We have greatly underestimated feminism’s harmful influence on millennials

This article was published at the Washington Examiner.

When it comes to the problems millennials face, we’re just not getting itAs I mentioned in my last post about the debt millennials have incurred, their predicament isn’t their fault. It is baby boomers who led millennials astray.

“We suffered from the educational debt phenomenon because when we couldn’t find jobs, a lot of us went to college. Or we got graduate degrees. Our boomer parents encouraged us to fund a lot of that with debt, on the premise that it would eventually pay off in the job market. But that was clearly wrong, and we’re paying the price for it,” writes Wall Street Journal columnist Joseph Sternberg in this interview about his new book, The Theft of a Decade: How the Baby Boomers Stole the Millennials’ Economic Future.

That is unquestionably true, but it’s not enough. Too few are willing to discuss the social narrative Boomers promoted that resulted in the economic troubles millennials now face. As Simon Sinek explains in this wildly successful video about millennials in the workplace, there are four pillars that landed millennials in the boat they’re in: parenting, technology, impatience, and environment.

“Too many millennials grew up subject to — not my words — failed parenting strategies,” notes Sinek. Millennials were routinely told, for instance, that they were special. They were told they could have “anything they want in life, just ’cause they want it.”

Once again, true. But there’s more to it than that. This message to which Sinek refers was specifically directed to girls by their feminist-minded mothers. Sinek talks about the self-esteem movement and the harm it’s done to millennials, and I agree. But we can’t separate the self-esteem movement from the feminist movement. They’re two sides of the same coin.

The self-esteem movement says, “There’s no one quite like you. You’re amazing. Go — seize the world.” And feminism says, “Your mothers’ lives were constrained. Don’t live the way they did — reach for the stars instead!”

As a result, girls and young women both then and now feel entitled to lives that defy description. They should be out-of-this-world exciting!

It was a powerful message that set off a chain of events. Millennials are the first generation of women to reject marriage and motherhood and to instead pile up degree upon degree, resulting in debt that, while theoretically was supposed to help them get established for marriage, instead dealt them a cruel blow: now they can’t afford to get married.

No one told these women that when previous generations got married they had zero money saved. But they also had no debt. The idea for marriage is to grow together, but that’s not what boomers taught millennials. Why would they? Boomers are the generation that brought us divorce. They didn’t want their children (again, their daughters in particular) to get married. Why be “just” a wife and mother when you can rule the world?

With this one simple (but destructive) message, everything changed. Today more than half of young people don’t have a romantic partner at all, let alone a spouse. Marriage has taken a serious nosedive, and we are all worse off as a result.

At the end of the day, Americans have underestimated the power the feminist narrative had on an entire generation of women. Even millennials don’t understand it — they never knew any other way to live. But that is changing.

Millennials were told they were special but learned that they aren’t. They were told they don’t need a man but learned that they do. They were told that children will hold them back but discovered that children are precisely what they want. In fact, family is all they really want.

Only now they’re too old or too broke to have one.

Suzanne Venker

Suzanne Venker is an author, columnist and radio host known as The Feminist Fixer. She helps free women from feminism so they can find lasting love with men. Suzanne's newest book, WOMEN WHO WIN at Love: How to Build a Relationship That Lasts, will be published October 2019.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Some of them are intelligent, though. They know to cut off the mass media, and listen to their inner guidance. Some are extremely aware. You actually can create almost anything you seek. You may not be able to create *everything* you seek. Life is choices. And commitment. My question for all those millenials that decided not to reproduce, and raise healthy children, is who is going to pay for your social security? Who is going to staff the nursing homes that you’ll be in? Oh, wait, we don’t even have enough nursing homes for the boomers. It is not impossible to have a family later in life. It’s been done.

    What about a Truth and Reconciliation plan, for feminists, where they can ceremoniously and formally give up their hatred, resentment, perceived lack of control, and other negative stuff? Perhaps they can commit to a life of service to humanity, instead of attacking innocents. In a healthy society, children are cared for, and trained. Young adults start in the work force. The age of 30 brings a new sense of self, where self is larger than just what is inside the skeleton, or the skull. This is the age where men come into their own, are established, and can think about marriage. They can marry earlier. Men realize that their only real value is what they produce. They come to know they are expendable. They begin to think about what a committed relationship would be like. Except in our society, they’ve had numerous life lessons about the idiocy of doing that. The Romans used to crucify escaped slaves, and leave their bodies hanging, for a while, as an object lesson. Our equivalent is the divorce court, which extends the agony of men for 22 years to life. That sounds just like a prison sentence. Debtor’s prisons were abolished long ago, except of course for men who can’t pay their child support. Women don’t have to do anything a court tells them to do, as few laws are enforced for women.

    In life, the smarter of the young learn from the old. That is why traditional societies valued elders- men and women. What does an old man have to say to a young man? “Don’t get married, unless you want a long term relationship to raise children well. Other than that, play the field.” It was fascinating to see my daughter’s classmates seek out mates. Many did. One married a slacker, and has to work to make up for that. So I guess there is some justice, though I have to say she didn’t deserve that. When my father was young, you could work 30 years at some places, and get an 80% pension. That has vanished. There is little corporate loyalty to workers, any more, and workers have little long term commitment. Corporations measure performance, of course. But creative solutions are a gift, which does not have to be given. And so it is with marriage, for many. I am fascinated to see religious conservatives, because they seem to be the only group of people who respect marriage, and people, and society. Church people give a much higher percentage of their salaries to people. After Chernobyl, Russian radio stations tried to raise money to help people there. They didn’t do well. Russians, they said, preferred to spend their extra money on vodka. I know some Russian immigrants in my area. They said the KGB never bothered them when they were drinking. When they found God, they were bothered, and felt they had to leave. Something like 20% of the Russian government’s income comes from vodka sales.

    I am encouraged by the young, though. They understand they’ve been screwed by society. And they are seeking out spiritual solutions. I go to my youngest child’s PTA meetings. They are mostly run by women, who are very, very focused, on education, and what they can do. They go to the town’s meetings, too, some of them. I know a veteran, married to a Filipina, who is all heart. She can’t stand to see men over about 30 unmarried, and she functions as a matchmaker. In her world, unmarried men are out of balance, dangerous to society. Unmarried women are unhappy, usually. She brings balance to her world, by doing this. Some even seek out the books of people like Joseph Murphy, or Neville Goddard, or Florence Scovell Shinn, or even Dee Wallace, among others, to expand their awareness of the spiritual side of life. My oldest daughter told me recently that one thing my divorce from her mother taught her, was to be very picky about whom she married. And she married well. She has two wonderful kids. She is a joy to deal with. She works, part-time. I tell young men, especially those going off to college, to concentrate on their studies. I tell them that women will ignore them, anyway, until they get established economically. I tell them that the smartest thing they can do is to master their craft, to be the best they can be, and to avoid women until they are say 28-30. I tell them that at that point, all those women that dissed and insulted them, when they were younger, are now replaced by a new crop of 25-28 year olds who are now very open to relationships. I tell them that the women who dissed them, who didn’t get married, are now desperate, and by definition, picked over merchandise, not worth their time. They don’t know this. So I tell them. My wife’s nephews sometimes listen to me, also. I tell them that everything they see in the media is a lie, designed to destroy their lives. They get it. Mainstream television is a dying form. I am hopeful for the future.

  2. Speak for yourself. I had my tubes tied when I was in my 20s. I’m 62 now and I don’t regret it one bit. Children are definitely what this woman doesn’t want.

    I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to remember when women were frustrated by having to do nothing but stay home and iron shirts. I still remember the women from my childhood who were both terrified and angry that they “had” to have children. My own mother, born long before feminists came along, never wanted children. I know older women who were grateful they had miscarriages into the toilet when they were young and married.

    Tell THEM all they really wanted was a child. They’d laugh you out of the county.

    The only reason you’re able to post this drivel on a blog is because feminists stood up and said women have a right to their opinions and a right to make those opinions heard. In the days before feminism, your husband would have the right to slap you upside the head and tell you to get back in the kitchen.

    Thanks to feminism, you don’t know how good you have it.

    • So feminism is totally dependent on technology. That’s comforting. And the most fragile tech that ever existed, in the most complex system known in history, can’t ever fail… how many feminists are there in Somalia, I wonder, where you must admit, equality of outcome has been achieved. An annual income of $6 per year. There is another place absolute equality has been achieved. You can see these communities in many towns and cities. They are called “cemeteries”. It would be fascinating to see feminists put back into the 1860’s. Kerosene lamps, buggies, and no labor saving technology. I wonder how long their ideology would last. No, better yet, the 1600s. Yes. Cook over a wood fire. Sew your own clothing. No central heating. Feminists have no idea how good they have it, and how fragile this is. Americans really need to go even just to Mexico, to see how much of the world lives. Mexicans are generally very nice people. They have to live with reality. They don’t have the luxury of a philosophy that sounds great, and doesn’t work in practice. Latina women very much like American men, as spouses, because they are kinder, more generous, and nicer than the local product. Me gusta mucho mi esposa. Hispanic feminists are usually nowhere near as vicious as are the Caucasian ones.

      You are right about labor. Monday was wash day. Tuesday was ironing day. Wednesday was mending day. Thursday was baking day. The first washing machines, that had no spin dry, were very welcome, to women. Mending was necessary because clothes were comparatively far more expensive. The diet was actually better, then, no preservatives, or pesticide residues. Which means feminism is totally dependent on technology.

      • Remember the dictionary guy, Noah Webster? His house is a museum. He had a man cave, with his loom. He prepared flax, and then wove sheets, and shirts. How many people today could handle that kind of tech?

    • If you don’t want children, don’t have them. That’s simple. If you don’t want to be married, don’t get married. From genetic studies, 80% of women got to reproduce, while only about 40% of men did. You seem to want to be in the 20%. Go for it.

    • “feminists stood up and said women have a right to their opinions and a right to make those opinions heard. In the days before feminism, your husband would have the right to slap you upside the head and tell you to get back in the kitchen.”

      Apparently you know nothing of history. Look up Carrie Nation, for example. She took an ax to saloons, regularly. The women who sought the vote were not feminists, not by today’s standards. The Celtic culture has MANY examples of independent women, as one example among many. Chivalry was DESIGNED by women, notably Eleanor of Aquitaine. If women were the total slaves you say they were, you sexist, feminism could not have emerged. You are a slave to your ideology. Look up the word “scold”. Women who bitched a lot were called this, in the 1700’s, which disproves your point. A few women dressed in men’s clothing, to fight as soldiers- in the Revolutionary war, and more did so in the Civil War. Florence Nightingale created nursing, long before feminism. Somewhere on this blog, they talk about a Thai woman, who organized other women, to slaughter foreign invaders, who were men. Oriental women are very, very tough. It is useful to do your research, before you make claims. But what feminist cares about truth, when ideology is so much more exciting, even when it is total BS? The Soviet Union had more truth in it than feminist ideology. So did Nazi Germany. Neither system was nice. One thing those hardworking women did, that you insult, was they had descendants. You won’t. Your genes die with you. That’s fine. Evolutionary dead ends happen all the time, in nature. How many children do feminists have? Few- and they aren’t viable spouses, either. This problem will solve itself, in a few generations. And a lot of suffering inflicted on innocents, by feminists.

    • You said: “My own mother, born long before feminists came along, never wanted children.”

      Which means she didn’t want you. That explains the tone of your post. And you seem to think that women were totally oppressed before feminism came along. I guess your mother also didn’t want to educate you. That is a shame. Every child should be wanted, and loved.

      The Celtic general Boudicca was a woman. She raised a large army, to fight the invading Romans. She lost in the big battle. And she fell on her own sword. I’m curious: do you really think she was ever told to go back to the kitchen?

      An SOE team sabotaged the railroad cars, in France, that were to carry the best Panzer division’s tanks to the D-Day invasion site. They put abrasive powder in the axles. Instead of the Panzer division’s projected 8 hour trip, the division took over 3 days. Among that SOE team were a 14 and a 16 year girl- two of them. Do you suppose they were ever told to get back to the kitchen? Not more than once.

      I sent a package UPS today. The woman who took it was not big. She hefted the 70 lb box rather easily. I asked her what farm she worked at. Yes, she worked on a farm. Prior to the Civil War, there were many farmers. And many strong women. I knew a guy, from Idaho. His wife weighed maybe 100 lbs. She could pick up and throw 50 lb hay bales onto a high bed truck. For an hour, or more. Do you really think her husband ever told her to get back to the kitchen?

      My dad’s mom was known for her independent thoughts. She was born about 1888. Her husband never, ever told her to get back to the kitchen. He was a smart man. She had eight children. Birthed at home.

      There is a reason women didn’t work. Let’s look at the same thing today, in the Arab world. A man whose women have to work in the fields, or work outside the home, has less status- for the family. A wife who doesn’t have to work is clearly rich. And this is how it was, prior to say 1900, in the US. How many women dream of marrying the millionaire- so they can wear those expensive fashions, that say they don’t have to work. Women’s fashions mostly still reflect this. High heeled shoes cause serious knee problems for women when they hit their 50’s. How well would you jog, in high heels? Womens’ pants rarely have pockets. This is partially for show, and partially because traditionally, a servant would have carried the money, and groceries. Take high fashion, for women, and go cross country in the woods. It does badly, doesn’t it. It is designed for show, to show off the idle rich, who can afford to offer leisure to the high class women.

      You talk about women you knew, who didn’t want children. How large is your sample size? Surely you didn’t know 90% of the women in the country? Is it possible that your sample is not representative of all women? Dr. John Christopher used to be astonished at how women would give birth, with all the pain- and want to have another one, as soon as possible. He also refused to ever do an abortion, this was before they were legal. The women who had the child that wasn’t aborted- check this out- always came back to him to thank him for their child, which they were very happy with. It isn’t politically correct for women who deeply regret their abortions to talk about them, because, after all, killing the unborn is now a virtue, somehow.

      What you say is representative of a tiny slice of human experience. Human variation is legendary. You also have no idea of what great women have done, apparently. The high priestesses of the temples in Sumer were rather powerful. And that was what, 6,000 years ago. Apache scout shamans were beyond the level of Navy SEALS. They could cross Death Valley, for example, without supplies, or water. They could climb trees faster than a squirrel. They could camouflage themselves better than any soldier now, and they didn’t need ghillie suits. One favorite game was bear slapping. This is stalking close enough to a bear, slapping it, and running away at top speed. There were black women who guided escaped slaves through the South, to freedom in the north.
      Hawaiians had “chiefesses”, i.e. female chiefs. Wilma Mankiller was elected the leader of one Native American group.

      It is useful to have a large enough sample size, to understand things. Please consider expanding your sample size. It is, pardon me for saying this, grossly inadequate, and inaccurate. If you are going to use a model universe inside you, to compare and contrast, at least make sure it is close to accurate. If you want to see an incredible woman, try seeing Mother Meera. Queen Elizabeth I actually ordered her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, executed. Hillary is not an example of a strong woman. Joe Klein points out that her rise was totally dependent on her husband.

      Suzanne, you have an accurate model, of how things work. Thank you for that. And for that reason, what you say is cogent, and accurate. Please keep saying it. Please go against the crowd, which is as crazy as all crowds.

      • I forgot to say, about one of every four of those Apache scout shamans was a woman. Lozen, and Dahtaste, were legendary. There are tens of thousands of other women who broke the feminist “mold” of supposedly oppressed women. If women really were as oppressed as feminists claim, they would never have been able to break out of it.

  3. With great power, comes great responsibility. Except women want only the power, none of the responsibility. It sucks to be the average guy in our society. Female privilege vastly outweighs any kind of male privilege.

  4. Girls and young women both then and now feel entitled to lives that defy description. They should be out-of-this-world exciting! There’s no one quite like you! You’re amazing! Go — seize the world.” Feminism says, “Your mothers’ lives were constrained. Don’t live the way they did — reach for the stars instead!”

    That is good advice. But it doesn’t show up right away. It takes a lot of commitment, and effort, and some apparent failures along the way. We really should take women to a country where women do most of the work. Laos. The men smoke pot, and do almost nothing. Women do the hard work, of roadbuilding, and so on. Laos has not advanced much, in the last 50 years. In parts of the Yemen, men chew khat, and act like potheads. The women do much more. The Yemen is not a nice place to live.
    There are African countries where the men drink beer, and do little. They aren’t exactly advanced there.
    That is where the USA is heading. Go to any inner city slum. Look around you. This is what happens when single parent families raise the children. 80 years ago, an entrepreneur would have bought up the buildings, and done something useful with them. Today, you don’t see this, not much.

    Cassie Jaye did a TED talk on the men’s rights movement. Of course she was viciously attacked by feminists. For women to get true, real equality with men, their social security payments would have to be reduced- women outlive men. They would have their work product compared, with that of men. There are women who work hard, in workplaces. And there are those who don’t. And they are excused, much more than men, to keep the quotas of women high. Their medical insurance would have to be higher-they go to doctors more. Women make more money than men, in several professions, because they are harder to recruit, and keep. Men are subject to false accusations, by women. Well, all women should be believed, even when they lie, and they do lie, sometimes. Of course all those women that Bill Clinton raped can’t be believed, because they accused the wrong guy.

    Biology is real. There is a strong, visceral urge, to have children, for women. They can deny it. It gets stronger. No, not for every woman, what tendency is 100%? I’ve talked to a number of men, who understand that the balance of power shifted, about the age of 30 or so. They understand that there are far more women looking for partners, after that age, than there are men. They understand that this advantage only increases, with time. Men live harder lives than women do, which is why they die off sooner than women. Sex is easy to get, now- for men. Women give it away for free. Men don’t speak as openly as women do. They don’t speak as much as women do. But when a 40 year old guy has women hitting on him, it’s fun for him to play the same games women did, when he was in high school. Yes, women can be almost anything they want. But this always comes at a price. Women can work 100 hour weeks, in a tech firm, or law office. But they have no time for anything else.

    How many people on their deathbeds wished they had worked more, spent more time in the office? I’ve never heard of one. I have heard many wish they had spent more time with their loved ones. Or, even, wished they had loved ones. I ride a bus to work. It is mostly men, and most of them are married. Most of the women aren’t. I hear of women freezing their eggs. Great. How long do they keep? What kind of degradation is there, over time? There is degradation.

    It would be useful to teach girls in high school to clearly define their goals, to set up benchmarks, and to truly understand how much work it takes, to achieve those goals. Millenials think it will all be handed to them on a silver platter. That’s not how it works.

  5. Feminists fight their inner demons
    For ideological, and other reasons
    Fight with dragons long enough
    And you take on all their stuff
    Your eyes eat everything you see
    What you think and feel, you’ll be
    Slay the innocent, without guilt!
    From this is satisfaction built!
    Gather up your hurt and pain
    It needs you, to live again
    Give to others, even more
    Surely spirits will then soar!
    In time, though, you will discover
    You hurt yourself, along with other

  6. It takes a very focused individual, to go against the tide, and speak the truth. I applaud you, Suzanne, for telling the truth. You must feel somewhat lonely. Speakers of truths that don’t fit in with the usual media B.S. are not typically popular. You stand, like Horatio at the bridge, against the unthinking mob. Thank you.

  7. Um…where are the Gen X ers? Most millennials have Gen X parents or even Gen Y parents, not Boomers. I would say it’s ok, that we are used to being left out, but no. NO, not in the context of these claims you make. You want to connect A to C while completely ignoring B, and the only reason I can come up with for your willful omission of Gen X , is that including them (you know, the truth), wouldn’t fit the narrative you created basically from dust and misinterpretations of feminism.

    • Feminists, and truth. Oxymoron.
      Like military and intelligence. Except that’s not fair, there are bright people in the military.

      Designers say you can get two of the following three; low price; speed of delivery, and effective, in designing products or services. Feminism comes at a high price, the speed of delivery of useful product is zero, and effectiveness is also zero. All you have to do, is look at your results. You can see the feminist paradise, in any big city. Go to the slums, where the single parents, ok, single moms, live. Look around you. And feminists want you to pay child support, for children that aren’t yours. Black people are like lab rats. Watch carefully how black people are treated, because that is going to spread to other groups. Or, ride the bus, and listen to a black woman talking about how hard it is for her to get a responsible black man, in her life. The smartest people in this country- based on earnings, and results, are Orientals. They also have the lowest rate of divorce. This is not a coincidence.

  8. Damage is worse than you thought…

    Consider Engineering…

    There are two aspects to engineering: DESIGN (qualitative) and ANALYSIS (quantitative).

    Design engineering is about presentations, customer needs, collaboration, etc.
    Analytical engineering is about math. Math. Just math.

    Feminists indoctrinate girls with engineering in the K12. They have large meetings where girls arrive on busses to hear about Girl Day Engineer. And they are presented ONLY with examples of DESIGN engineering.

    The girls who are good at math, opt out of engineering (they have no interest in design and want math).
    The girls who are not good in math (on seeing DESIGN engineering) choose engineering.

    And then, in college, when the math hits (and it does), those girls drop.

    ASIDE from that, the vast majority of girls do not like engineering.

    I pushed engineering on my daughter (I taught her the math). Then, about three years ago, she came to me while i was in bed. She was crying. She said “Daddy, I don’t want to be an engineer.” I was stunned at how BAD I had been. I pushed her, without thinking.

    I shudder to think how many girls we are driving to engineering and who do not want it. We are setting a generation of girls up for some major lifetime depression.

    • I remember engineering students in college. They studied 6-8 hours/day, including Saturdays, over and above class. They didn’t date. They didn’t have time. Liberal arts students don’t have to work half that hard. Some men don’t have the stamina for it, and many women do not, either. People who don’t know anything about engineering are pushing women to it, who hate it. How does that help anyone?

      • They are pushing an inaccurate ideology, on people who don’t want it. This looks and smells a lot like fascism.

  9. This is a great post, Suzanne. I’m often critical here on this blog, but this is fair and mirrors some of the books already out there in the public sphere.

    In chapter 3 of his book “The Myth of Self-Esteem: Finding Happiness and Solving Problems in America”, author John P. Hewitt spends some time highlighting the connection between Feminism and the topic of self-esteem. A couple of interesting quotes:

    “The opposition to competitiveness and evaluation based on achievement is a corollary to the belief in entitlement. To say that all deserve self-esteem is also to say that some are denied it because it is based on standards of achievement they cannot or should not be asked to meet.”

    “Moreover, few people -myself included- would argue that it would be better if children were encouraged to feel badly about themselves.” (This is taken largely out of context, here, for emphasis. It is striking to read this in the age we live in, though many can probably identify with this kind of parenting and schooling, meant to keep children grounded and humble.)

    In her works “Generation Me” and “The Narcissism Epidemic” (co-authored with W. Keith Campbell), Jean M. Twenge details the measurable sharp rise in narcissism in young women and girls of the latter parts of Gen X into the Millennial generation, an area where men and boys historically scored higher.

  10. LOL at feminism being a harmful influence on millenials!

    American women as a whole are totally destroyed by feminism. The overwhelming majority of American women are cock carousel riding, tattoo having, no morality having, debt ridden, slags.

    If you are a man getting married to an American woman you might as well chop off your fucking nuts like the bitch boy that you are and just end your life.

    MGTOW

    • Slag. The leftover from ore. This is a metaphor that suggests the valuable stuff, perhaps gold, has been taken out, and the nonvaluable stuff left behind. What ye have sewn, that also shall ye reap. Or, what you plant, you harvest.

      What did Nietzsche say- oh yes- if you fight dragons long enough, you become one. Stare long enough into the abyss, and it begins staring back. Feminists have put their attention on the negative, for a long time. They have become the oppressors they so despise. And the abyss of the wall is staring back at them. And, if you’re upset, sad, angry, and so on, what better way to deal with it, than to spread out your toxins among others?

      An ideology that idolizes not reproducing is self-correcting. Most of these feminists will not reproduce. Those that do will use sperm banks. Storing sperm, and eggs, does result in genetic decay. It doesn’t matter for farm animals, that are slaughtered young. For humans, well yes, it does matter. There have been many evolutionary dead ends. Feminism is simply eating its own young.

      One could think that people don’t learn. The National Socialism of Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, and others, caused a great deal of suffering. So, now we have new incarnations of it. We’ll all have pie in the sky.

      Feminists thing that toxifying their bodies- literally- with hate, using toxic, carcinogenic tattoo ink, and hair dyes, exposing themselves to STD’s repeatedly, and abusing authority, is somehow going to get them all they want. May Allah grant them patience. Noone in history has ever gone this route, to this goal, but perhaps they will be the first. Heh. Right. Dream on. Hate creates cancer in the body, as Dr. John Christopher noted long ago. It also creates cancer in the body politic.

      I am encouraged by the young people I see getting married, in their thirties. They know, from direct experience, all around them, which paths work, and which do not. They don’t need the theory. Those who saw the ashes of WW II swore “never again”. Well, it came again, just in different forms. The point is that feminism is like a side band, a guidance, as a warning of the perils of following their ideology.

      Those who plant lies harvest disappointment. Those who plant truth harvest happiness. This is a very patient teacher. If you would like to see how most of these feminists will end up, look at Sinead OConnor’s video, at her website. She is covered in tattoos, clearly alone and suffering, and despairing. She had 4 kids by 4 different guys, and dumped them all. What has she now, to attract love into her life?

    • How long before Lesbians join the mgtows, I wonder, since they have at least as bad a problem with other women, as men do? Domestic violence is particularly nasty, among lesbians.

  11. Boomers were raised by depression kids. Most people live in avoidance- avoiding the negatives. Boomers wanted their kids to not have to deal with the trauma they had. So they went in another direction- abundance, as they saw it. Would the sexual revolution of the 60’s have been possible, without the Depression? I doubt it. The Depression babies were also the WW II generation, which dealt with some major challenges. They wanted peace, and abundance. And they created it. In an ever more permissive environment. Discipline and freedom are in balance; go too far in one, or the other direction, and you are out of balance. And today’s millenials are very much out of balance- as are most young people in all eras. They are more out of balance than their counterparts of yesteryear. Which means they will overcompensate, as previous generations did, and in new directions. Millenials weren’t well served, perhaps, but their parents did the best they knew how, as do most parents. THey have to find their own way. I am a boomer. The next generation of my family, now in their 30’s, all have committed relationships. They don’t play around. They know they have to be committed, as they have seen the pain of divorce.

    The major bad player in all this is our mass media, which is truly toxic. And that next generation is moving away from the mass media. They have a vague, uneasy feeling about our mass media descendants of Josef Goebbels, who tell such lies. Mass media is a dying animal. The big 3 networks are dying. Heck, Univision, the SPanish cable channel, has beat out NBC. I will not be sorry to see the mass media gone. They did all they could to destroy the country. And they have failed, at least so far.

  12. Suzzane your definition of feminism comes from an indoctrinated way of thinking and an intolerance to what isn’t “status quo”. Men and women obviously aren’t biologically the same, in fact equality is about acknowledging these differences and having EQUAL respect for the different needs and ideas of both male and female.
    Women today aren’t working more because they want to be just like men, most are probably working because the cost of living is so high that one family members salary is no longer enough to support an entire family.
    You are also avoiding the reality that your view of a woman’s role is what a woman’s role has been in a patriarchal society. Societies can be structured in an endless possibility of ways, there is no one way to live that is the “right” way. Millennials today are just more aware of this and refusing to allow their ideas be limited by people saying “well this is the way things are”, something I’ve noticed the many generations before me Have accepted without questioning why. Things were created to be the way they are now and new things can certainly be created. As more young people realize the way things are now are not in the best interest for caring for all human beings they can see that the way things are needs to change, most importantly the mass brainwashing that has been imposed on the American people, the same brainwashing that enforces your stance that you should stay in your lane, do what your told, and don’t question anything. You can’t change anything if you can’t change your mind

    • “Women today aren’t working more because they want to be just like men, most are probably working because the cost of living is so high that one family members salary is no longer enough to support an entire family.” Today that’s true for some. But that’s not why women initially fled their homes en masse.

      Millennials are not more aware of anything. They’re hopelessly UNaware (of both history and truth). That’s the underlying issue.

      “The same brainwashing that enforces your stance that you should stay in your lane, do what your told, and don’t question anything.” I’ve made a life out of questioning everything and always encourage others to do the same.

    • As women have moved into predominately male roles they have found out that stimulation from even bad things is still better than no stimulation at all, they have become adrenaline junkies or drama queens, for men this means taking up motorcycle racing or sky diving etc. but for a women it means having numerous dead end affairs and occasionally destroying a few nice guys that show interest in her. This is one of the reasons hot young girls prefer to hook up with bad boys because they like the pain and drama inflicted on them. This behavior only produces middle aged sluts that nobody wants.

      • There is a lot of domestic violence among lesbians. Because lesbians have the same problems with other women that men do. Justice… and equality!

    • “role has been in a patriarchal society”. Feminists compare women of low class to high class men, and get very upset about the differences. Men and women of the same social strata generally bdo about the same, though women do somewhat better, compared to men of the same strata.

      “Societies can be structured in an endless possibility of ways, there is no one way to live that is the “right” way.” Actually, there is a very accurate way to determine what the “right way” is. Does that way reproduce the race? If it doesn’t, those who live that way die out without heirs.

      “Millennials today are just more aware of this and refusing to allow their ideas be limited by people saying “well this is the way things are”, something I’ve noticed the many generations before me Have accepted without questioning why.”
      It appears you aren’t familiar with history. The young have always been restless, seeking to move out into their own. The state of marriage that Suzanne talks about is involved with reproducing the species. If you aren’t interested in that, then, as you say, why be limited, you can do anything you like. My question is, who will pay your social security, and medicaid?

      “Things were created to be the way they are now and new things can certainly be created. As more young people realize the way things are now are not in the best interest for caring for all human beings they can see that the way things are needs to change,”
      Aha, eternal youth. Change is not always good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions is so true it is almost invisible.

      “most importantly the mass brainwashing that has been imposed on the American people, the same brainwashing that enforces your stance that you should stay in your lane, do what your told, and don’t question anything.”
      You are describing feminists, very accurately. You are right, it is a mass brainwashing.

      We don’t live in indigenous cultures any more. We are atomized. The nuclear family is also disintegrating, as you say, by design of the social engineers. Show me any powerful state in history that was better than an indigenous community. You can’t.

  13. do you have a chapter about how millennial lesbians can find women to marry? Because I would love to get married, but to another woman.

    • Go to any gathering of feminists. The only problem you’ll have, is precisely the problem men have; the quality of your selection.

      • There is no better punishment for feminists, or lesbians, than being around other feminists and lesbians. Toxic people are their own punishment.

  14. Women evolved, like men, to engage in alloparenting (fellow group members aid in child rearing together). They also evolved to engage in ‘central-place foraging’ together. Hunter-gatherer women (e.g. the Hadza of Tanzania, the Aka of the Congo, the nSan of Botswana) spend a lot of their time together co-raising children and foraging for reliable resources (and to that point, they are considerable providers and not simply wired to take resources from men). This suggests women are very much wired for working and socialising with other women. The dissatisfaction they may or may not have experienced in working is likely for many reasons, just as it is for men. Purposeless jobs, social isolation, lack of autonomy in the workplace (both men and women, mind), and so on. Women wanted equality with men, which meant they had to lower themselves.

    • Camille Paglia recalls her mother spending lots of time with other women, socializing, sharing information. The denial of this may be one reason for the increasing dissatisfaction among women.

  15. Third wave feminism has turned a generation of women into demanding, complaining, exploiting, vicious harpies. Some women of this generation have wisdom, though.

  16. [from a website]
    I credit my mother for introducing me to the ideas of Camille Paglia. Disillusioned with the prevailing strains within feminist literature that seemed to hold an implicit contempt for stay-at-home moms, my mom came across Paglia, an outspoken feminist who seemed to sympathize with the decision of women to embrace motherhood.

    A couple of weeks later, my mother had relayed to me, in the form of lengthy phone calls, the main ideas she had identified in Paglia’s canon. To my mother, Paglia was someone who didn’t regurgitate the same tired clichés that many feminist figures seemed to have in endless supply. To me, it became increasingly clear that I disagreed with a majority of what this woman had to say. Even so, she grew to become a strangely compelling character to me.

    Paglia is incredibly tricky to pin down. The controversial American feminist and social critic boasts a wealth of opinions, some of which are intuitively antithetical. A staunch libertarian revered by political conservatives, she admitted to feeling the Bern in the 2016 Democratic Primary and voting for Jill Stein in the 2016 election.

    An openly gay woman, she’s declared no particular loyalty to the LGBTQ community and has even stated she doesn’t “get along with lesbians.” Somewhat rigid in her idea of the sexual polarization of the genders, she is at the same time adamantly pro-sex, pro-pornography and supports the legalization of prostitution.

    She puzzles many, offends many more and is dismissed for being both too conservative and too liberal. (You’ll find more than one YouTube compilation out there of Paglia taking down feminists.)

    It must be said, though: A formidable feature of Paglia is that, in spite of attempts by supporters and detractors alike to placate her contradictions and package her a certain way, she continually defies boundaries. Similarly, she refuses to pledge any kind of allegiance to the resounding political platforms that both second- and third-wave feminism abide by. In fact, Paglia has consistently labeled herself a glaring outlier of second-wave feminism.
    In an op-ed to Salon Magazine, she infamously branded feminist figurehead Gloria Steinem a “mummified fascist” that forewent her earlier accomplishments and betrayed the universality of the movement by marrying her own partisan politics with the feminism she was espousing. Paglia credits this growing disappointment with Steinem as the turning point where she began to distance herself from what she considered to be the “power elite who had hijacked and stunted second-wave feminism.”

    Arguably, one of the driving forces for this broader divide within second-wave feminism was Paglia’s own contentious stance on the importance of biological sex in the understanding of feminism. To Paglia, your sex defines your gender, and both sex and sexuality lie at the very core of what it means to be a woman.

  17. Interesting article. No endorsement of any politician is implied, by sharing.

    Third-Wave Feminist Bullies Are Destroying Feminism
    By TIANA LOWE
    July 18, 2017 8:00 AM

    Appearances matter: Women who wear pink dresses are not welcome.
    Third-wave feminism is suffering a crisis of credibility. On the one hand, interviewers consistently badger actresses and celebrities to declare themselves feminists and lambaste them if they decline to do so.

    “When talking about feminism, there are a lot of misconceptions about what the word actually means,” writes Teen Vogue’s Brittney McNamara. “At its heart, feminism is about choice. It’s the belief that everyone should have the equality that grants them the right to choose how they live their lives.”

    Except when it’s not.

    On Sunday, Joan Walsh, the author of What’s the Matter with White People, appeared on MSNBC to declare that Ivanka Trump cannot be a feminist because she wore an “incredibly ornamental” and “girlie” dress while representing the United States at a G20 summit meeting.

    “That’s not a dress that’s made for work,” said Walsh. “That’s not a dress that’s made to go out in the world and make a difference. That is a dress that is designed to show off your girlieness, and you know, God bless her, show it off, but don’t then tell us you’re crusading for an equal place for women at the table, because you’re not.”

    ***And feminists wonder why fewer than a fifth of Americans consider themselves feminist.

    Consider, for a moment, the legal and social reality of women in America. We graduate college in greater numbers than men to pursue careers, and, for the first time in human history, have readily available, affordable contraceptives that give us nearly total control over when or if we choose to have children. Clearly, we like this state of affairs. If feminism were actually about choice, all women would embrace it.

    But it’s not. Feminism has become a bully pulpit, from which its leaders deride successful women such as Ivanka Trump. Not, you will note, for embracing policies such as paid parental leave that will inevitably undermine the wages and opportunites of some women in the workplace. No, Walsh, with evident contempt, rebukes Ivanka Trump for choosing to wear “a pink dress with big bows on the sleeve.” Feminism is about choice. Sure.

    Public opinion on matters related to women’s rights has never been more encouraging. Almost all Americans (97 percent) support women’s working even if a husband can support her, according to 2012 CNN/ORC International poll. Further, most women do wish to work. Most Americans also agree that having women in the work force is good for marriages (75 percent agree), good for society in general (81 percent agree), and good for the children of working women (52 percent agree). Nine out of ten Americans find birth control morally acceptable, A 2016 Gallup poll shows, and the same percentage believes that info about birth control should be widely available. Women have largely transcended the social and legal barriers that used to confine them to lives of a single mold; now they can choose their own paths. In short, second-wave feminism has been a categorical success.

    Third-wave? Not so much. By vast majorities, women today are spurning the label of “feminist” — it’s become an antagonizing, miserable, culturally Marxian code word for a far-left movement that seeks to confine women into boxes of wokeness.

    While second-wave feminism lauded the variety of choices a woman can have in her life, third-wave feminism excludes those who choose the wrong way or who present themselves in a supposedly un-feminist manner. For example, short skirts and bikinis once signified sexual empowerment. Today, “sexy” clothing signifies feminism only if worn by women who are not submitting to the male gaze (that’s feminist-speak for “not traditionally feminine”).

    This rejection of traditional beauty while celebrating “body positivity” has spread far beyond obscure, feminist circles. In London, Mayor Sadiq Khan banned “body shaming” advertisements from public transportation, because “unrealistic” images harm women; depictions of overweight bodies evidently do not and are still permitted to adorn the sides of buses. The ban follows the same dubious logic that conflates Ivanka’s pink dress with the patriarchy while lauding Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits as the symbol of peak feminism.

    Taking Ivanka Trump’s “girlie” appearance as proof of her purportedly un-feminist character exemplifies third-wave feminism’s compulsive need to control women’s appearances. BuzzFeed’s Anne Helen Petersen wrote on Election Day:

    No amount of advocating for paid maternity leave can mask the fact that Ivanka’s understanding of the world is one in which white, thin, straight, traditionally beautiful, nondisabled, bourgeois women will always win — if you consider constantly molding yourself to the status quo and overlooking your second-class citizenship as “winning.”

    One can make a legitimate argument that Trump’s lifestyle brand catered to upper- or middle-class women working in office jobs. But the assumption that Ivanka Trump cannot be a feminist because she is “white, thin, straight,” and “traditionally beautiful” demonstrates the paradox at the heart of third-wave feminism: It claims to be for all women while ousting anyone who does not fulfill multiple “intersectional” identities.

    Third-wave feminists have made a sick sport of obsessing over Ivanka Trump’s appearance — judging her on the basis of her aesthetic conformity to the woke ideal.

    Third-wave feminists have made a sick sport of obsessing over Ivanka Trump’s appearance — judging her on the basis of her aesthetic conformity to the woke ideal. Another BuzzFeed piece charges Trump with believing that women can “have a seat at the table” only so long as they “dress cute” and “stay thin.” (BuzzFeed can apparently read Trump’s mind and give voice to her inner thoughts, speaking for her in the public arena — something feminists used to decry.) Trump is not only denounced as a “white feminist” for failing to endorse Black Lives Matter. Instead this accusation is consistently and specifically tied to her appearance. As Dame Magazine put it in a cheap hit job about Trump and the first lady’s trip to the Middle East, Ivanka and Melania are “fake” feminists because of their “good looks, high fashion and displays of western white womanhood.”

    This sort of bullying, exclusionary feminism is not exactly winning over many young people. Teen Vogue, the newly converted bastion of intersectional, third-wave feminism, draws almost no teen girls. (According to data from comScore, the overwhelming majority of Teen Vogue’s Web traffic comes from visitors 24 years and older. Less than half comes from the 18-to-24 demographic, and virtually no visitors are younger than 18.) Sure, third-wave feminism indoctrinated a generation of bitter Millennial women, but the next generation does not seem too keen to mock any woman who wears a “girlie” dress. Third-wave feminism fundamentally defeats the very meaning of feminism as defined by previous generations, and younger women will continue to reject it wholesale.

    As a person working in the White House, Ivanka Trump should be subject to scrutiny for her choices in influencing public policy. But bullying women for wearing a cute dress is not only unwarranted. It’s also destroying feminism

  18. Interesting point

    Interesting point
    The curious case of third wave feminists
    There’s one type of woman that feminists will not tolerate
    Daisy Cousens

    15 April 2017 9:00 AM
    The third-wave feminist is a curious creature. Her comrades are a strange sub-strata of Millennial and Generation X women with a peculiar inferiority complex. They’re obsessed with picking at the scab of women’s lib, trying to draw fresh blood, and are often seen prowling (or lumbering) around, attempting to sniff out sexism in every nook and cranny. Theirs is an ideology based not on equality, but misplaced victimhood.

    According to your standard third-waver, the most insidious issues facing women today are not genital mutilation, or underage marriages, or sexual slavery. They are ‘manspreading’, ‘mansplaining’, and ‘micro-aggressions’. Terms cooked up to keep feminists in business as they steadily ran out of things to complain about. In short, third-wavers are perpetually miserable, and seek to make other women as brutally unhappy as they are.

    Third-wave feminists are a contradiction in terms. They insist women should enter the workforce yet won’t shut up about how horrible the workforce is because of the wholly inconvenient presence of men. They say it’s a woman’s choice to have children. However, they ruthlessly condescend stay-at-home mothers; insisting they are capitulating to ‘traditional gender roles’. They plead with women to come out about sexual assault, yet simultaneously discourage them by insisting they won’t be believed. They valiantly exclaim physical appearance doesn’t matter, and are usually proud advocates of the ‘fat positivity’ movement, yet, regardless of their insistence that ‘fat’ is not an insult, for some bemusing reason they become grossly offended if you dare comment on their weight.

    It is evident, then, the third-waver revels in convenient double-standards. However, the very worst of these is, ironically, a strange form of misogyny, and is starkly revealed in their treatment of right-wing women. In other words, third-wave feminists insist they want more female voices in the mainstream… as long as they agree with them.

    As a woman on the right, I have observed with amusement the rampant tanty-throwing when a feminist is confronted by a conservative compatriot. If you have the audacity to stray from the feminist tribe, the ‘sisterhood’ will hurl insults the likes of which, if uttered by a man to one of their own, they would howl down as the worst kind of sexism. They will denigrate the way you look, dress, and talk, and attempt to discredit you with gossip and fabrication. They will slut-shame you in a way they would vehemently condemn (with much wailing and gnashing of teeth) if they were on the receiving end. The third-waver will even find a way to attack your age. Especially if she is older than you.

    Take Kellyanne Conway. As the first woman ever to run a successful election campaign, she should be a feminist icon. And she would be, if she were on the left. If the wayward third-waver applied their own standards to all women, Conway would be lauded for this quite extraordinary achievement, regardless of her politics. Instead, feminists have labelled her ‘anti-woman’, mocked her for her hair and clothes, and dismissed her as an attention-seeker. The very ‘gendered’ insults third-wavers are allegedly rallying against.

    Sometimes-funny comedienne Chelsea Handler infamously tweeted, ‘I wish someone would put Kellyanne Conway in a microwave’, a comment that would have a man crucified if directed at a leftist woman. Speaking of men; where were the hordes of feminists defending Conway when Democratic representative Cedric Richmond joked she looked very ‘familiar’ kneeling on the Oval Office couch? Well, apart from one tokenistic tweet from Chelsea Clinton, they were nowhere to be seen; silently condoning the behaviour they allegedly loathe, at least when it comes to their own.

    But the champion of collective bullying of right-wing women is the demonstrably-easy-to-trigger Clementine Ford. Who, post-election, attributed the decision of women who voted for Donald Trump not to a simple difference of opinion, but to their apparent racism, and their capitulation to white supremacy (along with the men it allegedly benefits). She accused them of voting against their own ‘gendered interests’; interests prescribed by the Gospel according to Clemmie, of course. As such, to this particular third-waver, conservative women are deficient. Their opinions are nothing more than a by-product of their submission to the must-be-misogynistic men in their lives. A woman can only be conservative if she is an opportunist, unduly influenced, or has something morally wrong with her. Such a loophole in Clementine’s feminist mantra (along with her apparent unwillingness to understand her opposition) is at best, hypocritical, and at worst, malicious.

    Third-wave feminists attempt to justify such bad behaviour by blathering, ‘So, does the fact we’re feminists mean we have to support all women?’ Well, no. However, a key feminist whining-point is the push to give all women a voice. Therefore, one would have thought the instinctive reaction of the third-wave conformist to the right-wing renegade would be to encourage civil debate. But oddly enough, feminist engagements with conservative women never seem to move beyond personal attacks. Why? Because character assassination is the last bastion of the desperate when they’re out of intellectual ammunition. Asserting Western women are still an oppressed class is patently absurd. In the harsh light of reality, third-wavers actually have no argument.

    The idea women in our society are still somehow under the thumb of men is a fallacy; every opportunity available to men is also available to us. We have laws designed to protect us from rape, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, wage disparity, domestic violence, and other atrocities our sisters in the third world face unfettered. While not perfect, the playing field has never been more level. As such, the petty attempts of miserable third-wavers to intimidate right-wing women into silence are simply evidence of their terror at being exposed for the frauds they are. So here’s the tricky truth. Any Western woman who screams of her own ‘oppression’, yet has the means to view the world solely through the prism of gender, needs to take off the pussy-hat, put on a bra, and check her proverbial privilege. Ordinary women are sick to the back teeth of being told how terrible they should think their lives are by a hand-flapping mob of middle-class attention-mongers. Perhaps, if third-wavers realise this, they can resurrect what was once a noble, necessary movement. However, given the Left’s extraordinary capacity to eschew self-reflection, I’d say this is the longest of shots.

  19. Today’s outsized Femocracy is more desperate and (self) destructive than its successful progenitors.
    By JOANNA WILLIAMS • September 4, 2018
    [edited]

    Feminism has passed its first half century. And what a success it has been! We might still be waiting for the first female president, but women—specifically feminists—are now in positions of power across the whole of society.

    Yet feminism shows no sign of taking early retirement and bowing out, job done. Instead, it continues to reinvent itself. #MeToo is the cause du jour of fourth-wave feminism but, disturbingly, it seems to be taking us further from liberation and pushing us towards an increasingly illiberal and authoritarian future. It’s time to take stock.

    Over the past five decades, women have taken public life by storm. When it comes to education, employment, and pay, women are not just doing better than ever before—they are often doing better than men too. For over a quarter of a century, girls have outperformed boys at school. Over 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded to women. More women than men continue to graduate school and more doctorates are awarded to women. And their successes don’t stop when they leave education behind. Since the 1970s, there has been a marked increase in the number of women in employment and many are taking managerial and professional positions. Women now comprise just over half of those employed in management, professional, and related occupations.

    Women aren’t just working more, they are being paid more. Women today earn more in total than at any other point in time and they also earn more as a proportion of men’s earnings. For younger women in particular, the gender pay gap is narrowing. Between 1980 and 2012, wages for men aged 25 to 34 fell 20 percent while over the same period women’s pay rose by 13 percent. Some data sets now suggest that **women in their twenties earn more than men the same age**. Although high-profile equal pay campaigns appear to suggest otherwise, when we compare the pay of men and women employed in the same jobs and working for the same number of hours each week, the gender pay gap all but disappears. Four out of every 10 women are now either the sole or primary family earner—a figure which has quadrupled since 1960.

    But this is not just about the lives of women: it is feminism as an ideology that has been incredibly successful. For over four decades, feminist theory has shaped people’s lives. Making sense of the world through the prism of gender and seeking to root out sexual inequality is now the driving force behind much that goes on in the public sphere.

    Back in 1986, in one of the first examples of new legislation explicitly backed by feminists, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. This has had a profound impact upon all aspects of employment legislation. As a result, a layer of managers and administrators, sometimes referred to as “femocrats,” are employed to oversee sexual equality and manage sexual harassment complaints in workplaces and schools.

    Not surprisingly, definitions of sexual harassment began to expand in the late 1970s. In education, the term came to encompass a “hostile environment” in which women felt uncomfortable because of their sex. By this measure, sexual harassment can occur unintentionally and with no specific target. Furthermore, a hostile environment might be created by students themselves irrespective of the actions of an institution’s staff. As a result, colleges became responsible for policing the sexual behavior of their students too.

    Pressing forward under the Obama administration, sexual misconduct cases on campuses were tried under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. Within these extrajudicial tribunals, students—most often young men—could be found guilty of sexual assault or rape and expelled following unsubstantiated allegations and with little opportunity to defend themselves. Although current Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has revoked the Obama-era guidelines that instituted these kangaroo courts, many institutions under pressure to react have expanded their zero tolerance policies, often at the expense of basic due process and fairness.

    In the 1970s, radical feminists opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, arguing that it individualized and deradicalized feminism. “We will not be appeased,” they asserted. “Our demands can only be met by a total transformation of society, which you cannot legislate, you cannot co-opt, you cannot control.”

    Yet today, a feminist outlook now shapes policy, practice, and law at all levels of the government, as feminists seek to transform society through the state rather than by opposing it. Most recently this has taken form in the demand for affirmative consent, or “yes means yes,” to be the standard in rape cases. This places the onus on the accused to prove they had sought and obtained consent; in other words they must prove their innocence.

    This is a radical shift, yet it is being enshrined in legislation with little discussion. California and New York have passed legislation requiring colleges to adopt an affirmative consent standard in their sexual assault policies. In 2016, the American Law Institute, influential with state legislators, debated introducing an affirmative consent standard into state laws. The proposal was ultimately rejected but the fact that it was even taken seriously shows feminism’s growing legal influence.

    History tells us that legislation driven by feminism can have unintended consequences. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), passed in 1994 as part of President Clinton’s massive $30 billion crime bill, aimed to put 100,000 police officers on the street and funded $9.7 billion for prisons. VAWA sought more prosecutions and harsher sentences for abuse in relationships. But a more intensive law enforcement focus on minority communities, coupled with mandatory arrests of both partners on the scene of a dispute, resulted in unanticipated blowback. Police were accused of over-criminalizing minority neighborhoods; critics said women were disinclined to call the police for fear of being arrested themselves. A 2007 Harvard study suggests that mandatory arrest laws may have actually increased intimate partner homicides and, separately, women of color have described violence at the hands of the arresting police officers.

    Ultimately, the crime bill merely punished; it didn’t help prevent domestic abuse against women.
    Although all women have in some way benefited from feminism’s decades-long campaign against inequality, it is clear that some—namely middle- and upper-class college graduates—have been more advantaged than the rest. Feminists in the 1960s argued that all women had interests in common; they shared an experience of oppression. The same can hardly be said today. An elite group of women with professional careers and high salaries has little in common with women juggling two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Yet the feminist voices that are heard most loudly continue to be those of privileged women .

    • Do you notice that they do all the bad stuff to black people first? Remember that report from the 1960’s, on the negro family, of D.P. Moynihan? And white people now have the divorce rate black people had back then. LBJ started the explosion of single mothers in the black community, which has led to great social disorder in those communities. Drugs are a problem in those communities. Intentionally. They were targeted first. If you want to see where the people behind the curtains are taking us, just look at what they are doing to black people.

  20. High-profile feminists like Anne-Marie Slaughter, the first woman director of policy planning at the State Department, and Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg, sell books and make headlines for criticizing family-unfriendly employment practices and the gender pay gap. Good for them! But remember that these women have incomes and lifestyles that put them in a different league from the vast majority of women—and men. They identify more closely with the tiny proportion of male CEOs than they do with women who have jobs rather than careers, who wear uniforms rather than dry-clean-only suits to work, who have no time to hit the gym before heading to the office. Their push for “lean-in” circles appeals more to young college grads than women struggling just to put food on the table. Their vociferous feminist call to arms falls flat in Middle America—yet we are told they speak for all women.

    In 2018, feminists do walk the corridors of power. But in order to maintain their position and moral high ground they must deny the very power they command. For this reason, feminism can never admit its successes—to do so would require its adherents to ask whether their job is done. For professional feminists, women who have forged their careers in the femocracy, admitting this not only puts their livelihoods at risk, but poses an existential threat to their sense of self. As a result, the better women’s lives become, the harder feminists must work to seek out new realms of disadvantage.

    The need to sustain a narrative of oppression explains the continued popularity of the #MeToo phenomenon. In October 2017, The New York Times ran a story alleging that Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who had the power to make and break careers, had committed a number of serious sexual offenses. (The allegations against Weinstein mounted and he is now being charged with sexual assault and rape.) Over the following weeks and months, accusations of sexual misconduct were leveled against a host of other men in the public eye.

    Such serious accusations need to be dealt with in the courts and, if found guilty, the perpetrators punished accordingly. But rather than arrests, trials, and criminal proceedings, #MeToo has gathered pace through social media. Actress Alyssa Milano took to Twitter on October 18 and asked women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted to “write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.” Thousands of women came forward to call out their own abusers or simply to add their names to a growing list of victims. #MeToo took on a life of its own; it readily lent itself to an already-established fourth-wave feminist narrative that saw women as victims of male violence and sexual entitlement.

    Women in the public eye are now routinely asked about their own experiences of sexual harassment. Some have publicly named and shamed men they accuse of sexual assault or, as with the case of comedian Aziz Ansari, what can perhaps best be described as “ungentlemanly conduct.” Others are more vague and suggest they have experienced sexual harassment in more general terms. What no woman can do—at least not without instigating a barrage of criticism—is deny that sexual harassment is a major problem today.

    The success of #MeToo is less about real justice than the common experience of suffering and validation. It is a perfect social media vehicle to drive the fourth-wave agenda into another generation. Hollywood stars and baristas may have little in common but all women can lay claim to having experienced male violence and sexual harassment—or, failing that, potentially experiencing abuse at some indeterminate point in the future. Statistics on domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment are used to shore up the narrative that women, as a class, suffer at the hands of men.

    But scratch the surface and often these statistics are questionable. In recent years, at the hands of femocrats, definitions of violence and sexual harassment have been expanded. On campus, all kinds of behaviors, from touching through clothes to non-consensual sex, are grouped together to prove the existence of a rape culture. When sexual harassment is redefined as unwanted behavior it can encompass anything from winking, to whistling, to staring, to catcalling. There is little objectively wrong with the action—it is simply the fact that it is unwanted that makes it abusive. Today, we are encouraged to see violence, especially violence against women and girls, everywhere: in words that wound, personified in a boorish president, in our economic and legal systems. This is violence as metaphor rather than violence as a physical blow. Yet it is a metaphor that serves a powerful purpose—allowing all women to share in a common experience of victimhood, and, as such, justifying the continued need for elite feminism.

    Problems with #MeToo are too rarely discussed. Violence and sexual assaults do occur, but these serious crimes are trivialized by being presented as on a continuum with the metaphorical abuse. The constant reiteration that women are victims and men are violent perpetrators does not, in itself, make it true. It pits men and women against each other and, in the process, infantilizes women and makes them fearful of the world. It also masks a far more positive story: rates of domestic violence have been falling. Between 1994 and 2011, the rates of serious intimate partner violence perpetrated against women—defined as rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault—fell 72 percent.

    The consequences of entrenching in law assumptions that women are destined to become victims of male violence and harassment are dangerously authoritarian. Feminists now look not to their own resources, or to their family and friends, but to the state to protect them. Black men in particular can find themselves disproportionately targeted by feminist-backed drives for legal retribution. A 2017 report from the National Registry of Exonerations suggests that black men serving time for sexual assault are three-and-a-half times more likely to be innocent than white defendants who have been convicted of the same crime.

    In the meantime, demands for the punishment of bad behavior are inevitable. Male catcalling in the UK and France could soon be a criminal offense. While similar bans have been unsuccessful in the U.S., there are plenty of street harassment laws at the state level that feminists could co-opt if necessary. Additionally in England, there are proposals to criminalize “upskirting” or taking a photograph up a woman’s skirt. Upskirting is a vile invasion of a person’s privacy. However, the majority of instances are covered under existing indecency and voyeurism laws. The proposal, as with others, is a feminist signaling device: the message is, yet again, that the world is a hostile place for women and their only course of action is to seek redress from the state.

    Meanwhile, working-class women are effectively exploited as a voiceless stage presence, brought on when convenient to shore up the authority of the professional feminist. On occasion this means the livelihoods of regular women are placed in jeopardy for the greater good of the collective. Earlier this year, a group of A-list Hollywood actresses petitioned against tipping waitresses in New York restaurants, arguing it was exploitive and encouraged sexual harassment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, servers shot back that they would like to continue receiving tips, thank you very much.

    Fourth-wave feminism is increasingly authoritarian and illiberal, impacting speech and behavior for men and women. Campaigns around “rape culture” and #MeToo police women just as much as men, telling them how to talk about these issues. When The Handmaid’s Tale author Margaret Atwood had the effrontery to advocate for due process for men accused of sex crimes, her normally adoring feminist fans turned on her. She referred to it in a Globe and Mail essay in January entitled “Am I a Bad Feminist?”

    “In times of extremes, extremists win,” she wrote. “Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn’t puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated.”

    The fact is, men are publicly shamed every day, their livelihoods and reputations teetering on destruction, before they even enter a courtroom.

    Frankly, it is disastrous for young women to be taught to see themselves as disadvantaged and vulnerable in a way that bears no relationship to reality. Whereas a previous generation of feminists fought against chaperones and curfews, today’s #MeToo movement rehabilitates the argument that women need to be better protected from rapacious men, or need “safe spaces.” Women come to believe that they will be harassed walking down the street, that they will be paid less than men for the same work, and that the world is set against them. The danger is that, rather than competing with men as equals, women will be so overwhelmed by the apparent size of the struggle that they will abandon all efforts and call upon external helpmates, like the state and ugly identity politics that push good men away. Women’s disadvantage thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    All the while, the real problems experienced by many American women—and men—such as working long hours for a low wage and struggling to pay for child and healthcare costs, are overlooked.

    When second-wave feminism burst onto the scene more than 50 years ago it was known as the women’s liberation movement. It celebrated equality and powerfully proclaimed that women were capable of doing everything men did. Today, this spirit of liberation has been exchanged for an increasingly authoritarian and illiberal victim feminism. With every victory, feminism needs to reassert increasingly spurious claims that women are oppressed. For women and men to be free today, we need to bring back the spirit of the women’s liberation movement. Only now it’s feminism from which women need liberating.

  21. With the rise of social justice movements in recent years, the last remnants of classical-liberal feminism have all but faded. It has been replaced by the rise of third-wave feminism: a movement that promotes equality, diversity and inclusivity.
    In principle, this new wave of feminism is all about intersectionalism — that is, extending to groups of people other than able-bodied white women of the middle and upper-middle class.

    In practice, the movement has become fraught with irrational, often divisive hostility under the guise of tolerance and justice. From burning books to banning speakers from college campuses, the actions of many within the movement speak much louder than their tolerance-laden rhetoric.
    As humans, we use cognitive shortcuts called heuristics to make snap judgments. These shortcuts give rise to broad, generalized attitudes and beliefs about entire groups of people. It is no wonder then that — to the chagrin of many within the movement — society has retained its view of the quintessential feminist as a bra-burning, hairy-legged man-hater.

    “Classical-liberal feminism was meant to be the cornerstone of freedom … not some weapon with which to beat men into silence and subjugation.” Of course, nearly every stereotype harbors a grain of truth. Today’s third-wave feminism is grossly out of touch with most Americans — in fact, a 2015 Vox poll indicated that only 18 percent of Americans consider themselves feminists. However, when the same sample was split into two blocks, 78 percent expressed their belief in the “social, political, legal and economic equality of the sexes.” What’s more, 85 percent stated that they believed in “equality for women.”

    A more recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll published in the Washington Post found similarly jarring results. While 60 percent of women identified as “feminist” or “strong feminist,” only 33 percent of men responded in kind. Interestingly, 43 percent of all respondents described the feminist movement as “angry,” and 46 percent felt that modern feminism “unfairly blames men for women’s challenges.”

    These results tell us two things: first, an overwhelming majority of the population supports equality of the sexes in virtually every realm of society. Second, there is general aversion to the word “feminism” itself; this suggests that the underlying problem lies both in principle and in practice. Modern feminist thought represents a shift in ideology. That is why it is important to note the distinction between two different types of feminism: equity feminism (a subtype of classical-liberal feminism) and gender feminism.

    In a nutshell, equity feminism is limited solely to government. It says that women’s rights and equality should be recognized by law, and that the establishment should not infringe upon these rights in any way. In this view, oppression is only defined in political terms; that is, members of a group can only be labeled as oppressed if the state fails to protect their rights or otherwise violates them.

    Gender feminism, on the other hand, extends from government to society. Also known as social justice feminism, it argues that we are born in tabula rasa — in other words, as a blank state. This ideology claims that gender results purely from socialization and is a patriarchal concept intended to oppress women. It defines oppression itself as both political and cultural constraints on freedom. In comparing equity and gender feminism, it is obvious that today’s feminist movement employs the latter school of thought. The outlandish tenets of gender feminism have sparked mass hysteria within today’s movement. Biased research touted by intellectuals and mainstream media is largely to blame for this scaremongering — it produces distorted and misleading statistics that blow issues out of proportion.

    Speaking of research, another pressing problem with third-wave feminism is the disregard for and undermining of science. Far-left feminists, strangely enough, align themselves politically with those who denounce right-wing pundits for denying climate change. But these feminists are just as guilty of ignoring science when it clashes with their beliefs: insisting that gender role differences are entirely the result of socialization is incompatible with the findings of evolutionary psychology and neurobiology. Indeed, radical feminists remain defiant to virtually any form of logic or reason. In their world, even the scientific method — which is the embodiment of empiricism and therefore objectivity — is sexist and androcentric (yes, this actually came out of the biology department at Virginia Tech). Apparently, even encouraging objective debate is oppressive, and asking people to maintain composure during discourse is nothing short of gaslighting.

    This denial of logical reasoning and empiricism represents the pernicious victimhood complex that third-wave feminism places on women. Telling women that they are fragile, feeble-minded beings who must be shielded from the truth is not conducive to empowerment; frankly, it is more than a little insulting. For a movement that markets itself as the trendy and ultramodern crux of progressive thought, third-wave feminism sure is stuck in the past. Yes, history has by and large disenfranchised women; the last traces of this oppression linger even in modern, first-world society and the status quo is by no means perfect.

    However, modern feminism has wrongly imposed the burden of guilt on men as a whole for legal and institutional grievances that they themselves have taken no part in. After all, a 20-something-year-old man today cannot logically be held accountable for things like sexist hiring standards and property laws of the past century. Unfortunately, when we dwell on what used to be, we too often forget to actually live. We fail to reflect on the progress that has been made; to appreciate the rights and privileges we enjoy in the present. And while it is human nature to seek a source of blame for our struggles, no good has ever come of scapegoating. To generalize all men as inherently violent and oppressive only serves to alienate them further from the movement.

    Classical-liberal feminism was meant to be the cornerstone of freedom, empowerment and choice — not some weapon with which to beat men into silence and subjugation. It’s sad to witness such a revolutionary movement collapse into a bitter war of opposing ideals.
    Radical feminists, I speak to you directly: are you so blinded by prejudice and animosity that you cannot even fathom the error of your own ways? Your so-called progressive movement has evolved into a toxic culture of political correctness, trigger warnings and safe spaces, exuding a mingled air of intellectual snobbery and baseless antagonism. You have rendered yourselves indistinguishable from the right-wing bigots you so disdain.

    In an ideal world, a few bad apples wouldn’t poison the entire tree: we would not deem all Muslims terrorists based on the actions of a few radical groups; we would not cry, “Feminism is cancer!” in response to the few militant individuals within the movement. But the world, in all of its imperfections and uncertainty, is not an ideal place. If feminism is ever to redeem itself, the changes must come from within, starting with the radicals who have blackened its name in the first place.

    At the end of the day, freedom of speech matters. Diversity of thought matters. Feelings will never discredit facts, and critical thinking will always prevail over blind faith. In the words of noted scholar and equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers, it is indeed time to “take back the truth.”

  22. Millenials have been given poison to drink. The question is, though, will they drink it?
    They may be smart enough not to. We may yet be surprised

  23. That’s why feminists are some of my favorite people to do comedy in front of. It’s so easy. They’re so sensitive. They take themselves so seriously that you can’t be absurd enough — they still act like you’re presenting legislation. When I was in L.A. during the election I would just trash Hillary, to mess with them.

    What’s so funny to me is that what’s really going on is never brought up. Who donates to the president and who pays for the advertising on all these big news networks? That’s shit people should be upset about. But instead, if you do a feminist joke in a strip mall you make the news. So that’s just a load of shit.

    Politics and news didn’t used to be like it is now. When I was a kid, when you went over to somebody’s house, you didn’t bring up politics because you wanted to avoid a fight. Now it’s all people bring up and it doesn’t get you anywhere. Who has ever screamed at somebody and then the other person said, “You know what? Now I see your point.” Screaming just causes you to say horrible things to people that you would probably like if you actually knew ‘em. But both sides are completely delusional. They say everyone else is either a libtard or a fascist Nazi. Something happens to human beings when they get in groups. Suddenly you have an agenda. My hate for that is probably what drove me into doing what I for a living.

    -Bill Burr

    • Who has ever screamed at somebody and then the other person said, “You know what? Now I see your point.” Can you let feminists know this, then?

  24. Love is not hate, war is not peace, freedom is not slavery, and book-burning is not liberating. what passes for “radical feminism” is fascism. It promotes chauvinism, censorship, maternalism, pseudo-anthropology, scapegoating, mystical identification with nature, tricked-up pseudo-pagan religiosity, enforced uniformity of thought and even appearance Here is all of the theory and too much of the practice we should all be able to recognize by now. An ominous tactical continuity with classical fascism, also, is the complementarity between private-vigilantist and statist methods of repression. In post-World War I Italy (the suppression of the IWW in America followed a similar pattern), fascist gangs attacked socialist and trade-union organizations with the tacit approval of the police, who never intervened except against the left. As I once wonderingly asked: “How come these women won’t get in bed with any man except the DA?”

    Those who carry out a calculated policy can’t complain if their reasons are asked for, and questioned. Fascist ideology always incongruously asserts to its audience, its chosen people, that they are at one and the same time oppressed and superior. The Germans didn’t really lose the First World War — how could they? so they are superior — therefore, they were stabbed in the back. (But how could a superior race let such a situation arise in the first place?) Men (only), we are told in a feminist/Anti-Porn Movement (APM) diatribe in Toronto’s Kick It Over, “have created the nature-destroying and woman-hating culture.” If so, then either women have contributed absolutely nothing to culture, or there is something more or something else to this culture than destroying nature and hating women.

    For their own purposes (some of which are as mundane as sexual rivalry with straight men for the women they both desire), self-styled radical feminists actually reduce women to nothing but helpless, cringing near-vegetables, passive victims of male contempt and coercion. This profoundly insults women in a way which the worst patriarchal ideologies — the Jewish notion of woman as a source of pollution, for instance, or the Christian nightmare of woman as temptress and uncontrollable sexual nature-force — fell short of. They defamed woman as evil but could hardly regard her as powerless. The new woman-as-victim stereotype is not only directly traceable to nineteenth century Victorian patriarchal attitudes reducing bourgeois women to inert ornaments, but by denying to women the creative power inherent in everyone, it places women’s demands on a par with those advanced for, say, baby seals.

    Suppose instead what only the most demented feminists and misogynists deny, that things aren’t quite that bad, that women have been subjects as well as objects of history. Then how can women — or any other subordinated group: workers, blacks, indigenous peoples — be entirely acquitted of all complicity in the arrangements which condemn them to domination? There are reasons for these accommodations. There is no excuse for denying their existence.

    This isn’t sour grapes. It has never bothered me that some women dislike men, even to the point of having nothing to do with them. I don’t like most men myself, especially the archetypal “masculine” ones. I can’t help but notice, though, that the vast majority of women feel otherwise. The radical feminists have noticed it too, and it drives them to distraction. I would be the first to agree that vast majorities can be wrong. If they weren’t we would be the fringe loonies, the impotent kooks that almost everyone thinks we are. But then I criticize majorities, I don’t pretend to speak for them. Radical feminists, in contrast, are vanguardists. As such they need to rationalize their animosities, and so they have — making a dick-determinist demonology out of their prejudices. As man-haters they can’t help but be women-haters too.

    It’s the old story of the woman who cried wolf. (Similarly, the manipulative media line that “anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism” worked wonders to sanitize Israel until its expansionism-cum-exterminism engendered anti-Zionists who just might proceed to take the B’nai B’rith defamationists at face value.)

    According to feminoid epistemology, men understand nothing of the real nature of women. One might logically suppose that the estrangement of the sexes resulting from disparate roles and discrimination would work both ways, and so most of us attending to our actual experiences reluctantly conclude. But no: men don’t understand women, but women (at any rate their radical feminist vanguard) understand men. Women — feminist experts, anyway — understand men much better than the men they claim to understand — and lesbian-separatists, who avoid men and decline to have sex with them, appreciate these verities best of all. The more remote your experience is from the real life of actual men, the better you understand it. Turning this around, isn’t the Pope, as he claims, the ultimate authority on women and sexuality?

    If feminism didn’t exist, conservative politicians would have had to invent it. (Why, pray tell, did all-male legislatures ever criminalize “obscenity” in the first place? And why do all-male courts arbitrarily exclude it from constitutional protection?) APM harpies, should they ever deal with people instead of their own fevered projections, would discover that porn is of no interest to the majority of post-pubescent males — not because they are politically correct, but just because it’s obviously gross, sleazy, and above all, inferior to the real thing.

    The feminist book-burners are cowardly opportunists. If what they object to is subliminal socialization of women into subservient roles vis-a-vis men (curiously, adopting the same roles vis-a-vis butch lesbians is harmless fun), their primary, near-preemptive preoccupation would have to be Cosmopolitan, Barbara Courtland romances, and the vast crypto-pornographic pop literature written for and snapped up by women. After all, the gore and violence are derivative: only victims can be victimized in any way. Fifteen years ago, the original women’s liberationists (subsequently switched like changelings with today’s priestesses, lawyers and upscale bureaucrettes) at least lashed out at influential enemies like Hugh Hefner and Andy Warhol. Nowadays they terrorize teenage punk anarchists (this anecdote is from The Match!) whose collages insinuate that Margaret Thatcher for instance is a ruler, the “mother of a thousand dead,” not a “sister.” Such is the logic of this bizarre biological determinism: any animal equipped with a vagina is one of Us, any prick-privileged person is one of Them.

    Male leftists, for instance, are easy and often willing yes-men to feminist aggrandizement. They combine guilt at past improprieties (by and large, those who feel guilty — toward women, blacks, foreigners, whatever — usually are) with a present ambition to get into the leftist-feminists’ pants. Thus Berkeley, California (to which I am adjacent) is crawling with male “feminists” who converted the easier to get laid. Much the same scam seems to be happening in Toronto and, doubtless, many other places. These ulterior ambitions obviously don’t, in themselves, discredit the ideologies to which they are appended — one can come to the right conclusion for the worst of reasons. But insofar as the opinions at issue certainly seem to be idiotic to anyone without extraneous interest in embracing them, otherwise inexplicable paroxysms by male intellectuals seem to be most plausibly explainable as self-interested insincere rationalizations.

  25. Over 90% of prisoners are male.
    Bricklayers are 99% male.
    Four times as many men as women commit suicide.
    Men, on average, live 7 years less than women do.
    70% of students in college are female.
    Men work longer hours.
    Men are slaughtered in divorce courts.

    I look forward to seeing how feminists will address these and many other similar disparities.

  26. Abraham Lincoln asked that, if you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? The answer is four. Calling a dog’s tail a leg does not make it a leg. Except in FeministFantasyLand. Where all that exists is theory. I saw a fascinating video on a woman who decided to have many plastic surgeries, because she wanted to look like a cat. She did, after 15 surgeries, look very much like a cat. Was she a cat? Well, no, her DNA was that of a human woman. So, does surgery make a woman into a man? Or a man into a woman? The DNA isn’t changed. There may be appendages that don’t work, added with surgery. Does calling a human which is a man, biologically, something else, make it something else?

    • In theory, theory and reality are one and the same. In reality, they are not. This is a crucial mistake that feminists make. Theory cannot be imposed on reality. It can be sort of used to justify some very unethical, even criminal conduct, but that does not mean that the theory is good, or useful.

  27. In Japan, which has a rapidly dropping marriage rate, the men couldn’t care less about “independent women”. Or the other stuff women think is important. These “herbivore” men are around 60% of unmarried men over 20.

    It’s not that they dislike independent women, they just don’t care. Being independent is a good thing, part of being an adult. It’s just not an attracting quality in a woman, for a man. Men who recognize the biological need to provide find this challenging. Men do want to give. Women can accept this, and still be women. Women need emotional validation/intimacy. Men’s needs are ignored, because he should just “man up”. So what is the advantage, to men, of commitment, again? Kind of like women who leave men because the men are emotionally unavailable, after manning up.

    Women don’t care about men’s needs. If men decided to sell themselves with qualities women don’t want… they know they’d strike out. The West follows in Japanese footsteps. Thank you, Suzanne, for standing against the propagandists.

  28. Men and women go through certain things, in divorce, including major emotional trauma, upheaval, doubt for the rest of their lives, and so on. Men have more, though.

    1.Family courts do not respect any of men’s rights
    2.Failed marriages are always the man’s fault
    3.Men are the ones ruined financially, over 96%, of the time

    “Family” law is gender biased, a money racket, and has archaic laws that do not represent modern reality. A man is better of playing casino odds, than family court. Prenuptial agreements don’t work. Some men commit suicide, in the process. The US has the highest divorce rate in the world — about 4.95 per 1,000 people, or about 53 percent of marriages, men have better than even odds of this, and women initiate around 70+% of those divorces.

    The system also makes massive money from supervised visits. And in some state judges have ownership in these facilities, which is a direct conflict of interest. But who cares about that?

    The men incur horrific costs, it’s hugely profitable for the legal racketeers inside, and the laws are not applied equally. The laws focus solely on what the Judge feels like should be “equal”. And it’s very, very often not in the male’s favor. Men know this, more and more.

  29. Given alimony, unfair division of unearned assets, child support, losing the house, losing the car, high risk of bankruptcy, losing the 401k… Men get out of divorce bleeding.
    Divorce lawyers drain blood, too. A contested divorce can get into the six figures. That’s just fees. What a man has to give up/pay for for the next 22+ years, is gravy on that.
    Financially men get reamed in divorce. Let’s talk about the child support particularly.
    Even if a man gets married, and does not have his own biological children, he can still be on the hook for child support. If a man shows that he is “acting like a father”, a corrupt judge can still take over his finances until the kid is well into college. Did you ever wonder why single moms seem so very approachable, before the ceremony? There are a few courts that have awarded child support for kids not his, to a man who just lived with a single mom for a few months. Still like that single mom, Buster? Still looking to get some quick action? Are you willing to pay 6-7 figures for that pussy? Is it really worth it?
    “child welfare is paramount” argument by the court system is a lie. All children of divorce suffer, greatly. Child support is HIGH, in most states? How is a man to save or ever grow for 20 years at that cost? Where is the incentive to make more money, just so more goes to taxes and his ex who doesn’t deserve it? The laws are so archaic that child support is usually paid even in cases that are 50/50 custody. So the father is in charge 50% of the time, yet still has to pay over a third of his earning power. Why is their not a “cap”? Or a fixed rate, rather than percentage of income? Imagine if a man was paying child support and he created a business that boomed – he could end up paying upwards of millions, yearly – to a girl that did nothing to deserve that money. Talk about a nightmare situation. Oh wait, maybe that’s why nobody is fixing up slums, any more- the men who would have taken that risk seek less income, instead of taking risks.
    These child support laws may have worked many years ago, when it was based on what a child actually cost to take care of and the division split. But in modern times, it’s just a percent of a father’s salary that if he doesn’t pay he loses his license and goes to jail (The irony! How will he pay that support from debtor’s prison?)
    If you watch the Divorce Corp documentary, you’ll see a specific part on family judges using this line (I wish it were a joke): “How would the child feel if it knew that its father was saving money on it.” Yes, the legal system doesn’t want dads to save money at all while raising a child. Good luck, retirement. And hello, early retirement for the mother. Fair deal, marriage. Isn’t it? A number of men commit suicide during divorce. Since they won’t get to see their kids anyway.
    What about when men lose primary custody (Which almost always happens, except in the cases the moms a well-known crackhead)? When she gets the kids – she has a higher likelihood of abuse. DID you know children are more likely to be harmed by their biological mother than father? Neither did I until very recently. But why am I surprised — and why are you shocked? Because we don’t talk about it.
    women are much more likely to cause child maltreatment and harm:
    In 2012, 54% of perpetrators were women and 45% of perpetrators were men. Source: CDC
    And
    71% of Children Killed by One Parent are Killed by Their Mothers; 60% of Victims are Boys. Source: DHHS
    Lose half of everything you own regardless of if she helped at all or stayed at home, lose your earning power and incentive to grow fiscally for 18+ years, lose your sanity in divorce court, and have higher risk for the child being mistreated. Great combination.

    I can’t imagine why more men aren’t running to get married to slags with over 1,000 partners, a similar number of STD exposures, purple hair, piercings, psychopathic personalities, bad boys on the side, who have no intention of actually raising their children when they can be doing their drugs, nails, and texting. Doubt me? Get a guy who’s been through a divorce talking. Oh wait, you just did. But the woman you’re with is different, right? She might be. If she came from a stable two parent family, where the mother wasn’t batsh.t crazy, had real values, and never heard of feminism. And isn’t on medication. And really, really likes kids, and wants the best for them. If she doesn’t have at least 25 of these qualities… you are walking into Three Mile Island, friend.

  30. This interesting article is still relevant.

    Men in their twenties and thirties are fed up with women, but author Kay Hymowitz says you can’t blame them when women are demanding equality except when it comes to romance. [Selective equality isn’t

    Kay describes “pre-adulthood”—the twenties and early thirties—as not bringing out the best in single young men. Some men didn’t like it. As in, “cancel-my-subscription-the-writer-should-contract-such-a-bad-case-of-carpel-tunnel-syndrome-she-never-writes-again” didn’t like it.
    And many of the responses proved her point—and another one: Men are really, really angry.

    Consider this response:
    “We’re not STUCK in pre-adulthood, we choose it because there aren’t any desirable American women. They’ve been bred to abuse men.” This fairly typical response that appeared at the Seattle Post Intelligencer website: “Sorry ladies. In the age of PlayStation 3s, 24-hours-a-dy sports channels, and free Internet porn, you are now obsolete. All that nagging, whining, and stealing our hard earned cash have finally caught up to you.”

    Kay found a powerful underground current of male bitterness that has nothing to do with outsourcing, the Mancession, or any of the other issues we usually associate with contemporary male discontent. No, this is extreme bitterness from guys who find the young women they might have hoped to hang out with entitled, dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling—and did I mention gold-digging?

    Websites like MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), Nomarriage.com, or EternalBachelor.com (“Give Modern Women the Husband They Deserve. None.”). Popular bloggers like Roissy ferociously and caustically dissect of female “sluttiness” and “shit tests” (attempts to manipulate men). One sees posts like “42 Things Wrong With American Women” and chat forums ruminate over how “American Women Suck.” And this is a tiny sample of what’s out there.

    Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure. Is this what Susan Faludi famously called the backlash? Is it immaturity? Or just misogyny?

    There’s another reason for these rants, one that is unseen. Let’s call it gender bait and switch. Never before in history have men been matched up with women who are so much their equal—socially, professionally, and sexually. By the time they reach their twenties, they have years of experience with women as equal competitors—in school, on soccer fields, and even in bed. They assume that the women they are meeting at a bar or café or gym are after the same things they are: financial independence, career success, toned triceps, and sex. Equality is equality, right? That is the bait. And now, the switch: Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they are totally indecisive. The might hook up as freely as a Duke athlete. Or, they might want men to play Greatest Generation gentleman. Yes, they want men to pay for dinner, call for dates—a writer at the popular dating website The Frisky titled a recent piece “Call me and ask me out for a damn date!”—and open doors for them. And many men wonder: “WTF??!” Why should they do the asking? Why should they pay for dinner? After all, they are equals and in any case, the woman a guy is asking out probably has more cash in her pocket than he does; recent female graduates are making more than males in most large cities.

    Yes, girls can—and do—ask guys out for dinner and pick up the check without missing a beat. Women can make that choice. Men say they have no choice. If they want a life, they have to ask women out on dates; they have to initiate conversations at bars and parties, they have to take the lead on sex. Women can take a Chinese menu approach to gender roles. They can be all “Let me pay for the movie tickets” on Friday nights, and “A single rose? That’s it?” on Valentine’s Day. The nastiest and most vicious switch in this game is that women say they like nice guys, and give it away to bad boys. David DeAngleo lists “Being Too Much of a Nice Guy” as No. 1 in his “Ten Most Dangerous Mistakes Men Make With Women.” At his website, Relationshit.com, the most popular the most highly trafficked pages are those asking the question why women don’t like good guys.

    PlayStations and Internet porn? For a lot of guys, they seem like the better way. Men consider trade-offs, cost, and risk. Young men who aren’t seeking children have a big wide world to play in.

    • Cost of marriage and children, for men:
      Better than 50% chance of losing half their assets, half their income for 22 years, and custody of their children. $250K per child, to raise, or more.
      Dealing with a solipsist, mean sociopath, who has no idea how to get along with people, discipline her spending, or otherwise be a responsible partner.
      Watching one’s children be warped and damaged by an insane, bipolar harpy.
      Court systems totally against men, in a climate of encouragement for false accusations.
      Minimal sex, and women who have no compunction at all about playing around.

      Benefits of not getting married:
      Working hard, it is possible to retire in one’s 50’s, to a good life.
      No child support to pay
      Peace of mind and spirit
      Security of assets

      Guys over 50 know this, usually. That’s why the number of men over 48 that seek marriage tanks near zero. They know it is so much easier, and safer, to play the field. And they are in a seller’s market, with 8 or more halfway pleasant women per guy. I’m not counting the sociopaths, that 8 would become 20, if I did. They can be very selective. Or, they can simply pursue other hobbies, which, all in all, is much safer, with a much higher probability of success, and far lower risk. Women are a very expensive, risky, luxury, for men, certainly not a necessity. The only reason to get married, for a man, is to have a stable environment, and de facto business partnership, to raise children responsibly in. Feminists and courts have largely destroyed that, now. Men know the courts and feminists have them in the cross hairs of a sniperscope. The only safe thing to do is to evade, and be hard to find. And it’s working. Where have all the good men gone? Well, the top 1-10% that women so hanker for don’t need to get married. They have all kinds of women available to them, no need to commit.

      I know a retired minister, whose wife dumped him, after 40 years of marriage, to have a lesbian relationship. She took half the assets, of course, though she’d spent her half long ago, so she took her half, and then took half what he had. He was ripped up by it. If he wanted a woman, now he’d have a lengthy list to choose from, some quite pleasant. He doesn’t. He’s quite happy with his hobbies, and working on his house. Women don’t seem to understand that when they really screw over a man, they also screw over the women that he might otherwise have gotten involved with. Some women truly seem to hate women.

  31. Last night I was at a networking group for parents of special needs kids. I spoke with one of two women who did the child care. She was a millenial, newly graduated from college, just started a job. She was respectful, understood spirituality, had clear, focused long term goals, and her energy was very, very good. She had no downside that I could perceive. And sure enough, she was raised in the church. It is easy to dislike churches, and some have certainly been involved in bad stuff. I’ve had a lot of experience of atheist materialists, and of spiritual people. The spiritual people know where their heart is, and it is in operation. The materialists seem to be in eternal battles with … something. They aren’t entirely sure what it is. Women express their highest aspirations on spiritual paths, rather the way men do. I’ve had many comparisons. This one is 100%, and that is rare. Or maybe she just reflected my own energy. I was very cheered, at seeing someone that spiritual, who is 22.

  32. Maybe we need to deal with feminism as we do with other addictions?

    THE TWELVE STEPS FOR FEMINISTS.
    1. We admitted we were powerless over feminism—that our lives had become unmanageable.
    2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves, a spiritual power, reachable only through the heart, could restore us to sanity.
    3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of this power, as we understood er
    4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
    5. Admitted to Goddess, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs, and all the pain and injury we inflicted on innocents.
    6. Were entirely ready to have Goddess remove all these defects of character.
    7. Humbly asked her to remove our shortcomings.
    8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
    9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
    10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
    11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with Goddess as we understood her, praying only for knowledge of Her will for us and the power to carry that out.
    12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to feminists, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

    Traditional European culture had a way to cure addictions. Addictions can only occur in a body with acidic pH, that is, under 7.0. One can drink about a tablespoon of traditional apple cider vinegar, and a tablespoon of raw unpasteurized honey, mixed in water, once an hour, until the addiction passes. I have noticed that feminists seem to not eat a very good diet. They show all the signs of addiction, in their behavior. Avoiding acidifying foods is also very helpful. George Ohsawa noted that all diseases occur only in a body with acidic pH, too. Hatred is acidifying, to the body. 12 step programs aren’t easy, but they do work.

  33. Lyrics to God is a woman made more accurate
    Ariana Grande

    You, you love it how I move you
    You love it how I touch you
    My one, when all is said and done
    You’ll believe God is a woman
    And I, I feel it after midnight
    A feelin’ that I can’t fight
    My one, it lingers when we’re done
    You’ll believe God is a woman
    I don’t wanna waste no time, yuh
    You ain’t got a one-track mind, yuh
    Have it any way you like, yuh
    And I can tell that you know I know how I want it
    Ain’t nobody else can relate
    Mr. V, I like that you ain’t afraid
    Mr. V, lay me down and let’s pray
    I’m tellin’ you the way I like it, how I want it
    And I can be all the things you told me not to be
    (Yuh)
    When you try to come for me, I keep on flourishing
    (Yuh)
    And I see the universe when I use my Vibrator
    It’s all in me
    You, you love it how I move you
    You love…

  34. My daughter is happily married, with two kids. She is aware of feminism. And she is also very smart. She knows what works. She has taken the best of what she saw modelled, and put it together for her family. She was extremely careful in her choice of husband. The guy is great. I’m proud to say he’s a younger version of me, well, brighter somewhat, though. She told me that after seeing my two divorces, from what turned out to be slags, motivated her to do whatever it took to make her marriage work. And it is working. Feminism is a doctrine of hate, masquerading as equality. No matter how powerful they look, everything based on hate has a weak foundation, and in time, disintegrates. It’s just how things work. The committed feminists mostly aren’t having children. Those they have seem to mostly be toxic. Great. In just 1-2 generations, they die off, as do all other evolutionary dead ends. Feminism is a civil war. There are no winners in civil wars, only varying degrees of loss. The USA hasn’t recovered from its own civil war, which was started by Democrats- yes- Democrats, who fought bitterly to maintain slavery. Most of the troops in the CSA Army were men who couldn’t afford slaves. They didn’t make much money, because the tidewater aristocracy took the best land, and what free men could compete with slaves? Democrats live in the plantation house on the hill, even now, metaphorically. They have the doctrine that puts them at the top of the heap. Look at America’s inner cities. Detroit is a great example of what Democrats in the plantation house on the hill do to cities. Baltimore is another example. Walk the projects- during a schoolday, or on Sunday. Look around you. This is the Democratic paradise. I’m not saying Republicans are much better. I am observing what I see. The KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic party. Maybe 1 of the old DIxiecrats turned Republican, in the 70’s, but most of those segregationist Democrats died Democrats. Democrats are all lies, about the past, blaming others for their sins. And the first thing Democrats attacked was the black family. They intentionally decided to destroy it. And it worked. Black people had lower rates of family breakups, in the 1940’s, than whites. Now? LBJ’s Great Society, [the joke’s on you, America] created slums, and the inner city as it is now. The way to fight all this is on an individual level. Make your own family great. Serve your community. Quit consuming the lies of the mass media. And understand that most politicians, and all Democrats, are liars. I’m not saying Republicans are much better. We have no honest politicians. Just choose the less dishonest among them.

  35. Perhaps the queen of toxic feminism is Hillary. She engaged in more criminal activity, and made more money, than Al Capone. Curiously, her position was largely created by her relationship to her husband. Bill opened doors for her, into politics. Women want pretty much what people want- a better life, a future for their kids, enough money to live on, some fun in life. While feminists are toxic, the majority women aren’t. Survivors of WW II had the intent of never again. Which led to some new problems, because avoidance goals are negative, and not productive. Why can’t we have some attraction goals, like a healthy economy, health care that works, opportunity for all, higher education that is not all Marxist theory that doesn’t work, and so on? Feminism is all about avoidance goals. Feminists talk about all they hate, and don’t want, and seem to create more of what they hate, and don’t want. Millenial women I’ve spoken with are smarter than that.

  36. Nature has a cure for extreme stupidity, or ignorance of the environment, and what works.

    Extinction.

    How many Brontosaurs have you seen in zoos, in your lifetime?

  37. Feminism, and the left, worked very hard to destroy traditional mores about marriage. Rather like the early Russian, and Chinese, ideas that sex was like drinking a glass of water. Which didn’t work.

    You see, through the 1960’s, women often didn’t have sex until marriage. If they did, it was in the context of what they saw as a committed relationship. A man who didn’t see it this way was not respected. Through the 1960’s, there are many records of first born children being born say 7 months after marriage.

    Back then, oh it does feel like ancient history, men who were responsible, good, respectful, were RESPECTED. Men who were good fathers were looked up to. They had a place in the community. The Feminist argument was that men behaved like pigs. Which is an insult to pigs. SOME men behaved badly. So the Feminists argued that all women should behave badly. So, a few bad apples among men were used by feminists to spread the rot throughout the barrel. (That is a metaphor; at one time, apples, and other goods, were sold out of barrels. So, if you were getting married to a woman from the “bottom of the barrel”, you weren’t doing well.) The feminists said sex was just a bodily function, a throwaway, like a dirty napkin. So now we have the Yes means Yes laws, which means permission must be sought at each phase. So the closer you get, the farther away you get.

    Marriage was quite an institution. Men AND Women worked together to raise the next generation, to serve the larger community, outside of their small selves, they made sacrifices in the now, for larger rewards down the road. They also tended to respect themselves, their children, and others. Society entrained people to healthy behaviors, instead of the endemic addiction one now finds among so many.

    But feminists decided to start dissing men. They had no respect for married men, for men who were good parents, for men who gave back to the community. They attacked them, and marriage.

    Oh, ok. So good men, who are responsible, sacrifice self, give back to their communities are now disrespected. So who gets the respect? Bad boys! Bad boys get more than those respectful, respectable betas ever got. It lines up outside their doors, sometimes. Commitment? Intimacy? Emotional support for women? Long term commitment? Sorry, all that is sexist oppression. So now we have women who’ve had 3 digits worth of sexual partners, that they felt nothing about, talking about how “empowered” they are. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I’ve never been with a hooker, ever. I can’t even get within 20 feet of them, on the street. I feel their pain, because I am intuitively empathic. I could feel their pain even when I was 10 years old, though I didn’t understand it then. I guess that’s not common.

    Lie down with dogs, and you get up with fleas. Run with the strays, and you learn to howl. Where are the women of the WW II generation, who worked hard to raise their kids, and keep their families together? They are mostly ashes in small plots. Those women were tough, they were everything feminists like to say they are, but aren’t.

    Karma is very real. The Near Death Experience process reported by several researchers seems to include a phase where one experiences all the pain one ever inflicted on others- as those others, feeling all the pain they felt. I wonder how today’s feminists, who have inflicted great pain on women, will feel, as they do the NDE Life Review. We aren’t even looking at the pain they inflicted on children, and on men- no- just on women.

    Wanna see some tragedy, if you’re male? Go on Tinder. See just how desperate those women are. Most of them. Especially the single moms. Men are getting smarter. It used to be that a “man” would consider raising someone else’s kids. Now a “man” knows better, and that getting involved with a single mom is to be a simp, a Blue Pill knight, who gets crapped on, and screwed. BOHICA is not a fun process for a man. And marriage often equals BOHICA, for a man.

    You tend to get more of what you value, and respect. If there are problems in male behavior, look back to the behavior that was valued and respected, by women. Women have no respect for responsible men, and they are becoming rare, or at least they have learned to walk and live in stealth, and low visibility. Native American female elders will tell their young women that the behavior of men who get sex is the behavior that other men will copy. They are at least grounded. I like Native Americans. I like Africans. I like Asians. I like anybody who isn’t so totally filled with worthless garbage that they are effectively insane, like feminists. How many feminists are there in, say, Dahomey? The Yemen? China? There are strong women there, but very few, if any, toxic feminists like what we have.

  38. Here are some random comments to back up what you said. In WW II, intelligence agencies used “content analysis” to measure how entire groups or nations were thinking. One can do the same thing with some websites. As you look at the following, think of the thought picture these form.

    actually this has made me realize something, the reason men in western countries don’t want marriage with western women is because of the family law court, so these western women are actually fleeing feminism too, how is family law and marriage in Mexico, [where this woman went to find a man]?

    Yeah these western women are fleeing from the very thing they established along with the beta orbitors…which is said FEMINISM!

    “I’m 30+ and lonely..I know how to fix that! I’ll sit watching Temptation Island and Bachelor and rant ‘_when are men gonna man up_?’ as well as ‘_where are all the real men_?’ , expecting them to all line up at my feet”

    “But but but…I’m ready to settle down now! I deserve a useful idiot!”

    Yeah they are fucked up. None were taught to commit and grow with a man.

    like my ex wife’s mother. And she told her daughter(my ex wife) that she can still find Mr. Right because she is young(she is 31) and only has one child(my child). And she is 56 and is looking for “Mr. Right” herself. LoL. She dates rich guys, but never gets to stay with them. And I’m labeled the bad guy by her family now because I am not Mr. Moneybags.

    or starting to think about having children or “freezing their eggs” when they’re near post menopause

    They are the one who bought “sexual revolution” lies and now they end up alone
    And so then they flock to a foreign country in hopes of finding some Prince CHarming.

    There was a day and age when if a woman reached 23 or 25 with out kids or marriage in her future very soon she would be considered a old hag over the hill. Men in those days got married usually around age 25 to 45 depending on when they got enough money together to buy land or whatever it took. Women in that time got married generally by age 16 but as early as age 12-13-14 depending on family, their development, and their looks. I’ve looked through all kinds of public court records and old diaries i found in estate sales n such. All the marriages in the Eastern USA prior to 1945 were the same age bracket for every license issued……….ran like this when reading…………………( Male aged 25 married to Female aged 17 ) or ( Male aged 33 married to female aged 14 ) You could read the licenses for hours on end before you would come across the rare and hard to find license that read ……….( Male aged 35 married to female aged 31 ) It was practically impossible for me to find one that read………….( Male aged 50 married to female aged 40 ) It was well known in those times that a woman aged over 25 had less value and a woman aged over 35 had no value at all, as a prospective partner

    they are so desperate but they treated men like garbage so they are surprised that they are left in the dumpster

    “I’m not most women” — most women

    A man without a woman is like a neck without a pain. (W.C.Fields – American comedian)

    Women lonely? They should have thought about that when they were chasing bad boys and taking custody of men’s children and squandering their money. Let women suffer in their demise.

    whenever I feel slightly lonely, I go visit my married friends, to remind myself what I am missing……..that cures me for a month or so.

    Men are used to spend most of their life alone, so it’s not so terrible for men as it’s for women to age lonely.

    There is a HUGE difference between being alone and being lonely. Focus on hobbies, exercising, Church, educate yourself. I never feel alone. And wake up with a smile on my face every day. MGTOW saves lives.

    I like the silence ,there’s not many people I like anyways. Also I love to live minimally and enjoy finding my things where I left them. Oh the 90% extra money is also nice 🤣

    Well one of the problems with women in their 30s is they now have Instagram and other social media to keep their Egomania alive even as they hit the wall. The wall just eliminates the attractive guys and leaves them a Beta overload of males hoping they now have a chance. Mix in some Narcissism and she still believes she is a 10 and need not ever settle. So we now have an epidemic of 30 something women who want to ride the carousel like a teenager

  39. I thought they said they didn’t need men in their lives….. I mean I knew they were lying, but honestly it’s their problem now, not ours.

    I’d much rather be what a woman calls “lonley” that what a man calls “miserable”.

    Not wanting a woman equals being alone? I’ve a friend coming over tonight and tomorrow I’m out on the town. I could do with a rest to be honest… Mgtow for life!

    I don’t think most men give a damn about dying alone. Thats a chick thing.
    Women walk out on sick men all the time. So having a relationship with a woman is not a guarantee, she will be there when you need her.

    If I’m single, women have no power over me. They can call me single, but they can’t shame me for it. Can’t feel shame over something you’re proud of.

    Psychiatrist: Now tell me what your nightmare was about?
    Woman at 30: CLOCKS!!! LOTS AND LOTS OF CLOCKS!!!

    Walls with clocks on them

    I was never more lonely than when I was married. Now, my son is full grown, I am alone but not lonely at all. Too damn busy training martial arts, reading, two sports, surfing, cooking, playing guitar – living the simple life on my social security in Mexico. And taking my redpill a day….!

    Some of the loneliest, unfulfilled men are married. By the way, everyone dies alone. Who cares?

    You already can see the change in women.
    You almost can smell the desperation….

    A woman who is 30 and lonely is usually a woman who was arrogant during her prime years. Instead of finding a good mate, they usually have fun with the bad boys then want a beta male to take care of them in the future. Too bad for them that beta males are waking up.

    Women fear being alone because they know they are useless by themselves. Men on the other hand know there is no help coming. Any help we may get only comes in form of reciprocity. The less you do for a woman the more women will need men. This is a concept lost on White Knights.

    Guys, i’m 21 yo, there’s a 27 yo at my job who shows “interest” on me and i don’t give any attention to her. If a girl is 30 (or nearing it) and is lonely, pretty much she has psychology problems. Avoid them at all costs, like i am doing…

    Funny some of these women In the pics look like transsexuals. They’re getting harder to spot

    While she’s first starting to feel lonely at 30, regular men have been living loneliness since their teenage years thanks to women rating 80% of men “below average” in looks.

    You can be married and more lonely then you could possibly imagine, trust me on this.

    Married guys looked drained of life, 99% of the time

    hand her the starter kit : kitty litter, bottle of wine and vibrator.

    Just talked to a woman who is 38, who told me she’d be ready to settle down in about a year. Well, I ain’t ‘waiting’ for her.

    Just discovered this page on FB called “where r all the good men” 😂 hilarious

    Many suffer this disease. I prefer loneliness. It’s cheaper than dealing with all the drama these entitled queens like.

    MGTOW= Men Getting Tired of Women.

    A quick google search shows that wine and cat (pet) food sales have gone up in recent years. Gee, I wonder why…?

    As more women are becoming more entitled and more toxic to be around and that no rational man would ever spend a dime and his time with these gynocentric creatures.

    Naaaa … I’ve been single for years … never feel lonely .
    Got buddies I hang out with when I feel like it , and I’m good hanging out with myself .
    But the absolutely priceless thing I find is when I get ready to go somewhere… at any time day or night … I walk out and throw a leg over a bike , or climb in the cab of my pickup … and take the Hell off . I choose how I live … asking permission from no one …

    25 Year olds look like cougars these days

    30 isn’t all that old but if you have little to nothing to offer, are a liability, and are unable to pair bond, no ones going to want you.

    Women are usually never lonely. They often always have their cats and random Chads to give them their company. 😉🤣

    There was a time when women were worth it. Even in my fifties I’m having trouble remembering exactly when that was !?

    Women can be alone but not lonely they can have a Simp or white knight at there door step in a matter of hours after posting a profile on tinder or other internet sites . So why should I have any empathy for them .

    Dear lonely 30-year-old women, I tried but you didn’t want me.
    Sincerely,
    A 32-year-old guy.

    I just got “left” by a 30 year old single mother who has a completely completely disabled daughter and she lives with her Grandma. I run a business and have plenty of money in the bank. I wasn’t even really that into her but I was still gonna give it my last shot. I’m 27 and I’m done forever. I will never attempt to be in a relationship again.

    If you feel lonely like you need a friend or just company, there is an easy life hack. Use a search engine to find an old folks home, there are a lot of old men with great life stories who live in those places who also feel lonely and would like some company. You can easily fill that void while also performing a good deed for another person.

    Stay Single
    At least until divorce, common law, child support and alimony laws change. These thots today are NOT worth being financially destroyed.

    My landlord was a single mother with two kids… She once tried to steal my phone.

    Woman’s value hits the wall after 30 …. A man’s value rises even if he just starts to get it together at 30….

  40. More candid comments from men. Women don’t listen to men, of course.

    An easy way to deal with loneliness is to talk to a woman. After 8 minutes you’ll be wishing for a bus to run you over(twice). Just don’t do it on a date, there are plenty of women working at the local store.

    There are so many 30 out there very very worried…I personally know one in particular. She’s a NPD carrier to the max also has the fem attitude as well…I’ve seen a sudden downturn in her enthusiasm with her “I’am a woman” hear me roar rant… She’s tends to be fat but beats her brains out in a gym to only manage to be a thick beefy chick. Her ego is getting smashed to the floor and the attitude of “there is no man good enough for me”, is not working anymore. I love it.. …I see young women in their early 20’s starting to worry too. As they can’t get guys to even notice them and believe me they are going out of their way to get the attention…These women ask me what I do with myself….they see I’m never with any one which is the spark to their question…and aren’t you lonely shame tactic start . I simply say I don’t have time to be lonely ….they look at me in desperation …want to what who and when can I go with you…all in one sentence. My response to them is, it’s to inappropriate to take them with…
    I kinda put the worm on the hook so to speak just to pull out their hypergamy….Makes it easier for me to walk away . Also if I do talk with women/ woman I do so where there is a security cam….Soon though these women will hook up with illegal immigrants coming into the country illegal bring with them disease these women will contract and end up dead with an incurable STD . The end is their end, and it’s to late to end their doom ….so be very aware of having a quickie you’ll end up as a sickie …

    I’m single with a dog and I’m pretty happy.

    Culmbia Student Sue’s University for anti male Bias. Ben Fiaboman was with a girl in
    Hears an article guy was smuching all the way to her dorm but he didn’t wanna go all way her out some respect for boyfriend she already had. She got made said I’m not letting you leave till we do it! Started hitting him try force going down on him . He figured he get accused so he got out his camera phone and he still was expelled for having an R accusation

    She’s 30 and “lonely” even though she’s got a list of guys still throwing themselves at her because she can’t find that top percentage guy.

    People who suffer from loneliness seriously need to find some hobbies and a mission in life. Looking back at the hell of my past relationships I can only be happy to have my peace and quiet and be able to concentrate on my work.

    Kind of funny sometimes when I talk to females about the hookup culture, most of the females want to say well if the guys wasn’t so horny the girls wouldn’t want to do anything. I just simply tell them yeah well doesn’t matter how many guys they are waiting in line it’s still up to the girl to open up her legs or not.

    Loneliness: The pain of being alone.
    Solitude: The glory of being alone.

    Someone asked me the other day why I didn’t have any kids. I said, “I don’t know. Luck?”

    being lonely vs being nagged, fleeced, cheated on, treated as a means to an end, etc. I will take loneliness any time

    Loneliness is the bridge to your inner self. Overcome the “feeling” of being alone and you will find out who you truly are, be it good or bad. It can make you a stronger person, mentally. But many people can’t handle being alone simply because they can’t handle their own chaotic chattering mind, especially the women.

  41. More brushstrokes in words, to paint a picture of what Feminism hath wrought. Some react to feedback like this with negative labels. Yet it is all honest feedback. A system that ignores feedback is a dying system.

    If you’re lonely when you’re alone, you’re in bad company. ― Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre

    When the bad boys, Chad, and Tyrone lose interest there used to be fool er I mean a clean up man to saved them, women there are no more clean up men because MGTOW has rescued them from the trap….!

    Women are always trying to project their loneliness fears on to men.

    Even letting them into your dorm is to risky. Let them enjoy their equality. Alone.

    Some men think that they are lonely by themselves. In reality, it is because you have so much time and freedom that you don’t know what to do with yourself. Freedom is not Loneliness.

    False rape accusations were always more common than genuine ones.
    He was just lucky.

    77% of suicide are men.
    60% of homelessness is men.
    MGTOW is saving lives and homes everyday .

    Women are only lonely when they are unattractive. If they half decent, some dude will come along and bend over backwards for them. I would like to thank those guys. They end up picking up the tab and I don’t have to. We need more simps. They make my life easy.

    “You didn’t want me in your prime, I don’t want you in your decline.”

    They are independent and strong, they have rejected sexual dimorphism, rejecting their role in two gendered reproduction, attraction and also pair bonding opting for multiple bonding. They wanted asexual independence like amoebas, and to achieve it they followed leaders and educators that would raise them, make them, anxious, combative and toxic. Why should bad boys and good men care now?

    Thottage…meet Karma. And Karma has brought his friend , Mr. Wall. May you enjoy your next threesome.

    If you want to attract a man, try being a genuinely nice person. If you want to attract the RIGHT man, don’t sleep with them until you develop a stable relationship with one man. It’s all about self-control. But women today don’t want to hear it.

    The average 30 year old woman looks like she’s 40 these days. It’s hilarious and they want it all. Nope you’ve rode the cc into the ground, not my problem, find a cat.

    By the time u find one to marry, they’ve been had by dozens of guys. Not natural to accept such a thing.

    That said, there’s been articles written on the increased number of people suffering from loneliness. However being alone & suffering loneliness are two different things. You can live by yourself & not be lonely- if you have friends & propose in life. But as we seen with the late Robin Williams, one can still have family & friends around you & still suffer from loneliness. A lot of these articles are geared towards single men in an attempt to shame us to go back to both the plantation of marriage…& for the religious folks back to church since they’re a shortage of men going there now.

    Lonely = no Chad attention

    30 is the new 18 …

    They’ve reap what they sowed…No man in his right mind would get involved with any woman whose hell bent to destroy him with help from the current system.

    Regardless of age if they are bored in life run the hell away. Because you will be there go to for entertainment. When you are no longer entertaining they dump you.

    Bottom line is this: if she can’t or won’t add to what you’re doing, she shouldn’t be within arms reach. When sex is artificially elevated to THE requirement, everything else fails. “Happily Married” is subjective and your life is objective. Not a difficult choice…

    I never understood why it is the mythical ‘Cat lady’ when dogs are much better suited to women as pets, needy, can be bossed around, trained to do damn near anything, love stinky smells. Cats are a Man pet. Keep the guard dogs in line, share a bit of time occasionally, don’t bother you if you’re on a dead line, can look after themselves at the drop of a hat and have minimal impact on your life plus keep your feet warm at night in Winter.

    Somebody has rightly said.. Regret is the most expensive thing in this world…

    You reap what you sow ladies. You spend your life screwing over men. Now you get what you earned. My heart bleeds.

    “Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once.
    Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, It seems to me most strange that men should fear; Seeing that death, a necessary end, Will come when it will come.” (Shakespeare: Julius Caesar).

    I love the false premise that having an entitled, old bat in your house means that someone will be taking care of you, or that you won’t die alone. Men always die alone. The question is whether or not there has been any peace along the way.

  42. Madonna touts herself as a feminist. Sure. Why not.
    So, how about we have some lyrics about feminist freedom, in one of her songs?

    “La Isla Bonita” lyrics, as “El MGTOW Paraiso” [Paraiso means Paradise, in Spanish]
    Originally Madonna, but the Alizee Jacotey version on youtube is considerably more refined.

    ¿Cómo puede ser verdad?
    [English translation: “How could it be true?”]

    Last night I dreamt of my freedom
    Just like I’d never gone, I knew the song
    A walk in the woods, in the forest
    It all seems like yesterday, not far away

    Tropical the island breeze
    All of nature wild and free
    This is where I long to be
    El MGTOW Paraiso [“The MGTOW Paradise”]

    And when the samba played
    The sun would set so high
    Ring through my ears and sting my eyes
    Your Spanish lullaby

    I fell in love with San Pedro
    Warm wind carried on the sea, it called to me
    Ven a libertad dulce[“Come to sweet liberty.'”]
    I prayed that the days would last
    They went so fast

    Tropical the island breeze
    All of nature wild and free
    This is where I long to be
    El MGTOW Paraiso

    And when the samba played
    The sun would set so high
    Ring through my ears and sting my eyes
    Your Spanish lullaby

    I want to be where the sun warms the sky
    When it’s time for siesta you can watch them go by
    Beautiful faces, no cares in this world
    Where freedom is real, and peace is at hand

    Last night I dreamt of San Pedro
    It all seems like yesterday, not far away

    Tropical the island breeze
    All of nature wild and free
    This is where I long to be
    El MGTOW Paraiso

    And when the samba played
    The sun would set so high
    Ring through my ears and sting my eyes
    Your Spanish lullaby

    Tropical the island breeze
    All of nature wild and free
    This is where I long to be
    El MGTOW Paraiso

    And when the samba played
    The sun would set so high
    Ring through my ears and sting my eyes
    Your Spanish lullaby

    Libertad dulce
    Ven a libertad dulce
    [“come to sweet liberty”]

    I do so like how Alizee did this. I can dream of what I will never get in person,
    because feminism destroyed it.

  43. There is an interesting youtube video: Why Are So Many Men Single?
    which basically says that sexual overstimulation is the reason. That’s fine. The responses to the video are even more interesting. Here are a few:

    I would rather have wisdom teeth extracted through my ass rather than get married again.

    I’ve got two alternate reasons: 1.) we live in a man hating society; 2.) divorce laws which are stacked against men.

    I saw a millennial write once, why are so many 20 something males choosing video games over women? Because video games are interesting.

    The reason so many men are single is because most women believe most men aren’t good enough. It’s the women who are too selective.

    Men are choosing to be single because women and their laws are far too dangerous for men to be around.

    LOL. I think it’s more like the female moth went banging around during her fertile years and didn’t have any baby moths. Then when she got old, used up, and raggy, she expected the best of male moths to come and try to make a moth family with her. Since the male moths get beaten up in moth family court, and are naturally inclined to seek young and fertile female moths, who now empowered by moth feminism are dishonorable sluts, it became more attractive to male moths to fly their own way.

    Bloody rubbish. Women dont fly around shouting “choose me, choose me”. They shout “Piss of, unless you are making $400,000 a year”. Most average and under-average women would rather be a sperm bags of those 10% most desirable men than to be with an average Joe.

    Because they are finally getting smart.

    Dr Reisman blames men for the problem. What a shock! NOT!! Why doesn’t she bother to bring up the fact that, get this, 50% of MARRIED WOMEN admit in a recent study that they have another man as her “back up or plan B” Not to mention that 83% of divorces are initiated by women and of those a full 75% of the time the man is completely unaware that she is out the door. What doesn’t this windbag address the problems that WOMEN have created in the West with their casual attitude concerning marriage it’s basically I will stay with you as long as I am happy and a “FEEL” in love? Feminism has DESTROYED marriage. I find it ironic that in Eastern Europe that, and studies have been done on this as well, women are FAR more happy than women in the west. Why is that? Well, in Eastern Europe young women view having a family, raising their children and supporting their husbands ( in terms of being a homemaker) is the HIGHEST thing they can aspire too. In other words, they CHOOSE and PREFER this over pursuing careers and all the CRAP the West has poisoned women with. As a result of this, they find FULFILLMENT AND MEANING out of this and as a result, they are HAPPY. Feminists REFUSE to accept the TRUTH that the vast majority of women pursue careers that are NURTURING BASED occupations. Health care, Teachers etc…. These are a weaker substitute for raising a family and being a homemaker which is the ultimate nurturing vocation. Obviously, this is a generalization for the vast majority but it needs to be recognized that not ALL women are like this. So when academia gets its head out of its arse and recognizes and starts telling women that it is fine and honorable for a women to CHOOSE to be a stay at home mom and homemaker that its not only okay but she is choosing to pursue what is probably going to give her the most satisfaction in life then and only then will this have any hope of turning around.

    Ah yes, men….the usual suspects of the decline in relationship😒, women play too many games with men, and its our fault we dont want to play their games.

    She is basically saying that if a man is satisfied sexually then he no longer has any use for a woman. lol Not really the most flattering description of a woman’s qualities.

    I only care about my grown up son, my grandson and my construction business now. I don’t need a woman to take up my time and resources and stop me from enjoying my life these days. Last thing i need is a needy woman, with her constant demands distracting me from living my life my way and my way only. MGTOW is the way to be, as you can be what you want to be in life without a woman taking those dreams away from you. You think clearer, you carry yourself better and life is more enjoyable when you call the shots in your own life, instead of having the liability of a woman clouding your judgement 24/7/365. 👍😎🙋👏😆

    Porn doesn’t wake up at 3 in the morning and tell me they don’t love me anymore

    Been with enough women to realize I don’t need crazy in my life, sorry! Go find another ATM and leave me alone!

    I disagree it’s because of pornography. For example, Tom Cruise is single and not interested in dating. Brad Pitt is divorced and not dating anyone. Henry Cavill (formerly SUPERMAN) is not dating anyone and feels if he flirts with women today they might perceive him as sexist. These are three of the hottest, wealthiest, most magnetic men on planet earth, what does this say really about how complicated things have become…

    I think she forgot about feminism

    It’s amazing how porn can simultaneously cause men to not want women at all, whilst also turning all men into serial rapists (allegedly).

    You’ve got to admire their imagination! They’ve literally got no idea how mens minds work.

    Men, are increasingly choosing to stay single, because the odds are so stacked against us when it comes to relationships and marriage. We live in a gynocentric world, where family and law courts favour females. Men, are also becoming aware of true female hypergamous nature and they’re rejecting that. Porn, has very little to do with that.

    No, you old woman. It’s like this: Marriage is HIGH RISK and LOW REWARD. It’s really that simple.

    I don’t blame porn. I blame Disney For giving us the false sense that women are angels and want true romantic love and not alphas

    Wrong. Most guys will accept very imperfect women, but most women will not. You have it backwards, women are in fact the ones chasing perfection to the exclusion of 80% of men.

    After men have been groomed by women and the society of feminism to believe that there is something innately wrong with the male species, and that men are not worth anything to women, they have finally understood the sisterhood collective mind that is apparently against all men. After the legal destruction of men in the family courts, the robbery of male life earned property, the redistribution of all their wealth and finances to the woman, and the alienation from his children’s lives: what should you further expect from the male species, Chivalry?

    Its funny they blame video games, sports, porn and so on. But never look at it from a different perspective. Which women are to entitled with unrealistic expectations. Plus special protections under the law; unspoken or written. That makes things more cringe and risky. The source of these problems are feminism, pc culture which created this mess to begin with. But its only when men arent buying big ticket items like family cars, rings and houses. That effect the market and creates the fuss. Why arent the dupes buying our crap. Sorry too busy having fun being single. Dahmmit we gotta figure out a way to screw men outta money and fast. Its not love, empathy or even common humanity. Its money thats it.

    “Most men in America have figured out Marriage is nothing but a ‘rigged’ pinball machine, They have ZERO rights to their kids, And SHE decides when it’s over” ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008

    Not it’s not. Porn is a problem yeah but it’s wasn’t porn that cheated on me while I was at work, it wasn’t pornh that wasted thousands of dollars on itself, it wasn’t porn that claims I abused her, it isn’t porn that now only calls when she wants money…. men are single cos women are destroying their lives…

    “Why Are So Many Men Single?” – Because they are SMART

    It’s a good try Professor, but most men actually do find that real skin to skin contact is much more intense than porn. So…. if the legal and social risks were not so overwhelming, they would opt for the real thing. Pornography has always been around. Our equal rights have been diminished.

    Marriage is a business. Roles in relationships are social constructs. The government rewards women no matter how they behave. What were you trying to convince me to do again???

    “News Flash” I have met a lot of women on P.O.F that Jack Off to Porn like men. They do it right from there phone.

    Because they’ve suffered heartbreak and don’t wanna go through that feeling again.

    Ladies, try going back to being “Feminine”………..Ooops, sorry, mansplaining!

    So says the feminist who wishes to enslave the resource producing ability of the male silken moth.

    I think the high punishment and low reward system originated in corporate America. I think women feel exactly like a corporate job.

  44. Art is life.

    Music is soul.

    Television is furniture.

    Feminism is toxic waste.

    Spend time with each, and you will confirm this.

  45. How much serious evidence is there, of any ancient feminist cultures? There is none.
    Some would argue that Minoans were this way. In the absence of any writing, that is hard to prove. Women are shown in paintings, yes, but if all we had of our civilization was Playboy centerfolds, what would that mean in 3,000 years? As we look at traditional cultures, they tend to have a common spiritual core. Feminist ideas are pathologically materialistic, and one-sided. They compare high class men with low class women, to make themselves furious. This is poor science. Men and women of roughly the same social class tend to live very similarly, over time. In terms of birthrate, feminists seem to be evolutionary dead ends, that will wipe themselves out in time. They know this, which is why they work so hard to propagate the hate. The number of women in the USA, who identify as feminists, is under 10%. Which suggests that women may well be smarter than some give them credit for. Napoleon said that one should never interrupt an enemy who is doing stupid things. Maybe we should just let the crazy feminists wipe out their movement themselves, they are doing a better job of it than anyone else could.

  46. Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses – mostly due to an overblown statistic claiming 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted – young college men are starting to rethink how they talk to women. At first glance that might seem like a good thing – men learning to be more respectful of women and not be so rapey – but that’s not what this is. This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they’re afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation.

    Reporters John Lauerman and Jennifer Surane interviewed multiple men from colleges like Harvard and Stanford who expressed concern over what was once known as a “hook-up culture” but is now labeled by feminists as ” rape culture.” The change in terminology ensures that all responsibility is placed on men, just because of their gender. Take Malik Gill of Harvard University, who said he wouldn’t even give a female classmate a beer.
    “I don’t want to look like a predator,” Gill told Bloomberg. “It’s a little bit of a blurred line.”
    Gone are the days of buying a woman a drink – even if it’s just to be nice.

    Gill also told Lauerman and Surane that after he passed on the contact information of a woman who said she was interested in his fraternity brother, his friend was hesitant to call her. “Even though she was interested, he didn’t want to pressure her,” Gill said. “He was worried about making her feel uncomfortable.” William Pollack, a Harvard Medical School psychologist, told the Bloomberg reporters about a patient who was kissing a girl during a party and began thinking about what would happen if things went further.

    “‘I want to go to law school or medical school after this,’” the student said, according to Pollack. “‘I said to her, it’s been nice seeing you.’” Pollack also noted that the media attention to campus sexual assault has led to a “witch-hunt” mentality. “Most males would never do anything to harm a young woman,” Pollack told the Bloomberg reporters. But the current focus is “starting to scare the heck out of the wrong people.”

    Like Clark Coey, who will be a freshman at East Carolina University in North Carolina this year. He’s worried that the definition of consent might not be clear, or exactly what it means. “I haven’t learned anything about consent since I was a freshman in a health class,” Coey told Bloomberg. “They have to give you a better understanding of what’s right and what’s wrong.” Oscar Sandoval of Stanford University said a female friend asked if he wanted to hang out. His friend was drunk when she arrived, Sandoval told Bloomberg. She flirted, but he just walked her to her dorm. “Among the people I hang out with, there’s more hesitancy to hook up with someone when there’s alcohol involved,” Sandoval said. “Something that you might have thought would be okay when you were drunk might not be okay later on.” Joshua Handler of New York University’s comments brought up another interesting consequence of so much media attention: Having to talk to women in a very specific manner. Handler told the Bloomberg reporters that he is now very clear about what he wants when he talks to women. Because now, apparently, women can’t interpret conversations and need to be spoken to like children (my words, not his). I would also remind readers of Kevin Parisi, who was accused of – but found not responsible for – raping a fellow student at Drew University. He certainly has reason to be wary of women, and he told the Washington Examiner that he’s afraid that what happened to him at Drew could happen at other schools. “I don’t see any way that this — I don’t see how these — the laws at hand don’t protect me from this happening again,” he said. We’re facing a cultural shift where soon men might be afraid to talk to women at all for fear of being labeled rapists. Without presumed innocence on college campuses, the only way this will be fixed is after universities have to start paying out millions of dollars to students after being sued for denying them due process. And with the current landscape – that might not be too far in the future.

    There is really only one safe path. Talk to women as little as possible. Nobody is laughing at the Mike Pence rule, any more. One phrase a lawyer taught me was, “On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline all communication with you. Have a good day!”

    • “On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline all communication with you. have a good day!”

      I like it.

  47. Since the fall of 2017, when #MeToo surged onto the national stage and demanded that we reckon with how gender and power interact in the workplace, companies and the men that lead them have allegedly been held accountable for the way they behave. Flashpoints in the discussion around toxic masculinity—like the recent Gillette commercial fracas—preoccupy us for weeks. Parents agonize in the pages of New York Magazine, Time and the New Yorker over how to raise their boys into men who will see women as human beings. And amid all these productive, if occasionally infuriating, attempts to rectify an injustice women have long suffered in silence, some men have simply decided to play it safe. The safe path is to “default” to the safe solution.
    In a recent report from the New York Times, male managers attending the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland disclosed that rather than attempt to deal with feminist witchhunts, their method of reducing the risk of sexual misconduct was “simply minimizing contact between female employees and senior male executives” in their companies. It quotes an anonymous American finance executive who now thinks “twice about spending one-on-one time with a young female colleague.”

    He’s not alone in his discomfort with co-ed one-on-one time. According to a survey cited by NYT and conducted by Lean In on the effects of #MeToo, almost half of male managers are uncomfortable participating in a common work activity with a woman, such as working alone or socializing together. One in six male managers are uncomfortable mentoring a female colleague. It’s gotten to the point where a consultant who advises companies on gender and diversity issues has had to explicitly tell men in management that it is illegal to deliberately avoid their female subordinates. Men couldn’t just say F you, to the consultant, of course. But safety is the path to choose. Avoidance is hard to measure.

    There are a few troubling ideas underlying this new commitment to gender segregation. The first is that these men seem to believe that women are reporting sexual harassment capriciously. How odd is that? Yes, women report this stuff capriciously, making false claims. This is known in history. It’s kind of why the court system exists. It is better not to be open about reluctance to be alone with female co-workers, of course, since experience has taught men that there are many women who are fundamentally untrustworthy or unreliable narrators of their own lives. The risks of dealing with women are high, for men.

    The CEO of the Female Quotient, a company that is dedicated to achieving workplace equality, takes it one step further in the Times piece and suggests turning the entire office into a safe space for men: “I tell women, before you take offense, make men aware that you are uncomfortable, as it may not be intentional.”

    Women are effectively giving up mentoring opportunities that can determine their career trajectory, allegedly because men refuse to learn extremely basic social cues that are hammered into women’s heads from birth. Men are not women, though, they do NOT have the perception that women have. Feminists cannot understand that men are not some kind of vicious alien creature, to be tamed with random violence and punishment.

    • Women see the world is a bunch of dials, with very fine gradations.

      Men see the world as an on/off switch. #metoo? No problem. Cut off all contact with danger.
      Simple, effective response.

  48. I know a woman who was hired for a new job. She didn’t know how to do everything. She had one somewhat complex project, and asked her male supervisor for help. He was so afraid of dealing with her, that he simply recommended she be fired, for not knowing how to do her job. She was fired. It was two months after she was hired.

  49. Where men once went to college in proportions far higher than women—58 percent to 42 percent as recently as the 1970s—the ratio has now almost exactly reversed. This fall, women will comprise more than 56 percent of students on campuses nationwide, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Some 2.2 million fewer men than women will be enrolled in college this year. And the trend shows no sign of abating. By 2026, the department estimates, 57 percent of college students will be women.
    The new minority on campus? Men.
    That’s an irony not lost on Jennifer Carlo, the vice president of student engagement and student affairs at Carlow University, which is trying all kinds of ideas to bolster its supply of men—including showcasing male college-success stories as examples to prospective applicants. “It didn’t used to be that you were worried about providing role models and mentors for males,” Carlo mused. Started as an all-women’s college by an order of nuns, Carlow has had a longer road to travel than most other institutions to balance its enrollment by gender; although it has admitted men to its degree programs for nearly 50 years, it has recruited them aggressively only since 2004. The university is adding sports teams to attract more men, including men’s track and field this fall, and men are disproportionately represented in the promotional photos on its website and marketing materials. There are also new degree programs in fields such as business meant in part to appeal to men. Carlow has a lot of competition. Reeling from a years-long decline in overall enrollment, colleges and universities nationwide are vying for all the students they can get, and suddenly paying new attention to bolstering the number of men who apply. “Oh, my heavens, yes,” Carlo said. The flow of prospective students has been dropping off for so long, she said, “you’ve got to have everybody.”

    So while much attention has been focused on the controversy over gender-neutral bathrooms on campuses, she said, the much bigger gender issue behind the scenes at universities and colleges is how to draw more men. Though advocates complain that few in higher education are doing enough to keep those men who do get there from leaving, there’s consensus that men’s reluctance to enroll in the first place isn’t necessarily the colleges’ fault. The problem has its origins as early as primary school, only to be fueled later on by economic forces that discourage men from believing a degree is worth the time and money. “It’s funny that it’s the colleges that are finally seeing this issue and trying to resolve it,” said Patrick Maloney, the president of the Nativity School, a Jesuit Catholic middle school in the central Massachusetts city of Worcester that tries to aim low-income boys toward college. That’s because, by the time students reach college age, Maloney said, “It’s way too late. You’ve already lost them. Maybe [admissions officers] should be going into middle schools and start talking to fifth-graders about the benefits of college education.”

    Or even earlier than that. The “anti-school, anti-education sentiment” in boys has roots in kindergarten, when they’re slower to learn to read than girls, said Jim Shelley, the manager of the Men’s Resource Center at Lakeland Community College in Ohio. Girls at the primary and secondary level worldwide far outperform boys in reading, according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. That disparity continues until, “by eighth or ninth grade, boys have lost interest,” Shelley said. Many boys beyond that point perceive little benefit to college, especially considering its cost, said Jerlando Jackson, the director and chief research scientist at Wisconsin’s Equity and Inclusion Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has written about this. To them, he said, it means a lot of sacrifice for a vague payoff far in the future.

    Low-income boys in places with the most economic inequality, in particular, suffer what one study called the “economic despair” of seeing little hope for financial advancement. “They think, ‘Well, I could just start out working in the mall and in six years make the same as a classmate who goes to college and whose first post-college job pays them less than I’ll be making then,’” Jackson said. Meanwhile, boys in many American communities don’t see male role models who have been to college and succeeded, said Keith Bullock at Kentucky’s Berea College (56 percent female). Bullock is the coordinator of programs to support male students, many of them from Appalachia. “They don’t have those examples of doctors and lawyers and professionals.” Men may also feel they have more alternatives to college than girls do. “For a lot of my [male] high school friends, it was just too much time,” said Smith, the orientation leader at Carlow. “They were ready to get out. As opposed to a four-year college, they could go to an 18-month [vocational-education] program and make just as much money.”

    Shelley works with men over 25 who took this route, but then got tired of their lives in manual labor and returned to community college. Asked why they were giving school a try again, they tell him, “‘All I do is play video games and hang out with friends. I need to do something with my life.’ I’ve had a number of young men refer to themselves as losers because they hadn’t gotten traction in any career.” Other male returnees are breadwinners. “Men need to know perhaps more than women what the payoff is going to be,” said Shelley: “‘If I commit to this, what am I going to take away from it? Is there going to be a job two years from now when I walk across the commencement stage?’” Men who do enroll in college, at whatever age, are more likely than women to drop out, and they graduate at lower rates, the Education Department reports. That’s one thing universities and colleges can address directly, but generally don’t, Shelley said.

    Through 21 years running one of the few campus support centers exclusively for men, he said, “I’ve thought it can only get better. But it just has gone nowhere. Not only are there not programs like ours that are supportive of male students, but at most college campuses the attitude is that men are the problem. … I’ve had ***male students tell me that their first week in college they were made to feel like potential rapists***.” Added Maloney: “There’s a lot of attention on empowering girls. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but males are the ones in crisis in education.” Jackson thinks there’s a surprising racial component. There’s not much work being done to encourage boys to go to college, he said, because not all of those boys are from racial and ethnic minorities society regards as disadvantaged. A lot of them are white. “It’s a tough discussion to have and a hard pill to swallow when you have to start the conversation with, ‘White males are not doing as well as one might historically think,’” he said. “We’re uncomfortable as a nation having a discussion that includes white males as a part of a group that is having limited success.” The male students under his care are black, white, and Hispanic, Bullock said, and they all face similar pressures. He escorts them to the counseling and advising offices and texts them every day to make sure they get to class on time and know when tests are scheduled. “My guys,” he calls them. He also works with them on study habits and time management. “It’s very challenging.”As for how to recruit males to campuses in the first place, Stefanie Niles, the vice president for enrollment at Dickinson College (57 percent female), said it’s important that they see other men on campus. A rare male student at Carlow University in Pittsburgh, where women outnumber men by more than six to one, Vinny Bucci said his male friends from high school chose vocational training over college. In colleges and universities nationwide this year, more than 56 percent of students are women. “We think about, ‘What will appeal to young men?’” she said. “Young men want to see other young men like themselves, so we want to make sure we showcase that.” The college also waits to reach out to males until they are already seniors in high school, since it’s found that boys get serious about college much later than the girls it recruits as early as November of their sophomore years.

    Alex Santiago was one of those boys who decided late to go to college. At the Nativity School in Worcester, he said, “me and my friends competed to see who would get better grades.” But as he grew older, “I started to sort of rebel, and by eighth-grade year I don’t think I spent one day out of detention. I didn’t see the point in going to school.” The son of a single mother who immigrated from the Dominican Republic, Santiago said he had neighbors and cousins who had gone to college but wound up working jobs for which they didn’t need higher educations. “That was what I was exposed to. That’s what shaped a lot of my negative thoughts toward colleges.” Even popular culture tended to discourage him. “It jumps back to influence,” said Santiago. “What are you feeding your mind and who are you looking up to? If you’re looking up to these rappers or social-media influencers, you’re going to want to do what they’re doing,” and that doesn’t necessarily include going to college.

  50. Melissa Garretson, MD, a pediatric emergency physician in Texas and an American Medical Association delegate, was concerned about the AMA’s own policies for dealing with harassment. At last November’s interim AMA meeting, she co-wrote an emergency resolution calling for a review of those policies. With the broader #MeToo movement still making headlines, she noticed signs of a backlash almost immediately. When she went to shake hands with a fellow member of her Texas AMA delegation, shortly after the resolution passed, he said to her, “Oh, can we even shake hands anymore?”

    Since innocent until proven guilty has been dropped in favor of a Office of the Feminist Inquisition approach to destroying innocent men, men are nervous. Samantha Rosman, MD, a pediatric emergency physician and co-author of the same emergency resolution, said after she publicly shared her own account of being sexually harassed, some male colleagues said they couldn’t give her a hug anymore. (well, yeah. Men in my workplace wouldn’t dare touch a woman for any reason.) One male who responded to a MedPage Today survey on harassment offered this: “As a male, I now do not feel safe being alone with colleagues of the opposite sex in fear of something may be misconstrued and cost my career.” Men know that there are women who report harassment where it is not warranted. Men in leadership positions are backing off from mentoring women. (well, yes, playing with explosives is dangerous, isn’t it). Men are distancing themselves from women. Media reports have dubbed the phenomenon “the Pence effect,” after Vice President Mike Pence who, as a rule, avoids dining alone with any woman but his wife.

    The “Pence effect” is also a form of backlash and is a real concern, said Sharon Stein, MD, president-elect of the Association of Women Surgeons. “So much of opportunity has to do with networking and your ability to relate to people, person-to-person and if you don’t have that opportunity to interact with people on a more … human basis, rather than just about a particular clinical scenario, you will lose out on opportunities. There’s no question about that,” she said.

    What the Pence effect does, said Dara Kass, MD, CEO of FemInEM, an open access resource focused on gender disparities, is imply that “nobody’s capable of moderating their own behavior, everyone is out of control and the only way to [regain control] is to create these artificial limits around who you’re around.” Men accept this as the way it is.

    A recent article in Bloomberg detailed the lengths to which some men on Wall Street have gone to avoid harassment claims: no dinners alone, no sitting next to female colleagues on flights, booking hotel rooms on different floors, and skipping any one-on-one meetings. “Advancement typically requires that someone at a senior level knows your work, gives you opportunities and is willing to champion you within the firm. It’s hard for a relationship like that to develop if the senior person is unwilling to spend one-on-one time with a more junior person,” Lisa Kaufman, chief executive officer of LaSalle Securities told Bloomberg. Jobs involve apprenticing, effectively. You can’t learn everything you need to know in school. Yet these apprenticeship models are exactly the kinds of relationships where things can go awry.

    One could argue that men have to look out for their own interests. This does, however, do harm, in medicine, to patients, and the medical workforce- and to apprentices in any job. Respectful men are the most likely to be concerned about misstepping — saying or doing something to offend someone.

    Kathryn “Kate” Clancy, PhD, an anthropologist at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and co-author of a 2018 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on harassment, acknowledged that false reports do happen.
    Moreover, she said, it’s also the case that men are markedly more likely to be victims of harassment incidence than of false claims. She cited estimates that up to 40% of men are sexually harassed in the workplace. Last year, NPR reported on an online survey by the nonprofit Stop Street Harassment that found 43% of men experienced some type of sexual harassment in their lifetime. (she did not acknowledge that the courts, and workplaces, do nothing whatsoever about it) And data from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission indicate that, in fiscal 2018, 15.9% of sexual harassment charges were filed by males. It really doesn’t matter what the actual incidence of false claims is. Nothing is done to women who make false claims. Men know that they can be falsely accused and not be able to defend their case. Some women claim that “If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.” Men know this is total BS.
    They also know that the media, their chain of command, and women generally couldn’t care less about false claims, and the only safe way to avoid the minefield is to stay out of it.

  51. Marriage is declining. Some may notice an interesting shift in the manner of marriage’s decline. Thirty years ago, Americans were getting married but not staying married as much. Today divorce rates are down. And, wedding bells are also fewer. Growing numbers of young people are simply staying single. There’s evidence they’re becoming less interested even in casual sex.

    Are men and women giving up on each other? It’s starting to feel that way. In the vitriol of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, the #MeToo movement, and our ongoing discussions of “incels,” “NEETs,” and absent fathers, we see rising levels of frustration and rage, often directed indiscriminately from one sex towards the other. Making relationships work has always been a challenge—even casual human interactions can sometimes be a challenge. So what if people decide that it’s just not worth it anymore?

    A few years back, I became aware of that countercultural strain of identity politics known as the “men’s rights movement.” I first encountered it on social media, of course, and in a quest to grasp its red-pilled logic, I spent some time wandering the fever swamps of male grievance, noting the many interesting parallels between virulent masculinism and the more radical strains of feminism. It added an interesting layer to my perspective on our ongoing war of sexes. It’s well worth noting that both masculinism and feminism, at least in their more extreme forms, are fundamentally materialist in their logic. Feminism draws regularly on Marxist ideologies, reducing complex social relations to an endless war of classes vying for power. For masculinists, sociobiology is the more defining influence, as huge swaths of culture and custom are reduced to mere expressions of the Darwinian imperative to procreate. It all makes sense, on reflection. Aggrieved women, resenting the natural vulnerability of their bodies, are attracted to political theories that call for the leveling of power disparities. Aggrieved men, by contrast, hope to find in the male body a kind of warrant for dominance, which is bestowed by biology and ostensibly crucial to the survival of the species. Peeling back the layers, it seems that gender crusaders of both types are intensely fixated on brute corporeal realities: the strength of man and the comparative neediness of woman.

    I noticed something else, too, in my journey through the manosphere. I’d had occasion to note before that militant feminists tended to be disagreeably female in their mannerisms, exemplifying many of the vices that are most characteristic of women. This is particularly obvious in the more misandrist corners of the feminist world (for instance, where people debate whether non-exploitative heterosexual sex is in principle impossible, or whether it might theoretically happen in a radically different sort of society where the patriarchy has truly been defanged). The women in these circles seemed morbidly emotional, catty, and a mess of hair-trigger sensitivities. You couldn’t possibly mistake them for men, but calling them “feminine” felt like a disservice to my sex. Sizing up militant man advocates, I saw a fascinating mirror image. They seemed boorish, rage-prone, and obsessed with one-upping each other. They were everything women find most noxious in men. Girls would never exhibit such behavior, but it surely did not qualify as “manly.”

    These sad cross-sections of society give us a glimpse of a significant truth about the sexes. We’re better off together. Even the apparent exceptions, examined closely, usually aren’t. The men of Mount Athos or the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration may appear to live in single-sex worlds. But the former regard themselves as the special servants of Christ’s Mother, while the latter see themselves as his Brides. Their methods may be idiosyncratic, but in their own way they do enthusiastically embrace the opposite sex. This is dramatically different from what we see with our resentful gender warriors.

    Marriage Takes a Village. However we go about it, men and women seem happiest when we are balanced by our sexual complements. Healthy things can still be difficult though. Men and women readily misunderstand one another, and the fact that we do need one another opens the door to many types of exploitation and abuse. Avoiding these pitfalls takes work. Too often nowadays, I hear young people describing family life as a hazard more than a blessing, wondering not “what can I do to be worthy of another’s love and commitment?” but rather “what can marriage really do for me?” I myself had the good fortune of growing up in the Mormon Church, where teenagers are given extensive instruction in preparing themselves for marriage. There are elements of that teaching I would modify a bit, just based on my own marital experience. Two commonsense lessons still stand out in my mind though.

    First, you can’t possibly be a good spouse unless you’re willing to work on yourself. Your partner will surely have some irritating qualities, but so do you. Also, sometimes marriage will call for things that are not fully congenial to your comfortable, satisfied, long-developed individual self. This can be a problem in a society that is constantly urging us to self-actualize. But be willing to bend a little instead of always insisting that “this is how I am.” For women, I see this manifested in a stubborn reluctance to do things that remind them too much of domestic stereotypes. They’re so worried about being pigeonholed as domestic that they don’t consider how much the occasional homemade stew or fresh-baked cookie might do to help the men in their lives feel cared for and at home. Is avoiding Donna Reed associations really more important than making your men feel loved? Apparently so.

    On the men’s side, I often hear gripes about how “commercial America” has made women unreasonably greedy for compliments and ego-stroking. Let’s assume this is true (though personally I’m skeptical because I think women have always craved compliments). How hard is it, really, to say some nice things to the women in your life? To me it often seems that resentful men are so allergic to “sensitivity” (which they associate with distasteful images of modern, metrosexual girly-men) that they can hardly be bothered to be kind. Or perhaps it is just fear of #metoo witchhunting.

    The second point is that living together inevitably involves some putting-up-with and I-can-live-with-that. This is expected, and not a violation of your human rights. If men and women always got along easily, we wouldn’t be so good for one another. The #MeToo movement has given us a remarkable illustration of just how ungenerous men and women can be towards one another. Aggrieved women, in their zeal to punish the patriarchy, sometimes act as though any unwanted expression of interest is an outrageous insult. To be sure, some overtures are improper and deserving of censure. But men and women will never find happiness together if the latter aren’t willing to assume any responsibility for attracting and encouraging attention in appropriate ways, or for deflecting it graciously when it is unwanted. If women are unable to distinguish between sexual predation and normal sexual attraction, Cupid will find it exceedingly difficult to find his mark.

    On the male side, some men resent women’s “invasion” of once-masculine spaces to the point that almost any accommodation feels like a personal affront. The truth is, women do feel more vulnerable than men, in public, at work, or in social gatherings. That’s because, in a very real sense, we are. We shouldn’t treat all men as likely aggressors, but men should be expected to conform to behavioral standards that serve, among other things, to help women feel safe. That’s always been a major function of gentlemanly behavior, without which men and women rarely find one another bearable for very long.

    In their better moments, both feminists and masculinists raise worthwhile points. At the same time, the posture of each may be inimical to the happiness of both. For the sake of our children, but even just for our own sakes, men and women need to remember what we used to like about each other. We used to think human society was worth it. Maybe it still is. But of course feminists still want to savage innocents. And do so regularly.

  52. Title IX creates a prisoner’s dilemma: students have to file sexual misconduct complaints to avoid becoming the accused. The University of Cincinnati suspended a female student for allegedly engaging in nonconsensual sex with a male student who claimed he was too drunk at the time to approve the encounter. The fact that this case involves a male accuser (“John Doe”) and a female aggressor (“Jane Roe”) makes it unusual among Title IX complaints. (Title IX is the federal statute that forbids sex discrimination in schools.) But the female student’s lawsuit against Cincinnati—which accuses the university of violating her due process rights—reveals something even odder: Roe had previously filed a sexual misconduct complaint against one of Doe’s friends. Roe’s lawsuit, then, suggests that Doe filed the complaint against Roe as a kind of revenge for getting his friend in trouble. (I have an alternative theory, but I’ll save that for the end.) “On information and belief, John Doe was motivated to file a Title IX Complaint in retaliation for a prior Title X Complaint Jane Roe had filed against his friend,” according to the suit.

    Roe also contends that it was ridiculous to find her guilty of nonconsensual sex because of Doe’s drunkenness, but not find Doe guilty too: Roe was also drunk at the time, so under the rules she was just as unable to consent to sex as he was. While this might seem like a paradox—how can two young people rape each other?—it would actually be a straightforward application of affirmative consent, which requires all participants in a sexual encounter to proactively obtain freely given and unambiguous consent before proceeding. The encounter between Roe and Doe took place on September 30, 2017. They went to a party together and then returned to Doe’s residence after Doe said he was feeling drunk. They went to his bedroom, where Roe fell asleep. Doe eventually crawled into bed and initiated sexual contact with her. After allowing him to touch her, Roe asked if “there was anything else you want to do.” He said no and they went to sleep. (Keep in mind that this is Roe’s account, and she is the accused.)

    On October 2, Doe went to the school’s Title IX office and filed a complaint alleging that Roe had engaged in sexual activity with him while he was too drunk to give consent. That same day, Title IX Coordinator Karla Phillips informed Roe that she was under investigation. Since neither party disputed that sexual activity had occurred, the only relevant matter was whether Doe had been able to give consent. At a hearing, the university determined that he had been intoxicated, and that it thus had no choice but to suspend Roe until his graduation. Roe filed an appeal and was denied. According to The Cincinnati Enquirer, Roe said that she was being punished for “engaging in the same sexual freedoms that men on the campus enjoy.” It might be more accurate to say she is being held to the same standard—a standard that is, for many reasons, horrible.

    Roe’s theory that Doe’s complaint was a form of revenge is interesting, and it could be true. Perhaps the whole thing was a setup—he lured her to his bedroom, feigned drunkenness, and initiated sexual contact, fully intending to race to the Title IX office the next day, no-one-wounds-me-with-impunity style. Here’s an alternative theory: Doe woke up, realized they had engaged in sexual activity while they were both drunk, and feared that she would file a complaint against him, as she had done to his friend. Panic-stricken, he felt he had no choice but to beat her to the punch. Indeed, if you suspect you are going to become the subject of a Title IX investigation, the optimal strategy may very well be to file the first complaint. For reasons not completely clear to me, Title IX administrators often appear biased in favor of the initial complainant, and presume the other party is the wrongdoer.

    What a women’s wonderland feminists have created.

  53. If women were fleeing the nation’s universities and colleges, we would have a national uproar. Men are now fleeing in large numbers and society couldn’t care less. Men have been falling behind women for decades. By 2009 National Center for Education statistics for degree-granting institutions listed 11.658 million women enrolled and 8.769 million men. Women will soon account for 60 percent of our college grads. Public colleges like North Carolina at Chapel Hill and private ones like NYU have almost reached the 60 percent mark already. The University of Vermont in Burlington has so many women that the women jokingly call their college town Girlington. Diane Ravitch, the noted historian of education and a former assistant secretary of education asks: When will it be fair? When women are 60 percent or 75 percent of college enrollments? Perhaps it will be fair when there are no men at all.”

    Among minorities, the male-female balance is even more skewed. When economist Andrew Sum and his colleagues at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University looked at gender disparities in the Boston Public Schools, they found that for the class of 2008, among blacks there were 188 females for every 100 males attending a four-year college or university. Among Hispanics the ratio was 233 female for every 100 males. Young women from low-income neighborhoods in Boston, Los Angeles or Washington, D.C., do much better than the young men from those same neighborhoods. There are now dozens of studies with titles like “The Vanishing Latino Male in Higher Education” and “African-American Males in Education: Endangered or Ignored?”

    So where are all the men? Media accounts are written by idiots, generally, and often just insult males, calling them lazy and dumb. Maybe we would be better off if the media and elites weren’t so openly pleased that women are outpacing men in college. The college strike didn’t happen overnight. It started years ago when the war against boys began after the feminist era. Initially, feminism was presented as being about equal rights between the sexes. Now it is often about revenge and special privileges for women and girls. Christina Hoff Sommers, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of The War Against Boys, argues that feminists and their sycophants have worked hard to turn the educational system into one that favors girls at the expense of boys. Boys are now seen as “defective girls” in need of a major overhaul. Sommers says, “Gender experts at Harvard, Wellesley, and Tufts, and in the major women’s organizations, believe that boys and men in our society will remain sexist (and potentially dangerous) unless socialized away from conventional maleness. . . . The belief that boys are being wrongly ‘masculinized’ is inspiring a movement to ‘construct boyhood’ in ways that will render boys less competitive, more emotionally expressive, more nurturing–more, in short, like girls.”

    Boys are more at risk than girls in the U.S. educational system. A MetLife study stated, “Girls appear to have an advantage over boys in terms of their future plans, teacher’s expectations, everyday experiences at school and interactions in the classroom.” Boys are less engaged in school, and less engagement means less success in the classroom; in fact, engagement with school is probably the single most important factor of academic success. Boys are more likely than girls to come to school without supplies and without doing their homework. Why aren’t boys more engaged in school? According to Sommers, “schools today tend to be run by women for girls. Classrooms can be hostile environments for boys. They like action, competition and adventure stories. Those are not in favor. Games like tag and dodgeball are out; tug of war has become tug of peace, and male heroes have been replaced by Girl Power.” Boys receive lower marks from female teachers, according to research done for the London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance.

    Some feminist types even say it’s fine that older boys and men don’t get a college education because they can make it without one. Maybe so for some, but many more will fall in the cracks, getting nowhere in a career. In an article on the Minding the Campus website, Professor Robert Weissberg explained why so many men are fleeing the campus: “Universities are increasingly becoming feminized and many men don’t like the extreme “hostile working environment”. In a word, males increasingly feel emasculated in today’s universities.”

    A commenter named Marcus weighed in on the Minding the Campus article: “As a black male I can testify that this is indeed what is happening on college campuses. White males are at the forefront of the academic sexism but they are definitely coming after all males. Believe it.” Men’s activist Glenn Sacks encountered this dynamic first hand at UCLA in the late 1990s, when the hostilities against men were running deep. He summarized his thoughts in a column that highlights the question many men are asking themselves:

    I thought of the feminist academics (female and male) who poured their derision upon them, knowing that their students could not effectively fight back. I thought of the timid male professors who were so content with their own careers that they were perfectly willing to allow 18 year-old boys to be beat up on rather than jeopardize their own comfort by speaking out. And I asked myself a question which hundreds of thousands of male college students often ask themselves: “What am I even doing here?”

    Many other men ask themselves the same thing in today’s anti-male climate. “Michael,” a 28-year-old conservative, wrote to me to tell me his story. He went to the University of Florida free as a National Merit Scholar and winner of a Bright Futures Scholarship:
    One of my professors was fascinated by me, in the way you might be fascinated by a bizarre animal that you don’t understand; at one point, he announced (in front of the rest of the class) that I was surely socially maladjusted because my parents had spanked me when I was a child. At another point, during a dinner near the end of the semester, I made the mistake of mentioning that I planned on purchasing a firearm when I finished with college and got out on my own.

    From the wide-eyed looks around the dinner table, you’d have thought I said I eat babies on a regular basis. Needless to say, the professor thought this was further evidence of my maladjustment. I couldn’t walk to class without passing at least one group of surly protestors every day. Sometimes more than one. You name it: protesting Taco Bell, protesting Israel, this and that, to the point where I felt like I was besieged on all sides perpetually–and that was even before I got into class for my daily dose of propaganda. Eventually I decided that I couldn’t take it anymore. Free was too much to pay for this.

    On my blog, I asked about college experiences– negative or positive–and twenty-five-year-old “Andy” emailed me, saying he attended Wheelock College in Boston, and found the environment hostile: “Once at the school, interactions with the staff got strange. I realized quickly, being a male, how much of a minority at that school I truly was. Wheelock College definitely had a Men=Bad attitude, and it made [my] time there awkward and difficult at times. I only spent a year there.”

    One man noted that his fiance and he decided to take a class that would be a little less stressful, or so we thought, as an elective. We–and I can’t believe I admit to this–took women’s and ethnic studies. Just as an aside, I’m a white, blonde male, and she’s a white, black-haired woman. The makeup of the class was 75% black, 97% female and 100% bullshit. The one other white male in the class and I learned early on that we were the target of all the animosity being discussed. I did my part and actually argued my voice and against the indoctrination, not getting that this was only digging my grave with the instructor. . . . A running theme was the concept that since I am not part of a minority I cannot possibly understand what they’ve gone through, and that because of my being born a white male I was inherently in a privileged position. Another running theme was that minorities can’t be racist. I said many times in that class that their theories were ridiculous and offensive. . . .One female in particular seemed to take my viewpoints personally and began to attack me, both verbally in the classroom, then stalking me on the class’s Internet discussion board. I told her and my instructor that this was unacceptable behavior. The instructor did nothing, and the female, an immigrant from Africa via Germany, saw nothing wrong with her behavior. I explained the situation to the dean of the university after months of trying to get in touch with her. I was told it wasn’t her call, and that she couldn’t do anything about it. When I tried to take a medical absence for something unrelated, the university slapped me with a “needs anger management” class before I was allowed to re-attend, because that same lunatic complained I made her uncomfortable. The only way not to lose is to not play. So I’m out.

    Another man said Men must live a double life on campus. To succeed, men must believe one thing but act like they believe another. Manliness wants to compete, to win, to boast, to glory, even to fail honorably against the best. This is disallowed to men on campus. Winners are picked not discovered. It was clear to me; the winners would almost always be females and occasionally males who lived the double life. I left.

    Though most of the guys who wrote to me about bailing out of college seemed to go on and do well in life without a college degree, there are many guys out there who aren’t doing so well. The skills they needed were not deemed important enough for the school system or culture to address. These are the consequences: when organizations like the American Association of University Women put out research and programs to help girls, they dismiss boys’ needs as unimportant. Men who become uninterested or wary about school either don’t go, or find that higher education is not a good fit for many males.
    Do the experiences of these men represent the norm for young men arriving on campus? In an interview, Christina Hoff Sommers told me: “The moment a young man arrives on the college campus, he is treated as a member of the suspect class. One popular freshman orientation program is called “She Fears You.” Next there are “Take Back the Night” marches, performances of the Vagina Monologues–accusatory posters plastered all around the school–and lots of classroom readings–all driving home the point that women are from Venus and men are from Hell. Few classes are mandatory except freshman writing seminars. Unless the student is well-organized (and what boy is?) he will be too late for the reasonable course offerings and end up in a class where he has to read chick victim lit like the Joy Luck Club or Girl Interrupted. A nightmare for many boys.”

    I originally thought that once educators, legislators, and parents realized that boys were in trouble academically, our schools would try to make classrooms more accommodating to them. That has not happened. Because historically women have been the second sex, and did suffer discrimination, there is now an elaborate and powerful network of private and federal agencies that protect and promote women’s interests. ****Boys do not have a lobby to defend them.**** Worse, the women’s lobby (especially hardline members like the American Association of University Women–AAUW) fights efforts to help boys. Women’s groups follow a double standard: When women lag behind men, that is an injustice that must be aggressively targeted. But when men are lagging behind women, that is a triumph of equity to be celebrated. Many men have just decided that they don’t belong in college and, consciously or unconsciously, they are going on strike.

    And the only people concerned by this are concerned because college-educated women have an ever smaller pool of college educated men available.

    • I tell male college students to concentrate on their studies. If they need social time, pick up the salesclerk at the grocery store, who will be far more pleasant, and far less risk, than female college students. If you have to keep a snake for a pet, at least avoid those that have poison sacks. And these men get it. They understand what I’m saying
      My nephew used to take women’s studies courses, though. He has good game. The women there were starved for sex, and he got a lot. When he was through, he just became confused, and got out of the bad boy persona, into the confused good guy, and they would dump him. Jeez I wish I’d known that when I was his age.

    • It is fascinating to see the youtube programs where successful black women complain about there being no good black men available as partners. But Democrats created the inner city as the plantation, and government became the husband. Government does few things well, and being a dad is not one of them. Black on black crime kills many black men, in the inner city, which is a shame. I don’t hear any of those black women analyzing the situation, to figure out why it exists, and then doing something to fix it, though. They just complain. Women do a lot of complaining, and very little fixing the problem.

  54. I was getting a professional massage. I am a single mom and busy professional. Luxury items don’t happen often. I expected to feel relief from a chronic sports injury. Instead, I was flooded with grief.

    “I can see that you’re flinching when I press here. Is that where it hurts?” she asked.

    “Yes. Yes, that’s where it hurts.” I said trying to hide the lump growing in my throat.

    While the kind and patient masseuse pressed her hands into my muscles, I wept into the face holster. It wasn’t her kneading the persistent pain in my right hip that brought me to stifled tears. It was the sudden realization of how very long it had been since someone had touched my body with such care and attention. As a middle-aged, single, heterosexual feminist living through this volatile time, when relationship norms are unclear and constantly shifting, the divide between men and women has never felt so wide. And I have never been so lonely. Men can’t seem to get it right, even when they publicly shout their support for women. (Yes, it’s always the man’s fault.) Case in point: Aziz Ansari.

    Single parenting is a lot of work. I also have a career and hobbies that keep me busy. But after my spontaneous sob fest with Laura at Palm Beach Massage, I had to acknowledge that I am also human. I’d really like to have sex with a man every now and again, and feel good about it. So I weighed my options.

    I tossed out a feeler for a “friends with benefits” situation with an ex-boyfriend. This type of arrangement has sustained me for the better part of the four years since my divorce. He is the kind of man who only does something when he feels like it, and at that moment, he wasn’t available, and I was glad. While I would have been perfectly safe scratching an itch with a trusted friend, I’d have to live with the knowledge that he got to have me whenever he wanted, and without risking anything. His sense of entitlement is the reason we broke up in the first place. Friends with benefits can be nice, but it’s not the kind of intimacy I’m looking for anymore. This feminist wants more equitable sex. (Equitable sex. Umm, what the heck is that?) I want some emotional “skin in the game,” as they say.

    That same week as the massage, I went on a three-hour, first date to a museum with a supremely sweet gentleman. He opened doors, spoke carefully and softly while asking follow-up questions. I touched his arm when we sat having organic smoothies. I laughed and smiled a lot. At some point I asked where he wanted to eat lunch and he said, “Whatever you’re comfortable with.” Over the course of three hours, that line became his mantra, but then he’d promptly forget what I told him I was comfortable with. When it was time to part ways, I was comfortable giving him a platonic hug. It was not sexy being the one in the driver’s seat for three hours. I’m always in the driver’s seat. I want to salsa with a partner, not be their puppeteer. (That’s right, telling a woman what to do is sexist, and then not telling them what to do is also bad.) Before my divorce four years ago, all my previous dating happened in the 1990s, and those old ways aren’t working anymore while the new ways are still being mapped out. In my experience, the days of using sex appeal to begin a relationship are over. Because if that’s all there is, it’s dehumanizing. It leads to shallow intimacy, being objectification or coercion. Either party as the dominant decision-maker, particularly the man, is also a glaring red flag. (But you just said… never mind.) Women desire more autonomy these days, but we also want to be a part of a duo. Where do we find this new balance of shifting gender stereotypes? How do we seduce one another without falling into the old traps or ending up on an Aziz Ansari date? (We don’t. We just avoid you. Because you have no idea what clear, focused intent is.)

    For one, I don’t need a man to ask permission for every move he makes. (Oh. Hmmm. not what the law says. Have you posted a sign, and provided a signed agreement to this effect?) We shouldn’t let the battle cry of consent translate into boring sex. (But that is what it has become.) Sometimes spontaneity is what makes sex passionate, particularly sex with someone you don’t know well. (Smarter men know that this is dangerous, and risky.) But men, please, check your entitlement at the door. (We don’t have any entitlement. YOU have all the entitlement.) Intentions are important, and everyone’s intentions during sex should be of care, healing and relief, not of personal appetite and blind conquest. (And men and women should sign a notarized agreement, prior to sex, to ensure that this is clear. Good idea.)

    But this will require men to do something they are infamous for not doing … paying close attention. (Ohhhhh, that’s the problem. It’s all the fault of men. Thanks for that clarification, that is really helpful.) The trite wisdom of the late 1990s, early 2000s — that men are from Mars and women are from Venus — allowed men a pass; they weren’t expected to learn the nuance of nonverbal communication(Oh wait, men are supposed to understand NON-VERBAL communication, from beings who can make false accusations against them at will. Gadzooks, Batman, what’s wrong with this picture?) Women were coached to spell out their desires because male brains just “don’t work” at picking up subtleties of feminine persuasion. (Yes, women who have no idea what closure or clear intention is, are indeed subtle, and very hard to figure out. Even some women complain about this. The meaning of a communication is the RESPONSE you get. If you aren’t getting the response you seek, the problem is with your COMMUNICATION, which is clearly deficient. Oh wait, strike that. You are a woman, I mean princess, and everyone is supposed to divine what you want, without you saying anything.)
    Men were positioned as needing to be hit over the head with a big stick like a cave man to understand the more emotional female brain. (Actually, the threat of false accusations of rape is more than sufficient, to make them want to avoid the bundle of unfocused emotions that women are today.) Well, I’m calling foul play. We are all humans, and we can all pay closer attention to each other’s desires without having to write it in the sky for male clarity. (May Allah grant you patience. Women’s spoken language is constantly shifting. Now they have to figure out what your ever shifting intent, without even help from language? Huh?) This is called empathy, and women aren’t the only ones capable of cultivating it. (No, it is called a game which men cannot win. A mind game. A labyrinth where the only outlet is to not enter it.)

    Seduction should include a bit of mystery, collaboration, intuitiveness, innuendo and nuance. (And of course the inevitable Title IX complaint, or false accusation. Did we forget that? Men don’t forget that.) Otherwise it’s not seduction, it’s a business deal. Like a partnered dance, you have to be in tune to the other person’s moves without needing verbal guidance every step of the way. (That takes a lot of practice, the kind of practice that only long-married people have. YOu expect one-night stands to have the level of intuitive awareness that a long married spouse has? What planet did you come from, again?) Is it too much to ask a man to pay close attention to what my eyes are saying without having to spell it out? (Yes, it is, because MEN DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU DON’T TELL THEM, UNLESS YOU COMMUNICATE CLEARLY.) Sometimes there aren’t words for what I’m trying to say. It’s called nonverbal communication, and it takes intentional awareness to understand it. (Women may understand it. But men have massive risks, because WOMEN DO NOT MAKE THEIR INTENTIONS CLEAR. Men know non-verbal communication. Walk away from rabid animals.)

    If a man misreads the signs and puts his hand on my knee without asking — and I remove it — can’t he simply say he’s sorry without having his ego shattered into a thousand shards of blame? I’ve been taking risks and perfecting these communication skills my whole life out of necessity. I’ve been apologizing for myself for decades. It’s time for the men I date to meet me halfway. (Since you have no idea what clear communication is, maybe they’d rather not take the risk.)

    Nothing turns a woman on faster than when a man pays attention to the little things, even if it’s the things she doesn’t like. If I find that man who pays close attention to me, whose ego isn’t made of egg shells, then I’m likely to reward him tenfold. (Except, of course, when women don’t want that attention. And they never communicate what they want.) That’s how women work, our fecundity is more than just maternal. But until then I’m not rewarding anything else. And I’m signing up for Laura’s winter special: two massages for $89.99.

  55. This article was so-so. The comments were most interesting. Worth looking at.

    Some men are evading engagement with women altogether, such as individual meetings with female entrepreneurs, potential recruits and women who ask for informational or networking meetings. In total, 64 percent of senior men and 50 percent of junior women avoid solo interactions, according to the Center for Talent Innovation. A May poll by Morning Consult also found that nearly two-thirds of men and women agree that people should take extra caution around the opposite sex in the workplace, and about a quarter think that private work-related meetings with colleagues of the opposite sex are inappropriate. Simply said: They’re concerned that a single misunderstood comment, any one accusation, the risk of rumors or unclear motives could jeopardize their careers. But their avoidance is setting women back in the workplace even more.

    Of course, hard work reigns supreme, but it’s no secret that having advocates plays a significant role in one’s success; who you know can never hurt. And research shows that establishing genuine rapport with senior staff is perhaps the most important contributor to career advancement. Those respected relationships are referred to as “sponsorships,” wherein sponsors facilitate potential opportunities for certain employees and actually push for them. According to a study by the Center for Work-Life Policy, women with sponsors are indeed more likely to earn challenging assignments and raises and to say they are satisfied with their career progress. A sponsor may also provide valuable candid feedback, which women are less likely to receive than men, according to research by the nonprofit Lean In. But, at every level, more men than women say they interact with senior leaders at least once a week, and a gamut of more research suggests that this imbalance does, in fact, encumber women’s progression into higher-level positions.

    Sylvia Ann Hewlett, founder and chief executive of the Center for Talent Innovation, which studied sponsorship, told The New York Times that sponsors have to spend some capital and take a risk on up-and-coming people, which they wouldn’t be inclined to do without knowing and trusting them. These sponsorships are therefore crucial for “getting from the middle to the top.”

    1. With all of the backstabbing and false accusations I think it’s best for men to just avoid hiring and dealing with these women. The article seems quite anti-male as well. It only assumes that more needs to be done for women when in fact women have become so enabled and entitled that they take great joy in destroying men who’ve done little to nothing wrong.

    2. One way to avoid contact with women in informal settings with colleagues is to direct the conversation towards math. This induces anxiety in women and they eventually just leave.

    3. I am happy to mentor ladies in how to clear blocked sewerage pipes and fat bergs at the hands on level

    4. I think that the media has prevailed in finding just one more way to divide everyone. We have spent 200 Years trying to develop an open society, and are going to over a period of 20 years destroy it. So racial division has been a flourishing industry for years, political division, now they are going to drive a wedge between men and women. I am wondering who they will be able to divide next. That’s all I read out of any of this. It speaks volumes to the necessity of automation and outsourcing so that smart businesses can bypass all of this. It also makes us ask ourselves, just how wrong are they in Islamic countries where men and women are separated at gatherings and in the work place. They don’t seem as wrong now as they did a couple of years ago now do they? Seems ridiculous to even be talking about this but hey, this is where our country is now.

    5. Maybe this whole drama was cooked up by Islamists to create this situation, so that people would think this way. The Pink Hatted Pussies made it clear they are pro-Islamists after the election. And now here we are.

    6. Don’t hire or deal with women……………. no problemo

    7. Not surprised, when a joke or even a taken out of context comment can ruin your life if heard by a woman. And when you see the number of false accusations, and yet they still preach this you must always believe women bullshit. I do believe you should always take accusations seriously but you don’t assume they are true without proof, right now peoples lives are being ruined without proof in many cases and often the accusations turn out to be bullshit. Sorry but women did this to themselves, men are tired of the bullshit, being around women in the workplace feels like walking in a minefield and the benefits of women no longer outweigh the dangers.

    8. Have worked in an office environment that included women for years and it has been great. But recent events have made me put on my risk management (RM) hat, still trying to figure it all out, I agree with the author that a ‘single misunderstood comment’ can be catastrophic, and unfortunately catastrophic in RM means a high level of controls need to be followed. I was reminded that men and women do think and communicate differently and this can adversely impact (or help) the business activity, even if harassment is not on the table. So looking at risk controls:
    1) I cannot avoid interaction with all women, outside of spouse and family.
    2) Safe trusted relationships can be maintained with women of good character and maturity (i.e. we all had background checks on my last job), working with married women is better because they understand male-female interactions better. On my last several projects we had separate 2-person offices for men and women, or private cubes, I think segregation worked out well and saved a lot of potential problems, nobody wants to watch each other adjust their body garments.
    3) Most female business owners treat clients well because reputation is important, there is a trust factor there, but I am discontinuing working with most of them (ie, my financial planner, estate planner, insurance agent, trade shows, etc) as I do not know anything about them and I can interact with males just as easy.
    4) Avoid communications with women outside of work places where practical, since I am married we follow a version of the Mike Pence rule where she know’s in advance if i have a meeting with a woman, and vice versa.
    5) Dr Phil told us people must work out problems with each other first, before escalation, as part of basic life skills. Confronting is essential for success at work, why not train on this, and include male-female differences and concerns. Guys are clueless, if someone doesn’t tell us we won’t know. My wife and I work on differences every week, why should the office be any different.
    6) A documented policy for managing issues that is fair to both men, as well as women, needs to be implemented. Misunderstandings need to be worked out privately and everybody gets back to work. More serious issues get escalated.

    Bottom line, if there is no fair due process for men, there won’t be trust, and productivity and the business will suffer.

    9. I’ve been let go of a job because a woman overheard my private conversation I had on my cell phone. I wasn’t in her office, but apparently she took it upon herself to eaves drop. This was before the me too movement but I’ve already concluded that women are a danger to men’s careers. If I ever start up a company I’m only hiring men. Men work harder, longer, aren’t a liability and won’t quit at 30 to have a child. Sorry ladies, you can thank feminism for your cake.

    10. Women have allowed themselves to be played like stupid naive little pawns by a nefariously marketed Feminist agenda. First Wave Feminism had a lot of valid points and was argumentatively sound but the following waves of uber radicalized “Man Hating’venomous anti Male vitriol has enabled and brainwashed generations of women that a mere accusation is enough to elicit sympathy and garner support EVEN if it is proven to be outright lies or subjectively tailored accusations.
    Men have had enough.
    Women have cut off their noses to scorn their face.
    Men now dont want to even interact with women for justified hyper paranoia of being wrongfully convicted in the court of public opinion. Mass Media tools largely LARGELY to blame for this perpetuation.
    Multitudes of men are opting out of dealing with these manipulative creatures now.
    Welcome to the new fad of Pump AND DUMP.
    Once again….women have done it to themselves. And those who haven’t partaken in the feeding frenzies of false accusations are peripherally guilty of allowing their “sisters’ to wantonly lay siege to the workplace with their accusatory talons.

    11. A male friend, who worked at JoAnn Fabrics, greeted a woman by saying: “Lady, can I help you?” She filed a complaint because he used the word “lady”!

  56. Young women today do better at school than boys, they are more likely to go on to university, take more of the top jobs and, at least until they are thirty, earn more than men. Yet women are clearly not celebrating. In Britain, recent research revealed an alarming increase in the number of women aged 16 – 24 reported to be suffering from a mental health condition. This echoes the findings of similar research conducted in Australia and America. (In a world where women have it better than ever, too.)

    According to the latest statistics, almost 30% of young British women have a problem with their mental health. (At what point does pathology become the norm?) One in five suffer from anxiety, depression, panic disorder, phobia or obsessive compulsive disorder; this compares to 12 per cent of men the same age. The number of young women screening positive for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder has trebled to 12.6 per cent in just seven years. Almost 20 per cent of women aged 16 – 24 report self-harming. For once, headlines that shout about a ‘crisis’ or an ‘epidemic’ appear justified.

    Yet unlike their great-grandmothers, who may well have experienced the trauma of war and the hardship of rationing, before being corralled into stupefying domesticity, today’s young women have it good. They may not have a career, mortgage and baby all before the age of 25 but they perhaps have something even better: their freedom. Few young women today are constrained by either biology or social convention. The world is theirs for the taking — only a significant proportion are, it seems, too anxious, depressed and traumatised to take advantage.

    Popular explanations for this sad state of affairs tend to focus upon the pressures young women experience to live through the prism of social media; the ubiquity of pornography and the need to look good at all times. But this risks slipping into tautology. It leaves unanswered why women respond to these pressures and don’t choose to ditch the eating regimes and mute their phones. We need to dig deeper.

    Recent years have witnessed a growth in campaigns and awareness raising initiatives around the issue of mental health that are often aimed specifically at young people. From their earliest years in school many children, especially girls, adopt a vocabulary of ‘stress’, ‘depression’ and ‘anxiety’. Lessons in mindfulness and meditation urge children to focus inwards and consider their personal emotional state rather than running around outside or exploring topics that will take them beyond their own internal monologue.

    At university, poster campaigns advertise support services and urge students to look after themselves and each other. Soap operas, advertising campaigns and the Tweeted struggles of YouTube stars reinforce the message that young people are mentally vulnerable. As a result, young women are increasingly open about discussing their mental health. As one journalist reports: ‘My female friends and I have discussed, without shame, everything from depression to panic attacks to suicide attempts to miscarriages to cocaine-induced paranoia (drugs and alcohol use are so obviously a factor in mental illness) to eating disorders and OCD.’

    Obviously, if someone is suffering from a mental health problem then they need to have the best help and support put in place as quickly as possible. But there comes a point where all the awareness raising creates more problems than it solves. We risk losing the ability to discriminate between the emotional ups and downs that are part of growing up on the one hand and serious conditions on the other. (Oh, you mean there’s a difference?) We tell children that feeling stressed or anxious from time to time is not normal but something they need special help to deal with. (Resilience is apparently out of fashion.)

    We have successfully thrown away the stigma surrounding mental health but in the process we have normalised what were once serious and rare problems. For young women today there is no shame attached to discussing feelings of anxiety or depression. The opposite is the case and just as women rarely admit to feeling completely happy about the way they look, so too will few admit to being totally mentally robust and resilient. Young women who openly display their suffering are lauded for bravery and honesty. Stigma has been replaced with kudos.

    In an age of check-your-privilege identity politics, mental health problems come to define people. They mark some individuals out as more fragile and special than everyone else. This vulnerability can be publicly displayed through self-inflicted scars; the practice of self-harming makes a young woman’s suffering visible to the world. Writing in The Second Sex, Simone De Beauvoir recognised the trend for girls to self harm, remarking that such actions were, ‘more spectacular than effective … she remains anchored in the childish universe whence she cannot or will not really escape; she is struggling in her cage rather than trying to get out of it.’

    The cult of awareness raising offers one explanation as to why so many young women have come to see themselves as mentally ill. But there is more to it than this. Today’s children, labelled ‘cotton wool kids’ and ‘generation snowflake’, have been kept securely in their cages. Cosseted girls who never venture outside their own homes unaccompanied are likely, once they gain such freedom, to find the world a genuinely more scary place. For women these fears are no doubt exacerbated by feminist ‘rape culture’ scare stories.

    An honest discussion about young women’s mental health problems is impossible while we blindly respect, rather than question, claims to suffering. It can seem as if the only response permitted is to demand more money for mental health services, more awareness raising and quicker access to treatment therapies. But this is an inadequate solution and will only exacerbate the scale of the current crisis even further.

    Doctors are not immune to the awareness campaigns – indeed, most surgery walls are lined with posters. Rather than a shocking increase in mental health problems, perhaps we are instead witnessing a growing tendency for people to seek help when they experience feelings they have been taught to view as problematic and, at the same time, an increasing number of doctors ready to diagnose, medicalise and prescribe treatments for such normal human emotions. In this case, the only real surprise it that so few young women suffer.

  57. Interesting article.
    Interesting article.
    Interesting article.
    Peter, Paul and Mary’s old hit “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” has been playing in my head for months now, only with new lyrics: Where have all the good men gone?

    I was in my early 50s when my divorce became final and was sure I’d eventually meet someone else. Baby boomers are the largest generation in history and gray divorce is rampant. Statistically speaking, there should be plenty of fish. (The world of the should be is not the world of the is, though. Men figure this out early in life.) My abject failure to find a good man isn’t for lack of trying or being too picky. Sure, I have a few non-negotiable things I’m looking for: a kind, confident man with integrity, straight, financially self-sufficient and single. No alcoholics or drug addicts. (OK. Most of these guys are married, or not into marriage, in your demographic.)

    I tried online dating early on and nearly shuttered my account when I saw my ex-husband’s photo. Even eerier, on paper, we were highly compatible. I also quickly discovered that more than a few men lied, and most my age wanted someone decidedly younger. It turned out that I wasn’t a good match for numerous reasons. I’m not a good country woman. Nevada isn’t within 50 miles of Savannah. Bare chests and lewd sweet-nothings whispered in my virtual ear turn my stomach. I already have enough best friends. And I won’t teach you the difference between “there” and “their,” if you don’t already know.

    “You should lie about your age,” a friend suggested. “Everybody does it.” Well, lying’s just not my style; my ex-husband’s cheating hurt our marriage, so let’s just say that I’m partial to the truth. IRL, I’ve met men at various social events, but many behave like teenagers, some without the gumption to even ask me out. Others think pasta at their place or wine at mine constitutes putting their best foot forward on a first date.

    And what’s with all the texting? It’s called a telephone. We both grew up with one. I’ve got nothing against men older than I am. (Interesting) Plenty of them take care of themselves, although chances are that much older guys will be infirm long before I will. Still, I’m relatively open-minded, so I allowed a friend to set me up on a blind date with an older gentleman. He was a well-heeled yachtsman with a nice car, so why not. At the end of the night, however, I practically had to fight him off. The next day, he called to ask what time he should come by for the dinner he swore I’d promised to cook him!

    A year later, I met another attractive mid-to-late 70-something at an art opening. We talked, we flirted, we exchanged cards. I asked a mutual friend about him. “You’re much too old,” he said. “He’s got a 20-something girlfriend.” And here I was, worried about not giving the dirty old man a chance! (Is there a marketing issue here, perhaps?)

    I’ve tried finding a good guy at church, too. What better place to meet a male the good Lord may have already vetted. Only I generally find myself in progressive congregations with large gay populations. Most straight men are married, and the few singles that trickle in are snatched up quickly here in the South, usually by younger blondes. Others, making goo-goo eyes at me during the service, have turned out to have girlfriends. One guy kissed the top of my head and whispered in my ear, “We’ll get together soon.” A friend said she’d heard he cheated on his ex-wife. So much for churchmen. (You really don’t understand that men go dog, that is, they do all they can, to be invisible to women they don’t know, right? You do know that? Since they don’t know what they can trust any more?)

    I know it sounds like I’m ragging on men, but really, I love them. My dad and grandfathers were three of the best. Other great guys are married to some of my friends. I see sweet posts by stand-up husbands and fathers on Facebook. I googled a few of the honorable ones I passed up on in college and found photos of them still with their first wives. Sometimes I cry over my youthful foolishness in letting them go. (Ahh, wisdom, thy touch is so sweet…) So far, the best of the limited bunch have been my dates with a few millennials who don’t assume buying me dinner means automatic entitlement to something else. Still, I’d prefer someone my age with shared experiences and grown kids. (Gosh, you mean like a cheating spouse, massive child support payments, and no hope of ever saving money for the next decades? Where she made false accusations against him? Oh, wait, women don’t have those problems, much, do they.)

    Recently, I decided to give online dating another try and said yes to a date with an older guy who I didn’t find particularly attractive. “Give him a chance,” a friend said. And so I did. He started by bad-mouthing his ex on the phone. He then trashed his female boss when we met for a drink and it went downhill from there. I fled in tears. Sometimes I’m too damned egalitarian for my own good. “Try a dip in the lady pond,” one of my daughters half-seriously said.

    “I’m 100 percent heterosexual,” I told her, after processing this idea. She had a point, though. I know tons of boomer women like me who have the whole package. I know relationships are hard, but I still think the advantages—with the right person—outweigh living the rest of my life alone. (for you, yes, for the man, no. There are major disadvantages for men, in getting married. Starting with the large target painted on their backs, by the courts. And by feminists.)

    So, if you find out where all the good men have gone, please let me know. (Sure. Some are still married. Some got so badly screwed, in divorce, that they won’t even look at women. Some had wives who cheated on them, and won’t take risks on women again. Some had false accusations made against them. Many had the revelation that committed relationships with women have absolutely no value, in long term relationships. They realized that they had a lot less risk, and much more fun, pursuing hobbies. They realized that if they simply had the appearance of a man women would have no interest in, they can live in peace, and enjoy life. And all those gay men in your church. Yep. My father, in the 1950’s, used to tell women who were interested in him, that he had no interest in, that he was gay. Then. And, yes, I’m male. I’ve used that ploy myself, and I have to say it was a lot of fun. If a man tells a woman he has no interest in her, she takes great insult, and can really hurt him. If a man just says he’s gay, she leaves him alone, no hard feelings. You are selling a product. If the product doesn’t sell, do salespeople blame the customer? No. They analyze the product, and figure out why it doesn’t sell. If it can’t be fixed, they cease selling it. And as to where all the good men went… they went on to self-actualize, to grow, to discover themselves, to enjoy life, without the bitching, false accusations, solipsism, greed, total self-centeredness, and total lack of regard for him, that men get in relationships with women, nowadays. I know guys in your age range. Those that aren’t married mostly have no interest in any kind of committed relationship with women. There is utterly no value in it, for them. Would you buy a car that you had to take to the shop twice weekly? That almost never started? That needed all kinds of expensive repairs? Many years ago, I told a woman I was married to that she was extremely difficult, really impossible to please. She told me with great irritation that I should appreciate the challenge of trying to. I didn’t, and got her out of my life as fast as I could. I’ve heard from those men who do seek out women, over the age of 40. Every single one of them tells me they avoid divorced women, as they would a leper. They are simply dysfunctional in relationships. And they won’t take risks, because the risk for men in entering relationships with divorced women are very high. Women seem to lack the ability to see the world through the eyes of men. They don’t ask, they don’t care, they don’t believe it exists. OK. If my current wife leaves me, I won’t replace her. I’ve seen enough.)

    • Wait a minute. You were 55, and you thought you could find a male partner willing to commit to you? You can’t be serious. OK. What do you have to offer? I’ve seen many women like you. You have at least 80 extra pounds on. You have some tattoos. You have a nasty temper. You didn’t save money, and you spend money like it was water.

      So, your husband cheated on you. You can dump him. A man who did that gets screwed in divorce court, but you had the freedom to dump him. What on earth made you think a handsome prince was out there, waiting for you? At 55? Are you really that unaware? Men in that range have the best selection of their lives, that is, those who are actually looking for a woman, and many aren’t. They have at least 15 women, per man. They can do what high school girls do: choose only the top ranking. And it gets better- like that high school girl, they can have 2-3 of the top ranking. What do you bring to the table? Why would any man want to commit to you?

    • Statistically speaking, there should be plenty of fish. (where, where are you getting your data? There are plenty of fish, in your generation, yes, but are they willing to bite the hook? In your demographic tranche, there are at least 10 women looking, for every guy.)

      My abject failure to find a good man isn’t for lack of trying or being too picky. (we have only your word for this.) Sure, I have a few non-negotiable things I’m looking for: a kind, confident man with integrity (the bad boys’ success with women kind of warped these guys, though) straight (that’s helpful), financially self-sufficient (so you can bleed him? Maybe he wants to keep his assets?). No alcoholics or drug addicts. (Makes sense. Of course, he can see you just as you are, without beer goggles, which may not be useful. But OK. )

      I tried online dating early on and nearly shuttered my account when I saw my ex-husband’s photo. Even eerier, on paper, we were highly compatible. (Why is that eerie? How long were you married to this guy?)
      I also quickly discovered that more than a few men lied, and most my age wanted someone decidedly younger. (How about that. And they have the choice. Just like you went out with the older guys, and bad boys. If they are going to risk half their assets, yes, they might just want the freshest fruit on the shelf.)

      I’ve met men at various social events, but many behave like teenagers, some without the gumption to even ask me out. (or, maybe the wisdom to not ask you out. Painful experience does teach lessons) Others think pasta at their place or wine at mine constitutes putting their best foot forward on a first date. (and you said you didn’t have high standards.)

      I allowed a friend to set me up on a blind date with an older gentleman. He was a well-heeled yachtsman with a nice car, so why not. At the end of the night, however, I practically had to fight him off. (oh, my, you had a guy INTERESTED in you, and you FOUGHT HIM OFF. What’s wrong with this picture?) The next day, he called to ask what time he should come by for the dinner he swore I’d promised to cook him!
      (So, opportunity came aknocking at your door, and you didn’t answer. Umm.)

      A year later, I met another attractive mid-to-late 70-something at an art opening. We talked, we flirted, we exchanged cards. I asked a mutual friend about him. “You’re much too old,” he said. “He’s got a 20-something girlfriend.” (Wow. He clearly wants to spend his remaining time having fun, with someone who doesn’t have a lot of emotional baggage. Kind of like when you dated older guys in high school, and would only sneer at your male classmates.)

  58. In the 1920’s and 1930’s, Stalin decided to destroy the most prosperous, hard-working farmers, called kulaks. They were dispossessed of their property, and it was passed out to others. This was equality of outcome. Unfortunately, farm production tanked. In recent tests of private enterprise, in farming, in Russia, it was realized that farms could be 20 times as productive as the collective farm. But the structure won’t allow it, because all the managers, and others, have fairly good jobs, and don’t have to work hard. So a huge proportion of Russian farm production comes from the 4% or so of land in private plots. The kulaks are gone, and are not coming back.

    I did the Sound of Music tour, in Austria. The guide had some nasty comments about the stores being too expensive, and wished that they still had Jewish businessmen, who knew how to run a business with reasonable prices. They don’t tell you on the tour, but there was a concentration camp not far from there. But the Jews are gone, and they are not coming back.

    There used to be good husbands, in the western world. They were the most prosperous, hard working, respectful husbands. They contributed to the community. It was an honor to be a father, then. Later, they were dispossessed of their position, treated with great disrespect, and hounded out. Now women wonder where all the good men went. I wonder if they are going to come back?

    • Idi Amin kicked all the Indian store owners out of Uganda, in the 60’s. He expropriated their stores, and they left the country. He was an early “equality of condition” supporter. His followers were delighted. They looted the stores.

      And in a month or two, there were no more stores. What fool would invest in a business that could be destroyed in a few minutes? Life got somewhat more unpleasant in Uganda.

      The same thing happened in inner cities, in the riots of the ’60’s. Many small stores were owned by Jewish people, who had to be smart, to survive. But they also depended on the rule of law. When Equality of Condition rioters came long, and burned out the stores, these people went into other lines of work. You can still see these empty buildings, in Detroit, and parts of Baltimore.

      The stores mostly didn’t come back. And what large grocery chain would take a risk, in a neighborhood like that, even before they ran the numbers and realized that shoplifting would wipe out any potential profits?

      It would be very nice to put feminists in a world with no men. They could be on an African plain, say, sleeping in a cave, or in a tree. They would have the equality of outcome they so desperately crave. They wouldn’t have any sexist oppression. The only reason we aren’t all living on that African plain, is that men did a lot of work, to change it. Who constructs the buildings? Men, with a few token women on the ground floor, as an extra cost of business. Who does the risky jobs? How many female bricklayers are there? How many females are there on garbage trucks? Camille Paglia says she sees bridges, and buildings, and roads, knowing that men built them. I really like this idea. Let them cut saplings, and make spears. Let them weave grasses into clothing, or maybe they don’t want clothing. Let them gather plants, and hunt, for their food. Let them learn about leopards, and lions, and snakes.

  59. Search the words, “Where have all the good men gone?” and dozens of anecdotes, articles, blogs, and books will appear on your screen. Overwhelmingly, this question is posed by women, discussed by women, and answered by women. But they can’t seem to see their role in the disappearance of these men.

    This is an essential reason for these so called man-deserts—men are simply not being asked to contribute their opinions and perspectives, though I notice this blog does. And the good men themselves are increasingly less likely to offer their point of view, for many reasons. The last 100 years of suffragettes, feminists, and political correctness have challenged and continue to challenge thousands of years of patriarchy—and rightly so. Consequently, the roles of both men and women have been transformed and redefined.

    While we struggle to adjust to the new and still evolving status quo, the war of the sexes has taken millions of casualties. In Western culture, divorce rates for first marriages range from 42 percent in the U.K. to 53 percent in the U.S. to a staggering 71 percent in Belgium. Subsequent marriages fare even worse.

    Divorce is another contributing factor in the conspicuously expanding man-deserts. Many men, having seen their fathers broken by divorce, fear the loss of their assets, their homes, and their children and are simply stacking their chips, choosing not to gamble, and checking out of the marriage casino. They know the house always wins, and they always lose. The lack of hope empties out the marriage casinos, of men.

    Family courts invariably award primary custody to the mother, while the father is restricted to weekend access, supervised visits, or left to literally climb the walls of Buckingham Palace in a superhero costume to protest rights for dads. Men—will they ever grow up? The ridicule and debasement of men in the media and mainstream culture is now pervasive. Watch a commercial, sitcom, or movie, and invariably an immature man-child or dumb dad is the butt of the joke—the hapless buffoon. Fortunately, these silly men are always saved from themselves by a smart, witty woman or a conscripted, eye-rolling child. The emasculation of men has become normalised.

    Sensibly, rather than have their balls cut off (sometimes literally, and that often gets a good laugh- women laugh about stuff like that), men are running for cover in their droves, leaving women mystified and asking, “Where have all the good men gone?”

    When I was in secondary school, perhaps 14 years old, there was a girl who patrolled the playground, egged on by her gang of girlfriends, kicking the boys between the legs. Clearly, she had been informed by someone this was the quickest, easiest, and funniest way to bring those stupid boys down to earth. One day it was my turn. Caught by surprise, I crumpled to the ground after a swift kick to the balls, in too much agony even to cry out. Oh, how the girls laughed! Even then, I abhorred a bully. The following day, I found my attacker in the playground and, contrary to my upbringing, without warning I kicked her swiftly between the legs. To everyone’s surprise she also crumpled to the ground, in too much agony to cry out. A crowd of cheering boys slapped me on the back—their new avenger. The girls stared at me wide-eyed in shock—a boy who fought back? No one had told them that was allowed, surely it was against the rules! Equality: it’s a son of a gun. I remember feeling no satisfaction or honour in defeating a weaker adversary but sometimes, especially in the case of a bully, personal satisfaction and honour is not the point—standing up to their aggression is. As I grew into a man—a good man—I learned to walk away from provocation, as most good men do. It’s a rare man who seeks out a fight. Listen to the song I’m a Winner, by Bobby Bare. Men know this stuff.

    “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!” Remember the T-shirts launched in 2003? Followed by coffee mugs, posters, even a book.“Boys tell lies, poke them in the eyes!” Another favourite for young girls at the time. It took a fathers’ rights activist to have this merchandise removed from thousands of retail stores. Inevitably, he was ridiculed by a myopic majority. Presently, in some areas of the U.K., 80 percent of primary schools have three male teachers or less, one quarter of primary schools have no male teachers at all, and some towns have 65 percent single mother families. A young boy can go to school and have no adult male role model, and then return home and have no adult male role models. Toxic masculinity is unentrained masculinity.

    Young girls are achieving significantly higher academic standards than young boys. This feminisation of schools spills over into university, then the workplace, and eventually the home, completing the insipid cycle and the marginalisation of both boys and men.
    I was born in 1968. I grew up with a strong mother, four stronger sisters, and no father. I was taught, not only by my family but also by wider society, to regard women as my equal, and I always have. Yet, unknown to me, a generation of women were being indoctrinated and trained with a sharp-edged tool kit designed to emasculate men.

    Men have been subjugating women for centuries; now, they’re getting payback. It seems only fair. The fox has turned on the hounds and she’s packing a punch, or a kick to the balls. But the nature of men when faced with a fight is to fight back, either psychologically or physically. Clearly there are no winners in this scenario.

    The relentless competitive struggle to determine who wears the trousers is simply a turnoff for many men. Many are just opting out of the kind of psychological warfare that is common in relationships today, unwilling to engage in the minefield of mind games, which are usually executed in three ways.

    The first is the habitual belittling and denigration of men, in private or in front of friends, family or colleagues, for what is supposed to pass as humour. The second is letting a man know, casually of course, that other men are sexy, have better looks, more money, talent, or fame. The third, and perhaps the most destructive is being told over and over, “We don’t need no man. Men are obsolete.” I’ve lost count of how often I’ve heard this since adolescence.

    If you tell a man often enough that he is surplus to requirements, eventually he will stop expending his energy to convince you and himself otherwise. Men are rapidly waking up to this phenomenon of man-bashing, so much so that a disillusioned social movement has arisen with its own freshly-minted acronym: MGTOW, Men Going Their Own Way.

    Supported by websites and online forums, men are regrouping with a common cause, a sense of brotherhood, and finding their voices again. The essential precepts of MGTOW are financial independence, rejection of chivalry, social preconceptions of what a man should be, and consumer culture which defines masculinity by a man’s house, car, clothes, watch, or cologne. It is the refusal to be shamed into conventional compliance by being told to “man up.” Many aggrieved MGTOW refuse to marry or even date Western women, the more ardent among them consciously choosing non-committal relationships, strippers, pornography, or celibacy. Above all, goes the MGTOW mantra, maintain sovereignty of self.

    I have been dating for more than 35 years, and back in the 1980s, a man was expected to pay for the movie tickets, dinner, flowers, chocolate, the diamond ring, the house. In each subsequent decade these social conventions have slowly eroded, yet to a greater or lesser extent still remain. Long-held social biases, like the wage gap for example, take time to bring to full equality. It is important to recognise, however, that equality is a two-way street. It is abundantly clear that many men and women are struggling to walk along that street in close proximity, let alone hand in hand. Why? Because for a century we have been digging up and bulldozing said street. Now, it’s full of potholes, power struggles, and barely fit to travel. Yet travel it we must.

    The original message of equality has been somewhat skewed. Women often recycle the poorly thought-out doctrine that they are the same as men. Equality is not always sameness, and sameness is not always equality.

    For example, women have equal opportunity to go to war and fight side by side with men, but the physical standards to allow them to do so are not the same. And this can be seen across a whole spectrum of professions, from firefighters to ballet dancers.

    Equality is not always sameness. Difference is diversity, and should be a cause for celebration, not dogmatic elimination.

    Men are often told (but, again, not asked) they are afraid of strong independent women. Many men, tired of such futile debates and wary of being branded a misogynist if they dare to disagree, are simply shutting down and becoming emotionally unavailable to women, taking permanent residence in their man-caves. (Perhaps they fear strong, independent rabid grizzlies, who can hurt them with impunity? Repeatedly? With no recourse for him? Maybe? Could it be?

    The truth is, men love strong and independent women—it turns them on, in every way. What men don’t love are the predominantly masculine traits that often go along with the package. The relentless competitiveness (necessary in the workplace no doubt, but hardly necessary at home in a loving relationship), the verbal aggression, the emotional manipulation, and the psychological controlling are huge turn-offs.

    Increasingly, men are just not interested in competing at work and then having to come home and compete with their partners. In the sphere of heterosexual relationships, most women are not attracted to emasculated feminine men, which is fair enough. By the same token, most men are not attracted to masculine, domineering women. So, these are some of the general and specific issues creating man-deserts, from the perspective of good men.

    But what solutions are there? Waking up to our social conditioning is a good place to start. Many women are rejecting the modern brand of feminism, the so called third-wave that is tantamount to thinly veiled misandry. Equally many men, for two or three generations now, are rejecting the attitude that a woman is some kind of second class citizen. We clearly have work to do on both sides.

    Letting go of these destructive modes of thought, communication, and behaviour is an essential process for healthier and happier relationships between men and women.

    However, denying these issues will in no way change the interpersonal landscape for the better, and women will continue to ask, “Where have all the good men gone?” while wandering an ever-expanding and barren man-desert.

    So, where have all the good men gone?

    For now they have gone their own way. But they are out there, in the same desert, contentedly swimming in the oases they have found for themselves, no doubt waiting for the fourth-wave of feminism to wash over them so we can all truly embrace equality, just like the first-wave promised. (and while they’re waiting, their hobbies are far more satisfying, at much lower risk, than having anything to do with women.)

    • Men actually like strong, independent women, who are strong, independent women, so long as they don’t have say a sociopathic side, are not closet arsonists, and don’t act like they are possessed and controlled by reptilian aliens.. They do not like insipid bitches with no relationship value, who claim to be strong, independent women. You can call a canoe an ocean liner, but that does not make it an ocean liner.

  60. Women want to cherry pick all the good stuff men have, and keep all the good stuff women have. They want to be independent, yet have a good man. They want to be strong, and be supported at times. Women run their minds in a squirrel cage, never focusing on what works. Feminism created this.

  61. That last Star Wars movie with the purple haired gender studies admiral, really tanked. The previous movies at least told a useful tale. The plot has more holes than a Swiss cheese that shared a wedding bed with a porcupine, and is very clear social justice warrior propaganda. In media land, one critic gushed The Last Jedi is “the most triumphantly feminist Star Wars movie yet,” concluding it a masterpiece that possesses a “celebratory inclusiveness that seems entirely in the Jedi spirit”. It did badly at the box office, and its successor did worse.

    Dear Disney: I’m not going to see ANY more of your Star Wars movies. You should have paid me to watch this garbage. How long before Harrison Ford comes out as Trans Solo? With a zero-emissions Millennium Falcon? George Lucas once spoke of his duty to wield a “moral megaphone” in his filmmaking. “Somebody has to tell young people what we think is a good person,” he said. Instead, this movie tells young people what tone deaf idiots are, in Hollywood. User comments on Rotten Tomatoes is telling. While most lasers are locked on the flick’s “terrible plot holes”, its “un forgivable” treatment of Luke Skywalker, and it being “little more than a very long Disney advert vehicle to sell merchandise,” a large voice of dissent decries its use of identity politics as a serious Force of disgruntlement.

    In Hollywood, money talks. Except at the Oscars, of course. The comments are littered with one-star reviews that read, “Politically correct to the point of boredom”; “SJW propaganda” and “I’m frustrated that feminism and diversity have made their way into this film. This has ruined Star Wars for me as well as my kids. Keep liberalism out of it and stop ruining once good things”. Certainly, watching the movie can feel like you’re playing identity politics bingo. In one scene, a female admiral rallies her troops by heralding the rise of The Resistance, which some conspiracy theorists have interpreted as code for feminism. Patriarchy? Tick! Of course the resistance is very weak, almost non-existent, kind of like feminists, who make up less than 10% of women in the USA. Likewise, the richest men in the galaxy are evil, greedy, white, arms-dealers. White male privilege theory and the evils of capitalism? Tick! In a scene where Chewbacca attempts to eat a deep-fried bird called a porq, other living porqs look on disapprovingly, meat-shaming Chewie. Are they implying Chewie ought to go vegetarian? Animal rights and vegan politics? Tick! Aaagggghhhh! Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Laura Dern, who plays Vice Admiral Holdo, sports purple hair that wouldn’t look out of place on a Tumblr user’s unicorn avatar.

    At times during the film, one is almost braced for Luke Skywalker to deliver a searing monologue on Trump’s America (we can probably expect that at the Oscars) – or perhaps see a rogue ewok sporting a pink pussy hat while brandishing a #MeToo placard. How are the mighty fallen. This movie was an insult, one lengthy insult. On a highly-amusing online thread called “Is Star Wars: The Force Awakens Feminist Propaganda?”, one commenter claims the movie treats its female lead, Rey, with a deference spared any previous male leads, who all had to graft for their wins. “Rey does not need to work at anything, she’s naturally awesome just by being a woman”, the commenter writes, before adding: “the male support is bumbling, and has an episode of acute cowardliness”. Another critic also points out that Rey can fly the Millennium Falcon “like a stunt pilot” on her first attempt and repair the spacecraft to a higher standard than lifelong-owner Han Solo. Unlike Luke Skywalker, she can use Force powers with zero training. Superfeminist, I suppose. I saw women in the military like that, who thought they knew everything. And the men around them knew better than to trust them, because they were too arrogant to learn their jobs. Another commenter concludes: “Rey was so perfect that she was slightly irritating. Women aren’t allowed to be ordinary flawed characters that struggle and grow”. But according to feminists, women are perfect.

    The truth is that identity politics is the kryptonite that saps the joy out of all it touches. How long before Harrison Ford comes out as Trans Solo? Will Jabba The Hutt be called out for “fat shaming” the obese?
    Fans are saying, “dead to me, the franchise is”. Identity politics kills all art it touches. The master of identity politics, Adolf Hitler… can you think of one great work of art that came out of his time? I can’t. George Carlin once said that he couldn’t understand why the KKK ever produced any great composers. Same idea.

  62. Let us recall that Empress Hillary, aka the Dowager empress, destroyed imperial China.

    All of the following occur repeatedly in almost EVERY empire directly before its invasion or internal collapse:

    1) Feminism
    2) Rampant Sexual Immorality
    3) Fiat Currency / Debasement of currency
    4) Massive Immigration (the original Romans are NOT modern day Italians and were an ultra minority at collapse)
    5) Leftist Socialism (Socialist Policies) resulting in excessive laws and over taxation
    6) Immense concentration of Wealth (i.e. the 1%) resulting in a disconnected elite
    7) Flagrant Rampant Political Corruption
    8) Imperialism

    Not a single empire, Rome, Sparta, Greece, Persia – not one – was ever founded (keyword) founded on the above list of values. They developed as “the new norm” AFTER the empires were built. They are signs of decay.

  63. Feminism and the female gender are no longer inextricably linked. Today, anyone can identify as anything. Indeed, men now routinely and proudly proclaim themselves to be feminists. So women and feminism are two different things in the modern era. Feminism is to blame for the deterioration of the Star Wars franchise, not women. For contrary to SJWs who pat themselves on the back for blazing a trail, the fact of the matter is that we’re on a very well worn beaten path with regards to women in Star Wars. Princess Leia was a lead character in the very first 1977 film. And then of course, we later had Queen Amidala in the Prequel Trilogy. Now, some argue that Star Wars never had a primary female lead before. Fair enough. But this argument demonstrates their fundamental misunderstanding of the Star Wars films, which never had a primary lead in general. Nevertheless, when George Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney, a great disturbance of SJWs crying for “equal representation” cluttered the galaxy. 50 percent of the world’s population is women they argued, therefore 50 percent of the characters in Star Wars should be women according to their logic. But that’s not what we’re getting. The Force it seems, is now exclusively female.

    So much for gender neutrality and equality. Take for instance Lucasfilm’s animated program Forces of Destiny. It showcases exclusively female Star Wars characters. But wait? Isn’t 50 percent of the world’s population men? Where is the equality? The equal representation?But while we’re all supposed to be celebrating the women of Star Wars, we’re also not supposed to be paying any attention to the women of Star Wars at the same time. This is a brave new gender neutral era after all. The Official Star Wars Facebook page, once lectured a fan that Captain Phasma’s armor didn’t have to look feminine just because the character was female. Which begged the question as to why the character had to be female at all then, never mind the practicalities of designing and forging armor that fits the female physiology as opposed to male. Just forget it you sexist and/or misogynist you, pay no attention to the vagina behind the armor. Sure, 95 pound Rey might look silly deflecting blows from adversaries that outweigh her by 200 pounds to the uninitiated. But men and women are perfectly equal in everything, so there.

    It’s this kind of unthinking silliness that militant feminist ideology facilitates, and it litters pop culture. Rather than create thoughtful female characters based on legendary figures such as Joan of Arc, Molly Pitcher, Bessie Coleman, Amelia Earhart, among many others, just as Luke Skywalker was based on an amalgam of Arthurian heroes and figures from Greek Mythology, we instead get a shallow interpretation of what the worthless Bechdel Test tells us we must have in order to be politically acceptable in the modern age. “And because her creative foundation is ideological rather than mythological, she is inauthentic and unappealing.”

    Militant feminism is forcing the Star Wars franchise to cater to a small screeching SJW minority under the delusion that everything must be equal for everyone all of the time everywhere. This may likely be why today’s Star Wars toys just aren’t selling in reality. They’re marketing gender neutral feminism to young boys who just aren’t interested in it. Why would a 12 year old boy want to escape to a Star Wars film, where the male hero Poe spends the entire movie getting scolded by bossy women, when he can just sit at home and listen to his own mother do the same thing? Star Wars, good as it was, was always about the Benjamins- flowing in from the toys. I see Star Wars toys marked down, right and left, in stores.

    Kathleen Kennedy was once quoted as saying: “Fifty percent of our executive team are women. Six out of eight of the people in my Story Group are women. I think it’s making a huge difference in the kind of stories we’re trying to tell.” Yes, it does. The stories suck. I’d be willing to bet a fine patriarchal steak dinner, that the two presumably males in Kathleen Kennedy’s story group are feminists, and that certain directors were rejected for not playing by their feminist rules. There’s plenty of room for genital diversity at Lucasfilm. But no room for intellectual diversity. There was always a small percentage of the Star Wars fanbase that consisted of women, who “crossed over” and liked it the way it was before militant feminism assimilated it, and of course they were always welcome.

    • The Disney Princess line of merchandise has made Disney billions by catering to girls’ love of their princesses, from Snow White to Pocahontas. Disney had some sense. Realizing that princesses might not be the best way to reach boys, Disney acquired Marvel Comics (2009) and, later, Star Wars (2012). Now, they have all their bases covered. They spent a lot of money on this. And now they want to alienate their male consumers. “Solo: A Star Wars Story” made just $83 million it’s first weekend, an absolute a failure by Star Wars standards. Disney publicists blame competition from “Deadpool 2” or franchise fatigue, but they won’t admit that Social Justice Warrior (SJW) politics drained out the profit. Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy has been systematically injecting feminist identity politics into Star Wars, to damage it. She refuses to cater to male fans in the historically male franchise. She put a female lead character in “The Force Awakens,” “Rogue One” and “The Last Jedi.” She’s mandating more female creators. And she’s famously adopted the sexist phrase, “The Force is female.” Except it isn’t.

      “The Last Jedi” made $300 million less than “The Force Awakens,” and the previous year’s “Rogue One” made $100 million less than that. A Star Wars movie almost always finishes no. 1 at the yearly box office, but with “Black Panther,” “Avengers” and “Jurassic World,” “Solo” won’t even medal this year. (And the franchise has utterly failed in China, a country with zero patience for SJW politics. But then again the Chinese are patient and smart.)

      Disaffected male fans are speaking with their wallets. More important than ticket sales, merchandising revenue is way down: Star Wars toy sales dropped in 2017 by almost 50 percent. Kennedy’s gambit is backfiring like a power cable chewed on by mynocks. If she continues alienating her core fanbase, Star Wars’s future isn’t female. Its future is no future. Kind of like America’s future isn’t feminist, it is no future. Birthrates are dropping.

      If a company starts losing its core customers, they’ll adapt to try to recapture them. When New Coke wasn’t working, they went back to Old Coke. But New Coke happened before the insanity of social media. In response to dwindling fondness for Star Wars from male fans — the customers who’ve spent billions — director J.J. Abrams took to the Internet to call them sexists! Demonizing sci-fi nerd beta males may play great on Twitter, but it won’t win them back. (Maybe he should have called them “deplorable” instead.) This has come to a head with “Solo,” a prequel about fan-favorite bad boy Han Solo billed as “the hero all feminist men have been waiting for.” The marketing leading up to the film showed that pandering to left-wing media was more important to Lucasfilm than winning back fans – and even promised a preachy SJW droid to lecture us! How does any of this fit for a character who’s a male-empowerment fantasy? How are these ideas getting green-lit?

      A sign Star Wars was headed the wrong direction came a few years ago with a piece of advertainment on “Saturday Night Live,” in a digital short making fun of sci-fi nerd beta males who live in their parents’ basement and buy three copies of each action figure. It has 3.6 million views, which is good internet coverage for any piece of product placement. But that advertising belittles the people to whom it’s supposed to be advertising. Why would any company pay to attack its loyal consumer base? Star Wars is proving a very high-profile victim of how meaningless social media data is misleading corporate decisions.

      In social media, the generic term “engagement” encompasses retweets, likes, shares, comments and so forth. Getting engagements with buzzwords like “inclusiveness” is easy. But then there’s a digital marketing term called “conversion”: that’s when a business turns someone’s online activity into a purchase. One of these means nothing. The other means everything. Impossible-to-please SJWs will attack you on the Internet, but they won’t buy your toys or movie tickets. Money talks, and BS walks. It’s that simple.

      You will never win by catering to your critics at the expense of your customers. It’s why insipid protests are destroying the NFL’s bottom line, while transgender playmates and plus-size swimsuit models will do nothing to help Playboy and Sports Illustrated, other than helping their readers eject the toxic McDonald’s products they ate before viewing them. “Inclusiveness” may sound great, but “market segmentation” is how companies pay the bills. A company’s purpose is not to challenge social norms or service liberal guilt; it’s to provide value to customers and shareholders. Lucasfilm is doing neither. Kathleen Kennedy would love to see Star Wars toys in more girls’ hands, but instead, we’re seeing Star Wars toys somewhere they should never be: the clearance rack.

      Fixing this problem is easy: officially make Princess Leia one of the Disney Princesses. That kind of horizontal integration would be a boon to both product lines. SJWs will call it “problematic,” but they won’t buy merchandise either way. Who cares what they say? SJWs are trying to do for the country what they have done to Star Wars.

    • I am male. I will never see another Star Wars movie, until they get these toxic feminists out, and make it the modern mythological journey it was.

  64. There is a war on masculinity. Are we going to sit by and let good men be dishonestly destroyed in the name of feminism and #MeToo? For years, feminists have told us that men are at fault for the gender inequalities that women in this country faced for generations and continue to suffer in certain areas. And while this is true to a certain degree, our society is treating the way too many heterosexual men as if they were misogynists and rapists in waiting.

    The left promotes liberation from societal norms. These radical liberals want men to think that they are free to be whomever they want to be. However, the minute a man decides to embrace his natural masculinity, this freedom seems to end. The hypocrisy of their ideology is apparent in that you can’t actually be whomever you want to be unless you fit in with their social-constructivist teachings.
    You Can Kiss “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” Goodbye. If you don’t conform, you are verbally assaulted and sometimes accused of being sexist or even worse, a criminal. We saw this behavior in the way that Brett Kavanaugh was attacked for his demeanor after being falsely accused of gang rape by women who later admitted to fabricating their stories altogether and admitted to never having met Brett Kavanaugh before in their lives. It’s reached the point where an unsubstantiated allegation of an inappropriate remark or behavior can destroy a man’s reputation forever.

    Men have been expected to turn the other cheek and accept a diminishment of their dignity, even if they are not personally responsible for former or current gender inequalities. Or, in Brett Kavanaugh’s case, many expected him to turn his other cheek and take these vulgar attacks regardless of his innocence and genuine outrage in the false criminal accusations against him. He got the same lynching that another candidate did for the Supreme Court.

    Masculinity is a Virtue, Not a Vice. In many ways, we are living in a society that is pushing to deny the need for the existence of manhood altogether. Masculinity has even been grouped by some with violence and toxicity, a clear misrepresentation of the idea and of the inherent positive value that certain aspects of gender roles have in family structure and society.

    We have seen the undeniable problems when masculinity is missing in the home. When the positive (and masculine) role of the father is not present, many young men turn to destructive behavior, and many young women look for love in the wrong places from the wrong kinds of men and often struggle with self-esteem. Sexism is definitely real, and there are men out there who unfortunately still exhibit those unacceptable, stereotypical behaviors toward women. But not every masculine man is sexist or a criminal. Stopping the disgusting actions of some men is extremely important, and there are various laws in place to punish such behavior, but that does not mean the majority of men should be forced to pay for the sins of the minority. Stopping the disgusting actions of some men is extremely important… but that does not mean the majority of men should be forced to pay for the sins of the minority.

    #MeToo Has Harmed Ambitious Women and Decent Men. In the age of #MeToo, many good men are now left worried about being friendly to women in the workplace. Could it be taken the wrong way? Corporate Executives have become wary of hiring women because of the liability, and many refuse to have meetings with them without a third party present. As Bloomberg reported, many men are professionally avoiding women at all cost because of the associated risk of being wrongly accused. Could #MeToo be inadvertently creating a “Boy’s Club” mentality more than ever before? Many men are professionally avoiding women at all cost because of the associated risk of being wrongly accused.

    Others are left confused and concerned about how to show interest or affection for a woman without being perceived as being politically incorrect or inappropriate. If society continues on this trajectory, men will be faced with a crippling choice: express their healthy and natural romantic interest in women, or risk a charge of sexual harassment. The war on masculinity from the progressive left and radical feminists is very real in this country and worsens. We owe it to our boyfriends, husbands, fathers, brothers, and friends, to stand up against the mob mentality and come to men’s defense. Whether it’s on social media, in the workplace, in the classroom, at the dinner table, or in public – stand up for them, because all throughout history, good men have worked and fought for our safety and protection. Not long ago in this country, good men stood up for us in our fight for equal rights. What kind of women would we be if we didn’t stand up for them in the face of social injustice?

  65. Some young men giving up on women and checking out, as part of young adult males who are retreating into porn, video games, and lad culture. How could we heal this?

    Our toxic mass media tells us that the cause of the war between the sexes is patriarchal and misogynistic men. So now have women engaging in lesbianized third-wave feminism, where women throw tampons and condoms at government buildings or show up angry and bare-breasted in order to protest for the right to kill their own children. Many women like me want NOTHING to do with the feminist movement. We don’t need to explore being victims. We don’t believe that our own empowerment will be found and maintained by disempowering men or our hildren.

    College age men today are completely clueless or scared about how to engage with women. They fear being accused of rape, and fear court and educational systems that give women preferential treatment. One athlete noted that he had friends, and a good social life. But he doesn’t hang out with women any more. He may have a one night stands, but mostly he does other things. He was accused of molesting a girl at college and since then, plays sports instead. This is spreading in the USA, Great Britain, other parts of Europe, and even Japan, where ‘herbivores’ (translated as grass-eating boys) are not only shunning sex, but also careers. What do they prefer, instead? Taking long walks, visiting Buddhist temples, and playing computer games. They have no desire to live up to any cultural expectations concerning relationships or work.

    Some claim that this is no doubt the result of social engineering. More specifically, they say it’s a by-product of third-wave feminist teachings around the world, which have permeated our cultures and have essentially effeminized men. The main problem with feminism is that it tries to empower women by disempowering men, and it tries to define femininity by disowning what it means to be truly feminine. That’s never going to work. Equality doesn’t come from making one gender more or less powerful than the other, but by restoring the power that’s been stripped from both genders.
    We see an example of this in the women’s movement pushing for equality in the workplace. Women aggressively fought for the right to work and that’s what they got at a time when men earned enough to support an entire family of four. Today, dual incomes have nearly become necessary for most families’ survival, and studies have shown that even when women work outside the home, they take on a disproportionate share of responsibilities inside the home. Arguably, their fight for equality made matters worse for all. This could’ve been avoided if both sexes agreed that women should be free to choose, but not be expected to, work outside of the home. This could’ve been avoided if both sexes agreed that working in and outside of the home adds value to families, regardless of who is doing it.

    Today’s feminists can be found angrily trying to strip men of their perceived power by doing things like screaming with their shirts off and with their chests puffed out at protests, as if they were men. Does this behavior make one more powerful? Of course not, but if you get to the heart of the issue, I think you’ll find that many of these feminists are doing this because they equate real femininity with powerlessness. They believe that if they had been born as men, their lives would be easier therefore they take on behaviors that they think are masculine. But none of them have any idea of just how unpleasant it can be, to be male. None of them have the truly crummy jobs men have. Who cleans up after someone jumps from a tall building? Who picks up garbage, which, by way, can be dangerous? Who does construction work, that’s dangerous? Who mines coal?

    Here’s the problem with that approach: In the same way that straight women aren’t attracted to emasculated males, straight men aren’t attracted to militant feminazis. Should any of us be surprised?
    Feminists refuse to admit this, but it’s the truth: Women can’t stand weak emasculated men, and any woman who can is likely very insecure or wants to have power over others. This is why women tend to be attracted to men with athletic features and a straight forward character. It’s not that we’re looking for an aggressive asshole – though that’s often what we get – it’s that we’re looking for is the closest match to our ideal of a man who is assertive, yet demonstrates tenderness in his own strength. Unfortunately, the pickings for this are slim. So, we often settle, end up with the classic jerk, and then complain about it. I dated a nice guy when I was 18 years old. Craig had at that age what I would consider the full package. I knew him casually for a year through mutual friends at school. We spent a day together hanging out, talking, and flirting. My interest in him couldn’t have been more obvious, but he couldn’t manage to communicate his interest in moving our relationship to the next level. In fairness, he may not have known how. I moved on. We connected later and spent another full day together. I was sure that he was interested in me and I was more forward so that he was sure to know that I was interested in him, as well. He didn’t seize the moment – yet again – and I lost interest, and also respect for him, because, like most women, I was looking for someone with cojones, and he clearly had none! I never saw or spoke to him again. Women are totally turned off about men who don’t initiate and assert themselves when that is clearly wanted. I went on to experience relationships with men who knew how to pull the trigger, but not with the tenderness that I wanted.

    Of course, men being too passive or too aggressive aren’t entirely their fault. I’ve learned to have some compassion for the fact that many men don’t have a good example to follow fpr being good husbands and fathers. Plus, nobody respects good husbands and fathers any more. Many women like me don’t know how to find a good husband and father for their children, nor do many of us even know how to relate in a healthy way, if such a man is even found. Many of us, men and women, don’t know how to resolve the archetypal father issues. However, these issues aren’t going to get resolved by disempowering one another or disowning ones own gender.

    Ladies: if you’re not enjoying your femininity, but reacting to it with anger and negativity, then you’re rejecting who you truly are. Until you embrace the fact that you were born a woman, and that inherently makes you a giver and a nurturer of life, then you can’t reach your full potential as a woman. Until you embrace your ability to bring intuition and wisdom to others in a way that heals, you can’t reach your full potential as a woman. Sorry, but hating the color pink, or feeling that breastfeeding is ‘nasty’, or saying that being a stay-at-home mom is demeaning, isn’t going to fix it.

    Men, don’t believe women who say that they don’t want the door opened for them. They really do. When they say that, what they’re really trying to tell you is that they don’t want to be seen as powerless and incapable. They don’t want to be seen as less than you. Similarly, don’t believe women who say that they don’t need a man. The truth is that many of them want a man. They want a man to get up and check the house when they hear a noise in the middle of the night. They want a man to physically help them when they move. They want a man to mow their lawn (in more ways than one). And so on. They don’t want to be vulnerable by telling you this, because they fear that you’ll see them as less than you.

    Also, don’t believe women who say that they want a nice guy. They don’t. When they say that, what they’re trying to tell you is that they want a strong man who is tender towards them. They want someone who makes them feel safe and secure. They don’t want to be the victim of your strength, but the benefactor of it. Strength in men is like intelligence in women: it’s great when it is used to support the relationship, not to destroy it. Women don’t want to be dominated or controlled. They do want a man who uses his strength to build others up, to support them, and to protect them. They want a man who doesn’t shirk his responsibilities and identity as both father and husband. They want a man who is clear and focused in taking action in focused ways, towards getting results. They want a man who is mature in his ability give generously in co-creating with others. If more men were practicing authentic mature masculinity, then more women would not be so guarded and insecure about practicing authentic mature femininity. It would help if the media, and feminists, and others actually respected and modeled mature behavior.

    Is it men’s fault when women act in a hostile or defensive way? No. Men have more power to change the hardened hearts of women than they may realize. If they simply understand that women who act this way are likely doing so because they are trying in vain to compensate for not being protected by men in their lives, and out of a fear of having their vulnerabilities abused by others, then you will see a much softer side to women and much progress in the war between the sexes can be made. I understand that men are nervous about relationships, and may not want to take the risk.

    Does the younger generation even care? One could believe they don’t seem to want to be bothered with working on relationships. Relationships take a lot of work, but can come with rewards. A friend of mine is an ex-feminist. In her 20s and 30s she was having fun, living the single life, and not concerned with marriage or children. She rode what the MGTOW people call the CC, and had a wild time. Now, in her 40s, she has hit the Wile E Coyote moment, of realizing there is no road under her. She has no family of her own. She understands that her final years will be lived at the mercy of non-relatives. Now, she feels deeply regretful for allowing herself to be duped by the feminist movement. Will today’s young men who opt out of relationships suffer the same fate? Relationships are like a term in the military. They aren’t for everybody, but you grow rapidly, in them.

    I heard someone compare maintaining relationships to maintaining gardens. Both demand consistent attention be given to nurturing and protecting them, in patience, if one wants to reap a bountiful harvest. When people think that they’re going to avoid work by avoiding relationships, what they’re really doing is cheating themselves and others out of a rewarding life, and a lot of growth.
    Relationships are an invaluable teacher. Remaining emotionally isolated and immature, in a state of permanent adolescence will leave one without the ability to handle criticism, work in collaboration, and mentally process pressures in a way that is required for self-sufficiency and service to others. When young adults avoid this inner work, they become parasitic to their parents, and society. Nothing is so enlightening as paying one’s own bills.

    Many want to avoid relationships when they are challenging, or painful. Down time for inner healing is useful. However, those of us who had to sink or swim learned to swim. Most who married, and have had children, grew from the experience. It’s not easy. But few worthwhile things are. No, I didn’t find the ‘knight in shining armor’ or the ‘white picket fence’ that I wanted to find, but I am now wiser and more grounded in reality than ever before. No, I wasn’t fully prepared for marriage, but I learned that nothing prepares you for marriage like marriage.

    These disappointments and struggles gave me priceless life lessons, which I wouldn’t have learned any other way. I say to the young, seize the moment and embrace who you are as a man or a woman. Be bold. Take risks. Go out on a limb, for that is where the fruit is. Risk disappointment, and pain. A blade is forged in suffering, and it improves. Commit to improving flaws that show up, in the flow, so you grow. When you invest in yourself, you invest in others, and you improve the world. And. Do this intelligently, with your eyes open. Avoid the sociopaths.

  66. I would love to do a poll of women:

    Raise your hand if you’ve been physically abusive with a male partner, knowing you wouldn’t face any legal consequences.

    Raise your hand if you’ve lied about being on birth control, or faked a pregnancy scare, to see how a man would respond.

    Raise your hand if you’ve ever behaved badly and blamed it on your period.

    Raise your hand if you’ve ever acted helpless in the face of an unpleasant-if-not-physically-demanding task like dealing with a wild animal that’s gotten inside the house.

    Raise your hand if you’ve ever coerced a man into sex even though he didn’t seem to really want it. Raise your hand if you’ve thought you were at liberty to do this coercing because men “always want it” and should feel lucky any time they get it.

    Raise your hand if you’ve ever threatened to harm yourself if a man breaks up with you or doesn’t want to see you anymore.

    Raise your hand if you were ghosted by a man, who perhaps had broken up with a woman before, who then made threats.

    Raise your hand if you’ve ever manipulated a divorce or child custody dispute in your favor by falsely insinuating that a man has been abusive toward you or your child.

    If we polled American women, every one of these questions would send some hands up in the air. We hear all too much about toxic masculinity, that amorphous term that refers to the way traits like aggression and emotional repression are baked into male social norms. It also frequently shows up in online feminism as lazy shorthand for registering disapproval of just about anything men do at all. When are we going to grant equal rights to women and ***admit that toxic femininity also exists*** and can be just as poisonous?

    There are minor feminine toxins, like blaming irrational temper tantrums on “being hormonal” or being helpless to get what you want. There are also the major ones, the ones that men tell all their buddies about, often about weaponizing your fragility so that those to whom you cause harm have a difficult time defending themselves, lest they look like the aggressors. Women also unleash these tactics on other women, be they romantic partners or not. We’ve established that many men are socially conditioned to think that women owe them sex. But what about the women that assume that men should be grateful for any sex they get? In a free society, everyone, regardless of gender, is free to be a manipulative, narcissistic, emotionally destructive asshole.

    Throughout my life, I’ve heard countless men tell stories about going ahead with sex even though they didn’t really want to. Sometimes, it was because they didn’t want to hurt the woman’s feelings. Other times, it was because they feared being perceived as having a low sex drive.

    A remarkable number of men have told me about times when women approached them and, often wordlessly, initiated sexual encounters without the slightest provocation or questions asked. I’ve heard, more than once, about unsolicited hand jobs on school buses when they were boys. More than once, men have told me about past grade school camping trips or overnight parties wherein girls they barely knew slipped into their sleeping bags or beds. In some cases, the men were happy to oblige the women’s desires. In other cases, though, they went through with the encounters because they didn’t want to make an awkward situation even more awkward. Or… or… perhaps they feared that rejection might lead to an accusation of rape.

    These stories were told to me in a tone I can only describe as bafflement. The men are not complaining, but neither are they boasting. If anything, they seem to be struggling to find the words to describe a not-entirely-welcome encounter that they felt they had no right to regard with anything other than gratitude. Needless to say, if you imagined any of these situations with the genders reversed, you’d have the potential for very different framing. But in today’s harshly divided world, we don’t allow for any real events to interfere with our carefully constructed mythologies.

    The physical size difference between most women and most men means that the above comparison isn’t entirely fair. A woman who’s sexually aggressive with a man is probably not putting him in insurmountable physical danger. Unless she’s a teacher, and the male is a teenager. For every bad behavior I mentioned in my opening list of questions there is an equal, opposite, and potentially more physically threatening form of bad behavior that men can, and do, visit upon women with just as much frequency.

    But that, right there, is EXACTLY my point. In a free society, everyone, regardless of gender, or any other identification, is free to be a manipulative, narcissistic, emotionally destructive asshole. So I’m not sure why men have been getting all the credit lately. It’s like feminists assume me are all-powerful.

    The #BelieveWomen memes that have arisen in the wake of #MeToo in general, and the Brett Kavanaugh saga in particular, are coming from a place of empathy and good intentions. But they’re also stripping women of our complications and contradictions, and therefore our humanity. I happen to believe Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony about what happened between her and Kavanaugh when they were in high school. It is my personal belief, based on nothing more than gut feeling, that things transpired more or less as Ford described them and that Kavanaugh was too drunk at the time to remember. I believe that Kavanaugh effectively lied under oath about the extent of his drinking, and that this alone should have disqualified him from holding a seat on the Supreme Court.

    But there is a difference between believing and *knowing*. Even if the judiciary committee had done the right thing and subpoenaed Mark Judge, who witnessed the encounter between Ford and Kavanaugh, and forced him to testify under oath, no one would ever have known definitively what happened that evening. All the truth digging in the world will not change the fact that all kinds of people misrepresent, misremember, misinterpret, and willfully or unwillfully make misleading statements for all kinds of reasons. That is why #BelieveWomen, with its suggestion that women are some monolithic entity that is inherently more moral, innocent, or trustworthy than men, is not just reductive but insulting. Women are not simple, guileless creatures to whom only the most innocent motives should ever be ascribed. Both sexes contain multitudes. Or, as George Carlin put it, “Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.” #MeToo is important. #BelieveWomen is hollow sloganeering.

    My opening list of questions irritated some I’m sure. It’s difficult to talk about things like women tricking men into getting them pregnant, not least of all because it makes you sound like a part of the men’s rights movement — a loosely knit and often self-defeating enterprise that overrides legitimate grievances about, say, the family court system, with ambient misogyny and conspiracy theories. When I was in my twenties, just hearing a phrase like “tricking men” would have made me assume it was coming from a woman-hating kook. But the thing about growing older is that over the years, you run into more and more people and see all the different kinds of havoc they can wreak. There’s nothing like being around a smart psychopath, for an education in the evil that can be done, without punishment. There are psychopathic women. I know men who, amid contentious divorce proceedings, have been accused, preposterously, of spousal and child abuse. I know women who are so skilled in the dark art of gaslighting that the targets of their mind games, be it boyfriends or BFFs, don’t stand a chance. Once, while working with high school students, I overheard some girls joking to one another about how they were going to go out that night and “hit on older guys who don’t know we’re underage and later be like ‘Dude, you’re a pedophile.’”

    I decided to give the girls the benefit of the doubt and assume they were just goofing around, condemning misogynist stereotypes about young women as jailbait by ironically reclaiming those stereotypes. Along the way, I tried to think like a good feminist and consider that patriarchal societies foster or even force this kind of manipulative female behavior because it’s often the only power available to women. But that’s an excuse and a poor one. Some women act abominably because some people act abominably.

    The famous line “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people” has been popping up on bumper stickers and T-shirts since the 1980s. But in 2018, many feminists seem illogically invested in the idea that women operate under a different set of standards and practices than men and might, in fact, be something rather separate from “people.” They will say this is because women are still often reduced to second-class citizens; underpaid in the labor force, underrepresented in politics, and undermined and ignored when, like Ford, they speak up about their experiences.

    But can we please put this into some perspective? There is now an entire literary genre — and, more than that, vast quarters of the mainstream media — devoted to women speaking up about their experiences. Every day, the stories roll across my news feeds faster than I could possibly read them, their headlines tweaked to clickbait perfection. “Thanks for not raping us, all you ‘good men.’ But it’s not enough,” went the headline of a Washington Post guest opinion column earlier this month.

    Meanwhile, when men speak up about what it’s like to be accused of sexual misconduct — or just navigate the sexual arena in general — the only culturally sanctioned response is to paint them as entitled whiners at best and narcissistic and, of course, toxic sociopaths at worst.

    #MeToo is important. #BelieveWomen is hollow sloganeering that will ultimately set us back rather than move us forward. Like all movements, #MeToo will live or die by the degree to which it’s willing to let people in. Until it makes room for examinations not just of toxic masculinity but ***also toxic femininity***—and, even better, dispatch with these meaningless terms—it will continue to tell only half the story. Until it admits that women can be as manipulative and creepy and generally awful as men, the movement will continue to send a message that we’re not really whole people. And why would anyone believe someone like that?

    • Christine Blasey Ford was believed by women, because women live in their feelings.
      She was not believed by men, because there was no real evidence, and apparently no credible witnesses, to back up her accusations. The whole thing was a media circus to divide the genders.

  67. The Gillette ad it does nothing to promote equality and respect between women and men, boys and girls. Presenting men, with a few exceptions, as violent, misogynist, insensitive and sexist, reinforces a one-dimensional male stereotype championed by second and third-wave feminists. But it does nothing positive. Camille Paglia criticises media that promotes a “peevish, grudging rancour against men” and where “men’s faults, failings, and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment”. Instead of demonising men, Paglia argues for “an enlightened feminism” where “if women seek freedom, they must let men too be free” and where “women do not gain by weakening men”.

    The Australian feminist Bettina Arndt, in her recent book #MenToo, also argues that radical feminism, where men are presented as violent and sexist, is guilty of manshaming and destroying what should be a bond of mutual acceptance and respect between the sexes. In her essay titled “The demonisation of men – our anti-male society”, Arndt makes the point that in society, media and the law there is a pervasive “anti-male bias” – a bias that in areas such as divorce, cancer research and domestic violence prioritises women while denying men’s rights. The existence of school programs such as Respectful Relationships and the Safe Schools gender and sexuality program also highlight the way radical feminism distorts masculinity. Beginning in primary schools, where women teachers dominate and the curriculum has been feminised, boys are taught men are sexist and violent.

    Nothing ever excuses domestic violence or the commodification and sexual exploitation of women but, at the same time, it is vital to acknowledge and celebrate masculinity. A masculinity that involves courage, strength, empathy and bravery and that accepts it is OK for men to see women as feminine and alluring.

    Toxic masculinity is unacceptable and repugnant. Toxic feminism is not the solution.

  68. Masculinity can be destructive. So can feminity. Both conservative and liberal stances on this issue commonly misunderstand it. People tend to diagnose the problem of masculine aggression and entitlement as a cultural or spiritual illness—something that has infected today’s men and leads them to reproachable acts. But toxic masculinity itself is not a cause. Over the past 30 years, as the concept has morphed and changed, it has served more as a barometer for the gender politics of its day. Toxic masculinity did not originate with the women’s movement. It was coined in the mythopoetic men’s movement of the 1980s and ’90s, as a reaction to second-wave feminism. Through male-only workshops, wilderness retreats, and drumming circles, this movement promoted a masculine spirituality to rescue what it referred to as the “deep masculine”— a protective, “warrior” masculinity—from toxic masculinity. Men’s aggression and frustration was, according to the movement, the result of a society that feminized boys by denying them the necessary rites and rituals to realize their true selves as men.
    Common masculine ideals such as social respect, physical strength, and sexual potency become problematic when they set unattainable standards. Falling short can make boys and men insecure and anxious, which might prompt them to use force in order to feel, and be seen as, dominant and in control. Male violence in this scenario doesn’t emanate from something bad or toxic that has crept into the nature of masculinity itself. Rather, it comes from these men’s social and political settings, the particularities of which set them up for inner conflicts over social expectations and male entitlement.

    “The popular discussion of masculinity has often presumed there are fixed character types among men,” Connell told me. “I’m skeptical of the idea of character types. I think it’s more important to understand the situations in which groups of men act, the patterns in their actions, and the consequences of what they do.” As this research was popularized, however, it was increasingly mischaracterized. By the mid-2000s, despite Connell’s objections, her complex theories were being portrayed in ways that echoed mythopoetic archetypes of healthy and destructive masculinity.

    There was a time when masculinity was quite positive, valued, and respected. There was a time when men, and fathers, were looked up to. It is not clear to me why leftists believe they have to tear everything apart. The first part, destruction, is easy to do. We have only to look at the Cultural Revolution, in China. The second part, rebuilding, is much more involved. And it’s not being done. It is easy enough to kill something. Shakespeare referred to a bare bodkin as able to do the job quickly. Bringing something new to life is not easy, though. I think back to 1984, and Animal Farm. A socialist who knew socialists wrote them. It is common to demonize the Spanish fascists. Who were the Spanish fascists? They were conservatives, the church, and so on. The Socialists of the day promised to kill them off, using Russian models. The fascists were not good people, as we understand it, but few people want to just die. They came together, in fear. They did overcome the socialists. There is much talk now about all the killing done by fascists, and that did happen, in Spain. I saw a field, north of Madrid, where over 10,000 nuns, priests, and so on were simply killed, en mass, just as Russians, and Nazis, killed masses of people. My wife’s cousin knows a very nice old woman, in Spain. She is short, she grew up at a time when food was scarce. Her father was one of 2,500 officers, and others, who were simply gunned down, by Communists, in Madrid. I don’t remember when Rush Limbaugh first used the term “feminazi”. Do you remember the acetamide experiment, in high school? A crystal of acetamide was put into a supercooled solution of acetamide, and the whole thing crystallized almost immediately. This is a good metaphor, for the spread of that term. Is it a fair term? That’s a good question.

  69. Making workplaces better for women is good. We need to realize that women are aggressors too, particularly against others of the same gender. In a recent study, more than 70% of women reported feeling bullied by their female colleagues. This is compatible with the findings of a 2014 study by the Workplace Bullying Institute that found that while more males are bullies, they are a bit more equal opportunity about it (57% female targets and 43% male targets). Women prefer to unleash on other women (68% female targets, 32% male targets). Women have traditionally targeted other women, usually within domestic or personal settings. At the workplace too, women keep other women in line in various ways: malicious gossip, rumour campaigns, the threat of social exclusion and disapproval. This kind of aggression is often difficult to call out since it is operates under the cover of sweet smiles and friendly greetings. Women can be really, really good at plausible deniability—“Oh I forgot to CC you in about the junket invite, silly me” or “I thought you didn’t want the promotion because you have kids to think of” or “We didn’t call you for lunch because you’re so quiet we sometimes we just forget you exist tee hee”. Women, more than men, exert crushing pressure on each other to look a certain way and girls’ cliques can feel as exclusionary and noxious as boys’ clubs. Also, some women colleagues are not downright malicious but they are firmly allied to whoever is in power. They may offer you empathy and snacks from their tiffin box, but if you complain to them about the big boss sexually harassing you, you may not be able to bank on them to actually support you. It is the job of feminist discourse to promote balance and equality in society, and that includes intervening when women drag other women down (although feminists themselves are notorious for in-fighting).

    When it comes to men, women have some unique weapons in their arsenal. One is using their “weakness” to their advantage. In 2017, a media company gave women the option to take the first day of their periods off. I’ll reserve my opinion on that, but in one of my workplaces, women would have a standing ploy to cadge a sickie from a male boss. “Just tell him you have your period and he won’t be able to tolerate the embarrassment!” Others would cite “family pressures” to avoid working late even if they didn’t have any, which did a disservice to the women who were actually struggling. Some did not want to do certain types of assignments, but instead of stating their preferences clearly they would make mysterious “excuses” about “woman problems”. Female bosses were often highly sceptical but male managers acquiesced quickly. Such behaviours, when used regularly as tactics to get perks, harm general perceptions of a woman’s ability and credibility. Women, in general, are seen as “unfit” to do some types of jobs. This could change if more of us spoke up assertively, right from the start, about our preferences and goals for our schedules and career paths rather than feeding into stereotypes about women as the weaker sex.

    Some women also deploy their sexuality in various degrees (ranging from, say, signing off e-mails with “kiss you, miss you” to suggesting the possibility of sex), to achieve strategic ends. It is not uncommon to see professional spaces being rife with mating behaviours from women and men, which is problematic both ways. It creates a confusing environment where the dance of flirtation could go wrong for either party. Incidentally, I once had an older woman boss who liked to leverage the sexuality of younger women on the team to pander to powerful superiors at functions. It made her look good, she said if the young women dressed sexily and showed cleavage. All the above examples, of course, show how women are complicit in perpetuating the patriarchal order but nothing will change if we absolve them of accountability, or worse, dub them as victims too.

    Finally, as more women gain in power and go higher up in the food chain, women’s aggressions are likely to evolve and become more like what we identify as male patterns. A study found that male and female bosses share the same typically masculine traits. While this could be a function of having “what it takes” to get power, it could also be a function of power, which as many studies have found, has a naturally corrupting effect. Already, in Western societies we see more women committing sexual offences. It’s established fact that men are terrible, but women are slowly catching up.

    We need to dispel the myth that men can never be victims of women, especially as parity grows between genders. One in seven men said they had been sexually harassed in a 2017 Marketplace-Edison Research Poll, and one in five complaints filed with the US Equal Opportunity Commission were by males. They too suffered stigma, shame and gaslighting, along with the burden of the widespread belief that men always want sex and cannot be exploited by women. Does this mean women should be kept subjugated so that they don’t become “as bad” as men? Certainly not. The case I am making here is for an inclusive movement to address sexual harassment and workplace bullying in all its forms.

    Even as women embrace ambition and power, they feel pressurized to be seen as agreeable and non-confrontational. This conflict may be resolved through covert modes of conflict and passive aggression, which I have described earlier. It may also lead to poor feedback and thus poor performance of the company. At a publishing house I worked in many years ago, a managing editor was known for her propensity to redo the shoddy work of her subordinates. This is because she hated criticizing others. Everyone loved her for “kindness”, but she got burned out and quit and the subordinates never improved their skills or took responsibility. Her “kindness” was both a way of exerting control and maintaining a saintly image, but it backfired.

    Empathy, a trait that is seen as highly desirable, is also a continuum with a toxic component. A good example of this is the #MeToo movement. When feelings and beliefs are given precedence over all else, any social justice movement would stand on shaky ground. #BelieveHer goes the hashtag but it truly fails the “veil of ignorance” test— to put it crudely, would you want yourself or your loved ones to be at the receiving end of a movement that is so firmly allied to a particular section of people that it doesn’t even want to hear a rebuttal? #MeToo is driven by empathy, but this is one of its greatest weaknesses too. Women have historically not been taken seriously enough, so the solution has been to promote unquestioning faith for every woman and to quash skepticism and inquiry with outrage. In their mass display of empathy, some feminists are playing into the hands of hostile parties who think that #MeToo is riddled with false accusations and is terminally biased. The message gets less buy-in, which is a pity.

    When we speak of change, of equality, of fairness, we must include all of humanity. We cannot do that by pitting the genders against each other as believable vs. unbelievable, victim vs. perpetrator, good vs. bad, saint vs. sinner. These binaries do a disservice to women as well as men. Have women had a raw deal compared to men? Yes. Are they generally less violent than men? Yes. But are all women the same? No. Are women capable of causing destruction, including for other women? Yes – and that is toxic femininity for you.

  70. The below bite size comments are fascinating.

    If men win it’s because of sexism.
    If women win it’s because they are better than everyone else.

    If men lose they are losers.
    If women lose they are victims of sexism.

    Men need work to have value and status because that is how women choose men. Now men must compete against women for work. If we lose they don’t want us. If they lose they still get to pick a winner. It’s a completely unbalanced and unfair system. eanwhile, women file 80% of all divorces. So even if we win, 50% of us still lose everything in a divorce.

    Women are not more agreeable (as Jordan Peterson claims). They just pretend to agree to your face and plot your character assassination behind your back.

    An African proverb goes like this “If a young man is not initiated to the tribe, he’d rather burn it down just to feel its warmth.”

    I bailed out because Western women are simply toxic – they think the world needs to place them on a pedestal with men worshiping them while they place their heels on men. They demand respect but don’t give any. Screw that. #mgtow

    Women cheat by playing victim and aggressor simultaneously!

    Women create drama and conflict when things are dull. All my life, I’ve seen them fume and outrage endlessly over the tiniest, stupidest things.

    Beware of women in groups to which you do not belong. Especially if you’re female–BEWARE! Their shared sense of conspiratorial sadism is absolutely
    amoral.

    There is no socially acceptable way for a man to defend himself against a woman, except to ghost her.

    a woman’s sexual behavior is glamorized as “empowering” and “liberating”, while male sexual behavior is labeled as sick, depraved, overtly violent, and predatory. it’s the new paradigm, but the same old double-standard

    They don’t like us til they need us, then when they have us, they want to control us. Boom

    The issue is that men like fair game and competition, not quotas, lies and false accusations…

    Heard a great quote once: “Men are mean to each other but dont really mean it. Women are nice to each other but dont really mean it.”

    Women are agreeable when they are of equal and lower status, but when they are of higher status, there is contempt, especially if it is their man.

    Bill Burr said: when women are right in a fight, they stay on point, and they ensure you stay on point. If they’re wrong, they go rogue, bring up past shit etc

    The loony left and the fanatical feminists dislike Jordan Peterson he talks sense and tells the truth based on logic and facts, two things that are kryptonite to them

    Men are NOT BAILING out !!! Men are disenfranchised

    “we’ll have a fistfight and 10 minutes later we’ll have a beer.” So true.

    Women want to complicate. Men want to simplify.

    Men aren’t allowed to compete with women. There isn’t a meritocracy if you have people shrieking about parity in the workplace and school and changing policies to force it. I think a lot of men are recognizing this and also feeling lost thanks to hypergamy dictating they’re not a worthy mate if they earn less than their female counterpart. Add a lot of social shaming in all media and most guys are giving up and retreating into a world in which they can achieve some success. That’s our drive.

    Wish I knew this 20 years ago. I wasted years of my life trying to make women happy, especially at work, till I realised some of them simply never will be happy with anything men do at work, even when the mans action’s are 100% correct.

    Women don’t like people, ha, they barely like themselves. Enough said.

    Throughout history men and women worked together. Now men provide everything and women do absolutely nothing

    I am watching this stuff unfold every couple weeks with my female coworkers

    I’m sick of the whole social dynamics in this country as well as other Western nations. We are living in the age of identity politics – everything is filtered through the lenses of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality. And all this stuff including the ridiculous rhetoric surrounding the idea of a “war against women” is ginned up solely to get votes. The thing is this – I think the original feminists had valid points and laudable goals. There’s no doubt that women were treated like shit for thousands of years – women couldn’t vote, women couldn’t own property, women weren’t allowed in certain professions, women couldn’t press charges against their husbands if they raped them, etc. So, we needed the original feminists. But, then feminism degenerated in this shrill movement where it became not just about political and legal equality – it became about physical and mental equality as well which is a chimera. Let me give an example. Mark Leary a psychologist from Duke has a video set on human behavior and one of the sections talked about the differences between the sexes – specifically cognitive, psychological, and physical differences. One of the cognitive differences mentioned by Leary is this – men tend to be better at rotating objects in the mind than women. Of course good luck talking about stuff like that in today’s politically charged climate. Now, if the research results were reversed – if it was determined that women were better at rotating objects in their minds, that would be okay. But since the results are in men’s favor, it’s not.

    The far left is responsible for this screwed up, dysfunctional way of thinking. They want us to live in this creepy, boring, Harrison Bergeron dystopia. I suggest they collectively pull their head out of their asses, and one way to do that is to read “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature” by Murray Rothbard pronto.

    “… and men are more interested in things.” Yeah, see, that kinda stops as soon as the guy wants to place his huge speaker system in the living room or wants to move a cushion.

    snowflakes burst out in emotional outrage if you try to talk to them, then the verbal abuse if you don’t agree. oh man do they whine! bailout and ghosting is sometimes the only way. to keep your sanity. and your wallet.

    Spot on. I served in the Navy and came to blows a few times with my shipmates. that night we would be best oppos and buy each other a drink. Women would fall out and not resolve it for the entire deployment. There were about 40 women in a 500 crew, and most of the issues in the lower decks came from them.

    “women are more agreeable than men” There’s nothing more bitter and disagreeable then a woman who’s faced with the threat of accountability.

    ‘Women are more agreeable’??? I nursed for nearly 20 years, I tell you now that they’d eat each other if they could.

    My every job has been in a company where women make at least 80% of the employees. Once two guys got in a fight and multiple people had to separate them. There were no consciences and the next morning they were like “hi”, “hi” and they ate together in the cafeteria. Meanwhile, all my female coworkers get along great, they great each other with “hiiiiiiiiiiiii” and act like they are BFF’s but as soon as the other person is not around they talk shit about them because they still hold a grudge against that person because she cut her off rudely 4 years ago when she was telling a story about how they bought a new kitchen. I don’t even remember how many times a supervisor or a boss had to settle things between two females for some minor, idiotic issue.

    Put simply the decline of the West is in proportion to the degrading of the men who built it and outrageous and unfair legislative support for the feminists who are destroying it.

    People get what they pay for. Reward behavior and you get more of it!

    Men may have a friendly game of basketball with people they don’t know. That is not combat. Have you ever walked into an office filled with woman? that is combat!!!

    It’s not that men don’t know how to compete with women, we are not allowed too. The deck is deliberately stacked against us and our futures can be taken away from us in a heart beat by a single accusation. University Campuses are a dangerous place for men and men know it.

    Women don’t care about your struggles, they hang out at the finish line and pick the winners.

    Hard legal fact.
    [1] Title IX tilts campus life sharply towards women and disadvantages men.
    [2] Title VII tilts work life very, very strongly towards women. The entire concept of “hostile environment” as a form of sexual discrimination poisons the entire work atmosphere. There are no clear and clean rules as to what is acceptable and men at left to the whim of the women
    [3] Divorce law is all about transferring wealth from men to women
    [4] Military service is still a very real possibility for men, not on the table for women

    Women don’t want resolution, they want endless drama.

    Men are not dropping out of education. They’re dropping out of ineffective, defective formal education models that have been weaponized against them, and grant degrees to women who didn’t earn them just because they’re women. This gives the illusion that women are ahead, but it’s simply being handed to them, and they can’t hack it in the field after graduation, where then they scream about the patriarchy as the scapegoat of their failure.

    Thats why girls who used to be housemates and had a big fight will never be friends again, while the guys will highly likely go out for a drink while watching football a few days or weeks after a major disagreement which involve physical altercations (aka beat the hell out of each other) i believe for better or for worse, we men r simple😂😂

    Women are agreeable with their emotions at the moment

    I bailed out and I have no intention of going back. A whole lot of men are MGTOW and the number of MGTOW is going to increase and increase all the while the feminazis and tradcons are left scratching their heads. #MGTOW

    In the U.S. I see approx 80% of women are obese, about 30% of men are obese. Nobody wants to talk about this but it has to be part of why men are veering away from women.

    the only way for men to win is do not play at all.

  71. Women ignore the nice guys, while she plays with the bad boy, the jerk, who has no respect at all for women, passing out all her sexual goodies. This is important to understand. It is very confusing for men raised to be nice guys, and many were and are.

    1. Being a cocky bad boy is a fitness indicator, an aggressive mate, to a woman’s reptilian mind. Something about her hair being jerked, and being treated roughly, excites her as much as it does a female lizard. This is not rape, it is something else. Obviously women do not like rape.
    2. Bad boys put women in their emotions, not in their heads. Women often choose to not be rational. Women use emotions greatly, in decision making, they prefer staying in emotions, not in thought. Women want men who generate the strongest emotional response, both negative and positive emotions, because they are addicted to the charge. Men find emotions annoying, keeping them out of thinking.
    3. Bad boys are not boring. There is that dangerous feeling of risk. Women can’t stand to be bored. Bad boys get the emotions, with a dash of fear, flowing. Men do not want drama queens, they waste men’s energy. Women aren’t interested in puzzles; they want relationships, and drama. Women seek out persecutors, so they can create drama. And they supplement this with soap operas. Bad boys are unpredictable. Women hate good men, because good men are predictable, and so, boring. Also, women generalize a lot; if they believe all men are bad, then they can’t even see the good guys. Cocky, arrogant, selfish bad boys fit right into the bad boy pigeonhole. This is why men on death row get marriage proposals, and why mafia made men are popular with women.
    4. Many women do not believe they deserve to be treated well. That is sad. I was married to a woman like this. She could not handle being treated well, it made her furious. Nice treatment for women like this upsets them, because the man is, in treating her nicely, clearly playing mind games.
    5. Women tend to be attracted to men like their fathers. If their fathers ignored them, well, they don’t understand loving attention.

    Women also will go with third world men, not understanding that third world men tend to be polygamous.

  72. I think we can all agree that the site Everyday Feminism is a Joke, at best. Kind of like the Nazi party was, in 1921. Not only do they give the worst advice to women and other marginalized people on the whole internet (for example, “networking is entitled white people crap”). Not only do they seem to view women as helpless, hopeless victims. But they’re also racist and sexist.

    Just take a look at this recent article: Think It’s #NotAllMen? These 4 Facts Prove You’re Just Plain Wrong.
    To help demonstrate why a reasonable, objective person might find this post sickening… I’ve taken the liberty of changing the word “man” to “black person,” “men” to “black people,” and “patriarchy” to “black culture.” I’ve left everything else intact. It’s not a perfect parallel at every possible point in the article, but overall, the effect is quite disturbing. It clearly shows just how misandric feminist writing is.

    Dear Well-Meaning [black people- note the parody replacement] Who Believe Themselves to Be Safe, Thereby Legitimizing the “Not All black people” Argument,

    Let’s start here, even though this should go without saying: We don’t think that all black people are inherently abusive or dangerous. Plenty of black people aren’t.

    There are black people that we love very much – black people around whom we feel mostly safe and unthreatened; black people who, in fact, support, respect, and take care of us on familial, platonic, romantic, and sexual levels. Not every black person has violated us individually; for most of us, there are plenty of black people that we trust.

    We know what you mean by “not all black people” – because on a basic level, we agree with you. But the socialization of black people is such that even a good black person – a supportive black person, a respectful black person, a trusted black person – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through black culture.

    And as such, we know that even the black people that we love, never mind random black people who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.

    So when you enter a space – any space – as a black person, you carry with yourself the threat of harm. Of course, in most cases, it’s not a conscious thing. We don’t think that most black people move through the world thinking about how they can hurt us. We don’t believe black culture to be a boardroom full of black people posing the question “How can we fuck over gender minorities today?” You would be hard-pressed to find a feminist who actively believes that.

    But what makes (yes) all black people potentially unsafe – what makes (yes) all black people suspect in the eyes of feminism – is the normalized violating behaviors that they’ve learned, which they then perform uncritically. Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all black people” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of black culture without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.

    In truth, the only thing approaching defiance against this kind of violence is to constantly check and question your own learned entitlement – and that of other black people. But you can’t do that if you’re stuck in the space of believing that “not all black people” is a valid argument.
    So we wanted to call you in, well-meaning black people, to talk about these four points that you’re missing when you claim “not all black people” as a way to eschew responsibility for black culture.

    Because it is all black people, actually. And here’s why.

    1. All black people Are Socialized Under (And Benefit From) Black Culture

    Here’s the truth: Most of the time, when we generalize and use the word black people, what we’re actually referring to is the effects of black culture. What we’re actually intending to communicate when we say “black people are horrible,” for instance, is “the ways in which black people are socialized under black culture, as well as how that benefits them and disadvantages everyone else, sometimes in violent ways, is horrible.”

    But that’s kind of a mouthful, isn’t it? So we use black people as a linguistic shortcut to express that.

    And before you come at us with “But that’s generalizing,” it’s actually not. Because it is true that all black people are socialized under and benefit, to some degree, from black culture.

    That is to say, the only thing that we truly associate all black people with is black culture – and that’s hella reasonable, even though it affects black people differently, based on other intersections of identity.

    Because here’s how it works, my friends: Living in the United States, every single one of us is socialized under black culture – a system in which black people hold more power than other a/genders, in both everyday and institutionalized ways, therefore systematically disadvantaging anyone who isn’t a black person on the axis of gender. As such, we all (all of us!) grow up to believe, and therefore enact, certain gendered messaging.

    We all learn that black people deserve more than anyone else: more money, more resources, more opportunities, more respect, more acknowledgment, more success, more love. We all internalize that. To say that “not all black people” do is absurd – because, quite simply, all people do.
    ssion.

  73. Part 2 For people who aren’t black people (this is a parody replacement, to see the virulent hatred of the original article), this means that we’re socialized to feel less-than and to acquiesce to the needs of the black people in our lives. And this doesn’t have to be explicit to be true.

    When we find it difficult to say no to our black bosses when we’re asked to take on another project that we don’t have the time for, or to our black partners when they’re asking for emotional labor from us that we’re energetically incapable of, it’s not because we actively think, “Well, Jim is a black person, and as a not-black person, I can’t say no to him.”

    It’s because we’ve been taught again and again and again since birth through observation (hey, social learning theory!) that we are not allowed – or will otherwise be punished for – the expression of no. In the meantime, what black people are implicitly picking up on is that every time they ask for something, they’re going to get it (hey, script theory!).

    A sense of entitlement isn’t born out of actively believing oneself to be better than anyone else or more deserving of favors and respect. It comes from a discomfort with the social script being broken. And the social script of black culture is one that allows black people to benefit at the disadvantage of everyone else.

    And all black people are at least passively complicit in this black culture system that rewards black entitlement. We see it every single day.
    The thing about privilege is that it’s often invisible from the inside. It’s hard to see the scale and scope of a system designed to benefit you when it’s as all-encompassing as black culture. And that might lead you to buy into the idea of “not all black people.”

    To those on the outside, however, the margins are painfully visible. That’s why black people who really want to aid in leveling the playing field have a responsibility to listen to people who can see the things they can’t.

    When gender minorities tell you that you’re harming them, listen. Listen even when you don’t understand. Listen especially when you don’t understand.

    You can’t see all the ways in which your blackness distorts the fabric of society, but we can. And if you want to help dismantle black culture, you have to make the choice to accept that a thing isn’t less real just because you haven’t seen it – or don’t believe yourself to have experienced it.

    2. All Violations (Big and Small) Are Part of the Same Violent System

    Picture this: A well-meaning black person offers a woman a compliment at a bar. He has no sinister motive, and he is – after all – in an appropriate setting for flirting.

    When the woman rebuffs him for whatever reason (she’s in a relationship, she’s not into black people, she’s just not interested), the black person feels snubbed – because he was polite and respectful, but not rewarded for it.

    This well-meaning black person would probably tell you that he’s not owed a woman’s affection; he knows that. But he still feels hurt that he didn’t get it. And that’s fair. Rejection hurts.

    But maybe he believes himself to have approached her in a kind enough way that he should have at least gotten to talk to her a bit. After all, black people know that being gentlemanly is the “right” way to “get” women, and therefore expect on some level to be rewarded for that good behavior. But if that sentiment drives some of his disappointment, then that’s a sense of entitlement, however small.

    Such a black person isn’t an outright abuser. But his learned entitlement makes him potentially unsafe for women to be around. And it’s hard to see that sense of entitlement from the inside, let alone question it or start to break it down.

    As such, when we generalize and say, “Black people feel entitled to our bodies,” this black person would be wrong if he said, “Not all black people are like that – I’m not.” He just doesn’t connect the bitterness of rejection with the broader sense of entitlement he’s learned and internalized. Furthermore, he may not realize how this sense of entitlement is symptomatic of a larger aspect of black culture in which black people are taught that they’re owed romantic and sexual interest from women.

    This may seem like a tiny sliver of the black culture pie, but it’s poisoned nonetheless.

    Here’s another example: A well-meaning black person, in a conversation with a woman, talks over or black-splains to her without recognizing the behavior. He would probably never intentionally do this. Maybe he’s read Men Explain Things to Me by Rebecca Solnit and wouldn’t dream of patronizing a woman. He just wants to voice his opinion. And that’s fair, right?

    Here’s the thing about opinions, though: They’re actually not all equally valid or worth sharing, no matter what you were taught in grade school. You’re actually not automatically entitled to share your opinion; in fact, your opinion might be pointless or even harmful in some conversations.

    This well-meaning black person thinks he’s contributing to a discussion, which he feels entitled to do, because he has a right to his opinion. He doesn’t see the pattern of being talked over, belittled, or dismissed that his female friend experiences daily, to which he’s just contributed.
    And why would he? He was just offering his opinion. He wasn’t trying to make her feel small. From his perspective, it’s just a discussion.

    How could this – in any way, shape, or form – be similar to something as potentially career-damaging as gender minorities not being invited to share their thoughts in academic or professional settings, or being passed over and not asked to sit on a panel of experts? How could this be similar to an intimate partner believing that his word is the end all, be all, never letting his partner get a word in to express her needs?

    We hate “slippery slope” arguments, but that’s exactly what this is – a series of sometimes unintentional microaggressions that enables a larger culture of silencing and marginalizing people other than black people. In that context, all of these violations matter.

    Think about it: If you never unlearn the entitlement inherent in offering unsolicited compliments or talking over a woman, will you really stop there?

    One black person expects a reward for good behavior, the next for unsolicited “compliments,” the next for street harassment. One black person stays quiet about rape jokes, the next actively makes them, the next learns that if he commits rape, his friends will laugh it off. There’s a very clear line that leads from “benign” entitlement to harm and violence against us.

    So sure, maybe “not all black people” street harass or commit sexual violence. But how have your own actions contributed to a culture that allows those things to happen?
    Creation Crate

    3. The Impact of Your Actions Is More Significant Than the Intent

    Cool. You didn’t mean to contribute to the objectification of queer women when you made that lesbian porn joke. Perhaps you even think that you’re so “enlightened” as a “feminist black person” that we should just know that you “didn’t mean it like that.” In fact, maybe you even think that you were being “subversive” when you said it. Okay.

    But from a woman’s perspective, that doesn’t matter, because we still have to feel the effects of that mindset every single day – and your bringing that to the foreground has a negative impact on us, no matter what the hell your intent was.

    Many black people don’t do hurtful things maliciously. They may be doing them subconsciously, adhering to the ways in which they’ve been taught to behave, as all of us do.

    Other black people, of course, are intentionally violent. But the effects of both can be incredibly damaging.

    Surely, we’re less likely to harbor resentment towards someone who stepped on our toes accidentally than we are towards someone who stomped on them with malevolence – especially when accountability is had and an apology is issued. But our goddamn toes still hurt.

    To a gender minority, there’s very little difference between the impact of inadvertent and intentional harm. A black person who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose.

    So no matter how well-intentioned you are, you’re not off the hook when you hurt people. And because of everything we’ve discussed above, you are likely (yes, all black people) to hurt and violate. And you need to be willing to take responsibility for that.

    4. The Depth of Work to Be Done Is Avoided By Most black people

    It’s understandable that we react by distrusting even “safe” black people as a rule when even safe black people can hurt us – because even “safe” black people have been raised in and shaped by black culture that both actively and passively harms us every day. There’s no escaping that, regardless of anyone’s best intentions, so it’s useless to talk about intent as a mitigator of harm.

    Add to that the constant stream of disappointment and hurt we feel when self-proclaimed “safe” or “feminist” black people do turn out to harm us – which happens way too often to be treated like an anomaly – and it’s easy to see why women react with distrust or even outright hostility when “safe” black people show up in feminist spaces.

  74. Part 3

    We want to trust that your good intentions will lead to positive actions, we do. But here’s what we need you to understand before that can possibly happen: What you’re asking us to accept from you will take a hell of a lot of work on your part – and we’ve seen over and over again that many self-proclaimed “allies” just aren’t willing to do it.

    Being a “safe” black person (this is a parody replacement, as noted before, to give clarity to the special hate in this message) – hell, being a feminist black person – is more than just believing yourself to be and collecting accolades from others about the minimal work that you’re doing not to be an asshole.

    Doing the work means really doing the work – getting your hands dirty (and potentially having an existential crisis in the process). (Comment: how about YOU doing the work, to clean out all this hatred?)

    Consider it like this: If you go through life assuming that your harmful behavior is appropriate and most of society provides a positive feedback loop, why would you stop to examine yourself? You’ve never been given any indication that you should.

    If you never learn to see your behavior within the context of the broader harm done to gender minorities, what motivation will you have to change? And if you keep passively absorbing toxic attitudes towards male entitlement, will you really move to check bad behavior in other black people?

    Because here’s the truth: Even when it’s not conscious, black entitlement is a choice – a choice to be uncritical, a choice to continue to passively benefit. And attempting to fight that entitlement is also a choice ­– one that has to be both conscious and ongoing. You’ve got to choose it every day, in every instance.

    But how many well-meaning black people are truly choosing that path, instead of just insisting that it’s “not all black people” and that they’re “not like that?”

    Hint: You are “like that” – especially if you’re not actively fighting black culture. And claiming that you’re “not like that” doesn’t negate black culture – it enforces it.

    Fighting learned black entitlement means assuming the burden of vigilance – watching not just yourself, but other black people. It means being open to having your motives questioned, even when they’re pure. It means knowing you’re not always as pure as you think.
    It means assessing the harm you’re capable of causing, and then being proactive in mitigating it.

    Most of all, it’s a conscious decision to view every individual’s humanity as something exactly as valuable and inviolable as your own.

    And it means doing it every single moment of your life. Point blank, period.

    If you really want to stop the “all black people” cycle, that’s the only place to start.

    ***
    Well-meaning black people, if we’re being honest, we love many of you. And those of you whom we don’t know, we want to believe and appreciate. We want to feel safe around you.

    We don’t want to fear or distrust black people. We don’t want to have to perform risk assessments on every black person that we meet. Trust us – it’s a miserable life! We’d gladly abandon this work if it wasn’t absolutely necessary to our survival.

    But it’s not our job to be vigilant against harmful behaviors that we can’t possibly hope to control, though. Nor is there anything that we alone can do about this. It’s incumbent upon black people to make themselves safer as a group.

    And there’s no way that you can do that until you accept that yes, it is all black people – including you – and start working against it.

    Love always,

    Aaminah and Melissa
    ​_____________________________________________

    That was super racist, huh? Aside from the obvious point — you shouldn’t judge an entire huge group of people based on the actions of a small minority — I have a few problems with the argument, from an “is it good thinking?” perspective.

    1. It’s a contradiction — something good thinkers try to avoid. Why is it racist for someone to hold their purse tighter when they see a black person walking down the street towards them… but it’s not sexist for someone to say “yes all men” have the potential to be dangerous and violent?

    Why do I get scolded by the regressive left for patting myself on the back for being mindful of racial biases and addressing them… but it’s okay for the women in this article to talk about how open-minded they are because they “love” and “feel unthreatened” by many men?

    I think social justice warriors are well-aware of this contradiction, so they try to offset it by making up new definitions of words that already have a clear and definite meaning. Racism is not “prejudice + power.” Racism is hating or discounting someone based on their skin color.

    Sexism is not “prejudice + power.” It’s hating or discounting someone based on their gender.

    2. It speaks in absolutes. Good thinkers avoid thinking in absolutes — and they use evidence to examine and refine their ideas. Let’s go back to this “power” argument. The obvious argument that the regressive left often make to excuse their own bigoted behavior is, “Oh, the power structure!”

    Here’s the thing, though: if we’ve ever learned anything from psychology, it’s that everything — your mood, your behavior, your power — is dynamic, responsive and situational. Context matters.

    You can’t just say “power structure,” because if I’m a little white lady walking down the street at night and I see three large black men walking my way… who do you think has the power in this situation?

    I’ll give you a hint: it doesn’t matter that in twenty minutes I’ll be back in my white privilege apartment and the black men might maybe have someone call the police on them for “breaking in” to their own house. Because that’s in twenty minutes. That’s completely irrelevant to the situation that’s happening right now.

    3. It absolves women of responsibility. According to Everyday Feminism, it’s “gaslighting” to tell someone to get over something, try to ignore something, or try to have a thicker skin. But seriously, lady. If you’re going to run out of the room sobbing over a perceived microaggression against you… you need to go work on yourself.

    This article completely ignores the fact that women need to change, too.

    There is too much evidence for me to accept that “rape culture is a myth.” There are clearly very real, man-made problems in the workplace.

    But women need to take accountability, too. They need to learn to stop using hedging/mitigating language. They need to learn to accept facts — even ones they don’t like. Like, seeing pictures of famous white men in a chemistry building shouldn’t be enough to keep you out of science. Yes, historically, women have been kept out of academia and science, and those who did have the chance to contribute were largely erased. That sucks. I don’t like that fact, either. But guess what? It’s not 1760 anymore.

    ​Women need to learn to self-promote and stand up for themselves when they are threatened or slighted.

    Comment:
    I do like that these authors are (ostensibly) making an effort to “call in,” rather than “call out,” since most of the evidence supports that call-out culture is toxic. But honestly… I don’t think their approach to “calling in” is very wise or well thought-out. It’s like, “Here, we’re calling you in — EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION OF VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION! YOU YES YOU! GUILTY!”

    So… A for effort. But not so much on the execution.

    Edit: Since publishing the original article and reading some of the comments, I wanted to add two more thoughts:

    4) Feminism should be a conversation, not a condemnation. I loved when the original #NotAllMen / #YesAllWomen hashtags went viral last year, because they sparked an interesting conversation. It’s worthwhile for men to understand that, perhaps, women can be short-tempered, easily agitated or even just more cautious in certain situations because of their experiences. It’s worthwhile for women to understand that men may be baffled by this behavior, because they have no ill intentions, no ides what you’re so afraid of.

    It’s also worthwhile to note that #YesAllWomen may have experienced some form of discrimination or harassment in their lifetime, but it makes no sense to say that #YesAllMen are responsible. Say there’s some gross dude hanging around the corner store. He makes some gross comment to every woman who walks down the street — meaning that #YesAllWomen who walked down that street were harassed, even though #NotAllMen harassed, or even knew harassment was happening.

    There are some legitimate conversations we could be having about feminism. Feminism could be a very respectable cause. But when Everyday Feminism publishes something like this (or when Jezebel mocks the death of Mike Pence’s dog, or when Feministing demands that men should “consciously and actively accommodate women” at all times) they are actively hurting their cause.

    Let’s not let extremists highjack our discourse. #YesAllMen have a right to be offended by these bullshit articles… but #NotAllFeminists are like this. #NotAllFeminists are “FemiNazis” — most just want equality, and would be just as happy to be called an equalist.

    I love this article, it is so refreshing to read feminism called out for what it is – a hate-filled ideology. I’ll be reading more and more.

  75. Everyday Feminism is a website that says All men should be seen as potentially dangerous and violent.

    Regressive Leftism, as people have pointed out before, is becoming like Christianity in one way: it views certain people as afflicted with an Original Sin acquired not through their actions, but by the unavoidable circumstances of their birth. For Christians it’s just being a mammal of the species Homo sapiens, while for Regressives it’s being white and male: a double pox. And if you think that, in light of the multifarious accusations of sexual harassment, you, a male, are off the hook because you’ve never engaged in sexual harassment, rape, groping, or masturbation in front of unwilling women, think again. While those actions, and probably most of those accused, are guilty and reprehensible, even if you think you’re clean you’re still guilty. Guilty of being white, as Yankah claimed, and now guilty of being male, as this article from Everyday Feminism claims

    Yes, it is indeed all men—and by that they mean this: all men are agents of the Patriarchy, and potential predators as well. Granted authors, Aaminah Khan and Melissa A. Fabello say that some of their best friends are men:

    There are men that we love very much – men around whom we feel mostly safe and unthreatened; men who, in fact, support, respect, and take care of us on familial, platonic, romantic, and sexual levels. Not every man has violated us individually; for most of us, there are plenty of men that we trust.

    =.>We know what you mean by “not all men” – because on a basic level, we agree with you. But there’s a caveat, for even the “good” men not only are potential predators and sexists, but need therapy or training to escape that mindset. Here’s the “J’Accuse” (the emphasis is theirs):

    But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.

    And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.

    So when you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.

    . . . But what makes (yes) all men potentially unsafe – what makes (yes) all men suspect in the eyes of feminism – is the normalized violating behaviors that they’ve learned, which they then perform uncritically.

    Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all men” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of “masculinity” without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.

    In truth, the only thing approaching defiance against this kind of violence is to constantly check and question your own learned entitlement – and that of other men. But you can’t do that if you’re stuck in the space of believing that “not all men” is a valid argument.

    I guess it’s not good enough to say that you’re trying hard to be a good “ally” to women, and to examine your behavior to ensure that you treat the genders as equals, as I think most of us do. No, you have to admit that you bear the Stain of Toxic Maculinity (and Toxic Whiteness) and then labor mightily to expunge it. As the article says:

    So we wanted to call you in, well-meaning men, to talk about these four points that you’re missing when you claim “not all men” as a way to eschew responsibility for patriarchal oppression.

    Because it is all men, actually. And here’s why.

    Here are the four reasons we’re all guilty, and why women should look at us side-eyed, and forever (EF’s text is indented; mine is flush left):

    1.) All Men Are Socialized Under (And Benefit From) Patriarchy.

    Because here’s how it works, my friends: Living in the United States, every single one of us is socialized under patriarchy – a system in which men hold more power than other a/genders, in both everyday and institutionalized ways, therefore systematically disadvantaging anyone who isn’t a man on the axis of gender. As such, we all (all of us!) grow up to believe, and therefore enact, certain gendered messaging.

    For people who aren’t men, this means that we’re socialized to feel less-than and to acquiesce to the needs of the men in our lives. And this doesn’t have to be explicit to be true. (I’m sure this message of patriarchy will ring true for the many men in the criminal justice system. And in crummy jobs. And in homeless shelters.)

    When we find it difficult to say no to our male bosses when we’re asked to take on another project that we don’t have the time for, or to our male partners when they’re asking for emotional labor from us that we’re energetically incapable of, it’s not because we actively think, “Well, Jim is a man, and as a not-man, I can’t say no to him.” And all men are at least passively complicit in this patriarchal system that rewards male entitlement. We see it every single day. (male entitlement to be discriminated against, screwed in divorce court, put in the front lines of war, do the dangerous jobs…)

    =>This is regressive in the sense that while it argues that sexism is widespread, and I think it is, it also claims that women have all been victimized by it to the point that they have become passive Stepford Wives. It’s regressive because statements like this don’t empower women, but disempower them, infantilizing them to the point where their passivity is entirely the fault of men. This is the exact antithesis of First and Second Wave feminism. Yes, there is truth to some women being beaten down by sexism, but the cure for that is not just to write articles blaming men, but call them out when they treat you like that. In other words, the authors assert that the cure lies solely with men, which ignores the fact that every group that has ever attained equal rights in the face of bigotry has demanded those rights, not just blamed the Other Side for its behavior and expected to be handed equality.

  76. continuation
    continuation
    2.) All Violations (Big and Small) Are Part of the Same Violent System. Apparently even asking a woman out, and feeling bad when you’re rejected, counts as Patriarchal Violence (my emphasis):

    Picture this: A well-meaning man offers a woman a compliment at a bar. He has no sinister motive, and he is – after all – in an appropriate setting for flirting.

    When the woman rebuffs him for whatever reason (she’s in a relationship, she’s not into men, she’s just not interested), the man feels snubbed – because he was polite and respectful, but not rewarded for it. ((What is a woman in a relationship doing in a singles bar… oh, never mind. And smart men in bars ignore women.))

    . . . . After all, men know that being gentlemanly is the “right” way to “get” women, and therefore expect on some level to be rewarded for that good behavior. But if that sentiment drives some of his disappointment, then that’s a sense of entitlement, however small.

    Such a man isn’t an outright abuser. But his learned entitlement makes him potentially unsafe for women to be around. And it’s hard to see that sense of entitlement from the inside, let alone question it or start to break it down. ((learned entitlement? Huh? what planet did you come from, again?))

    =>I have no words for this accusation. To say that a disappointed and rejected male is “entitled” and “potentially unsafe for women to be around” is to say that all men are unsafe to be around, for all of us have been rejected and felt bad about it And that, of course, is the point of this article: to make all women fear all men.

    3.) The Impact of Your Actions Is More Significant Than the Intent. My emphasis below:

    Cool. You didn’t mean to contribute to the objectification of queer women when you made that lesbian porn joke. Perhaps you even think that you’re so “enlightened” as a “feminist man” that we should just know that you “didn’t mean it like that.” In fact, maybe you even think that you were being “subversive” when you said it. Okay. But from a woman’s perspective, that doesn’t matter, because we still have to feel the effects of that mindset every single day – and your bringing that to the foreground has a negative impact on us, no matter what the hell your intent was.

    Many men don’t do hurtful things maliciously. They may be doing them subconsciously, adhering to the ways in which they’ve been taught to behave, as all of us do.

    Other men, of course, are intentionally violent. But the effects of both can be incredibly damaging.

    Surely, we’re less likely to harbor resentment towards someone who stepped on our toes accidentally than we are towards someone who stomped on them with malevolence – especially when accountability is had and an apology is issued. But our goddamn toes still hurt.

    To a gender minority, there’s very little difference between the impact of inadvertent and intentional harm. A man who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose. ((what man with brains wants anything to do with lesbians? THey’re as toxic as feminists, if not worse.))

    =>Again, a mindset like this is incapable of discriminating against an unthinking, sexist remark and a sexual violence, just like it’s incapable of seeing a difference between touching someone’s shoulder without permission and a violent rape (both count as “bad behavior”, but they’re just not the same, morally or legally). To lump together all forms of sexism—even “microaggressions” that may not even be sexist—as “violence” is another way to infantilize and victimize women. Again, I emphasize that no woman should be subject to unwanted attention (save, perhaps, being asked out by someone who gracefully accepts rejection), but to equate a lesbian porn joke with intentional physical or sexual violence is not only mistaken, but actually eliminates the chance to reduce sexism. A sexist joke can be called out, and perhaps the joker taught a lesson, but a man who sexually assaults a women needs far more drastic intervention.

    4.) The Depth of Work to Be Done Is Avoided By Most Men. As a professor, I interacted with male and female students (perhaps some transgender people as well, but I never knew), and, especially in graduate courses, constantly assessed whether I was ensuring that the women were treated as equals and their achievements appreciated. Did I prevent them from being talked over by men? (Yes, this happens.) Did I ensure that a woman with a good idea got credit for that idea, rather than the man who affirmed if immediately afterwards? (Yes, this happens, too.) I suspect that many of us do this kind of stuff, making a conscious effort to treat women as professional and moral equals, which is the right thing to do. But that’s not enough, not for the Everyday Feminists (their emphasis):

    We want to trust that your good intentions will lead to positive actions, we do. But here’s what we need you to understand before that can possibly happen: What you’re asking us to accept from you will take a hell of a lot of work on your part – and we’ve seen over and over again that many self-proclaimed “allies” just aren’t willing to do it.

    Being a “safe” man – hell, being a feminist man – is more than just believing yourself to be and collecting accolades from others about the minimal work that you’re doing not to be an asshole.

    Doing the work means really doing the work – getting your hands dirty (and potentially having an existential crisis in the process).

    =>But what do we do? Apparently spend much of our lives micromanaging our behavior exactly the way the authors want:

    Hint: You are “like that” – especially if you’re not actively fighting patriarchy. And claiming that you’re “not like that” doesn’t negate patriarchy – it enforces it.

    Fighting learned male entitlement means assuming the burden of vigilance – watching not just yourself, but other men. It means being open to having your motives questioned, even when they’re pure. It means knowing you’re not always as pure as you think.

    It means assessing the harm you’re capable of causing, and then being proactive in mitigating it.

    Most of all, it’s a conscious decision to view every individual’s humanity as something exactly as valuable and inviolable as your own.

    And it means doing it every single moment of your life. Point blank, period.

    We have to monitor not just ourselves, but all other men, and do it every single moment of our lives? But what about other progressive issues? Will we still have time for those?

    What we see here is pure entitlement: “My problems are the most important, and you’d bloody well spend all your time pondering them and fixing them.” This is very close to Catholic Original Sin, and to the demand, like Catholics hear, that one admit that one is tainted and then beg for confession and an absolution that, apparently, comes more easily from God than from feminism.

    Although Everyday Feminism is an over-the-top site to me, it’s not that far removed from Leftist Feminism, and I wrote this post because the women who write stuff like the above may well be our future leaders. Surely all of us want a world where women are afforded equal respect, dignity, and opportunity. But I’m not sure I want a world in which women are taught that all men are potential predators, that the solution lies only in men, that there are no “good” men, and that the onus of fixing sexism is not discussion and demonstrations, but men’s acceptance of the accusation that we are tainted and better spend the rest of our lives accepting it and fixing it.

    How long before we have feminist rallies, like those at Nuremberg, in the 30’s?

  77. The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.-Pat Robertson famously said this in the 90s, and the sentiment still rings as true in the ears of many today.

    So why do so many people think feminism = man-hating? Let’s look at a few explanations for this.

    #1 So many feminists hate men. Just listen to them talk, or read what they write. In 30 seconds on Google, I found this article (first page of my first search about “radical feminism”) and this delightful collection of quotes (my favorite: “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” Thanks for the gem, Valerie Solanas.).
    You don’t have to look very hard to find examples of “feminists” who hate men.

    There isn’t much difference between “feminists” and “misandrists.”
    Ever heard the term misandrist? It’s like misogynist but for hating men instead of women.
    Yes, misandrist is a word.

    What matters is that feminism, distilled down to its absolute core, is about gender fascism. The goal of feminism is to create a society in which individuals’ genders don’t exist. Yet somehow, women are better than men.

    #2 Gender hatred

    A particularly fascinating study showed that the smallest change in the way you describe someone can completely alter the way you perceive their behavior. A university class (unknowing lab rats) had a substitute professor. To introduce the professor, the class members were given short bios. What they didn’t know was that half the bios had been very slightly altered (e.g., exchanging warm, positive adjectives for cold, callous ones).

    After the lecture, the students were asked to review the professor. The entire class saw the same man say the same things, yet the reviews were split 50/50 positive and negative. Half the class said he was personable, considerate, and engaged, while the other half said he was ruthless, would do anything for success, and didn’t care about students or people.
    The smallest change in the way someone is described can make a dramatic change in the way you interpret their behavior and demeanor. Feminists engage in this kind of calumny all the time.

    #3 Feminism Says all men are bad
    Many feminists clearly believe, and write that “all men are rapists.” Many feminists clearly believe that all men are evil, and women who support men are also evil. They blame every individual man know for hundreds of years of oppressive behavior, that actually affected many men, also. Feminism seeks out sexism in everything. The solution to sexism is simple: respect for all. Feminists have never modelled this, though.

    #4 Feminists refuse to even acknowledge Men’s Issues
    There are a lot of gender-based men’s issues to address. Like why young men today are less likely to graduate from college, attain a high GPA, be active in extracurricular organizations or seek leadership roles; or why men in general have always been more likely to be caught up in the criminal justice system or be homeless. These are real issues, surely, and things our society should work to correct. Feminists ignore these issues because they hate men. Women’s issues are the default in our society. Women’s diseases get far more research money. Women’s problems are treated far more than are men’s.

    #5 Sensationalism Is a Good Way To Distract From Real Issues

    Men and blacks are more likely to be imprisoned because being a criminal is part of being male, and/or black. The mythical “pay gap” is a univariate analysis, that only compares men’s work with women’s. When you correct for types of jobs, hours on the job, and actual productivity, along with how women get far more from taxes, and social security, you realize that men are getting screwed. Women get much more than men do, even before we look at divorce and child custody. And women want even more. And feminists are more than willing to lie openly and brazenly.

    Recognition of truth is very slow, because our mass media are so incredibly toxic.

  78. Why are feminists so unpleasant to women?

    (article with comments)
    Bereft of a real cause, today’s feminists have become a coven of argument who pick petty fights and spew aggressive invective to justify their existence. You see, my name is Angela and I am a non-feminist. Part of a growing sector of women who feel that today`s militant “wimmin’s voice” does not speak in their name. Yet whenever people like me dare suggest that post-millennial feminism is outdated and irrelevant, the reaction from the sisterhood is decidedly unsisterly. (so it is.)

    How I still treasure the tweet from author Emma Kennedy who declared that she’d like to kick me in the shins, after I espoused my non-feminist view on Newsnight. Not that she was alone. My inbox and twitter feed has, on various occasions, spluttered with 50 shades of insults (and worse) from women who don`t like my stance. And thereby hangs the irony – especially in the week that the film Suffragette is released. To paraphrase Jane Austen (and more of her later), it`s a truth not so universally acknowledged that ***feminists can be really horrible to other women*** (women generally complain about female bosses, too. And women can hurt other women terribly).

    Perhaps such bitchiness stems from the fact that feminists have lost their cause since all the great battles upon which the suffrage movement was founded – such as voting rights, equality of education – have been fought and won.mmGirls now outperform boys at GCSE and in further education, while around 20 per cent more girls make it to university than boys. Women who own businesses earn nearly 17 per cent more than men in the same position. As for the paucity of women in high profile jobs, for many this is a liberating and self-imposed glass ceiling, which marks the decision to leave full-time employment and put their children first (only recently Erin Pizzey declared feminism was ruining family life – and boy did the boxing gloves come out for that one) . Meanwhile disturbing issues such as female genital mutilation, sexual objectification and domestic violence have become the responsibility and concern of all society, not simply a rescue project for militant women. And so, bereft of a real cause, today’s feminists have become a coven of argument – spoilers who pick petty fights and spew aggressive invective to justify their existence. Not least the Women’s Room, who railed against the Bank of England for the lack of women on our bank notes, citing this as evidence of discrimination. Who cares if Jane Austen is emblazoned on a tenner? I don’t: I just care that I’m being paid enough of them.

    Yet, this week, when I referred to this pointless campaign on BBC1’s Sunday Morning Live, fellow panellist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown gusted such a patronising sigh, she sounded like a deflated balloon at the end of a raucous party. I don`t expect all women to agree with me. But there are many who do. Look no further than the proliferation of websites such as Women Against Feminism.

    For like many non-feminists I`m university educated and combine a career with my role of homemaker. At my alma mater, Manchester High School for Girls, no one sought out trite examples of discrimination. We were urged to aim high and fulfil our potential. That, after all, is what the Suffragettes did – indeed the Pankhurts were alumna of the school. Another former pupil was Catherine Mayer, co-founder of the Women’s Equality Party, who unlike others, maintained her grace and courtesy when we discussed our disparate views. A masterclass in how to have a frank exchange of opinions without the need to be bitchy or aggressive.

    So you see, there are successful women out there, who have brains, and put them to use.

  79. I’ve never trolled bars. They don’t feel good, I don’t even like entering them. My brother has gone to bars, but he has a simple rule: never bring home a pickup. It’s just too dangerous. He’s had this rule for 30 years, during those times when he wasn’t married. I suppose he misses out on action, and he also misses out on crazy. Young men may have some fascination with crazy. Older guys generally don’t. They have experienced crazy women. In my demographic, it is very easy to find pickups. I have no interest, though. Those men I’ve known who do troll bars tell me there are more women than men, as a rule. Casual sex, for me, is like casual heart surgery. There was plenty of opportunity for it in college. Getting good grades, working, and making it through all took higher priority, for me. My brother and I generally aren’t interested in casual roulette, I mean casual sex. It has much more danger than porn, and is somewhat less satisfying. A guy who came to my military unit, out of advanced training, went out excitedly to the clubs, for the first time. He came back utterly disgusted. Three married women hit on him, plus a gay. He didn’t want anything to do with any of them. A lot of guys in my unit were barracks rats, who never went to the clubs. They rode their motorcycles, went to parks, and had fun, but they just weren’t into the club scene. Guys who go to bars are only a section of the whole. Bars are a great place to find alcoholics, and severely damaged people. They are not a good place to find a woman capable of holding a relationship together, or who is pleasant to spend time with. A day in the park does far more for me than going to a bar. Casual sex? Casual root canal. As damaged as they are, almost all of those women really, really, really want to find love, long term love, respect, and so on. Their strategy sucks, but that, deep down, is what most want, even and especially when they don’t believe they deserve it. Even the women who claim to be copying men, with casual sex, don’t really say that with much conviction. Years ago, I worked in a store. A gorgeous woman came in, dressed all in black. For some reason, she started talking to me about he she wanted to kill herself. I asked her not to, and said that, even not knowing her, my life would be diminished if she were to do that. I said a few other things like that, digging deep, I had no idea what to tell her, beyond that, but did what I could. I believe she had been dumped, in a painful way, and didn’t know the magic word for being dumped- NEXT! I have no idea why she picked me to say that to.

    There is an old saying- Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned. I had a lot of pain growing up. I don’t really want to be putting pain into some woman’s life. It just doesn’t feel right. If someone is going to give them pain, it is not going to be me. I’d rather take that bar tab money, and get socks for the homeless shelter, which they always seem to need. I get a better orgasmic feeling out of that, than I would from some emotionally scarred woman, that I exploited for my own moment of pleasure, with the implied promise that love might show up, some-a-day. Feminists talk about having sex like a man. They don’t understand that their sample is very skewed. Guys like me don’t go to bars. We don’t even want to be near them. Bars don’t exist, in our lives. I know guys like me, because we get along. Casual sex just isn’t part of our lives. I have noticed that I take on the energy signature of the people I am around, so I carefully screen the people I allow into my energy field. Bars are the emotional equivalent of garbage dumps, for me. Maybe other guys need to explore them, for some reason. I don’t. I have better ways to spend my time, and money, and energy. I seek out people who help me grow, not those who suck my energy out of me.

  80. Julia Maria said this on her blog. Wow. A feminist talks. Women ask why all men want from them is sex. She answers: “you have no talents, hobbies, interests, wisdom, other than your own personal vanity. You have no original thoughts on politics, society, or philosophy. You talk about random celebrities you have a crush on, articles in the gossip press, your exes, cosmetics, and so on. What they heck else are you good for, than casual sex?”

  81. Dear feminists,

    You are having an effect. You are. I congratulate you. You declared war on men. And you won! Men are going their own way [MGTOW], and it’s great! It’s fantastic! We have our freedom! Hallelujah, praise Jesus, free at last! We are off your plantation. You cut down MGTOW with whatever your labels are, lately, hate group, anti-feminist, misogynist, nazi, menninst, rapists, man-children, losers, and all the other things you say. Just a few points about your continual attacks. Do you even know who, or what, we are?

    You do know we’re not MRA right? I mean, some MGTOW may be MRA, and some MRA may be MGTOW, and both groups are related to men, but that’s where the comparison ends. I can see how you might confuse the two, and think what you’ve done before will work. The reason I bring this up, is because your 150 year old techniques won’t succeed on MGTOW. So I’ll point out every mistake you’re making, because you’ll continue failing miserably without some help and I’m a really helpful man.

    The first mistake, is the endless articles you publish trying to shame MGTOW. Calling us losers, incels, homosexuals, man-children, alt-right, psychologically damaged, Trump voters, serial killers or all the other nonsense you come up with. That may have worked a bit with MRAs, but that technique absolutely doesn’t work with MGTOW.

    The reason is that you cannot shame MGTOW, and all you do is give us endless free publicity. It just drives more men to the spaces where MGTOWs hang out. Every word you utter spreads the ideas. White feathers worked in 1914, but not today. You also can’t weaponize women against MGTOW, because we’re not listening to them. MRA types cared, so you’re able to attack them, but your number one weapon, having men attacked in their own homes by their loved ones, simply won’t work. I can walk down the street with a MGTOW4LIFE t-shirt and you can’t do anything about it. Say whatever you want, your bullying attempts will fail every time. You cannot guilt or shame us. You cannot frame us by association and link us to disliked political actions. If you think MGTOW is a disease, you’re Typhoid Mary spreading it around. We’re laughing at you every time you do this, because you help us spread the word far better than we do.

    The second mistake, thinking protesting and blocking access to information will work.
    The reason is we’re a global online group. I mean, we do meet in public when we want to, but when we do, we don’t advertise it publicly so you can show up, and no MGTOW will tell you. At best you can ban us from a feminist subreddit or forum, like anyone cares. That technique doesn’t work because **we don’t want to talk to you**. You offer nothing of value to us, or to any man. You can’t protest and block showings of movies like you did with the movie The Red Pill, or attack university speakers. You can’t really attack something that doesn’t exist, that has no form, that moves away from you, and you don’t know when it’s happening anyway. Even if you managed to, you’d just be ignored. You’ll be ignored because you’re not important to us.

    The third mistake, assuming there is a debate. You cannot pull out made up studies, and fake statistics, and demand things. The reason is that this isn’t MRA. This is not the battle of the statistics and studies. Even if your made up studies were actually true for once, it’s irrelevant. MGTOW doesn’t do statistics. There are no debate points. MGTOW doesn’t care about your problems. You know how you don’t care about men? MGTOW doesn’t care about you. Just reverse the genders in your head and maybe that’ll help you understand why it won’t work. Nothing you do will convince anyone.

    The fourth mistake, assuming an agenda. The reason is that MGTOW is not MRA nor an activist group. There are no protests, no list of demands, no marches, no political activism. You have nothing you can debunk, file lawsuits against, or attempt to work politicians. We have zero agenda, so there’s nothing for you to attack. There’s no change being advocated for. That’s why your lame articles have to talk about some 15 year old MGTOW manifesto about limited government and femininity and masculinity that no one cares about anymore, or those silly MGTOW levels that are just terms for discussion points. No one cares about that much either, it’s just shorthand descriptions of things. That’s all you have. You’re barking up a dead tree hunting for an agenda. We cut ourselves off from you, joyfully. You have no value to us. Correction: you have negative value.

    The fifth mistake, is thinking you can use your standard made up “harassment” techniques. The reason is, you can do that nonsense with MRA or whomever, where you make up bomb threats, death threats, twitter harassment, or other nonsense you dream up for attention. This accomplishes absolutely nothing. MGTOW doesn’t care about you, much less waste our time with you in that way. The biggest “threat” we are is to your feelings when we post about how pathetic your attempts are. Do whatever you want. None of us will go to your meetings or protest where you make up your bomb threats. You’re just totally unimportant.

    The sixth mistake, is doxxing and attacks against organizations and their leadership. The reason is, MGTOW is not an organization. There are no leaders. There’s no structured hierarchy. You will have a hard time accomplishing anything. You might bug a particular individual on YT or something, and attempt to demonetize or de-platform some content creators, but they’ll just go elsewhere, and all that does is create more content and show you as the bullies. With no leaders to attack, and no hierarchy to shame, do you really think you can do anything with that methodology? Even if a highly regarded MGTOW turns out to be a serial killer, no one will care about that part of their lives. It won’t stop anything because its a loosely knit group of people who associate based on MGTOW and that’s about it. The internet is a really big place. You can’t really run people out of town when the town is global communications.

    The seventh mistake, is attempting to change the “narrative”. The reason is, you cannot infiltrate MGTOW. No one wants you or accepts you. No real man wants to be a fishbicycle, or to have anything to do with you. Your method of attempting to bend the ears of the nonexistent leadership with sex, or go to our spaces and push your agenda is seen miles away. You can pretend to be a man online but you cannot change or alter the “narrative”. You can infiltrate MRA and pretend to be an “ally” and start some nonsense, but that just doesn’t work with MGTOW. It’s plainly obvious when you attempt to do it. You can gender bend online and attempt to infiltrate MGTOW, but no one will buy whatever nonsense you’re saying even when you try. Did I mention there’s no “narrative” for you to exploit?

    The eighth mistake, is you don’t have any clue what we are and think you do. The reason is, you think it’s a movement, or ideology, or mens rights group, or a protest, or political party, or cult. It barely rates as a philosophy. MGTOW is an idea. That’s it. It is the idea that we walk away from our oppressors- you. Each MGTOW has their own ideas as well. To quote a phrase, “ideas are bulletproof”. You’ve become complacent. You’re fighting an idea unlike what you’re familiar with fighting. And your techniques that you’ve been using for years won’t work on MGTOW. Your primary weapon, women, isn’t in play. Blame, shame, and frame, won’t work. MGTOW is a one way street. As a parallel, you’re part of a nasty, vicious religious cult, and MGTOW are similar to atheists. You cannot make an atheist suddenly become a religious person again. It just doesn’t happen. Quote the [feminist] bible all you want, you won’t convert anyone. Shame them and tell them they’re going to hell. Won’t work. Go to their friends and complain they aren’t religious enough. Nice try. Everything you do drives more men to MGTOW. You need to throw out the old playbook. We’re not your enemy by the way. Isn’t MGTOW your goal anyway? You think you’d be happy that those you look down on as pathetic have no interest in raping a woman, sexually harass a woman, catcall a woman, or get in your way. We just don’t like you, and don’t want to play with you anymore. We don’t want anything to do with you. We don’t want to look at you, we’d like to never talk to you ever again. We don’t need you. We are tired of seeing fathers have their children taken away, so we just aren’t going to be fathers any more. We are tired of your constant bitching. It’s easy to turn off. We just avoid you. You have nothing positive to offer.
    Your problems are solved, and it took men to solve them. Like Terrence Popp says, on his videos, we just don’t care about you. You wanted men out of your life, and we want to be out of your lives. Let’s make it happen! Goodbye and good luck. Creo que los Hispanicos, los Indios, y los negros serian la gente sola, en dos generaciones. Los hombres negros no te gustan, tambien. No teneis valor a los hombres. Ni un centavo. Teneis valor negativo, para los hombres. Sois diablas en formas humanas. Vosotros quereis el fin de la raza blanca. Bien. No importa para nosotros. No queremos ser bicicletas para peces. No queremos ser con vosotros mas. Ereis llenas de las toxinas.

    I hope this helps you in your ongoing war against men.

    I took the time to think about it and there are two things you actually could do that may be effective, and you don’t have to compromise your principles, but I don’t want to be accused of mansplaining it to you. I’m sure you’ll come up with them on your own.

  82. Feminists try to shame men, but they never look in the mirror.

    When will they start telling girls that whoring around in college and through their 20s is a bad way to waste a life?
    When will they start demonizing single motherhood, given the proven damage to children, and communities?
    When will they start telling women that it is not okay to divorce rape their husbands?
    When will they tell young girls that leading boys on and using them as meal tickets and free entertainment is extremely bad behavior?
    When will they stand up and start telling society to treat fathers and men equally in regards to jobs, medical insurance, social security, and suicide support?

    Feminists come in and demand, demand demand. Feminism has damned women in the long run, it lifted a curtain from who many of them really are. They criticize men for going to sex workers, or sex dolls, are all doing it because they are losers or can’t get a women or hate them. No, these are men who’ve had experience of feminists. It’s not hate but disgust of what American women have become.
    Preferring a doll to the real thing says something about the perceived value of the real thing. Feminists actually think that if they create the feminist paradise, everything will be great. You can see the feminist paradise any day. Go to the projects, in your city, and see what it’s like. It is not a pretty picture. Some women may realize that if they fixed the laws and started acting right men would come back. I don’t know- the taste of freedom, and not having to deal with bitching every day, is pretty addictive. What we are seeing now is evolution and humanity evolving, men don’t need women, men are evolving more and more emotionally and women are stuck behind. I love women. I love the way the ones who are good at it act or sing; I love the way they look; I love the way they smell. If I close my eyes and listen to them talk, I can imagine that they even have empathy, love for children, and sympathy for family members. But I realize it’s all an illusion. Almost every woman, in spite of those things that I already mentioned, are bat-sh.. crazy. Shallow drama queens itching for a fight; thieves, ready to steal from their husbands and boyfriends, demanding more and more, all the while being pumped by Chad. I love women, but for my sanity’s sake I can’t ever be with one again. Yeah, my buddy is 55, and he dumped his girlfriend of 30. She looked really good, too. But she was so possessive, easily angered, nasty, and just not worth it. My buddy has peace in his life, now. Peace is so very nice.

    • I knew a guy who was 56. He was divorced. He paid his child support on time, because he wanted to have a good relationship with his son. He was smart enough to play the long game, and wait it all out. He had a girlfriend, 32, who sought him out. He couldn’t believe it, and asked her why on earth she had any interest in him. She said it was because he had a heart, he was kind, she felt like he wasn’t going to hurt her. So he went with her for a while. He did terminate the relationship, though. She was simply crazy. He was afraid she’d so what crazy women do; false accusation of rape, set his car on fire, well men over 40 have heard all the stories about what crazy women do. That guy decided he needed the only piece he needed was peace of mind. He had had enough conflict in his life. Oh, that girlfriend was hot, but she was just too high maintenance. I see more and more guys over 40 just deciding that women are simply not worth the hassle. It’s one thing to procreate, and have a supportive partner. It is quite another to have to be constantly worrying what new thing she will blow up over, and take revenge about even not understanding what actually happened. He wouldn’t even look at women in his own age range, for any reason. He had his hobbies, his son to visit, some other family. Women don’t understand that the number of men, demographically, who are available to them shrinks dramatically after about the age of 35, even before you figure in the number of men like my friend, who just doesn’t want to play any more. I estimate that for women over 50, there are at least 15-20 women looking, for every man who is open to a relationship. I base this on having talked to older men, about what is available to them, for dating. I know a guy whose wife died, last year. He is 55. His first effort on tinder brought in 500 responses from women, in three days. Well, he’s well off, looks good, in good shape, has a great personality, and he’s funny. So he had to play with filters, to cut that number down to something manageable. Women don’t seem to understand that when they savage a man, he becomes unavailable to other women. Women are doing this to each other. Oh well, not my ball game, not my problem.

  83. I grew up going to church. It was just what we did. I looked around, to learn. There were some overweight women. There were nice women. There were gossips. There were all sorts, as you get in any group. There was one group, though, that fascinated me. It was those women in their, say, forties and fifties, who were of course all married, back then, and they were hot. OK, in church, one isn’t really supposed to do that, one should really have one’s attention on spiritual matters, and so on. But, well, I was young, the sap was flowing, and yes, there is a kind of magnetic attraction. These women were happily married. And they were hot. Of course I noticed the teenie women in my high school. Some of them were hot. I thought about this for a while, actually decades. It finally hit me that I needed to step out of the materialist paradigm, into an energy, or spiritual, paradigm. These women were hot in a different way than say the 17 year old in the band I had a hopeless crush on. It was kind of like the difference between say a budding rose, and a rose in full bloom. A bud has beauty, yes, and promise. But a rose in full bloom is totally different. There were a very few women with white hair, who had aged well. They weren’t hot, in this sense, but they clearly had spiritual perception. I wasn’t in a position to get them talking, really, but I’d have liked to hear their belief systems. This is a delicate subject, not something I’d ever discuss in person, of course. Yet those women who were more than double my age were, yes, hot. It took me a while. The wolf is not the organism. The wolf organism is the pack. The horse is not the organism. The herd is. It is led by smarter, older mares, with the warrior stallions in the back, to deal with attacks. Many birds mate for life, in the same way. They are a team, covering for each other. It hit me that the reason these women were hot, was that they had a sort of good chi kung circuit going. Their chi meridians weren’t blocked. They were all most certainly getting it regularly, which, from a Chinese point of view, is a kind of massage. From a Chinese medicine point of view, penetration is a full energy massage, an energy exchange, where each gets more than they put in. It’s a synergistic thing. From a Chinese medicine point of view, plastic cannot replace the flesh. Lesbians get overstimulated in one place, which blocks energy flow, which leads to blocked absorption, which leads to overweight. No judgment here, this is what I’ve seen of Chinese medicine. Those hot women had uninterrupted Chi flow. They were getting a massage of their entire system, doing the wild thing with their husbands. None of those hot women was single. Every one of them was in a long term committed relationship. Obviously I couldn’t interview them directly.

    A significant part of energy flow is energy gradients. Energy flows from higher potential to lower, just like an electron seeks its lowest energy shell. A Chi buildup in a man can be discharged, in a healthy way, through intercourse- with a woman he has energy bonds with, what Hawaiians call aka threads. Aka is a sort of theoretical etheric substance. Aka channels mana, which is the same as chi. Jose Silva understood this, which is one reason he stayed very faithful to his wife. He knew that he needed healthy energy connections to his wife, and that playing around would weaken them considerably, even if she never consciously knew he was playing around. I and the other guys in high school walked around on high charge, most of the time. It could be painful at times. If a comely lass walked by, well, we had to turn our heads, and put the energy back down.

    Now let’s take the bad boy who has lots of partners available. He is not circulating his energy so that it comes back to him. He is wasting it, on numerous partners. He has all kinds of aka threads, to the women he’s been with- and yes, sex sets up a lot of energy bonds. These aka threads drain his energy, to some extent. I’ve seen Mormon men who had multiple wives. This is a curious hybrid. Apparently the “sister wives”, as they call them, decide which night the husband will be with them. The energy bonds do some somewhat stable, at least from what little I’ve seen. But that’s a special case, not so common. Muslim men who take a second wife often find that the first wife becomes, well, really crazy and hard to deal with. I wonder why…

    Suzanne, you have said that women would do well not to waste their twenties in meaningless encounters with bad boys. Bad boys instill lack of trust, in women. Major feminist leaders all seem to have had a lot of trauma, from men, when they were young. A woman who has been pumped and dumped, hit and quit, used and abused, fleeced and ceased, tends to get a pretty bad attitude. The only kind of people who could promote this are fanatical materialists, who have no understanding of the energy, or spiritual side of life. This is wierd. The energy side of life is the Holy Spirit, in Xian tradition, aka the Goddess. The Hawaiian creation myth has Uli- potential- the goddess- arousing desire in Kane- the male side, the material, the conscious mind. Well, Hawaiians are earthy.

    Feminists have basically sold a materialistic bill of goods, to women. You are correct about the 15 year window, the “sell-by” date, for women to establish a family, if they want one. Feminists did not consider the energy side. You do. You say that it is much easier to do the whole childbirth thing, young. Doctors agree; women over 35 giving birth are considered high risk. By doctors. Who probably know a thing or two. In the old days, it was not uncommon for some wild sex to occur, on or about St. John’s day. Even today, in some countries, they still light fires to this originally pagan festival. Children conceived at this time were born in March or April, when food was most available, through the fall. Deer have births in the Spring, for the same reason. Back then, people were very sensitive to energy flows, the seasons, the rhythms of nature.

    Nowadays, women live in cities, with artificial light, toxic food, contaminated water, chaotic electromagnetic energy from cell phones, microwaves, electric lines, and so on. Women are disconnected from the larger energetic whole. Women certainly can delay marriage, and childbirth, if they feel like it. My mother heard about a woman in Spain who lied about her age, to be impregnated in a clinic in California. Hormones were used, etc. The woman was 63. She delegated a guardian for her offspring, knowing she wouldn’t live long enough to see them into adulthood. My mother said, with the wisdom only older women have, “Yeah, great, you can do that. Who would want to?” with the clear implication that pregnancy and birth are high stress events, which take a lot of energy, which are best handled by younger women.

    In colonial times, it was not at all unusual for women to run businesses, especially if men were gone on long trips. Ben Franklin’s wife had to handle her husband’s business affairs, for years. It was not unusual for men, in their wills, to will a business to a wife, because she had run her part of it so well. Feminists use false comparables. They compare extremely rich men, to average or poor women, to get a false energy gradient. Some might call this intentional misrepresentation. The fact is that men and women of roughly the same class lived similarly, and this is largely true in history. Roman women had to run estates, when their husbands were gone. Feminists seem to ignore these strong women.

    In life, we seek out wisdom, of whatever kind. It is easy to measure the value of wisdom. Does it get the results one wants? If so, it has value. Does it not work? Then it has little value. Socialism sounds fantastic. “To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.” Wow. Jesus could have said that. It doesn’t work. Any hierarchy becomes tyrannical, over time. Only some indigenous communities were able to avoid tyranny, because they had minimal hierarchy, and what hierarchy they did have was based on ability. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote their books based on a study of Iroquois- who were, yes, the models for communism. But being materialists, they completely missed the energy, or spiritual side of the Iroquois. This is why the communes of the sixties mostly didn’t work out. What is the ratio of material to spiritual? Look at atomic distance. If you had an atomic nucleus about the size of an orange, the electrons would be way out in the bleachers, of a football field. Or look at astronomical distance, which is similar. The material part of life is less than 0.01% of life. The rest is all spiritual, or energy based. Feminists cannot in any way be described as spiritual. They run low grade emotions through their nervous systems. Look at the book Power vs. Force. Look at the hierarchy of the various energies. Energies below 200 on that scale are draining, disruptive, and not life giving. And that is precisely the energy of feminism, which corresponds to the energy draining levels of hatred and resentment. Love is much higher on the scale. It is healing, because it is much higher. Healing is, in Chinese medicine, removing blocks to energy flow. The energy flow does the healing.

    So, what are feminists about? Building forts, and daring men to challenge them. Most men have no interest in conflict. It’s not just MGTOW men, it is 98% of men. Most men, when they see a woman surrounded by a moat, a wall, with archers and ballistas ready to launch missiles, just say, “Hey, have a good day. See ya round.” Most men, as with most people, want to do three things: look good, be right, and survive. They’d like also to prosper, if they can find the way. They’d like to find love, though that is getting far more difficult. What do feminists offer? Making men look bad, be wrong, and not survive. And they also want to destroy men economically. What man in his right mind would have anything to do with a feminist? I have a beta cuck mode, a nerd switch, that I turn on when I’m around feminists, so they will ignore me. Even as hateful as they are, some of them turn on like a Christmas tree, when they’re around an alpha male. And most men know very well that Chad and Tyrone, the classic bad boys, are getting more action than a forest has trees, even, and especially, with married women. Feminists think that somehow, they are extremely attractive to men, yes, I’ve met several who did. Why on earth do they have any interest in a gender they hate with such passion? Makes no sense to me. But I’ll remember those hot married women from the churches I attended when I was young, for the rest of my life. They had a good Chi Kung thing going. Useful lesson. Thanks, ladies, for your teachings. They are greatly appreciated.

  84. One effect that feminism has had, is that more and more men don’t want to take the high risk of dealing with women. This is leading to new technology. In a news article, Swedish feminists are blowing a gasket over sex dolls calling them “dangerous”. Three feminist organizations — Sweden’s Women’s Lobby, the National Organization for Women’s Shelters and Young Women’s Shelters — published an appeal in the newspaper Expressen demanding a ban on the bodacious bots.
    The groups argue that sex dolls reinforce the view that women are sex objects and reinforce violence against women. (I don’t see how men dealing with their needs, in a way that causes no harm to real women, is a bad thing.) Swedish feminists want dolls like “Rebecca” banned claiming they promote violence against women. (No, they promote men who don’t want to deal with feminists any more. These feminists are afraid of the competition. What does it say about feminists, that a lifesize plastic doll is more attractive than a feminist? I mean, really think that over.)
    “The dolls’ appearances and attributes typical of the objectifying, sexualized and degrading attitude to women found in today’s mainstream pornography,” the group wrote. (The real thing is far better than any porn. The real thing. Feminists only offer hatred, though.)

    They ask “Why are men willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a robot that obeys their smallest command?” (Wow. What a question. Maybe because they don’t have to worry the robot didn’t take the pill, as she said? Maybe because they won’t get stuck for child support? Maybe because the doll offers them far more respect than a feminist does? This list could be 50 pages long.)
    They added: “A female robot cannot say no to something that the man wants, if she is not programmed to do so.” (I look at this. Is this really here? Yes, it is. A robot can’t say no. How are these women able to function in society? This is as surreal as much of feminism.)
    And the doll busters claim that tech-driven fantasies may lead to real violence against girls and women.
    (Well, no. Research in the 60’s showed that porn doesn’t do that, rather, check this carefully, it lets men discharge an energy that is uncomfortable if it isn’t discharged.)
    Stretching further, the group claims the dolls’ exploitation is part of the dehumanizing of women.
    (Why not. Feminists have been dehumanizing women for how long? Turning them into demonic harpies, that no man wants to risk his security and health with? )
    The sex robots are popular in Japan where more than 40% of the male population are virgins.
    (Hmm. Isn’t that interesting. What they really hate is the competition. What does it say, when a plastic robotic doll, is more attractive to a man, than a feminist? We get a precise value comparison.)
    Among their demands: an inquiry on restricting hi-sex tech; making it difficult for sex doll brothels; a statement linking the bots to pornography and prostitution, and a demand that dolls and robots be included in sexual education curriculum.“Sweden has for 20 years had a regulatory framework that punishes sex buyers and which has reduced the demand for prostitution,” the groups wrote in their manifesto. (I’m against prostitution. I am male, and I think it is a bad thing. But fighting robots? What kind of bizarre mental problems do these women have?)
    “Now, Sweden must take the next step and dare to address the ongoing technological developments that are driven by the sex industry at the expense of real women and girls.” (aha. Here is the real issue. These feminists don’t want the competition from robots. Now think about this. What on earth would convince a man that a sex robot was better than a real woman? Could it be having experienced being around a feminist? Could it be that the sex robots show just how toxic feminists really are? I thought feminism was about freeing both women AND MEN from traditional roles. Women are tired of their traditional gender roles. Great! So are men. Men are ready to try some high tech, that causes no harm to flesh and blood women. What’s the problem again? I know a Swedish guy, a lawyer. His wife dumped him, painfully. He is getting his two sons through college. And spending time on his hobbies, and work. He isn’t dating. He has decided that Swedish women are just not worth the effort, any more. He’s a very smart man, I learn something every time I talk to him. His English is better than that of many Americans. If he wants to play with robots- I don’t know if he does- but if he wants to, what is the problem, again? What about men in rehab wards, or who are disabled, who have no chance with a real woman? Maybe the robots might be a good thing for them? What about college guys, who cannot take risks with women- might this be a way to help them keep up with their studies? I see all kinds of possibilities here. )

  85. The Toronto Sun had an article, recently, on sex dolls. It described a place where clients can pay by the hour — or half — to have sex with realistic-looking sex dolls. The owner says he has 500 clients, and a booming business. The dolls can also be bought, from $2,500 to $10,000. The skin is silicone-based , with thermoplastic elastomer, which imitates human skin.

    The private area in the back is set up like a condo with kitchen and bathroom areas and a bedroom. A stereo system is connected to the administrative office with the bedroom, so the owner can drown out any loud moans. There’s a side table containing lube and towels and a clothing rack containing various wigs and lingerie. The customers are “looking for something that doesn’t judge them”. Clients typically pay $80 for 30 minutes, but for repeat customers, it’s $120 an hour. The company can also do outcalls for $300, which gets a customer 90 minutes with a doll. Gosh, a life size Barbie doll. Men get to play with dolls. There are rules- no violence, no hitting the dolls, no rape. If that occurs, the customer is ejected. All clients must wear protection when using the dolls. After use, each doll is brought into a sterilizing station. A a worker uses anti-bacterial soap and boiling water to clean the product. Synthetic wigs are changed once a week. The owner plans to have two kinds of artificial intelligence dolls. The basic AI doll, at $150 an hour, moans, and a more advanced $10,000 version will be display only. The advanced doll can memorize what the customer likes, her head can move, and she can talk to you.
    The owner said “I think AI is going to start with sex. That’s what is happening right now. Like how the Internet started with free porn. Technology triggers people’s brains.”

    This is the ultimate goal of feminism, any way- removing men from dealings with women. I can’t imagine why any feminist wouldn’t be thrilled to see this marvelous technological breakthrough. Men won’t have to deal with feminists at all. No more problems with oppression, sexism, manspreading, and all that. They didn’t talk about combining this with virtual reality, but they could have. The feminists can have fun marching, with all their posters, and men can have their fun, too. The way computers are going, we’ll see more lifelike robots, in a very few years. There was a movie made on this, recently, starring Alicia Vikander. This is a fantastically good idea. Men have to do more risk management than ever, around sex, and here is a way to reduce the need for risk management down to zero. The dolls won’t have tattoos, won’t bitch mercilessly all the time, won’t be dumping the housework on men to do on top of all they do already, won’t be doing slutwalks, and will take care of men’s needs in a way that won’t infringe on any real woman’s space. Plus, they don’t have to worry about the doll putting on weight, developing a bad attitude, sleeping around, deciding to wipe out the man’s assets, getting VD playing with Chad and Tyrone. Women will be able to play with the bad boys to their hearts’ content, and not have to be duplicitous, with the beta bucks guy paying the bills, as the alpha does them like they like to be done. Of course there will be fewer children, but when did feminists ever care about children, or men, or much of anything beyond their own selfish interests. I can see a lot of good coming with this technology. The few decent women out there who want to be married, and have children, won’t have a problem, since they have far more value than a robot, plus, you know, a heart, the ability to have children and love them into adulthood, all that traditional stuff. And the feminists, who are a far worse value than a robot, as a partner, won’t have to deal with men at home, at all. I can’t wait to see these robots marked down. Hmmm. The possibilities are truly fascinating. The Beta cucks out there, who are learning more and more about how women use and abuse them, playing with Chad and Tyrone on the side, won’t have to deal with that any more. Feminists always wanted to destroy traditional marriage, and these robots can only help in that quest.

  86. Actress Catherine Deneuve signed a letter with 100 French luminaries rejecting feminism which robs women of agency, that is, taking control of their lives. She was excoriated online until she apologized. She is 74, not a young woman. But her accumulated wisdom, experience, professional and, yes, monetary success isn’t enough to impress young women. Apparently, the brave new ladies’ world will be intolerant, anti-intellectual, and ageist. The law already recognizes my equal rights, and that’s how I live my life, so please get it together, ok? Any man or woman, or feminist, who expects me to operate from a place of weakness robs me of dignity. I am very strong, like the strong women who taught me how to live. Feminists who deprive women of agency are worse than the worst of male chauvinists- for the same reasons.

  87. Women like bad boys. A lot of writing and anecdotal experience supports this. Respectful men frequently complain about being “friendzoned,” by women. The PUA community has embraced this concept. They teach men to behave in assertive, dominant ways that they say are more successful with women. Women who admit to liking bad boys—being attracted to men who are assertive or dominant—are sometimes criticized as having “internalized” misogynistic attitudes, or simply as naïve and foolish. Research does suggest that women find sexist men attractive. Gul and Kupfer recently published research that demonstrated this. They suggest that female interest in sexist men, may be seen by women as being more interested in investing resources in a woman. They used several different related experiments to test why women find men with these types of beliefs sexier and appealing. They found that women who saw these men as more attractive also saw the men as being more willing to protect and care for them, and to commit to a relationship. Interestingly though, these women weren’t love-struck fools, but had their eyes open about these men. Despite being attracted to them, and seeing them as good mates and partners, the women saw these males as being undermining and patronizing men who were more likely to place restrictions on the women.

    Several separate experiments showed their results did replicate in different samples and using different methods. They showed the effect for both potential mates, AND in work colleagues. Women were more likely to see sexist men as attractive, even if they weren’t considered as potential partners.
    Women who were both more and less feminist displayed similar levels of attraction to sexist men, so this effect isn’t the result of women not being liberated enough. One of the experiments tested whether women’s ratings of sexist men varied depending on cues about there being more hostile men around from whom the woman might need protection. But here again, women’s attraction towards sexist men wasn’t influenced by her potential need for safety from more hostile men.

    Gul and Kupfer’s research challenges some of the misleading beliefs that blame both women and men for the persistence of sexism in our society. It’s important to note that sexism and misogyny are not identical concepts. Kate Manne suggests that misogyny is more about control of women than about hatred, and argues that sexism is more of an ideology that supports the reasons why we treat women differently.

    “Dating male feminists turned out to be one of the least empowering decisions I’ve ever made.” —Kate Iselin

    Women who find sexist men attractive are not being traitors to other women, nor are they naïve women who don’t understand their choices. Instead, they are women who are making rational decisions, accepting tradeoffs. They are women who recognize that it may be more beneficial to have a partner who is committed to them and willing to sacrifice for them and their family, than it is to have a “woke” feminist man who wants them to be independent, doing it all themselves.

    Do men who hold benevolent sexist beliefs recognize that they may increase their attractiveness, while also potentially being seen as patronizing? Perhaps this research can help us to stop attacking sexist men as being misogynistic tools of the patriarchy, and recognize that these social dynamics exist due to the choices of both men and women, for reasons other than power, hatred, or control.

  88. A second term abortion involves draining the amniotic fluid, and yanking off the limbs of the fetus, with special medical forceps, [doing this to a being which definitely reacts to pain], one by one. Then the head is pulled off. And the trunk is removed. Some advocates of abortion have attempted to dismiss the evidence that early feminists were pro-life, arguing, for example, that they only opposed abortion because surgery in a time prior to antibiotics was dangerous to women. However, feminist opposition to abortion went much deeper. The health and safety of women was one of many inseparable concerns. Many feminist considered abortion destructive, unjust, inhuman, or an act that violates nature. Eliza Bisbee Duffey, for example, called abortion “a sin against nature.” Regarding those who “either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born,” Mary Wollstonecraft, author of the classic Vindication of the Rights of Woman, wrote, “Nature in everything demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom do so with impunity.” Feminist and novelist Eleanor Kirk called abortion a “work of destruction.” Because abortion is, according to the first female presidential candidate Victoria Woodhull, not “in accordance with the law of justice it will come home to its subject and be repaid with all its accumulated mass of inhumanity.” In other words, early feminists considered abortion inconsistent with feminist values like justice and nonviolence. Abortion was frequently regarded as a symptom of injustice, the objectification and exploitation of women, or other social disorders. It was likewise understood as unjust, dangerous, or degrading to women, and harmful to society as a whole. “When a man steals to satisfy hunger,” Mattie Brinkerhoff wrote, “we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society — so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.” In describing Dr. Charlotte Lozier’s refusal to perform abortion, abortion was called the “foulest wrong committed against [women].” Woodhull wrote that “no woman can practice this crime without in part destroying her own life,” and presented abortion as demoralizing and ultimately fatal for all human society. Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to receive a medical degree from an American medical school, wrote that providing abortions “was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women,” i.e. the profession of physician.

    Feminists Called Abortion Feticide. Woodhull wrote that “the rights of children, then, as individuals, begin while they yet remain the fœtus.” Early feminists opposed abortion not only because it was dangerous to women, but also because abortion kills children. Sarah Norton, who together with Susan B. Anthony agitated for the admission of women to Cornell University, called it “foeticide” and “ante-natal child murder,” and wrote of “the right of the unborn to be born.” Brinkerhoff called abortion “infanticide” and said it “destroys the life of [a woman’s] unborn child.” Kirk likewise referred to abortion as a form of “infanticide” in which “the murderer pockets his big fee, and keeps on his work of destruction.” Paulina Wright Davis, an editor for Anthony’s newspaper The Revolution, called abortion “murder of the innocents.” “After a child is, no one has a right to tamper with its existence,” wrote Duffey, who called abortion “murder.” Woodhull too called abortion “murder” and “a slaughter of the innocents.” “From the moment of conception, the embryo is a living thing, leading a distinct, separate existence from the mother, though closely bound to her,” wrote Duffey. “[T]here is no time in the whole process of the growth of the human body from the moment of conception until death, that pulsations of life are not present,” Woodhull agreed.

    For this reason, early feminist condemnation of abortion included not only procedures performed late in pregnancy, but also abortifacient medicines designed to induce early abortion. Norton wrote, “[C]irculars are distributed… recommending certain pills and potions for the very purpose, and by these means the names of these slayers of infants, and the methods by which they practice their life-destroying trade, have become ‘familiar in our mouths as household words.’” Anthony’s newspaper, The Revolution, had a known policy that “no quack or immoral advertisements [for patent medicines] will be admitted” because “Restellism [a period term for abortion] has long found in these broths of Beelzebub, its securest hiding place.” Writing about the Revolution’s policy, editor Parker Pillsbury called “quack medicine” venders “Foeticides and Infanticides” who “should be… regarded with shuddering horror by the whole human race.” Duffey held that “every maker, advertiser and seller of patent medicines, warranted to remove ‘female obstructions,’ should be subjected to prosecution and punishment…. [Because] their real intent is for the procurement of abortion, and so everybody knows.”

    Abortion was understood as destructive, a violation of nature, a symptom of injustice, dangerous and degrading to women, and a form of killing, so early feminists believed that the problem of abortion should be addressed at its root causes. Holistic solutions should include education, securing women’s rights, resources, and support. Duffey wrote that “the surest preventative against this crime will be a thorough teaching to women, even before marriage, of the physiology, hygiene, duties and obligations of maternity,” and that women should be told “the how and the why of the whole matter, and they will discover the wrong themselves, and feel the full force of it, far more than they ever can by taking it merely on the say-so of men.” Brinkerhoff noted: “the question now seems to be, how shall we prevent this destruction of life and health? Mrs. [Elizabeth Cady] Stanton has many times ably answered it — ‘by the true education and independence of woman.’” Woodhull and Claflin agreed with Brinkerhoff and Stanton: “[W]hile we shall at all times freely discuss the matter, objectively as to its results, we shall not forget to look at the matter subjectively, to find the remedy, which, if we mistake not, is in granting freedom and equality to woman.” Kirk believed women’s rights and the rights of the unborn were linked, and envisioned a hopeful future where educated women have political clout to protect the unborn. Dr. Lozier, while refusing to perform an abortion, “pitied and tenderly cared for the [woman]” and “proffered to the young woman any assistance in her power to render.”

    Jane Addams, for whom peace was “[not] an absence of war, but the unfolding of world-wide processes making for the nurture of human life,” was presented in this series as an exemplar of activism dedicated to creating holistic solutions to the challenges faced by real people. The key to Jane Addams’ success as a social justice activist was working to address real people’s problems at their roots. The best way to approach any human problem, she believed, was to approach people actively and sympathetically, learn to understand the challenge or difficulty from their perspective, and use that knowledge to address the problem’s root causes. Feminists for Life recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women. We promote the practical resources and support women want and need to make nonviolent choices, and our own efforts are shaped by the core feminist values of justice, nondiscrimination, and nonviolence. “While we would be pro-life feminists whether or not the early American feminists opposed abortion,” said Feminists for Life President Serrin Foster, “we are proud to continue their legacy. By giving birth to new solutions, Feminists for Life builds on the foundation they created. We are working to realize their unfulfilled vision for the world.”

  89. In 1970, three furious feminist tracts dominated the bestseller lists: Kate Millett’s “Sexual Politics,” Germaine Greer’s “The Female Eunuch,” and Shulamith Firestone’s “The Dialectic of Sex.” The then “women’s lib” movement fulminated against male dominance, endorsed sexual liberation and demanded destruction of the nuclear family. This is interesting; the long term historical model was the extended family, which, in the absence of social security, etc., was the only real security, for millenia.
    A nuclear family is already isolated, and cut off from larger family support. Destroying that sets children adrift.

    Their influence lives on. Lena Dunham wondered how any woman could reject the label feminist. Her free-floating contempt for men was evident in a recent tweet: “I’d honestly rather fall into one million manholes than have one single dude tell me to watch my step.” Pay attention to the resentment, even when men are attempting to be kind. Dunham is voicing the 21st-century version of the 1970s slogan: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Is it any wonder men are going MGTOW, less and less likely to marry as they get older? What man with a brain wants to be around women like this?Without denying some beneficial effects of feminism, we are overdue for a reckoning about its missteps. One of those was stoking such bitterness between men and women. There is near-universal agreement that women should be treated equally in the workplace and in the family. Other parts of the feminist agenda — such as devaluing marriage, men, and boys — have left women more, not less vulnerable than they were pre-revolution. In 2012, Katie Roiphe, feminist and mother of two children by different fathers, condemned concerns about single motherhood: “If there is anything that currently oppresses the children, it is the idea of the way families are ‘supposed to be.’ ” That’s the feminist mantra. However, “alternative” families cost much more energy to maintain, and for this and other reasons work only for a tiny minority. For most women, children and, as we’re coming to understand better with each passing year, men, the traditional family remains the gold standard.

    Why would it be anti-feminist to recognize that men and women do need each other and that, contrary to feminist theories, marriage is a key pillar of stability for both sexes and especially for children? Feminists greeted unwed parenthood and easy divorce as steps on the ladder of liberation. For some it was and is. For many others, it was being consigned to an unpleasant place in life, often with no way out. These women paid a high price. Even with laws that favor women, in divorces, women are commonly worse off financially after divorce than their ex-husbands. Those who worked before, during or after their marriages experienced a 20 percent decline in income after divorce, compared with men, whose incomes rose by 30 percent. These women have custody of their children, usually. One can go to the projects, in larger cities, and see the “paradise” these women live in. Taking care of children is a staggering job. Traditional cultures had extended family to help. A couple has two people. A single mom has only herself, often. Forty percent of American children are now born to single mothers. This rate of non-marital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of all American children will spend part of their childhood in a single-parent home. Social scientists across the political spectrum agree this family chaos is destructive. Half of all boys, roughly, then, have no male model at home, and very few in school. Is the rise in toxic masculinity any surprise, then? Few men want to be a “Christmas daddy”, and as men get older, having seen the damage divorce courts do to men, and children, they are less and less interested in marriage. In 2017, the poverty rate for woman-headed families with children was 36.5 percent, compared with 22.1 percent for father-only families and 7.5 percent for families headed by a married couple. And abundant data show married adults are happier, healthier and wealthier than singles.

    The sexual revolution has scythed through the institution of marriage, leaving millions of women without the love and emotional and financial security that they and their children so need. Warren Farrel noted that the financial contribution men make in marriage is maybe 10% of the total contribution. Divorce cuts 90% of men’s contribution to family. Women with children have considerable trouble finding another husband. The costs of raising somebody else’s kids do not appeal to men who have money, and so, options. It is useful to talk with children in the inner city, who grow up in these feminist paradises. They are bitter beyond belief. Some are willing to kill others, in their extremes of anger. Recent studies about the effects of fatherlessness have revealed that the rise of single-parent (which usually means mother-only) families has had even worse consequences for boys than for girls. Father absence in African-American homes leads to more mental-health and behavioral problems for boys, according to an MIT study by two economists looking at brothers and sisters born in Florida between 1992 and 2002. “Growing up in a single-parent home appears to significantly decrease the probability of college attendance for boys but has no similar effect for girls.” They found other worrisome effects, too. “Fatherless boys are less ambitious, less hopeful and more likely to get into trouble at school than fatherless girls.” How many of the school shooters grew up in single parent families, I wonder. Some truths are so universally true they seem trite. Everything is connected. When more boys are growing up without fathers, there are fewer young men who become the kind of adults women want to marry — educated, employed, non-drug-abusing and not involved with the criminal-justice system. Without the grounding of marriage, men become disconnected from society. Some 22 percent of prime-age men (25 to 54) are not working or looking for work. Unmarried men are over-represented in this group. Third world countries understand that unmarried men are trouble, and work hard to get them married, so their energy is harnessed to help the community, not harm it. But Americans always “know better”. Married men with only high-school diplomas are much more likely to be employed than unmarried men with some college or an associate’s degree. Diseases of despair — alcoholism, overdoses, suicide — have been rising among white, working-class Americans, the very population that has witnessed a steep decline in family stability over the past several decades. Black families were actually more stable than white families, in 1950, according to research cited by Larry Elder. Social experimentation destroyed the black family.

    Most women want and need upright, well-adjusted, dependable men to serve as co-anchors of healthy and happy families. The feminist movement was deeply misguided to take aim at marriage. Far from oppressing women, it offers a safe foundation for a full life.

    This was adapted from Mona Charen’s book,“Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense”

  90. MORE THAN HALF OF MILLENNIAL WOMEN DON’T IDENTIFY AS FEMINIST, POLL FINDS
    Some feel that the movement has been ‘taken over by far left-wing activists’

    Fourth-wave feminism places issues such as sexual harassment, intersectionality and casual sexism at the forefront. We might think feminism is a simple concept. Some people disagree, as a new survey has revealed that a surprisingly high number of millennial women are now boycotting the term altogether. The survey, carried out by Refinery29 and CBS News, asked 2,093 women about their sociopolitical views. 54 per cent of young women in the US responded they they do not consider themselves proponents of the movement for gender equality whereas 46 per cent said they did identify as “feminist”. The poll also said just 28 per cent of women saying they thought abortion should be legal in all cases, and 25 per cent saying it should be illegal in most cases. Dr Katherine Twamley noted that many people “affiliate the term feminist with ‘man-hating’.” 22-year-old Leah told Refinery29 that she feels feminism has been “largely taken over by far-left wing activists” who make it impossible for her to identify with the movement, despite her advocation of gender equality.
    She disagrees with what she describes as “the aggressive push for abortion”. Leah’s views were echoed by a 25-year-old Republican named Stephanie, who told Refinery29 that she doesn’t see the need for a feminist movement at all: “Women are doing just fine. I think modern feminists try to create a boogeyman out of what they call the patriarchy and hunt it down, but it’s not necessary.”
    Distancing oneself from the term “feminist” is not uncommon amongst female celebrities either.

    Despite Beyoncé and Emma Watson promoting the cause, several celebrities – such as Sarah Jessica Parker, Kelly Clarkson and Katy Perry – have distanced themselves from the term, with Madonna and Susan Sarandon expressing a preference towards use of the term “humanist”. However, humanism is a different thing entirely, used to denote a philosophical stance that favours rational human agency over supernatural or divine matters and has nothing whatsoever to do with gender equality.

  91. As extreme feminists push for further establishment for women in society, they ignore the problems that men also face because these women are completely focused on female empowerment. There are more and more areas where women have won not only equality, but also an advantage over men. Men are actually beginning to see the disadvantages against them.

    The first rights deal with protection from sexual victimization. There are more and stronger laws to protect women from sexual issues than there are for men. The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network reports that 90 percent of rape victims are women; however, that means that the other 10 percent accounts for millions of male rape victims every year. While the feminist movement actively pushes for sexual rights and protection for women, it often ignores or denies that men suffer in this area and need protection as well. Yes, women suffer from sexual violence more than men do, but all affected parties should be represented when fighting for protection against sexual perpetrators.
    According to RAINN.org, about 3 percent, or one in every 33, of men have experienced an attempted or completed rape. Unfortunately, not all states recognize the term “rape” for men, which means that men are less protected from any sort of sexual victimization than women are. In addition to this, it’s much harder for men to claim that they were raped because their abuse has to meet specific qualifications to count. In many cases, a man can only claim to have suffered sexual harassment or abuse, which allows his attacker to get lesser charges.

    Women also have an automatic advantage in rights from the moment they turn 18 because they are not required to register for the draft. Although women won the rights to full citizenship with no strings attached, young men between the ages of 18 and 25 are still legally required to sign up for Selective Service or face “a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both.”
    Failing to register for the draft can also disqualify men from voting, receiving federal student financial aid and obtaining federal and state employment.

    Women almost lost the freedom of this right in 2016 to a proposed Senate bill. Based on the new laws allowing women to serve in any area of the military — thanks to the feminist campaigns — women were almost required to start signing up for the draft as well. Women across the nation were split in their support on this issue. Many feminists argued that not drafting women supported the view that women were weak, while others strongly opposed the idea of their daughters being drafted.

    Ultimately, women were spared from being forced into the draft. Thus, they retain the right to choose whether or not to serve the country — a right that many men wish they had. Women also possess an advantage in parental rights. Single moms are usually guaranteed sole custody over their children, and many court cases still favor the mother in deciding who the best and primary caretaker in divorce situations is. How many women pay child support, again?
    Women have the undisputed right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. The pro-choice campaign has been at the top of the feminist priority list for years, and it’s one they have locked down for now.
    In the Planned Parenthood v. Danforth court case of 1976, the Supreme Court decided that if the father refused to allow the abortion, it was in violation of the mother’s freedom of choice. So the sole choice of abortion resides with the woman because the pregnancy affects her body more.
    In addition to having the sole choice about an abortion, the mother can actually get an abortion without telling the father because it’s her right to privacy. This means that men have a complete lack of rights regarding their potential children. Basically, in all areas regarding future families, women have an unstoppable advantage over men. Despite extensive feminist complaints, women actually have more rights than men in some very important areas.

  92. When one person claims that another person is scared of doing something, it really means that he or she simply doesn’t want to do it.

    Woman: “you’re just scared of a relationship.”

    Guy: “No, I just don’t want to date you.”

    Implying fear is a negotiating ploy, a limiting frame. I recently left a relationship with a very motivated and ambitious surgeon. She liked to say “Some men are intimidated by a strong woman with career goals.” She implied I might be intimidated by her. We broke up, and that’s what she’s telling people. But what REALLY turned me off was how she would downplay my own ambitions and treat them as inferior to hers. She hated that I do volunteer work, which cut into our time together, she thought. In her mind she was just being an ambitious, independent woman as she putting me in was the same that men have put women in in generations past.

    I only want to date women who are strong, motivated, and who demand equal treatment. Women who identify as “feminists” come with a railroad care of baggage. Feminists believe men are inferior to women.

    Many African men don’t understand the concept of strong women, female bosses, females who earn more in their relationships etc because they are not used to seeing such around…especially historically.
    In my mother’s time, women were home keepers, men provided for the women & the family. Female bosses & businesswomen were rare. In fact, career women were rare. A popular Nigerian feminist, Chimamanda Adichie made some profound observations about women (below) in her Ted Talk “We should all be feminists”; “You should aim to be successful, but not too successful, otherwise you would threaten the man.” If you are the breadwinner in your relationship with a man, you have to pretend that you’re not, especially in public, otherwise you will emasculate him……”
    ….“Because I’m female, I’m expected to aspire to marriage; I’m expected to make my life choices always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important….”
    …”I know a woman who decided to sell her house because she didn’t want to intimidate a man who might marry her….”
    With education, many women don’t want the same kind of lives their mothers had. Many men (& surprisingly, some women too) call them “Bad, irresponsible women who aren’t wife-materials”. These women don’t fit into the society’s definition of “proper women” so they are scorned. If you are observed not to be a wife material, you are doomed. Another favourite word I hear from most Nigerian men is “Submission”. Women are supposed to SUBMIT to their men. The bible says so. They interpret submission in various inhumane (usually) & humane ways. They forget that same bible passage mandates men to also love their wives just like Christ loved the church & gave his life up for it. They forget that kind of love is nearly impossible just like that level of submission is hard.

    The number of men reluctant to have relationships with feminist women for misogynistic reasons is a small minority. Most men fear feminists based on their knowledge of feminism and feminist actions.
    The feminist researcher Dr. Mary P. Koss was hired by the FBI to consult on updating their criteria/definitions for sex crimes. It was she who advised them to redefine rape as: the non consensual penetration of the mouth, anus, or vagina. Effectively erasing rape against men by women… Feminists also pushed for the adoption of the Duluth Model, a model for the response to domestic violence wherein the man is always assumed to be the aggressor, even when he is the one who made the complaint. It was feminists who pushed the Tender Years doctrine, which stipulates that children benefit more from maternal nurturing than paternal. Placing women in the position of assumed primary care giver (something they now rail against). It is also feminists who now fight against assumed shared custody in divorce cases.

    Feminists have a long and storied history of shutting down shelters for abused men. Erin Pizzey, the feminist woman who started the world’s very first DV shelter, was harassed so severely by other feminists when she started a shelter for men, that she felt she had to leave the country for her own safety. Given this, a man would have to be out of his mind to not at least be cautious when considering a relationship with someone who identifies as a feminist. Men are not scared off by feminist women, they are turned off by them. Many feminists attempt to say feminism is just the idea that men and women should be given equal treatment. I support the idea of equal treatment as much as any normal person. What I don’t agree with is this concept of patriarchy and a conspiracy among men to oppress women systematically. It would seem that belief in this patriarchy is a defining trait of feminism. They sound like Nazis complaining about the Jewish domination of the world. A man being with a feminist is literally like a Jew being with a Nazi. So women who believe in this Jewish conspiracy, I mean patriarchy, are at best difficult to interact with on a personal level. Most men know the “patriarchy” doesn’t exist. Men are not conspiring to oppress women. The idea that there is some secret that all men are aware of and that men all work together to oppress women is impossible to believe. It is similar to a fundamentalist Christian interacting with a hard atheist. The Christian will see God in everything and will attribute every event in their life to the direct influence of a deity. The atheist will not be able to understand the fundamentalists view of reality and won’t be able to connect with them on a personal level. Every interaction will be marked by conflict because they just don’t speak the same language. They really won’t even be able to discuss the differences in worldview because they are so different. Feminists are full of hatred, as a rule. What human being wants to be the target of hatred? Chinese women may have feminist ideas, but many do want to be married, and tolerate conditions that western women wouldn’t. Look at birthrates, worldwide. The more feminist a country is, the lower the birthrate. Birthrate is the future. The future is not feminist, therefore.

  93. Catherine Ponder had some remarkably smart things to say. She took agency for her life, and created it as she wanted it. She was a single mom, with challenges. And she produced some great books, on taking agency. At a time when women generally were not reverends, she became on. A pity feminists don’t follow natural leaders, with great ideas, like her.

  94. I could not say this any better myself.
    Feminism could have become a champion of equality and the dignity of individual human beings. Unfortunately, contemporary feminism is not a liberation from sexism. It is true that feminism rejects anti-female sexism. But in place of anti-female sexism, it does not advocate gender-blind standards; it does not advocate treating individuals as complex human beings; it does not reject reducing people to their sex/gender. On the contrary, feminism, as indicated by its name, is a movement that sees people as defined by their gender, and lobbies for the interests of females. In short, feminism does not reject sexism, but advocates anti-male sexism.

    In complement to feminism’s framing of females as oppressed by males, while having their qualities of strength and intelligence underrated by men, men are framed as arrogant and insensitive, oppressive, and brutal. The systematic vilification and demonization of males is part of the feminist strategy of raising women by lowering men, by convincing people that women are good and men are bad. Note that this is simply a reversal of anti-female sexism into anti-male sexism. All males, whatever their individual qualities, are reduced to a common set of evil characteristics, while all females are celebrated as sensitive, smart, and strong.

    Female victimhood is described in many feminist works. The Handmaid’s Tale, together with its television version, paints a dystopian picture even more dire: Offred is a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead, a to talitarian and theocratic state that has replaced the United States of America. Because of dangerously low reproduction rates, Handmaids are assigned to bear children for elite couples that have trouble conceiving. Offred serves the Commander and his wife, Serena Joy, a former gospel singer and advocate for “traditional values.” Offred is not the narrator’s real name. Handmaid names consist of the word “of” followed by the name of the Handmaid’s Commander. Every month, when Offred is at the right point in her menstrual cycle, she must have impersonal, wordless sex with the Commander while Serena sits behind her, holding her hands. Offred’s freedom, like the freedom of all women, is completely restricted. She can leave the house only on shopping trips, the door to her room cannot be completely shut, and the Eyes, Gilead’s secret police force, watch her every public move.

    The Republic of Gilead is a creation of the imagination, and is about as far from modern Western society as one could imagine. It is an attempt to think how people, in this case women, could survive and adjust to an extreme situation. But Atwood is a self-identified and celebrated feminist. What is her message to women in this work? Is she saying that men can never be trusted, and women, for their own self defense, should take control of society and keep men well away from power? If so, is that an appropriate message for 20th and 21st century Canada and America? The feminist tactic appears to be, once again, scaring women and demonizing men.

    Another overt feminist anti-male expression is the demand that heterosexual females forgo intimate relations with men in favour of “political lesbianism.” Here is how it is defined in a pamphlet entitled “Love Your Enemy?”: “All feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men.” Political lesbianism is not a matter of sexual inclination; it is not about women attracted only to women. “It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women.” Rather, the point is “to get rid of men from your beds and your heads.” Female students at some distinguished American women’s colleges were under feminist peer pressure not to date men.

    Feminism classifies all men, with the exception of gays, into three categories: rapists, sexual harassers, and potential rapists and harassers. Feminism does not explain this male criminality in biological terms, because feminists reject the biological basis of sex, so that women cannot be seen to be limited by biological influences. Rather, male sexual brutality is explained as a result of our so-called misogynist “rape culture.” This is an incoherent and false idea, because our culture forbids and punishes rape. The #MeToo movement, a litany of unsubstantiated claims of having been sexually harassed, is another strategic step in vilifying all men, and, by contrast, claiming innocent virtue and victimhood for all women. While some men are abusive and should be stopped, #MeToo, like “rape culture,” colours all men as abusive or potentially abusive. This provides a basis in “safety” for feminists to call for greater priority for women in all fields and the sidelining of men.

    Feminist particularism is shown clearly by the constantly repeated demand that when a woman makes an allegation, she must be believed. Hillary Clinton, during her campaign for the U.S. Presidency, tweeted “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who self-identifies as a feminist, asserts that we should “believe all allegations.”

    American universities and colleges responded to President Obama’s directive to prosecute sexual assault cases vigorously by jettisoning due process and the presumption of innocence. At McGill University, any female who makes an allegation of sexual assault is officially labelled a “survivor.” At McGill, there is apparently a presumption of truth in any allegation, and the presumption of innocence of the accused is disregarded.
    .

  95. COntinued

    What we know is that, when those accused of sexual assault are brought to court, rather than being lynched by university committees, the cases are often thrown out due to lack of evidence and credibility, and in some cases, the accusers are shown to have lied, and in some cases are indicted and sent to jail. If feminists thought of human beings as individuals, rather than as members of one good and one bad category, they might realize that many, perhaps most people lie, and that any allegation must be tested rigorously if we are concerned about justice and about avoiding punishing innocent individuals. Unfortunately, feminists are not all concerned about avoiding punishing the innocent.

    “No, we haven’t gone too far, nor far enough. Male privilege, male hegemony and male chauvinism has been around for millennia all the while women and girls carrying the burden and paying the price for doing nothing but being female. The only way to change the equation is for men to begin paying that price, guilty or not.”Margaret Atwood, herself a feminist literary icon, came under attack from other feminists when she called for “transparency” in inquiries about sexual assault. One critic wrote ‘Margaret Atwood’s latest op-ed is a very, very clear reminded that old cis women are not to be trusted. They care more about poor widdle [sic] accused men than they do about actual rape victims. They spend as much time advocating for rapists as they do attacking victims.’ Atwood says that “she’s been called a ‘bad feminist’ for insisting on due process for Galloway, the former chair of the creative writing program, and warned the dangers of letting justice for all fall by the wayside in favor of extreme feminism.” Today’s feminists apparently believe that due process and “innocent until proven guilty” are outmoded male supremacist tricks.

    Another unfortunate example of the feminist approach is the debate about child custody after the breakdown of a marriage. After a long-standing policy in Canada and the U.S. of favouring mothers for custody and fathers for child support payments, more recent discussion has focused on joint custody and its advantages. Most scientific studies show that the best interests of children are served by joint custody. Children without fathers in their lives suffer a wide range of ill effects. Citing a host of North American studies, Kruk’s report points to the long-term dangers: Some 85 percent of youth in prison are fatherless; 71 percent of high school dropouts grew up without fathers, as did 90 percent of runaway children. Fatherless youth are also more prone to depression, suicide, delinquency, promiscuity, drug abuse, behavioural problems and teen pregnancy, warns the 84-page report, a compilation of dozens of studies around divorce and custody, including some of his own research over the past 20 years.

    But whenever legislation supporting joint custody is being considered, feminist groups such as the National Organization of Women, the League of Women Voters, Breastfeeding Coalition, National Council of Jewish Women, and UniteWomen FL, lobby and demonstrate against it. In Canada, feminist lawyers have argued against joint custody. In both Canada and the U.S., feminists, disregarding the best interest of children, have energetically opposed joint custody as the default arrangement for children in broken marriages. Feminists prefer to support the best interests of mothers rather than those of children. For feminists, once again, gender trumps all other values, even the well-being of children.

    Feminists are never shy of demanding that gender representation in any organization or activity reflect the demography of the general population. Our self-proclaimed feminist Prime Minister proudly celebrates his gender balanced cabinet having an equal number of females to males. But the pressure to favour females does not end with equal gender representation. We see this in Canadian universities, where 60 percent of the graduates are female.

    On a national scale, public universities had the most even division between male and female students, with a male-female ratio of 43.6-56.4. While that difference is substantial, it still is smaller than private not-for-profit institutions (42.5-57.5) or all private schools (40.7-59.3). … It should also be noted that the national male-female ratio for 18-24 year olds is actually 51-49, meaning there are more (traditionally) college-aged males than females. Do not imagine that there have been any feminist calls for the gender ratio in universities to be rebalanced.

    At McGill University, the classes I taught showed an increased female dominance. In fall 2017, my senior seminar on “Immigration and Culture” had 18 registrants, all female. All of the social sciences and humanities departments, the entire Faculty of Arts, are demographically dominated by females, just as feminist ideology dominates in that Faculty, as well as in Education, Social Work, and Law. My female colleagues insisted on hiring only other females, which is pretty much what happened. There is also a major McGill campaign, complete with banners all around campus, to celebrate female scientists and direct female studies into STEM fields.

    But feminists are not just looking for a female demographic increase in science. They are also looking for an ideological transformation; they are advocating “feminist science,” which is “socially just science,” which should supersede objective observation and testing.“Feminist science” should work at least as well as “Soviet democracy” and “scientific racism.”

    Female demographic domination of universities does not end with student numbers. The female Principal of McGill recently bragged that “Currently, 50 percent of McGill’s deans are female. As of July 1, when two new appointments take effect, that number will increase to 58 percent.”] Apparently gender imbalance is not a bad thing, when it favours females. If the trend continues, McGill University will end up a completely female institution.

    A feminist lawyer invented the idea of “intersectionality,” which not only identifies multiple gender, race, and class “oppressions” suffered by particular individuals, but also advises that radicals of disaffected groups unite to undermine alleged oppressors. This has led to some remarkable incoherencies, such as the alliance of feminism with Islamist Palestinians and their male supremacism and subjection of women, and with antisemites such as Louis Farrakhan, black nationalist and leader of the Nation of Islam. Intersectionality brings blacks to identify with “people of colour” Palestinians, and against “white” Israelis, because they identify on the basis of imagined race, in spite of Arab slave raiding in Africa and the fact that blacks are called “abid,” or slave, in the Arab world. Indeed, Arab slave traders played a large role in the slave trade, historically. There are still black slaves in Saudi Arabia.

    It is difficult to know how many individuals who self-identify as feminist hope only to be treated fairly as individuals, and how many, whether implicitly or explicitly, take a female supremacist view. Certainly the feminist organizations act as if they take a supremacist approach. The net effect of toxic feminism is to reduce complex human individuals to simplistic gender categories, to dismiss all values but the partisan interests of females, and to endorse anti-male sexism

  96. As campaigns against “toxic” manhood continue in this #MeToo era, few people talk about “toxic” femininity, because the poison of modern-day feminism has convinced a malleable culture that masculinity should be denigrated. Somehow, eschewing half of society is how equality will finally be achieved. One could easily believe society has simply gone mad. The March Hare and Mad Hatter have taken over feminist discourse.

    One culprit in this misaligned crusade is the Women’s March, which has morphed into a symbol of another sickness, that of toxic femininity. The organizers of the Women’s March insist they promote equality, diversity, and freedom — while contradicting these values with their words and actions. Included on their page of unity principles are the terms human rights, gender justice/gender norms, racial justice, and reproductive freedom. Meanwhile, women directly associated with the campaign’s very formulation, Tamika Mallory and Sharia law-loving Linda Sarsour, are unabashed anti-Semites. Mallory even tried to cover up her clear endorsement of hate by making it a gender issue and stating that she “should never be judged through the lens of a man.”

    Let us also not forget how the Women’s March enthusiastically supports killing the unborn as part of their basic platform of supposed equality. What they call “reproductive freedom” includes “open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people, regardless of income, location or education.” This is totally discriminatory. There is nothing so anti-freedom as stripping the most basic of human rights, life, upon which every other right is built. To do so and call it progress or justice is an abomination. And still, the Women’s March proudly claims the life-ending procedure as a virtue to be praised.

    The Women’s March, its organizers, and those who uncritically support them are awash in toxic femininity. If we’re going to talk about “toxic” masculinity, then we need to discuss its counterpart. Both masculinity and femininity are natural and necessary for the health of society. The men and women who reject the inherent and honorable qualities within each are the issues, not the attributes themselves. Treating men as almost the sole reason for the cultural breakdown, when women have also played a major part in the deterioration, only worsens the problem.

    We live in a post-Harvey Weinstein world where, thankfully, legitimate sexual harassment and abuse won’t be swept under the rug any longer. As society addresses issues that have been dismissed for far too long, it also must not give in to believing only one party is to blame. Femininity that rejects diversity, pins the onus on men, and gleefully embraces the destruction of life through abortion is just as destructive.

  97. Feminists like to talk about “what-ifs”, that have no basis in reality. They talk about the impact of generations of women who were taught that they were not allowed to do “man’s work” in science, mathematics, engineering, and other fields is huge. Think of where our society would be if we had utilized the brainpower of women for all these years,

    They have no understanding of the past. The machines we have now are recent. Look at Roman bridges. They were well made, many still exist. They were built by human machines, and perhaps burden animals. Sewing by hand takes a long time. Even in Sioux tipis, foot crank sewing machines could be found, because they were so much more productive. Civil war era uniforms were often sewed by hand, with only some use of machines. Napoleonic era uniforms were all hand-sewn. Really think about that. Eskimo culture involved handmade everything, even heavy winter coats.

    Life was shorter, even a hundred years ago. My grandmother did laundry by hand, using a washboard. The new washing machines were only just coming out. It took hours to wash laundry by hand. Only recently do we have grocery stores with packaged foods. In my mother’s day, prior to and during WW II, food was put into bags, with a scoop, from barrels. Housework literally took 10 hours per day. Washing diapers by hand- as is done even now in Russia- takes a while. There were no cake mixes; everything was made from scratch. Feminists today have no idea what their grandmothers lived like, it seems. Look at recreations of 1800’s life, or 1700’s. Women and men spent most of their waking hours in labor. The 40 hour week is a recent innovation. The average person in 1890 lived on the equivalent of about a dollar a day. Women died often in childbirth, from other diseases, and were treasured, in the US, because there were not as many of them, as in the old country. My father’s family had at least one servant, because there was so much work to do.

    Look at carpentry, with hand tools. Plane a tabletop by hand. In fact, make a wooden table, only with hand tools. That’s what carpenters did, in the old days. I’ve visited Plymouth village. These were one room houses, smaller than a single wide house trailer nowadays. They had almost no insulation. They were very drafty in winter. Knitting was a survival skill back then. In RUssia today, people with dogs that have good fur comb it out, and sell it to knitters.

    Feminists talk much about oppression of women. But the men these women were with were even more oppressed. When Bismarck established a social security retirement age of 62, that would be the equivalent of 100 today. Most people didn’t live that long. There were no ambulances even a few decades ago. Hospitals were extremely primitive, even in the 1950’s, by today’s standards.

    The fact is that men of the same class often had it worse than women in their class. Sure, there were lords of the manor- slaveholders in the South were all Democrats. Andrew Jackson, who founded the Democratic party, had many slaves. Slaves were used to drive down wages for free whites. But no feminist really looks at history. George Washington died because he was “bled”, to get the bad blood out of him, as a medical treatment.

    There would be an easy way to share this. Take any feminist, and put her in a full survival situation, with no technology. Let her do it all. Where are the edible wild plants? She doesn’t know- she buys them at the store. Where is the safe drinking water? Where are the natural shelters? How does one catch, and then butcher, a rabbit? How do you avoid tularemia in rabbits? How do you tan a hide, to wear it? What works for winter clothing? Apache women sewed moccasins for their men, which lasted for about 100 miles of walking, which was less than a month for them. They would appreciate all that modern tech. Women of WW I often didn’t have the vote, and in Britain, a lot of men didn’t, either.
    Think very carefully what it would mean, to buy all your ironwork, handmade, from a blacksmith. These people worked 6 days per week. How would life change, if you could only go as far as you could walk, or ride a buckboard? Country stores in New England were about 5 miles apart, because people didn’t want to go over 2.5 miles in a buckboard. It was not a pleasant ride. In winter, the only heat was body heat, under a blanket, or coat. Women in traditional indigenous societies were generally not maltreated, any more than men were. They were too valuable. Every person mattered, in those societies. Read letters of the civil war. Men and women had a far more respectful relationship than now. Courting was common. Parents protected their daughters, with good reason. Our society is now insane, by the standards of even people in the 1920’s. People of the 1820’s would see us as horrible aliens, in human form. Native Americans think of Caucasians as absolutely insane, anyway, and long have. They don’t know how to deal with the majority culture, which is getting more and more insane. We in our culture have a buildup of cultural toxins, very similar to the building that produces cancer in an organism. I don’t know the cure.

    I listen to Native elders. They at least have wisdom. I turned off my TV, and don’t watch many movies. These are all lies. I listen to my intuition. I treat people with courtesy and kindness. Maybe the healing will start from me, I don’t know. I avoid people who seem insane, and I see them more and more. I look at the third world, and realize they will inherit it all, because we in the West are intent on destroying our culture. And we are doing it. The birthrate in the US drops each year. The divorce rate climbs. People no longer discuss stuff rationally. We are all Koyanisqaatsi- a Hopi word for seriously out of balance.

  98. In my father’s day, you could go to college, if you paid cash. Financial aid, and colleges open to all, is a very recent thing. The luxury of feminism as we know it was only recently even possible. College seems to be making people more and more stupid, instead of smarter. That a guy like Jordan Peterson could become wildly popular, by simply stating the obvious, is bizarre beyond belief. Our culture is as toxic as our diets, our TV programs, our politicians, and all the other dysfunctional parts.

    After a calamity- say the WTC bombing- people sometimes forget their differences, and simply work together to solve their problems. Maybe that’s because the media is largely forgotten, and people just act like people, who aren’t propagandized.

  99. Native American societies are based on the concept of interdependence, or systems theory. Interdependence means that all things in the universe are dependent on one another. The idea is that everything in the universe works together to achieve a balance in oneself, the community, and the universe. In Native American societies before their contact with European culture, relationships intertwined both animate beings and inanimate beings (for example, trees and water). The philosophical and sacred notion of interdependence produced a well-defined kinship system.
    Precontact Native Americans lived in kinship societies, and extended family groups formed their communities. The extended family, made up of blood and nonblood relatives, had at its core the nuclear family. The nuclear family consisted of a woman, her husband, and their children. Many tribes practiced polygamy, in which a man had two or more wives, while other tribes were monogamous. Both men and women initiated divorce, which was common and not considered immoral.
    Some tribes, including the Navajo, Crow, Iroquois, and the Cherokee, were (and are) organized around the clan system. A clan may be defined as a group of relatives who share an identity, hold property in common, and trace their descent from a common ancestor. The clan includes several extended families. Clan systems of social organization define boundaries or relationships, responsibilities, and obligations. All kinship networks have rules for appropriate behavior. For instance, it is inappropriate for clan relatives to marry each other even though they may not be blood relatives. Moreover, all kinship systems work to ensure the orderliness and survival of the tribe, which encompasses the nuclear families, the extended families, and the clans.
    In addition to the kinship systems, tribes have informal and formal methods of organizing the community and ensuring conformity. For example, among the Crow Indians, there
    exists the idea of “teasing cousins.” Teasing cousins could ridicule other teasing cousins
    into proper behavior. The teasing, often conducted in public, resulted in the person being
    teased adopting appropriate behavior and humility. The Navajos, as well as other tribal
    groups, have a similar relationship system, which is used to control behavior.
    Another way to achieve order was through a division of labor based on gender and aimed
    at ensuring that tasks essential to the well-being of the tribe were accomplished. Each
    tribe had its own system for assigning roles to women and men–a system that was based
    on the tribe’s beliefs and the cultural values. While division of labor by gender was well
    defined, the divisions could be crossed; that is, males might perform female tasks and
    vice versa without the individual’s being labeled “deviant.”
    Given the notion of interdependence, it is not surprising that many precontact Native
    American societies were egalitarian. Although groups maintained a division of labor by
    gender, they had economic, political, and social freedom for both women and men. The
    sexes remained different, yet equal, and female and male roles complemented each other.
    Each role was seen as important and necessary for the survival and enrichment of the
    community. Women’s and men’s responsibilities were thought of and institutionalized as
    parallel rather than hierarchical. In the egalitarian native societies, authority was
    dispersed and decisions were made by those who would be carrying them out. People
    contributed according to their abilities and interests.
    Within the family, Native American children learned cultural and societal values. While
    the tribal groups varied in their traditional child-rearing beliefs and practices, Native
    American children modeled and imitated the behaviors of important people in their lives.
    In the extended family network, which was the foundation of tribal societies, many
    people other than biological relatives were included in child rearing. Although child
    rearing was predominantly a female task, men and women of all ages worked together to
    raise children. In tribal societies, children were valued members; they represented the
    renewal of life. Traditional education of children involved the use of stories, humor, and
    theater; experience as a primary tool for learning was emphasized. Children were taught a
    deep appreciation for the meaning of community. Although seen as individuals, children
    were reared to be responsible to the community and to understand that the community
    was only as strong as its individual members.

  100. From the beginning of contact with Europeans, Native American societies began to
    change. By the 1800s, the federal government had in place two overlapping approaches
    regarding the treatment of Native Americans, and both were implemented through
    various policies. One was to “civilize” Native Americans through a policy of
    assimilation; the other was to control them. By 1871, most Native American groups had
    signed treaties and were placed on reservations, where they lived in abject poverty. After
    being displaced from their original homelands, Native Americans found that the
    government had banned many spiritual ceremonies. The bans made it increasingly
    difficult for Native Americans to balance their world. A once sacred world had become
    unsacred, unholy. Moreover, many Native Americans (for example, the Salish and
    Kootenai tribes in Montana) were subjected to the pass system; in order to leave the
    reservation boundaries, they needed a form, or pass, signed by the Indian agent.
    Assimilation and control tactics are key in understanding the transformation in Native
    American family life. Economic changes, racial and cultural conflicts, and gender
    relations interacted to produce altered family systems. Indeed, forced colonization
    disrupted the traditional roles of Native Americans.
    Extended family networks found in contemporary tribal societies differ from those in
    native societies before contract with European cultures. Native families have suffered
    because of federal policy mandates, including removal of children from their homes and
    communities to boarding schools primarily in the 1800s to mid-1970s; adoption and
    foster care, especially seen in the 1950s to 1978; and removal to other institutional
    settings (for example, orphanages or reform schools). The removal of children was
    instrumental in the alteration of child-rearing practices. Many children reared in
    oppressive environments find it difficult as adults to be parents, and they sometimes are
    incapable of developing loving relationships. In 1978, Congress passed the Indian Child
    Welfare Act to prevent the unwarranted removal of children from their homes and
    communities.
    In the late twentieth century, many social ills still plagued reservation and urban life.
    Alcoholism directly or indirectly affected most Native American families, and some
    reservations had exceedingly high rates of homicide and suicide. Compounding these
    problems was a high unemployment rate on most Indian reservations and a large number
    of families living below the poverty level. Moreover, many Native Americans suffered
    from various forms of discrimination.
    The structure of Native American families must be understood in terms of racism,
    sexism, and economics. Native American families are molded for survival in the midst of
    oppression. Despite the hardships, they have survived. Clearly, the endurance of the
    extended family in the face of assaults by the federal government is a sign of its strength.
    Many Native Americans still maintain strong beliefs in themselves as native peoples and
    in their tribal communities. Most importantly, there still remain strong feelings of Indian
    identity that instill pride in themselves and in their culture.

    The fascinating thing is that the family disintegration forced on Native Americans boomeranged right back on the majority culture. We are all one. Damage done to others comes back.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: