The morally inferior second sex is at it again. Yet another phenomenon which is good for men is held to be bad for women. Or so says a ridiculous study highlighted in today’s National Post. The study can be downloaded here.

The Findings

“The rise of the bromance “is very, very good for men,” said one of its authors, Professor Adam White . It offers young men the opportunity for, as the research found, “elevated emotional stability, enhanced emotional disclosure, social fulfilment and better conflict resolution, compared to the emotional lives they shared with girlfriends.”

“€œBeyond the need for sex, we found that for this cohort of men, bromances performed a very similar, and often superior function to romances.”

“But it’s not necessarily benefiting women, and in fact it may well be disadvantaging them,” White said.

“What happens in 50 years, say, if these bromantic relationships really take off and men decide, ‘Hang on, we really enjoy these. These are much better. We can gain more emotionality from it. We’re less regulated, we’re less policed,’” White said. “And therefore women actually just become the sexual fulfillers of men and nothing else. That’s the worrying aspect.”

Dalwhinnie predicts

Men will withdraw until their price goes up. Women who figure out that a man is a relatively scarce phenomenon first will prosper. And then watch the pendulum swing.

But just look at how this piece of sociology is constructed.

Sample size:

Would you base your important social findings on 30 interviews about the “bromantic” lives of male undergrads? In short it appears that the authors sought young hetero men who were living with other young hetero men.  Thirty interviews now constitutes real science, or sociology, at least.


The study  was published in Men and Masculinities, a journal ranked as 68th out of 138 in the category of sociology, according to Wikipedia.

Analysis, Dalwhinnie

For the past forty years we have been inundated in feminist blather – you know the line: over-privileged and frequently over-promoted middle class achieving women whining about the arduous nature of their sex’s role, the fact that everything that goes wrong in their lives is either the fault of men or biology, the patriarchy and anything but their characters and talents. Men growing up in the period since 1970 have heard nothing else.

It has always been true that the emotional lives of both sexes have been principally with their own sex, and that the relations between the two sexes were economic, sexual, and pro-genitive – they were purpose-driven, when the primary point of existence was progenitive (child-productive) marriage. The notion that the primary emotional bonds of men are exclusively with women, and women with men, is about as old as Betty Friedan.


I overheard in a bar last week a mannish woman and a feminine man strongly agreeing that:

  • women were shortly to be earning more than men
  • men would be relegated to second-class status
  • this would in some real sense be a desirable state of affairs
  • Young women were calling each other sluts as a term of approval, and not without reason.

So, let us review the state of affairs in the contemporary western world:

  • carping women with a deep sense of both grievance and entitlement;
  • people who cannot control their emotions (principally young sheltered women) insisting that other people then must control their own behaviour;
  • males who find that their freedom of expression and action is severely curtailed by their girlfriends;
  • declining male participation in overtly feminized educational (read ideological training) institutions;
  • An ideological environment in which the moral superiority of the female is endlessly proclaimed;
  • people talking about “campus rape culture” as if such as things existed outside the fevered brains of the lesbian thought police;
  • women seeking casual sex, and getting it, while complaining about men’s lack of commitment;

leading to

  • lack of family formation
  • population decline

I would say the problem is self-solving. And no, I do not think this is a sustainable state of affairs. It is sheer moral, social and cultural decadence.

But if a few straight guys want to live together and experience fraternity for a few years, that is “bad for women”. Let me be clear: what women want is men who are not going to kow-tow to feminist crap. Men will not argue the point, they will simply exemplify being men. Women may not say so, but leadership must come from the male. Males have done so for as long as there have been humans and men will continue to do so, despite anything you read.

Those men in need of strong remedial therapy from feminine domination are invited to explore a Sterling Men’s Weekend. More traditional methods of getting out of the house for respectable masculine company of a civilized sort are invited to enquire about the Masons. Masonic Lodges are active in every provincial, state, and local jurisdiction in every place formerly a part of the British, Romanoff and Hapsburg empires from Chile to Canada, and Russia to Australia.

The word “bromance” and articles like this suggest the Matriarchy is starting to be worried. They should be. Men have always gotten along. Now it appears to be quasi-revolutionary.

Or you can just watch Jordan Peterson.