almost infinitely more likely to be hit by a bus or car going to the coffee shop than going to jail for talking to a woman in that coffee shop. Yet still you go."

Molyneux was taken aback. "Saying 'hi' to a woman in a coffee shop has been expressively forbidden? What now? I chat with people all the time." Another totally reasonable guy affirms, "Yes, there are actual legal risks and consequences to such actions." Molyneux presses, "What are the legal risks of saying 'hi' to a woman at a coffee shop?"

Hundreds of snarky replies rolled in, blaming everything from women getting “the ick” and labeling men creepy, to women baiting men for attention only to shame them afterward, even citing that viral Starbucks incident where a barista wrote on a woman’s cup asking if she wanted him to intervene when another man approached her as likely consequence of hitting on women. The general consensus of these embittered replyguys was, "approaching women in public can lead to legal or professional consequences now," ranging in hysterics from social shaming to “the system” preventing you from asking a girl out for coffee to “simps beating you up.” 

"One mentally ill Starbucks worker a million miles away has convinced you to stop talking to women?" Molyneux asked. But many doubled down on their persecutory delusions. "That's all it takes to ruin your life these days, Stefan." Any skepticism from Molyneux was dismissed as him being behind or out of touch with the zeitgeist. The responses will give you some insight to just how much damage dating discourse has done to young men who spend too much time online. They have, in every sense of the word, been "oneshotted" by it. 

"Damn wtf is up with the dumb boomer anecdotes, go ahead go say hi to a woman in a coffee shop, chances are if you don't tick her boxes precisely which is being 10/10 with a certain height you will get shamed, best case scenario you'll be told 'i have a bf' which is 99% what happens to most average looking dudes, worst case scenario you gonna sleep in jail that night," commented one X user. 

While Molyneux was still reeling from the realization that masses of men refuse to approach women in public because of severe paranoia, TheFertilePeasant offered the first reasonable take I'd seen all day. “I think that a contributing factor might be that a certain number of people have bad interpersonal boundaries and poor social skills to the extent that the difference between being able to approach women civilly and being 'creepy' is invisible to them. Part of that is that many women, out of self-preservation, have learned to be very subtle in their rejection.”

Others have been seemingly possessed by online dating discourse talking points to the point of caricature. "The problem as it's been explained to me is looksmatching isn't working anymore. Dating apps playing a huge part. Soft-harms are back for the top 20% of men. The average girl is bamboozled into thinking she can get the Chad, becomes vicious to her looksmatch.” Some men insisted their fears are rational because "80% of divorces are initiated by women (90% if she's college educated) she's going to have to make it very clear that she wants me before I do anything that drastic. There's too much to risk these days." Molyneux succinctly rebutted, "College educated women are much less likely to divorce you."

This prompted Molyneux to feel some contempt for this lack of gratitude for societal and social progress, tweeting "I can't believe the number of people here who are trying to convince me that their medieval ancestors had it easier. I studied the medieval period extensively in my graduate degree. Y'all have lost it." This triggered his followers, who responded "you sound like a liberal woman." One guy responded, "Divorce was death in those days, not leave with 1/2 your stuff and your kids." He doubled down on the comparisons to past generations, "Men got married and had children right after two world wars, under the shadow of nuclear annihilation. Billions of men are currently getting married and having children. I sympathize with your fears, but your excuses are not real." 

Some seem to need to reinforce their abstinence from the dating market with confirmation bias, convincing themselves getting in a relationship with a modern woman will end in divorce, her taking all your money, home, and custody of the kids "she didn't abort." Thankfully, we have people like Molyneux who are affirming the sage wisdom that “quality women are the ultimate asset. I'm so sorry you can't attract a quality woman.” Molyneux defended the institution of marriage for its various psychological, health, and financial benefits and put to rest this troublesome myth that any one person’s risk of divorce is totally random or that oft-repeated dubious statistic, 50%. "I showed everyone how to statistically reduce their risk of divorce to about 5%." Molyneux tweeted. "Marriage comes with significant health/happiness/sexual benefits for men. And kids!"

It was somewhat of a relief to see Molyneux take a short break from browbeating women about their egg counts to at least apply this burden of responsibility to men, too. He gave a reality check, "MEN! STOP using women for sex and then go around complaining about feminism! If you exploit women, of COURSE they will resent men! If you don't see her as a POTENTIAL mother for your children, WALK AWAY!" Molyneux gained some much needed perspective, and started firing on all cylinders in his countersignal. "Men used to survive war, famine, tyranny, and plagues - and reproduce. Now you all are dying out because modern women are ‘difficult.’ Why did your ancestors even bother?”

He reminded men that though asking women out is scary, it's an absolutely necessary rite of passage. Men don't have to deal with menstrual cramps, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, menopause, etc. All they have to do is ask women out. "It's a pretty good deal really." As much as men cited modern women’s obesity rates, tattoos, colored hair, piercings, and other abrasive physiognomic signifiers as disincentives, Molyneux suggested they have some gratitude that women now advertise their dysfunction rather than the crazy women of the past who camouflaged as normies. “So much easier to avoid!”

He beckoned for men to remember that if you wait too long to date, the good women are taken. "If you are left with the leftovers, don't confuse them with 'female nature.' If you had a single mother, same. That's like women judging all men by the drunks who refuse to leave when the bar closes." He also warned that "If you've never had a girlfriend by your early to mid 20s, you signal to women that you lack courage, motivation and self-worth. You will also be perceived as being addicted to let us say - 'online self-satisfaction.' Delaying dating only makes it worse. ASK! IT'S NOW OR NEVER!" This is generally good advice. It’s true that all of these behaviors are a self fulfilling prophecy. 

Men have convinced themselves the dating landscape is so precarious that trying is futile. So, they imbue themselves with propaganda to justify their refusal to approach women as self-protection. If they’re stuck in limbo for years because of extreme risk aversion, they’re only left with their pick of the remaining low hanging fruit and then extrapolate these traits onto all women. By scapegoating things like women’s empowerment through education, they also ensure they’re self selecting for poor mates. It is in fact college educated women in their 30s who are the least likely to divorce. 

Alexander, who writes online as Datepsych and holds an MSc in Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience, researches attractiveness and dating dynamics and has conducted his own research on risk aversion, finding that 45% of 18 to 25 year old men haven't approached a woman in the last year, despite the overwhelming majority of women expressing that they wished men would approach them more often. What’s more, he found that the men who have approached are doing remarkably well. 

Of the men he polled who have approached women, more than half have gotten a date from it. He also conducted research on locus of control and dating difficulties and found that people with higher internal locus of control (more agentic) report having fewer difficulties dating. It’s curious, then, that Molyneux’s push to reject the blackpill and simply try is met with such scorn, given that it’s objectively far more fruitful and productive than the alternative.