Today, on the first day of the new decade of '201x' years, I am going to tell you why that is. I am hereby triggering the national dialog on what the foremost challenge for the United States will be in this decade, which is the ultimate root cause of most of the other problems we appear to be struggling with. What you are about to read is the equivalent of someone in 1997 describing the expected forces governing the War on Terror from 2001-2009 in profound detail.
This is a very long article, the longest ever written on The Futurist. As it is a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife, it is not meant to be read in one shot but rather digested slowly over an extended period, with all supporting links read as well. As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.
Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that has tainted the interaction between men and women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to make extremely unwise life choices, destructive to both themselves and others. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020. The primary culprits in perpetuating this injustice are not average women, but radical 'feminists' and an assortment of sinister, dishonest men who variously describe themselves as 'male feminists' or 'social conservatives'.
Now, the basic premise of this article is that men and women are equally valuable, but have different strengths and weaknesses, and different priorities. A society is strongest when men and women have roles that are complementary to each other, rather than of an adverserial nature. Furthermore, when one gender (either one) is mistreated, the other ends up becoming disenfranchised as well. If you disagree with this premise, you may not wish to read further.
The Cultural Thesis
The Myth of Female Oppression : When you tell someone that they are oppressed, against all statistical and logical evidence, you harm them by generating discouragement and resentment. This pernicious effect is the basis of many forms of needlessly inflicted female unhappiness, as well as the basis for unjustified retaliation against men.
All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who did not face hardships as severe as what women endured. In reality, this narrative is entirely incorrect. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.
Warfare has been a near constant feature of human society before the modern era, and whenever two tribes or kingdoms went to war with each other, the losing side saw many of its fighting-age men exterminated, while the women were assimilated into the invading society. Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes?
Most of this narrative stems from 'feminists' comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man. This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality. To approximate the conditions of the average woman to the average man (the key word being 'average') in the Western world of a century ago, simply observe the lives of the poorest peasants in poor countries today. Both men and women have to perform tedious work, have insufficient food and clothing, and limited opportunities for upliftment.
As far as selective anecdotes like voting rights go, in the vast majority of cases, men could not vote either. In fact, if one compares every nation state from every century, virtually all of them extended exactly the same voting rights (or lack thereof) to men and women. Even today, out of 200 sovereign states, there are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women. Any claim that women were being denied rights that men were given in even 1% of historical instances, falls flat.
This is not to deny that genuine atrocities like genital mutilation have been perpetrated against women; they have and still are. But men also experienced atrocities of comparable horror at the same time, which is simply not mentioned. In fact, when a man is genitally mutilated by a woman, some other women actually find this humorous, and are proud to say so publicly.
It is already wrong when a contemporary group seeks reparations from an injustice that occurred over a century ago to people who are no longer alive. It is even worse when this oppression itself is a fabrication. The narrative of female oppression by men should be rejected and refuted as the highly selective and historically false narrative that it is. In fact, this myth is evidence not of historical oppression, but of the vastly different propensity to complain between the two genders.
The Masculinity Vacuum in Entertainment : Take a look at the collage of entertainers below (click to enlarge), which will be relevant if you are older than 30. All of them were prominent in the 1980s, some spilling over on either side of that decade. They are all certainly very different from one another. But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.
As diverse and imperfect as these characters were, they were all examples of masculinity. They represented different archetypes, from the father to the leader to the ladies man to the rugged outdoorsman to the protector. They were all more similar than dissimilar, as they all were role-models for young boys of the time, often the same young boys. Celebrities as disparate as Bill Cosby and Mr. T had majority overlap in their fan bases, as did characters as contrasting as Jean-Luc Picard and The Macho Man Randy Savage.
At this point, you might be feeling a deep inner emptiness lamenting a bygone age, as the paucity of proudly, inspiringly masculine characters in modern entertainment becomes clear. Before the 1980s, there were different masculine characters, but today, they are conspicuously absent. Men are shown either as thuggish degenerates, or as effete androgynes. Sure, there were remakes of Star Trek and The A-Team, and series finales of Rocky and Indiana Jones. But where are the new characters? Why is the vacuum being filled solely with nostalgia? A single example like Jack Bauer is not sufficient to dispute the much larger trend of masculinity purging.
Modern entertainment typically shows businessmen as villains, and husbands as bumbling dimwits that are always under the command of the all-powerful wife, who is never wrong. Oprah Winfrey's platform always grants a sympathetic portrayal to a wronged woman, but never to men who have suffered great injustices. Absurdly false feminist myths such as a belief that women are underpaid relative to men for the same output of work, or that adultery and domestic violence are actions committed exclusively by men, are embedded even within the dialog of sitcoms and legal dramas.
This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, and girls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leads to the normalization of single motherhood (obviously with taxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, but merely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon. This, in turn, leads to fatherless young men growing up being told that natural male behavior is wrong, and feminization is normal. It also leads to women being deceived outright about the realities of the sexual market, where media attempts to normalize single motherhood and attempted 'cougarhood' are glorified, rather than portrayed as the undesirable conditions that they are.
The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.
As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This absurd double standard has invisible but major costs to society.
To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.
All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?
The Four Sirens : Four unrelated forces simultaneously combined to entirely distort the balance of civilization built on the biological realities of men and women. Others have presented versions of the Four Sirens concept in the past, but I am choosing a slightly different definition of the Four Sirens :
1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization. Contraception made it possible for females to act on their urges of hypergamy.
2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : In the past, a woman who wanted to leave her husband needed to prove misconduct on his part. Now, the law has changed to such a degree that a woman can leave her husband for no stated reason, yet is still entitled to payments from him for years to come. This incentivizes destruction because it enables women to transfer the costs of irresponsible behavior onto men and children.
3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce. These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less. There was never any organized male opposition to women entering the workforce (in China, taxes were collected in a way that mandated female productivity), as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers. However, one of the main reasons that women married - financial support - was no longer a necessity.
Female entry into the workforce is generally a positive development for society, and I would be the first to praise this, if it were solely on the basis of merit (as old-school feminists had genuinely intended). Unfortunately, too much of this is now due to corrupt political lobbying to forcibly transfer resources from men to women.
4) Female-Centric social engineering : Above and beyond the pro-woman divorce laws, further state interventions include the subsidization of single motherhood, laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women, which happens just as often), and 'sexual harassment' laws with definitions so nebulous that women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own.
These four forces in tandem handed an unprecedented level of power to women. The technology gave them freedom to pursue careers and the freedom to be promiscuous. Feminist laws have done a remarkable job of shielding women from the consequences of their own actions. Women now have as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed, where they can pursue alpha males while extracting subsidization from beta males without any reciprocal obligations to them. Despite all the new freedoms available to women that freed them from their traditional responsibilities, men were still expected to adhere to their traditional responsibilities.
Marriage 2.0 : From the West to the Middle East to Asia, marriage is considered a mandatory bedrock of any functioning society. If marriage is such a crucial ingredient of societal health, then the West is barreling ahead on a suicidal path.
We earlier discussed why marriage was created, but equally important were the factors that sustained the institution and kept it true to its objectives. The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were :
1) People married at the age of 20, and often died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. Her peak years were contained within marriage. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after her peak years are in the past and she has had 10 or more prior sexual relationships. Some such women have already underwent what can best be described as a fatocalypse.
2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.
3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.
4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.
Today, however, all of these factors have been removed. This is partly the result of good forces (economic progress and technology invented by beta men), but partly due to artificial schemes that are extremely damaging to society.
For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man. The wedding ring itself used to be a family heirloom passed down over generations, but now, the bride thumbs through a catalog that shows her rings that the man is expected to spend two months of his salary to buy. This presumption that somehow the woman is to be indulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers). In some Eastern cultures, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Eastern equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response). For those wondering why Eastern culture has such restrictions on women and not men, restrictions on men were tried in some communities, and those communities quickly vanished and were forgotten. There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive. Abuse and blackmail of women certainly occurred in some instances, but on balance, these customs existed through centuries of observing the realities of human behavior. Persian, Indian, and Chinese civilization has survived for over 5000 years and every challenge imaginable through enforcement of these customs, and, until recently, the Christian world also had comparable mechanisms to steer individual behavior away from destructive manifestations. However, if the wedding has mutated into a carnival of bridezilla narcissism, the mechanics of divorce are far more disastrous.
In an 'at will' employment arrangement between a corporation and an employee, either party can terminate the contract at any time. However, instead of a few weeks of severance, imagine what would happen if the employer was legally required to pay the employee half of his or her paycheck for 20 additional years, irrespective of anything the employee did or did not do, under penalty of imprisonment for the CEO. Suppose, additionally, that it is culturally encouraged for an employee to do this whenever even minor dissatisfaction arises. Would businesses be able to operate? Would anyone want to be a CEO? Would businesses even form, and thus would any wealth be created, given the risks associated with hiring an employee? Keep these questions in mind as you read further.
So why are 70-90% of divorces initiated by women? Women have always been hypergamous, and most were married to beta men that they felt no attraction towards, so what has changed to cause an increase in divorce rates?
Divorce lawyers, like any other professional group, will seek conditions that are good for business. What makes attorneys different from, say, engineers or salespeople, is that a) they know precisely how to lobby for changes to the legal system, bypassing voters and the US constitution, that guarantees more revenue for them, and b) what benefits them is directly harmful to the fabric of society in general, and to children in particular. When they collude with rage-filled 'feminists' who openly say that 90% of the male gender should be exterminated, the outcome is catastrophic.
The concept of 'no fault' divorce by itself may not be unfair. The concepts of asset division and alimony may also be fair in the event of serious wrongdoing by the husband. However, the combination of no-fault divorce plus asset division/alimony is incredibly unfair and prone to extortionary abuse. The notion that she can choose to leave the marriage, yet he is nonetheless required to pay her for years after that even if he did not want to destroy the union, is an injustice that should not occur in any advanced democracy. Indeed, the man has to pay even if the woman has an extramarital affair, possibly even being ordered to pay her psychiatric fees. Bogus claims by 'feminists' that women suffer under divorce are designed to obscure the fact that she is the one who filed for divorce. Defenders of alimony insist that a woman seeking a divorce should not see a drop in living standards, but it is somehow acceptable for the husband to see a drop even if he did not want a divorce. I would go further and declare that any belief that women deserve alimony on a no-fault basis in this day age is utterly contradictory to the belief that women are equals of men. How can women both deserve alimony while also claiming equality? In rare cases, high-earning women have had to pay alimony to ex-husbands, but that is only 4% of the time, vs. the man paying 96% of the time. But it gets worse; much worse, in fact.
Even if the woman chooses to leave on account of 'boredom', she is still given default custody of the children, which exposes the total hypocrisy of feminist claims that men and women should be treated equally. Furthermore, the man is required to pay 'child support' which is assessed at levels much higher than the direct costs of child care, with the woman facing no burden to prove the funds were spent on the child, and cannot be specified by any pre-nuptial agreement. The rationale is that 'the child should not see a drop in living standards due to divorce', but since the mother has custody of the child, this is a stealthy way in which feminists have ensured financial maintenence of the mother as well. So the man loses his children and most of his income even if he did not want divorce. But even that is not the worst-case scenario.
The Bradley Amendment, devised by Senator Bill Bradley in 1986, ruthlessly pursues men for the already high 'child support' percentages, and seizes their passports and imprisons them without due process for falling behind in payments, even if on account of job loss during a recession. Under a bogus 'deadbeat dads' media campaign, 'feminists' were able to obscure the fact that women were the ones ending their marriages and with them the benefit that children receive from a two-parent upbringing, and further demanding unusually high spousal maintenence, much of which does not even go to the child, from a dutiful ex-husband who did not want a divorce, under penalty of imprisonment. So the legal process uses children as pawns through which to extract an expanded alimony stream for the mother. The phony tactic of insisting that 'it is for the children' is used to shut down all questions about the use of children as pawns in the extortion process, while avoiding scrutiny of the fact that the parent who is choosing divorce is clearly placing the long-term well-being of the children at a very low priority.
So as it stands today, there are large numbers of middle-class men who were upstanding citizens, who were subjected to divorce against their will, had their children taken from them, pay alimony masked as child support that is so high that many of them have to live out of their cars or with their relatives, and after job loss from economic conditions, are imprisoned simply for running out of money. If 10-30% of American men are under conditions where 70% or more of their income is taken from them under threat of prison, these men have no incentive to start new businesses or invent new technologies or processes. Having 10-30% of men disincentivized this way cannot be good for the economy, and is definitely a contributor to current economic malaise, not to mention a 21st-century version of slavery. Sometimes, the children are not even biologically his.
This one-page site has more links about the brutal tyranny that a man can be subjected to once he enters the legal contract of marriage, and even more so after he has children. What was once the bedrock of society, and a solemn tradition that benefited both men and women equally, has quietly mutated under the evil tinkering of feminists, divorce lawyers, and leftists, into a shockingly unequal arrangement, where the man is officially a second-class citizen who is subjected to a myriad of sadistic risks. As a result, the word 'marriage' should not even be used, given the totality of changes that have made the arrangement all but unrecognizable compared to its intended ideals. Suicide rates of men undergoing divorce run as high as 20%, and all of us know a man who either committed suicide, or admits seriously considering it during the dehumanization he faced even though he wanted to preserve the union. Needless to say, this is a violation of the US Constitution on many levels, and is incompatible with the values of any supposedly advanced democracy that prides itself on freedom and liberty. There is effectively a tyrannical leftist shadow state operating within US borders but entirely outside the US constitution, which can subject a man to horrors more worthy of North Korea than the US, even if he did not want out of the marriage, did not want to be separated from his children, and did not want to lose his job. Any unsuspecting man can be sucked into this shadow state.
Anyone who believes that two-parent families are important to the continuance of an advanced civilization, should focus on the explosive growth in revenue earned by divorce lawyers, court supervisors, and 'feminist' organizations over the past quarter-century. If Western society is to survive, these revenues should be chopped down to a tenth of what they presently are, which is what they would be if the elements that violate the US Constitution were repealed.
Marriage is no longer a gateway to female 'companionship', as we shall discuss later. For this reason, I cannot recommend 'marriage', in its modern state, to any young man living in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia. There are just too many things outside of his control that can catastrophically ruin his finances, emotions, and quality of life.
At a minimum, he should make sure that having children is the most important goal of his life. If not, then he has insufficient reason to enter this contract. If this goal is affirmed, then he should conduct research by speaking to a few divorced men about the laws and mistreatment they were subjected to, and attend a few divorce court hearings at the local courthouse. After gaining this information, if he still wants to take the risk, he should only marry if he can meet the following three conditions, none of which can substitute either of the other two :
1) The woman earns the same as, or more than, he does.
2) He has a properly done pre-nuptial arrangement with lawyers on each side (even though a pre-nup will not affect the worst aspect of divorce law - 'child support' as a cloak for stealth alimony and possible imprisonment).
3) He is deeply competent in seduction practices (Game), and can manage his relationship with his wife effortlessly. Even this is a considerable workload, however. More on this later.
There are still substantial risks, but at least they are somewhat reduced under these conditions. If marriage is a very important goal for a young man, he should seriously consider expatriation to a developing country, where he ironically may have a higher living standard than in the US after adjusting for divorce risk.
So, to review, the differences between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0 are :
- a) No fault asset division and alimony, where the abandoned spouse has to pay if he earns more, even if he did not want a divorce, and even if he is a victim of abuse, cuckolding, or adultery. There are rare instances of high-earning women getting caught in this trap as well.
- b) Women marrying after having 5 or more sexual partners, compared to just 0-1 previously. This makes it harder for the woman to form a pair bond with her husband.
- c) Women marrying at an age when very few years of their peak beauty are remaining, compared to a decade or more remaining under Marriage 1.0.
- d) Child custody is almost never granted to the man, so he loses his children on a 'no fault' basis.
Traditional cultures marketed marriage with such punctilious alacrity that most people today dare not even question whether the traditional truths still apply. Hence, hostility often ensues from a mere attempt to even broach the topic of whether marriage is still the same concept as it once was. Everyone from women to sadistic social conservatives to a young man's own parents will pressure and shame him into marriage for reasons they cannot even articulate, and condemn his request for a pre-nup, without having any interest in even learning about the horrendously unequal and carefully concealed laws he would be subjected to in the event that his wife divorces him through no reasons he can discern. But some men with an eye on self-preservation are figuring this out, and are avoiding marriage. By many accounts, 22% of men have decided to avoid marriage. So what happens to a society that makes it unattractive for even just 20% of men to marry?
Women are far more interested in marriage than men. Simple logic of supply and demand tells us that the institution of monogamous marriage requires at least 80% male participation in order to be viable. When male participation drops below 80%, all women are in serious trouble, since there are now 100 women competing for every 80 men, compounded with the reality that women age out of fertility much quicker than men. This creates great stress among the single female population. In the past, the steady hand of a young woman's mother and grandmother knew that her beauty was temporary, and that the most seductive man was not the best husband, and they made sure that the girl was married off to a boy with long-term durability. Now that this guidance has been removed from the lives of young women, thanks to 'feminism', these women are proving to be poor pilots of their mating lives who pursue alpha males until the age of 34-36 when her desirability drops precipitously and not even beta males she used to reject are interested in her. This stunning plunge in her prospects with men is known as the Wile E. Coyote moment, and women of yesteryear had many safety nets that protected them from this fate. The 'feminist' media's attempt to normalize 'cougarhood' is evidence of gasping desperation to package failure as a desirable outcome, which will never become mainstream due to sheer biological realities. Women often protest that a high number of sexual partners should not be counted as a negative on them, as the same is not a negative for men, but this is merely a manifestation of solipism. A complex sexual past works against women even if the same works in favor of men, due to the natural sexual attraction triggers of each gender. A wise man once said, "A key that can open many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock."
The big irony is that 'feminism', rather than improving the lives of women, has stripped away the safety nets of mother/grandmother guidance that would have shielded her from ever having to face her Wile E. Coyote moment. 'Feminism' has thus put the average woman at risk in yet another area.
Game (Learned Attraction and Seduction) : The Four Sirens and the legal changes feminists have instituted to obstruct beta men have created a climate where men have invented techniques and strategies to adapt to the more challenging marketplace, only to exceed their aspirations. This is a disruptive technology in its own right. All of us know a man who is neither handsome nor wealthy, but consistently has amazing success with women. He seems to have natural instincts regarding women that to the layperson may be indistinguishable from magic. So how does he do it?
Detractors with a vested interest in the present status quo are eager to misrepresent what 'Game' is, and the presence of many snake-oil salesmen in the field does not help, but as a definition :
The traits that make a man attractive to women are learnable skills, that improve with practice. Once a man learns these skills, he is indistinguishable from a man who had natural talents in this area. Whether a man then chooses to use these skills to secure one solid relationship or multiple brief ones, is entirely up to him.
The subject is too vast for any description over here to do it full justice, but in a nutshell, the Internet age enabled communities of men to share the various bits of knowledge they had field tested and refined (e.g. one man being an expert at meeting women during the daytime, another being an expert at step-by-step sexual escalation, yet another being a master of creating lasting love, etc.). The collective knowledge grew and evolved, and an entire industry to teach the various schools of 'Game' emerged. Men who comprehended the concepts (a minority) and those who could undertake the total reconstitution of their personalities and avalanche of rejections as part of the learning curve (a still smaller minority) stood to reap tremendous benefits from becoming more attractive than the vast majority of unaware men. While the 'pick-up artist' (PUA) implementation is the most media-covered, the principles are equally valuable for men in monogamous long-term relationships (LTRs). See Charlotte Allen's cover story for The Weekly Standard, devoted to 'Game'.
Among the most valuable learnings from the body of knowledge is the contrarian revelation that what women say a man should do is often quite the antithesis of what would actually bring him success. For example, being a needy, supplicative, eager-to-please man is precisely the opposite behavior that a man should employ, where being dominant, teasing, amused, yet assertive is the optimal persona. An equally valuable lesson is to realize when not to take a woman's words at face value. Many statements from her are 'tests' to see if the man can remain congruent in his 'alpha' personality, where the woman is actually hoping the man does not eagerly comply to her wishes. Similarly, the 'feminist' Pavlovian reaction to call any non-compliant man a 'misogynist' should also not be taken as though a rational adult assigned the label after fair consideration. Such shaming language is only meant to deflect scrutiny and accountability from the woman uttering it, and should be given no more importance than a 10-year-old throwing a tantrum to avoid responsibility or accountability. Far too many men actually take these slurs seriously, to the detriment of male rights and dignity.
Success in internalizing the core fundamentals of Game requires an outside-the-box thinker solidly in the very top of Maslow's Hierarchy, and in my experience, 80% of men and 99.9% of women are simply incapable of comprehending why the skills of Game are valuable and effective. Many women, and even a few pathetic men, condemn Game, without even gaining a minimal comprehension for what it truly is (which I have highlighted in red above), and how it benefits both men and women. Most of what they think they know about Game involves strawmen, a lack of basic research, and their own sheer insecurity.
For anyone seeking advice on learning the material, there is one rule you must never break. I believe it is of paramount importance that the knowledge be used ethically, and with the objective of creating mutually satisfying relationships with women. It is not moral to mistreat women, even if they have done the same to countless men. We, as men, have to take the high road even if women are not, and this is my firm belief. Nice guys can finish first if they have Game.
'Feminism' as Unrestrained Misandry and Projection : The golden rule of human interactions is to judge a person, or a group, by their actions rather than their words. The actions of 'feminists' reveal their ideology to be one that seeks to secure equality for women in the few areas where they lag, while distracting observers from the vast array of areas where women are in a more favorable position relative to men (the judicial system, hiring and admissions quotas, media portrayals, social settings, etc.). They will concoct any number of bogus statistics to maintain an increasingly ridiculous narrative of female oppression.
Feminists once had noble goals of securing voting rights, achieving educational parity, and opening employment channels for women. But once these goals were met and even exceeded, the activists did not want to lose relevance. Now, they tirelessly and ruthlessly lobby for changes in legislation that are blatantly discriminatory against men (not to mention unconstitutional and downright cruel). Not satisfied with that, they continue to lobby for social programs designed to devalue the roles of husbands and fathers, replacing them with taxpayer-funded handouts.
As it is profitable to claim victimhood in this age, a good indicator is whether any condemnation by the supposedly oppressed of their oppressor could be similarly uttered if the positions were reversed. We see an immense double standard regarding what women and men can say about each other in America today. This reveals one of the darkest depths of the human mind - when a group is utterly convinced that they are the 'victims' of another group, they can rationalize any level of evil against their perceived oppressors.
Go to any major 'feminist' website, such as feministing.com or Jezebel.com, and ask polite questions about the fairness of divorce laws, or the injustice of innocent men being jailed on false accusations of rape without due process. You will quickly be called a 'misogynist' and banned from commenting. The same is not true for any major men's site, where even heated arguments and blatant misandry are tolerated in the spirit of free speech and human dignity. When is the last time a doctrinaire 'feminist' actually had the courage to debate a fair woman like Camille Paglia, Tammy Bruce, or Christina Hoff Somers on television?
Ever-tightening groupthink that enforces an ever-escalating narrative of victimhood ensures that projection becomes the normal mode of misandrist thought. The word 'misogynist' has expanded to such an extreme that it is the Pavlovian response to anything a 'feminist' feels bad about, but cannot articulate in an adult-like manner. This reveals the projected gender bigotry of the 'feminist' in question, which in her case is misandry. For example, an older man dating women 10 years younger than him is also referred to as a 'misogynist' by the older bitterati. Not an ageist, mind you, but a misogynist. A man who refuses to find obese women attractive is also a 'misogynist', as are gay men who do not spend money on women. The male non-compliance labeled as 'misogyny' thus becomes a reaction to many years of unopposed misandry heaped on him first, when he initially harbored no such sentiments. Kick a friendly dog enough times, and you get a nasty dog.
There are laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), that blatantly declares that violence against women is far worse than violence against men. VAWA is very different from ordinary assault laws, because under VAWA, a man can be removed from his home at gunpoint if the woman makes a single phonecall. No due process is permitted, and the man's Constitutional rights are jettisoned. At the same time, half of all domestic violence is by the woman against the man. Tiger Woods' wife beat him with a blunt weapon and scratched his face, only to be applauded by 'feminists' in a 'you go girl' manner. Projection can normalize barbarism.
Rape legislation has also bypassed the US Constitution, leaving a man guilty until he proves himself innocent, while the accusing woman faces no penalty for falsely sending a man to prison for 15 years, where he himsef will get raped. The Duke Lacrosse case was a prominent example of such abuse, but hundreds of others occur in America each year. The laws have been changed so that a victim has 1 month to 'decide' if she has been raped, and such flexibility predicatably leads to instances of a woman reporting rape just so that she does not have to tell her husband that she cheated on him (until it becomes profitable to divorce him). 40-50% of all rape accusations are false, but 'feminists' would rather jail scores of innocent men than let one guilty man get away, which is the exact opposite of what US Constitutional jurisprudence requires.
But, unimaginably, it gets even worse. Polls of men have shown that there is one thing men fear even more than being raped themselves, and that is being cuckolded. Men see cuckolding as the ultimate violation and betrayal, yet there is an entire movement among 'feminists' to enshrine a woman's right to commit adultery and use the resources of her husband to dupe him into thinking the child is his. These misandrists even want to outlaw the right of a man to test the paternity of a child.
So, to review, if a woman has second thoughts about a tryst a few days later, she can, without penalty, ruin a man financially and send him to prison for 15 years. 'Feminists' consider this acceptable. At the same time, even though men consider being cuckolded a worse fate than being raped, 'feminists' want to make this easier for a woman to do, by preventing paternity testing. They already have rigged laws so that the man, upon 'no fault' divorce, has to pay alimony, to a woman who cuckolded him.
This is pure evil, ranking right up there with the worst tyrannies of the last century. Modern misandry masking itself as 'feminism' is, without equal, the most hypocritical ideology in the world today. The laws of a society are the DNA of that society. Once the laws are tainted, the DNA is effectively corrupted, and mutations to the society soon follow. Men have been killed due to 'feminism'. Children and fathers have been forcibly separated for financial gain via 'feminism'. Slavery has returned to the West via 'feminism'. With all these misandric laws, one can fairly say that misandry is the new Jim Crow.
Shaming Language and Projection as a Substitute for Rational Debate : As discussed previously, any legitimate and polite questions about the fairness of anti-male realities in the legal system and media are quickly met with Pavlovian retorts of 'misogynist' and 'loser'. Let us deconstruct these oft-used examples of shaming language, and why misandrists are so afraid of legitimate debate.
Contrary to their endless charges of 'misogyny' (a word that many 'feminists' still manage to misspell), in reality, most men instinctively treat women with chivalry and enshrine them on exalted pedestals. Every day, we see men willing to defend women or do favors for them. There is infinitely more chivalry than misogyny exhibited by the male population. On the other hand, we routinely see anti-male statements uttered by 'feminists', and a presumption that all men are monsters guilty of crimes committed by a small number of people of the same gender. When well-known 'feminists' openly state that 90% of the male population should be exterminated, the unsupported accusation of 'misogyny' is a very pure manifestion of their own misandric projection.
On the second charge of being a 'loser who cannot get laid', any observation of the real world quickly makes it obvious that men who have had little experience with women are the ones placing women on pedestals, while those men who have had substantial sexual experience with women are not. Having sex with a large number of women does not increase respect for women, which is the exact opposite of the claim that 'feminists' make. Again, this charge of 'loserdom' is merely the psychosexual frustration of 'feminists' projected outwards, who express surprise that unrelenting hatred by them towards men is not magically metabolized into love for these particular 'feminists'.
That misandrists are so unchallenged is the reason that they have had no reason to expand their arsenal of venom beyond these two types of projection. Despite my explanation of this predictable Pavlovian response, the comments section will feature misandrists use these same two slurs nonetheless, proving the very point that they seek to shout down, and the very exposure they seek to avoid. My pre-emption will not deter them from revealing their limitations by indulging in it anyway. They simply cannot help themselves, and are far from being capable of discussing actual points of disagreement in a rational manner.
Men, of course, have to be savvy about the real reason their debate skills are limited to these two paths of shaming language, and not be deterred. Once again, remember that this should be taken no more seriously than if uttered by a 10-year-old, and there is no reason to let a 'feminist' get away with anything you would not let a man get away with. They wanted equality, didn't they?
'Feminism' as Genuine Misogyny : The greatest real misogyny, of course, has been unwittingly done by the 'feminists' themselves. By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer. By incentivizing the dehumanization of their ex-husbands and the use of children as pawns, they set bad examples for children, and cause children to resent their mothers when they mature. By making baseless accusations of 'misogyny' without sufficient cause, they cause resentment among formerly friendly men where there previously was none. By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation.
One glaring example of misandry backfiring is in the destruction of marriage and corresponding push of the 'Sex in the City/cougar' fantasy. Monogamous marriage not only masked the gap between 'alpha' and 'beta' men, but also masked the gap between attractiveness of women before and after their Wile E. Coyote moment. By seducing women with the myth that a promiscuous single life after the age of 35 is a worthy goal, many women in their late 30s are left to find that they command far less male attention than women just a decade younger than them. 'Feminism' sold them a moral code entirely unsuited to their physical and mental realities, causing great sadness to these women.
But most importantly, 'feminists' devalued the traditional areas of female expertise (raising the next generation of citizens), while attaching value only to areas of male expertise (the boardroom, the military, sexual promiscuity) and told women to go duplicate male results under the premise that this was inherently better than traditional female functions. Telling women that emulating their mothers and grandmothers is less valuable than mimicking men sounds quite misogynistic to me, and unsurprisingly, despite all these 'freedoms', women are more unhappy than ever after being inflicted with such misogyny.
So how did the state of affairs manage to get so bad? Surely 'feminists' are not so powerful?
Social Conservatives, White Knights, and Girlie-Men : It would be inaccurate to deduce that misandrists were capable of creating this state of affairs on their own, despite their vigor and skill in sidestepping both the US Constitution and voter scrutiny. Equally culpable are men who ignorantly believe that acting as obsequious yes-men to 'feminists' by turning against other men in the hope that their posturing will earn them residual scraps of female affection.
Chivalry has existed in most human cultures for many centuries, and is seen in literature from all major civilizations. Chivalry greatly increased a man's prospects of marriage, but the reasons for this have been forgotten. Prior to the modern era, securing a young woman's hand in marriage usually involved going through her parents. The approval of the girl's father was a non-negotiable channel in the process. If a young man could show the girl's parents that he would place her on a pedestal, they could be convinced to sanction the union. The girl herself was not the primary audience of the chivalry, as the sexual attraction of the girl herself was rarely aroused by chivalry, as the principles of Game have shown.
Hence, many men are still stuck in the obsolete, inobservant, and self-loathing notion that chivalry and excess servility are the pathways to sex today, despite the modern reality that a woman's sexual decisions are no longer controlled by her parents, and are often casual rather than locked in matrimony. Whether such men are religious and called 'social conservatives', or effete leftists and called 'girlie men', they are effectively the same, and the term 'White Knights' can apply to the entire group. Their form of chivalry when exposed to 'feminist' histrionics results in these men harming other men at the behest of women who will never be attracted to them. This is why we see peculiar agreement between supposedly opposed 'social conservatives' and 'feminists' whenever the craving to punish men arises. A distressingly high number of men actually support the imprisonment of innocent men for false rape accusations or job loss causing 'child support' arrears merely because these 'men' don't want to risk female disapproval, incorrectly assuming that fanatically vocal 'feminists' represent the official opinion of all women. These men are the biggest suckers of all, as their pig-headed denial of the effectiveness of Game will prevent them from deducing that excess agreeability and willingness to do favors for the objects of their lust are exactly the opposite of what makes women sexually attracted to men. No woman feels attraction for a needy man.
For this reason, after lunatic 'feminists', these pedestalizing White Knights are the next most responsible party for the misandry in Western society today. The average woman is not obsessively plotting new schemes to denigrate and swindle men, she merely wants to side with whoever is winning (which presently is the side of misandry). But pedestalizing men actually carry out many dirty deeds against other men in the hopes of receiving a pat on the head from 'feminists'. Hence, the hierarchy of misandric zeal is thus :
Strident 'feminist' > pedestalizer/white knight > average woman.
For reasons described earlier, even a declaration that many men are bigger contributors to misandry than the average woman will not deter 'feminists' from their Pavlovian tendency to call articles such as this one 'misogynist'.
Lastly, the religious 'social conservatives' who continue their empty sermonizing about the 'sanctity of marriage' while doing absolutely nothing about the divorce-incentivizing turn that the laws have taken, have been exposed for their pseudo-moral posturing and willful blindness. What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why. No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission. To be duped into believing that a side-issue like 'gay marriage' is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates by creating incentives for divorce (divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays), is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon. Aren't conservatives the people who are supposed to grasp that incentives drive behavior? An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled 'Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda'.
Why There is No Men's Rights Movement : At this point, readers may be wondering "If things are this bad, why don't we hear anything about it?". Indeed, this is a valid question, and the answer lies within the fundamentals of male psychology. Most beta men would rather die than be called a 'loser' by women (alpha men, of course, know better than to take this at face value). White Knights also join in the chorus of shaming other men since they blunderously believe that this is a pathway to the satiation of their lust. So an unfairly ruined man is faced with the prospect of being shamed by women and a large cohort of men if he protests about the injustice, and this keeps him suffering in silence, leading to an early death. We have millions of fine young men willing to die on the battlefield to defend the values enshrined in the US Constitution, but we don't see protests of even 100 divorced men against the shamefully unconstitutional treatment they have received. The destruction of the two-parent family by incentivizing immoral behavior in women is at least as much of a threat to American safety and prosperity as anything that ever could have come out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Men being too afraid to be the 'squeaky wheel' even when they have lost their children and their present and future assets is a major contributor to the prevailing status quo. Alpha men have no incentive beyond altruism to act as they benefit from the current climate, and thus my altruism will be limited to putting forth these ideas.
Any serious movement has to start a think tank or two to produce research reports, symposiums, and specific policy recommendations, and the few divorce lawyers who were compelled by their conscience to leave the dark side have to be recruited as experts. Subsequently, televised panel discussions have to be conducted at top medical, business, and graduate engineering schools (where young men about to embark on lucrative careers are approaching marriage age, but know nothing about the law), documentary films have to be produced, prominent victims like Mel Gibson, Paul McCartney, Hulk Hogan, and Tiger Woods have to be recruited as spokesmen, and visibly powerful protests outside of divorce courts have to be organized. In this age of Web 2.0/social media/viral tools, all this should be easy, particularly given how quickly leftist groups can assemble a comparable apparatus for even obscure causes.
Instead, all that exists are Men's Rights Authors (MRAs) that run a few websites and exchange information on their blogs. 'Something is better than nothing' is the most generous praise I could possibly extend to their efforts, and this article I am presenting here on The Futurist is probably the single biggest analysis of this issue to date, even though this is not even a site devoted to the subject and I am not the primary author of this site. Hence, there will be no real Men's Rights Movement in the near future. The misandry bubble will instead be punctured through the sum of millions of individual market forces.
The Faultline of Civilization : After examining all the flaws in modern societies, and the laws that exacerbate them, it becomes apparent that there are two realms of legal/judicial thought that stand alone in determining whether our civilization is going to be ever-improving or merely cyclical. These two legal areas are a) the treatment of paternity rights, and b) the treatment of due process in rape accusations. The human brain is wired to value the well-being of women far higher than that of men (for reasons that were once valid, but no longer are today), which is why extending due process to a man falsely accused of rape is not of particular interest to people who otherwise value due process. Similarly, there is little resistance to 'feminist' laws that have stripped away all types of paternity rights from fathers. The father is not seen as valuable nor as worthy of rights, as we have seen above. These two areas of law are precisely where our society will decide if it ascends or declines. All other political sideshows, like immigration, race relations, and even terrorism are simply not as important as none of those can destroy an entire society the way these laws can.
The Economic Thesis
Ceilings and Floors of Glass : Misandrists shriek about a supposed 'glass ceiling' of pervasive sexism that explains why 50% of the CEOs of major corporations are not women. What is never mentioned is the equally valid 'glass floor', where we see that 90% of imprisonments, suicides, and crippling occupational injuries are of men. If these outcomes are the results of the actions or choices of men who suffer from them, then is that not the same reason that determines who rises above the 'glass ceiling'? The inability of misandrists to address these realities in good faith tells us something (but not everything) about the irrational sense of entitlement they have.
One of the most dishonest myths of all is the claim that 'women earn just 75% of men for the same job'. Let me dispense of this myth, in the process of which we will see why it is profitable and seductive for them to broadcast this bogus belief.
It is true that women, on average, earn less per year than men do. It is also true that 22-year-olds earn less, on average, than 40-year-olds. Why is the latter not an example of age discrimination, while the former is seized upon as an example of gender discrimination?
If women truly did earn less for doing exactly the same job as a man, any non-sexist CEO could thrash his competition by hiring only women, thus saving 25% on employee salaries relative to his competitors. Are we to believe that every major CEO and Board of Directors is so sexist as to sacrifice billions of dollars of profit? When the 'Director of Corporate Social Responsibility' of a nun congregation wrote to TJ Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, that his company should have more women in its Board of Directors, Rodgers replied with a letter explaining why the pursuit of profit could not accommodate such political correctness. That a nun congregation pays a recession-proof salary to someone as a 'Director of Corporate Social Responsibility' is itself an example of a pampered existence, and I was unaware that convents were now advancing secular Marxist beliefs.
Furthermore, women entrepreneurs could hire other women and out-compete any male-dominated business if such a pay gap existed, but we do not see this happening in any country in the world. Market forces would correct such mispricings in female compensation, if they actually existed. But they do not, and those who claim that they do are not just advertising an extreme economic illiteracy, but are quite happy to make similarly illiterate women angry about an injustice that does not exist. I notice that women who actually are/were CEOs of publicly traded companies never claim that there is a conspiracy to underpay women relative to their output.
I am willing to pass laws to ensure that 50% of all Fortune 500 CEOs are women, if we also legally mandate that 50% of all imprisonments are of women, and 50% of the jobs that involve working with heavy machinery, being outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals are also occupied by women. Fair is fair. Any takers?
The 'Mancession' and the 'Sheconomy' : I would be the first to be happy if the economic success of women were solely on the basis of pure merit. For many of them, it is. But far too much has been the result of not market forces or meritocracy, but political graft and ideology-driven corruption.
In the recent recession and ongoing jobless recovery, the male unemployment rate continues to be much higher than the female unemployment rate. If this was simply due to market forces, that would be fine. However, 'feminist' groups have lobbied hard to ensure that government stimulus funds were steered to boost female employment at the expense of assistance for men. The leftist Obama administration was more than eager to comply, and a forcible transfer of wealth was enacted, even though it may not have been the best deployment of money for the economy.
Maria Shriver, a woman who has the most fortunate of lives from the vast wealth earned first by her grandfather and then by her husband, recently published 'A Woman's Nation : The Shriver Report', consisting of gloating about how women were now outperforming men economically. The entire research report is full of all the standard bogus feminist myths and flawed statistics, as thoroughly debunked here, as well as the outright sexism of statements like 'women are better managers' (imagine a man saying the reverse). Furthermore, the report reveals the typical economic illiteracy (evidenced by, among other things, the ubiquitous 'women are underpaid' myth), as well as belief that businesses exist to act as vehicles of social engineering rather than to produce a profit.
All of this bogus research and organized anti-male lobbying has been successful. As of today, the male unemployment rate is worse than the female unemployment rate by an unprecedented chasm. The 'mancession' continues as the US transitions to a 'sheconomy', and among the millions of unemployed men, some owe prohibitive levels of 'child support' despite not being the ones wanting to deprive their children of a two-parent household, landing in prison for lack of funds. Furthermore, I emphasize again that having 10-30% of the US male workforce living under an effective 70% marginal tax rate will kill their incentives for inventing new technologies or starting new companies. It is petty to debate whether the top federal income tax bracket should be 35% or 39.6%, when a slice of the workforce is under a 70% tax on marginal income. Beyond the tyranny of this, it also costs a lot of taxpayer money to jail a growing pool of unemployed men. Clearly, moving more and more men out of a tax-generating capacity and into a tax-consuming capacity is certainly going to do two-fold damage to governmental budgets. The next time you hear someone say that 'the US has the largest prison population in the world', be sure to mention that many of these men merely lost their jobs, and were divorced against their will. The women, in the meantime, are having a blast.
The Government Bubble : While public sector vs. private sector workforce distribution is not highly correlated to gender, it is when the focus is on women earning over $100,000 or more. This next chart from the Cato Institute shows that when total compensation (wages + benefits) are taken into account, the public sector has totally outstripped the private sector this decade. Has the productivity of the typical government employee risen so much more than that of the private worker, that the government employee is now paid twice as much? Are taxpayers receiving value for their money?
It goes further. The vast majority of social security taxes are paid by men, but are collected by women (due to women living 7 years longer than men on average). That is not troubling by any means, but the fact that women consume two-thirds of all US healthcare, despite most of this $2.5 Trillion annual expenditure being paid by men, is certainly worthy of debate. It may be 'natural' for women to require more healthcare, since they are the ones who give birth. But it was also 'natural' for men to finance this for only their wives, not for the broader community of women. The healthcare profession also employs an immense number of women, and not just in value-added roles such as nursing, but even in administrative and bureaucratic positions. In fact, virtually all government spending except for defense and infrastructure, from Medicare to Obamacare to welfare to public sector jobs for women to the expansion of the prison population, is either a net transfer of wealth from men to women, or a byproduct of the destruction of Marriage 1.0. In either case, 'feminism' is the culprit.
This Cato Institute chart of Federal Government spending (click to enlarge) shows how non-defense expenditures have steadily risen since 1960. The decline in defense spending, far from being a 'peace dividend' repatriated back to taxpayers, was used to fund more social programs. No one can seriously claim that the American public receives better non-defense governance in 2010 than in 1960 despite the higher price, and as discussed earlier, most of this increase is a direct or indirect result of 'feminism'. When state and local government wastage is added to this, it would appear that 20% of GDP is being spent just to make the government a substitute for the institution of Marriage, and yet still has not managed to be an effective replacement. Remember again that the earnings of men pays 70%-80% of all taxes.
The left has finally found a perfect Trojan Horse through which to expand a tyrannical state. 'Feminists' can lobby for a transfer of wealth from men to women and from private industry to the government, while knowing that calling any questioner a 'misogynist' will silence him far more effectively than their military fifth columnist and plain socialist brethren could ever silence their respective opponents. Conservatives are particularly vulnerable to such shaming language, and most conservatives will abandon their stated principles to endlessly support any and all socialism if it can be packaged as 'chivalry', the opposition to which makes one a 'misogynist'. However, there is reason to believe that tax collection in many parts of the US, such as in states like CA, NY, NJ, and MA, has reached saturation. As the optimal point has already been crossed, a rise in tax rates will cause a decrease, rather than an increase in revenue, and the increase in Federal tax rates exactly one year from today on 1/1/2011 is likely to cause another recession, which will not be so easily transferred to already-impoverished men the next time.
When men are severed from their children with no right to obstruct divorce, when they are excluded from the labor market not by market forces but rather by social engineering, and when they learn that the society they once believed in and in some cases joined the military to protect, has no respect for their aspirations, these men have no reason to sustain such a society.
The Contract Between the Sexes : A single man does not require much in order to survive. Most single men could eke out an adequate existence by working for two months out of the year. The reason that a man might work hard to earn much more than he needs for himself is to attract a wife amidst a competitive field, finance a home and a couple of children, and ultimately achieve status as a pillar of the community. Young men who exhibited high economic potential and favorable compatibility with the social fabric would impress a girl's parents effectively enough to win her hand in marriage. The man would proceed to work very hard, with the fruits of his labor going to the state, the employer, and the family. 80-90% of a man's output went to people other than himself, but he got a family and high status in return, so he was happy with the arrangement.
The Four Sirens changed this, which enabled women to pursue alpha males despite the mathematical improbability of marrying one, while totally ignoring beta males. Beta males who were told to follow a responsible, productive life of conformity found that they were swindled.
Men who excelled under the societal rules of just two decades ago are often left totally betrayed by the rules of today, and results in them refusing to sustain a society heavily dependent on their productivity and ingenuity. Women believed that they could free themselves from all their traditional obligations (only to find, amusingly, that they are unhappier now than they were then), while men would still fulfill all of their traditional obligations, particularly as bankrollers of women and protectors of women. Needless to say, despite the chivalry ground into men, eventually, they will feel that chivalry requires a level of gratitude that is not forthcoming.
To see what happens when the role of the husband and father is devalued, and the state steps in as a replacement, look no further than the African American community. In Detroit, the average home price has fallen from $98,000 as recently as 2003 to just $14,000 today. The auto industry moved jobs out of Detroit long before 2003, so the decline cannot be attributed to just industrial migration, and cities like Baltimore, Oakland, Cleveland, and Philadelphia are in scarcely better shape. For those who believe that this cannot happen in white communities, have a look at the white underclass in Britain. The lower half of the US white population is vulnerable to the same fate as the black community, and cities like Los Angeles are perilously close to 'Detroitification'.
Additionally, people seem to have forgotten that the physical safety of society, particularly of women, is entirely dependent on ratio of 'aggressor' men to 'protector' men staying below a certain critical threshold. As more men get shut out of the labor market, crime becomes an alternative. Even highly educated men who feel betrayed can lash out, and just about every shooting spree and every recent terrorist attempt in the West was by men who were educated and had good career prospects, but were unloved.
While professional men will certainly never resort to crime, what they could resort to is an unwillingness to aid a damsel in distress. More men will simply lose interest in being rescuers, and this includes policemen who may also feel mistreated by the prevailing misandry. Safety is like air - it is only noticed when it is gone. Women have a tremendous amount to lose by creating a lot of indifferent men.
Patriarchy works because it induces men and women to cooperate under their complementary strengths. 'Feminism' does not work, because it encourages immoral behavior in women, which eventually wears down even the durable chivalry of beta men, making both genders worse off. It is no secret that single motherhood is heavily subsidized, but it is less understood that single spinsterhood is also heavily subsidized through a variety of unsustainable and unreciprocated means. The default natural solution is for the misandric society to be outcompeted and displaced.
Population Displacement : So we have arrived at a society where 'feminists' feel that they are 'empowered', 'independent', and 'confident', despite being heavily dependent on taxes paid mostly by men, an unconstitutional shadow state that extracts alimony and 'child support' from men, an infrastructure maintained by men, technologies invented by men, and a level of safety that men agree to maintain. So exactly what has society received from this population of women who are the most privileged class of humans ever to have lived?
Now, let me be clear; I believe a woman should get to decide how many children she bears, or even whether or not to have any children at all. However, a childless old woman should not then be able to extract resources from the children of other women. Fair is fair, and the obligation of working-age people to support the elderly should not be socialized in order to subsidize women who chose not to reproduce.
Let us take a hypothetical example of three 20-year-old single women, one who is an urban lefto-'feminist', one who is a rural conservative, and one who is a devout Muslim. The following table charts the parallel timelines of their lives as their ages progress in tandem, with realistic estimates of typical life events. When people talk about falling birth rates in the West, they often fail to account for the additional gap caused by having children at age 23 vs. at age 33. As the table shows, a 1:1:1 ratio of three young ladies takes only 40 years to yield a 12:4:0 ratio of grandchildren. Consider, also, that we are already 20 years into this 40-year process, so each of these women are 40 years old today.
So how do we estimate the value society will ultimately receive from organizing itself in a manner that young women could choose a life of bar-hopping, shopping for $300 purses, and working as government bureaucrats to make the government a more complete husband substitute? If the sight of a pitiful 60-year-old Code Pink harpy lecturing 12 Muslim adolescents that 'gender is a social construct' seems amusing, then let us move on to the macro chart. This world map(click to enlarge) shows how many children under the age of 15 existed in the major countries of the world in 2005 (i.e. born between 1990 and 2005), in proportion to the country with the most children. Notably, Mexico and the US have the same number of children, while Pakistan and Bangladesh each have about as many as all of Western Europe. While developing countries are seeing their fertility rates converge to Western levels, the 1990-2005 births already seal certain realities. Needless to say, if we move time forward just 15 years, the proportions in this chart reflect what the proportions of adults aged 20-35 (the female reproductive years) will be per nation in the year 2025. Even the near future belongs to those who show up.
Lefto-'feminists' will be outbred and replaced very quickly, not by the conservatives that they hate, but by other cultures antithetical to 'feminism'. The state that lefto-'feminists' so admire will quickly turn on them once the state calculates that these women are neither producing new taxpayers nor new technologies, and will find a way to demote them from their present 'empowered' position of entitlement. If they thought having obligations to a husband was such an awful prospect, wait until they have obligations to the husband-substitute state.
The Fabric of Humanity Will Tear
Humans like ourselves have been around for about 100,000 years, and earlier hominids similar to us for another 1-3 million years before that. For the first 99.99% of humanoid existence, the primary purpose of our species was the same as that of every other species that ever existed - to reproduce. Females are the scarcer reproductive resource, since the number of babies that can be produced does not fall even if most men die, but it does fall for each woman that dies (humans did not live much past age 40-45 in the past, as mentioned earlier). For this reason, the human brain continued the evolutionary hardwiring of our ancestors, placing female well-being at a premium while males remain expendable. Since funneling any and all resources to women closely correlated with the survival of children, both men and women evolved to see this status quo as normal. The Female Imperative (FI) was the human imperative.
As human society progressed, priorities adjusted. For one thing, advances in technology and prosperity ensured that child mortality fell from about 50% to very low levels, so 12 births were no longer needed to produce 6 children who reach adulthood. Secondly, as humans moved away from agriculture into a knowledge-based economy, the number of children desired fell, and almost all high and middle-income countries have birth rates lower than 2 as of today, with many women producing zero children. Thirdly, it has become evident that humans are now the first species to produce something more than just offspring; humans now produce technology. As a result, the former direct correlation between funneling resources to women and the survival of children, which was true for 99.99% of our existence, now no longer is.
Yet, our hardwired brains have not adapted to this very recent transformation, and perhaps cannot adapt. Women are programmed to extract resources endlessly, and most men are programmed to oblige. For this once-valid but now obsolete biological reason, society still unquestioningly funnels the vast majority of resources to women. But instead of reaching children, this money now finds its way into consumer products geared towards women, and a shadow state designed to transfer all costs and consequences away from women. Most people consider our existing society to be normal, but they have failed to observe how diverting money to women is now obsolete. In the 21st century, there is no reason for any resource distribution, if there must be one at all, to be distributed in any manner other than 50-50.
Go to any department store or mall. At least 90% of the products present there are ones no ordinary man would consider buying. Yet, they occupy valuable shelf space, which is evidence that those products do sell in volume. Who buys them? Look around in any prosperous country, and we see products geared towards women, paid for by money that society diverted to women. From department store products, to the proliferation of take-out restaurants, to mortgage interest, to a court system rigged to subsidize female hypergamy, all represent the end product of resources funneled to women, for a function women have greatly scaled back. This is the greatest resource misallocation ever, and such malinvestment always results in a correction as the bubble pops.
This is not to suggest that we should go back to birth rates of 12, for that is neither desirable nor necessary. The bigger picture here is that a major aspect of the human psyche is quite obsolete, with men and women both culpable. When this situation corrects, it will be the most disruptive event humanity has ever faced. Some call this a variant of the 'Technological Singularity', which will happen many decades later than 2020, but even prominent thinkers steer clear of any mention of the obvious correction in gender-tilted resource flows that will occur.
The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation
We earlier examined how the Four Sirens of Feminism unexpectedly combined and provided women with choices they never could have dreamed of before. Some women made positive contributions to society, but quite a few let misandry and unrestrained greed consume them, and have caused the disastrous situation we presently see. Technology always causes disruption in the status quo, always creating new winners and losers with each wave. In centuries past, Gloria Steinem would be a governess and Mystery would be a court jester.
The title of this article is not the 'Misandry Crisis' or even 'The War on Misandry'. It is 'The Misandry Bubble', because the forces that will ensure the demise of the present mistreatment of men are already on the horizon. So allow me to introduce the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation as a coalescence of many of the forces we have discussed, which will shred the present, unsustainable hierarchal order by 2020 :
1) Game : Learning the truth about how the female mind works is a precious and transcendant body of knowledge for any man. Whether he uses it to become a fully immersed pick-up artist, to create a soulmate bond in a lifelong monogamous marriage, or even to engage in only infrequent yet efficient trysts with women, a man is free from the crushing burdens that uninitiated beta men are capitulating under.
When a man learns that there is no reason for him to buy a $50,000 car, $20,000 ring, $50,000 bridezilla festival, overpriced house contrary to any logical financial analysis, or a divorce lawyer to save him from ruin even though he was the victim of spousal abuse, there is no greater feeling of liberation and jubilation, equating to a windfall of $2 Million for all objective and subjective purposes. When a man realizes that reducing his income by half will now have little detriment to his sexual prospects, he can downsize to an easier job with a shorter commute and lower stress. When a man learns that appeasing a woman is the exact opposite of what he should be doing during the process of romancing and seducing her, that entire humiliating gauntlet of rituals can be jettisoned.
The ecstasy of two or even three concurrent relationships with women of substantially above average beauty are quite attainable to a man who has scaled the summit, which further deprives the hapless betas (again, male attractiveness to women is zero-sum in a way that female attractiveness to men is not). Thus, while 80% of men have no intellectual capacity to grasp and master Game, if the number of solid practitioners even begins to approach 20%, multiple parasitic beasts, from female moochers to the tax-swilling state to the corrupt real-estate and divorce lawyer industries, can be effectively starved.
2) Adult Entertainment Technologies of 2020 : What of the 80% of men who cannot conceptualize or master the core skills of Game? Won't they be condemned to live a life of frustration, humiliation, and near-slavery as second class citizens? Thankfully, these poor souls will experience a satisfactory release through technology, just like women did through technologies such as contraceptive pills, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners.
For a number of reasons, Internet pornography is substantially more addictive to the male brain than the VHS cassette or 'Skinimax' content of the 1990s. When yet another generation of technology diffuses into the market, the implications will be profound enough to tear the current sexual market asunder.
This site has written in the past about how haptic, motion sensing, and graphical technologies would elevate video games to the premier form of entertainment by 2012. 3-D/holographic images with haptic interfaces and sufficient AI will make rudimentary 'virtual sex' a technology available to many men well before 2020, but by 2020 we will see this cross certain thresholds that lead to a dramatic market impact far greater than contraceptive pills and Internet pornography combined. A substantial portion of the male population will drift into addiction to virtual sex without even realizing it.
For those (mostly women) who claim that the VR sex of 2020 would not be a sufficient substitute for the real thing, that drawback is more than superceded by the inescapable fact that the virtual woman would be made to be a 10/10+ in appearance, while the real women that the typical beta male user has access to would be in the 4-7 range. Real 10 > VR 10 > Real 7, making irrelevant the claim that a virtual 10 is not as good as a real 10 (under 1% of all women), when the virtual 10 is really competing with the majority of women who are 7s and lower. Women are unaware how vastly different the male reaction is to a 10 relative to a 7, let alone to women of even lower scores. As single men arrive home from work on Friday evening, they will simply default into their VR immersion, giving a whole new meaning to the concept of 'beta testing'. These sequestered men will be conspicuously absent from the bars and nightclubs that were the former venues of expenditure and frustration, causing many establishments to go out of business. The brains of these men will warp to the extent that they can no longer muster any libido for the majority of real women. This will cause a massive devaluation in the sexual market value of most women, resulting in 8s being treated like 5s, and 35-year-old women unable to attract the interest of even 55-year-old men. The Wile E. Coyote moment for women will move a few years ahead, and the alphas with Game competence will find an even easier field of desperate women to enjoy.
Another technology making advancements in Japan is that of lifelike female robots. I do not believe that 'sexbots' will be practical or economical relative to software/gaming-derived solutions, simply because such a robot is not competitive with VR on cost, privacy, versatility, and upgradeability.
Some 'feminists' are not blind to the cataclysmic sexual devaluation that women will experience when such technologies reach the market, and are already moving to seek bans. Such bans will not be possible, of course, as VR sex technologies are inseparable from broader video game and home theater technologies. Their attempts to lobby for such bans will be instructive, however.
Another positive ramification of advanced adult entertainment technologies is that women will have to sharpen the sole remaining attribute which technology cannot substitute - the capacity to make a man feel loved. Modern women will be forced to reacquaint themselves with this ancient concept in order to generate a competitive advantage. This necessity could lead to a movement of pragmatic women conducting a wholesale repudiation of misandry masquerading as 'feminism' that has created this state of affairs, and thus will be the jolt that benefits both men and women.
3) Globalization : The Third Horseman is a vast subject that contains many subtopics. The common theme is that market forces across the world eventually find a way around legislative fences constructed in any one country :
a) Islam : Aside from the higher birthrates of Muslims living in the same Western cities that 'feminists' reside in, an Achilles heel of leftists in general and misandrists in particular is their unwillingess to confront other cultures that actually do place restrictions on women. In Britain, Islamic courts are now in operation, deciding cases through Sharia principles. British divorce laws are even more misandric than US divorce laws, and so many British men, in desperation, are turning to Sharia courts in order to avoid the ruin that British law would inflict on them. The Islamic courts are more than happy to accomodate these men, and 'feminists' dare not protest too loudly. By driving British men to Sharia courts, misandry is beautifully self-defeating. The irony is that the group that was our enemy in the crisis of the prior decade are now de-facto allies in the crisis of this decade. I do not say this simply because I am a Muslim myself.
b) Expatriation : While America continues to attract the greatest merit and volume of (legal) immigrants, almost every American man who relocates to Asia or Latin America gives a glowing testimonial about the quality of his new life. A man who leaves to a more male-friendly country and marries a local woman is effectively cutting off a total of three parasites in the US - the state that received his taxes, the potential wife who would take his livelihood, and the industries he is required to spend money on (wedding, diamond, real estate, divorce attorney). Furthermore, this action also shrinks the number of available men remaining in America. The misandrists who project their pathology outward by calling such men 'misogynists' are curiously troubled that these same men are leaving the US. Shouldn't 'feminists' be happy if 'misogynists' are leaving? We thus see yet another example of 'feminists' seeking to steal from men while not providing them any benefit in return.
The more unfair a place becomes, the more we see talented people go elsewhere. When word of US divorce laws becomes common in India and China, this might even deter some future taxpayers from immigrating to America, which is yet another reason the government is losing money to misandry.
c) Medical Tourism : The sum total of donor eggs + IVF + surrogacy costs $150,000 or more in the US, but can be done in some countries for just $20,000 at top-quality clinics that are building a strong track record. While most customers of foreign fertility clinics are couples, there have been quite a few single men opting to create their own biological babies this way. While this avenue is not for everyone, the ability to have a child for $20,000 (and even two children in parallel with two different surrogates in a two-for-one bundle deal for $35,000) now exists. The poor surrogate mother in India or the Philippines earns more than she could earn in 10 years in her prior vocation of construction or housecleaning. It is a win-win for everyone involved, except for the Western woman who was priced out of the market for marriage to this man.
Medical tourism also prices the US healthcare system out of contention for certain procedures, and the US healthcare system employs a large number of women, particularly in administrative and bureaucratic roles that pay them over twice what they could make in the private sector. Such women will experience what male manufacturing workers did a generation earlier, despite the increasinglly expensive government bubble that has kept these women's inflated salaries safe for so long.
So as we can see, the forces of globalization are far bigger than those propping up the current lop-sided status quo.
4) Male Economic Disengagement and Resultant Tax-Base Erosion : Earlier passages have highlighted how even the most stridently egomaniacal 'feminist' is heavily dependent on male endeavors. I will repeat again that there will never, ever be a successful human society where men have no incentive to aspire to the full maximum of their productive and entrepreneurial capabilities.
The contract between the sexes has been broken in urban America (although is still in some effect in rural America). The 'progressive' income tax scale in the US was levied under the assumption that men who could earn 10 times more than they needed for themselves would always do so, for their families. A man with no such familial aspirations may choose an easier job at lower pay, costing the state more than he costs himself. Less tax revenue not just means fewer subsidies for single mothers and government jobs for women, but less money for law enforcement. Less tax revenue also means fewer police officers, and fewer court resources through which to imprison men. The 'feminist' hypergamous utopia is not self-financing, but is precariously dependent on every beta man working at his full capacity, without which the government bubble, inseparable from the misandry bubble, collapses. Misandry is thus mathematically impossible to finance for any extended period of time. A state with a small government is far more sustainable than a state seeking an ever-expanding government, which then cannot be financed, and descends into a mass of contradictions that is the exact opposite of what the statists intended. See the gangster capitalism that dominates contemporary Russia.
These Four Horsemen will all converge at the end of this decade to transfer the costs of misandry from men onto women, and on 1/1/2020, we will assess how the misandry bubble popped and the fallout that women are suffering under for having made the mistake of letting 'feminists' control their destiny (update : 1/1/2020 article here). Note that I did not list the emergence of any Men's Rights Movement as one of the Four Horsemen, as this is unlikely to happen for aforementioned reasons.
For those who dispute the Four Horsemen (I'd like to see their track record of predictions to compare against my own), women had their Four Sirens, and now the pendulum has to swing at the same amplitude in the other direction. Keep the Four Horsemen in mind throughout this decade, and remember what you read here on the first day of 2010.
Who Should Care?
As we leave a decade where the prime threat to US safety and prosperity was Islamic terrorism and enter a decade where the prime threat is misandry, anyone concerned with any of the following topics should take heed :
- Anyone with a son, brother, nephew, or mentee entering marriage, particularly without the partial protection of a pre-nuptial agreement. As described earlier, he can be ruined, separated from his children, and jailed in a manner few would suspect could happen in any advanced democracy. The suicide rate of divorced men is shockingly high.
- Anyone who agrees that a civilization where most adults are part of two-parent families will always outcompete and displace a civilization where a large portion of adults are not leading two-parent families.
- Anyone with minor grandchildren, nieces and nephews, or great-grandchildren. The divorce laws incentivize using children as pawns during divorce, and no serious thinker can dispute the trouble that haunts the children of divorce for years thereafter. 'Feminists' concoct bogus research about the role of the father being superfluous, but observation of real-world examples proves otherwise.
- Anyone who owns an expensive home in a community of families. The growing aversion of men for marriage will create fewer new families, and thus fewer buyers for those homes. I remind everyone that if they have 20% equity in their home and an 80% mortgage, even a 20% decline in home prices is a 100% decline in your equity, which might be all of your net worth. Detroit, the first major US city to see a loss of beta male employment prospects, saw the average home price drop from $98,000 as recently as 2003 to just $14,000 today. A decline smaller than this would devastate the net worth of remaining home owners, and can happen in any community of single-family homes. If you own a home, your net worth is inseparably tied to the formation and preservation of two-parent families.
- Anyone concerned about rising crime. 72% of African American children are born to single mothers, and the number among white children is approaching 30%. Furthermore, the 'mancession' will eventually ensure that the only means of survival for many men is to form gangs and take valuables by force. Unloved men, who in the past would have been paired with wives, are easy for both gangs and terrorist organizations to recruit.
- Anyone concerned about the widening federal and state budget shortfalls and medicare/healthcare costs, for which the state continues to insist on raising taxes rather than cut spending. Fewer men choosing to work the long hours needed to earn high incomes will break the model of the top 10% paying 75% of taxes, and more men being jailed for alimony arrears, not being good enough in bed, or defending himself from spousal violence will drain tax coffers. It costs $60,000 a year to maintain a prisoner.
- Anyone who thinks the US Constitution is a valuable document. 'Innocent until proven guilty' does not apply in many areas of feminist-heavy law. The previously discussed shadow state is using 'feminism' to conduct all sorts of horrible tyranny against innocent men, which greatly compromises America's ability to claim that it is still the land of the free.
- Anyone concerned about national security. As more men feel that this society is betraying him, fewer will risk their lives in the military only to find that divorce lawyers have been persuading his wife to leave the marriage while he is deployed. Coming home from one battlefield only to be inserted in another is a shameful betrayal of our finest young men. Furthermore, I have already mentioned how British men are turning to Islamic courts in the hopes avoiding ruin at the hands of British misandrist laws. Quite a few men may conclude that Islam offers them more than their native society that has turned against their gender, and will act towards self-preservation.
- Any woman who is appalled by the treatment of any woman who deviates from 'feminist' doctrine, and who is troubled by the words and actions of self-proclaimed 'feminists' today. If you believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, you should worry about what 'feminists' are courting by kicking a friendly dog too many times.
- Lastly, anyone with a young daughter or sister, who is about to enter a world where it is much harder for all but the most beautiful women to marry, where the costs of crazed 'feminism' are soon going to be transferred away from men and onto women, even if she had no interest in this doctrine of hate. As stated in the Executive Summary at the start, 'feminists' are leading average women into the abyss.
I could list even more reasons to care, but the point is clear. The biggest challenge of the decade is summarized before us.
Update (7/1/2012) : On this day, July 1, 2012, exactly 25% of the decade described in this article has passed. I did not include a poll on the original launch date of 1/1/2010, as the concepts described here were too radical for the majority of readers. But now that these ideas have become more mainstream, I can include a simple poll on the subject of whether we are indeed in a Misandry Bubble (poll closed after 60 days).
Conclusion
I am just an observer, and will not become an activist of any sort, although, as described earlier, being an 'inactivist' is also powerful. As a Futurist, I have to predict things before they become obvious to everyone else. Regular readers know of this website's track record of predictions being accurate, and heed my words when I say that the further inflation and subsequent precipitous deflation of the misandry bubble will define the next American decade. So here, on the first day of the '201x' decade, I am unveiling the article that will spawn a thousand other articles.
As mentioned at the top, what you have just finished reading is the equivalent of someone in 1997 predicting the entire War on Terror in vivid detail. The level of detail I have provided about the collapse of the Misandry Bubble will unfold with comparable accuracy as when my co-blogger predicted the real estate bubble two years beforehand, and the exact level the stock market would bottom at, 6 months before the fact. Similarly, misandry is the premier cultural bubble of this age.
This website has predicted that the US will still be the only superpower in 2030, and while we are not willing to rescind that prediction, I will introduce a caveat that US vitality by 2030 is contingent on a satisfactory and orderly unwinding of the Misandry Bubble. It remains to be seen which society can create economic prosperity while still making sure both genders are treated well, and the US is currently not on the right path in this regard. For this reason, I am less confident about a smooth deflation of the Misandry Bubble. Deflate it will, but it could be a turbulent hurricane. Only rural America can guide the rest of the nation into a more peaceful transition. Britain, however, may be beyond rescue.
I want to extend my thanks to Instapundit, Dr. Helen, Kim du Toit, The Spearhead, RooshV, and many others for their support of this article.
Required Reading :
Democrats and Republicans Unite to Form Misandry Party
The Sixteen Commandments of Game
The Medicalization of Maleness
The Feminist War on Everything Civilized
Feminist Gulag : No Prosecution Necessary
Decivilizing : Human Nature Unleashed
Note on Comments : As Typepad only allows 100 comments per page, here is a direct link to page nine, where you can comment.
Just because I linked to a particular blog does NOT mean that I endorse all of the other views of that author. Are 'feminists' all willing to be responsible for all of the extremism that any other feminist utters (note that I have provided links to 'feminists' openly calling for slavery, castration, and murder of men without proving him guilty of anything)? Also, you will see Pavlovian use of the word 'misogyny' dozens upon dozens of times, so remember what I wrote about the importance of not taking that at face value, as it is merely a manifestation of projected misandry, as well as a defense mechanism to avoid taking responsibility for genuine wrongdoings of 'feminists'.
Glenn,
There are several faulty assumptions in your comment, but the most glaring is the notion that misandry and misogyny are equally prevalent.
Misandry is vastly more common than misogyny, since there are many laws that are outright misandric, but none that are misogynistic. Also, for every man who is a misogynist, there are thousands who are the opposite - pedestalizers, as in those who will excuse a woman for behavior a man will not be excused for.
There are no comparable group of women who defend men from misandry.
Your entire comment seems to go out of its way to avoid seeing how so many laws are extremely anti-male, despite the fact that the article details them.
How many times have we all individually stated in our lives..."I hate women!", or "I hate men!", simply because the focus of our affection has dumped us?
I have never heard a man say that. Again, you are attempting to make equitable two things are are incomparably different in their prevalance.
Misandry is real. Misogyny is imaginary in the West.
Posted by: The Futurist | April 17, 2012 at 07:09 PM
The Futurist,
I should think that misandry and misogyny are equally prevalent, your opinion is not the only opinion worth stating, or worth looking at.
You wrote your reply as if you were sitting in a expert's chair...but you are not. Your statement that misogyny does not exist in the West is such a glaring flaw on your part that I fear you are not writing from a open mind, but one firmly closed against the evidence that it does so! You clearly display irrational thinking.
Both misandry and misogyny are umbrella terms to denote attack, suppression, exploitation upon 'gender' only. They are not of a personal nature, but of a social one. Yet, in your polemic piece and responses to comments, you seem to show a failure on your part of your own misogyny, and I suspect you do so deliberately! You fail to see that you can only respond to misandry with misogyny! Which is equivalent to bringing a gun to a gunfight.
The only true objective stance (understanding) to be taken is to perceive that both terms denote polarity towards opposite gender.
You state, "...there are many laws that are outright misandric..." I fail to see this to be the case. By your statement, you are saying that those laws to which you pertain to be misandric were specifically written with a targeted hate of the male gender. That is utterly preposterous, and unprovable! I await your evidence (not self-evidence) to counterclaim my rebuttal. For your claim to stand and be accepted by any reasonable thinking discernment, you have to prove that the debaters and the writers of the laws specifically targeted 'hate' towards the male gender.
I could accept that there are laws that are misandric-like, but are not in themselves misandritic or misogynistic. Laws do not have 'gender', but subject both genders to the principals they contain.
That you claim for yourself having never heard another man generalise dislike to 'all' women, means absolutley nothing! It is a redundant statement...an off-the-cuff aside to no one in particular. Yet you state it as if it carrys the weight and certitude of fact that no man ever states such a thing...I'm sorry but they do.
I have a colleague at work whom is going through a messy divorce. He generalises a dislike of all women everyday, not just to me, but to other colleagues. "Women are all the same!" he says, echoing a similar derogatory sentiment stated by some women that "All men are the same!" Of course, neither are.
By the way, pedestalism is not the fault of gender, but an obsequious and sychophantic display of uncontrollable idealism deriving from an unconscious sense of unworthiness...it's not just a man thing, women suffer from it, too.
Posted by: Glenn | April 18, 2012 at 05:52 AM
Glenn,
Your statements are absurd. I have pointed out many examples of laws that are overtly rigged against men, while no such laws exist against women. Also, a woman can say things about men that men cannot say about women.
Just one of many examples is VAWA - the Violence Against Women Act. It openly states that violence against women is a worse crime than violence against men or children, and anyone who attacks a woman faces much more severe penalties than anyone who does the same to a man.
And another example is that there are tons of men who attack a man who says something negative about women, but no women who attacks a woman who does the same for men.
Welcome to reality. Misandry is real, misogyny is imaginary.
Posted by: The Futurist | April 19, 2012 at 09:14 PM
Here is some Canadian justice. A man was sent to because of the following; One evening he was sit quietly and very drunk. His girl friend's 4 year old girl by an other man, unzipped his trousers and procedder to give him a hand job. He got 4 years in jail. No mention of where the child learned this behavior. No mention of the mother's part in this. After all this is BC, our most politicly correct province.
Posted by: alex camron | June 14, 2012 at 02:31 PM
Beth, I commend you...I'm afraid women are NOT, let me repeat that women are NOT going to get this, and that its going to be very catastrophic, because they don't even listen to the facts a lot, I hear one of like two or so responses from women when this is brought up, leading me to think they're just parroting programmed responses. One is,"men and women are both abusers", another is, "you hate women don't you?", and the third is "quit whining"...and and the close. Even when you tell them that if they have any children who are boys, they will have a good chance of having false accusations made against them and will likely have everything taken from them by the system. All I can say is the female ear on average cannot seem to hear these facts. The few who can don't seem to take it seriously because it doesn't affect them as women, so they just don't care.
Posted by: S.Hunkler | June 25, 2012 at 10:15 AM
Beth,
As a man, I have to commend you. I had to rewrite this because the first time I wrote it, I was in a hurry, and I messed it up...but as I was saying, I don't know if you've noticed, but women in general, and not all obviously, because you're on top of it, but in general they have a HUGE blind spot to this, and I think it stems from the fact they have been told that they are the victims all their lives, not men, so it couldn't POSSIBLY be the other way around. Now, it seems, they just think anything they do, even lie, is justified because men are just scum. Its the old machiavelli attitude of the ends justifies the means, mixed with complete hubris. As a gender they have worked so hard to gain so much, and now they are abusing it, as they say, pride cometh before a great fall, so they may lose it all if this creates a backlash movement from men who are sick of being raked over the coals with lies. When I speak to women about this, I get one of three responses from women who disagree, which is very telling, and I think may just be the parroting of programmed responses. They don't address the facts, they just say to you,"oh you hate women, don't you", or,"both men and women are abusive", which has nothing to do with the topic of false allegations, or they say,"quit your whining".
So keep up the good work, shining light on this topic. Thank you, so much!
Posted by: S.Hunkler | June 25, 2012 at 10:40 AM
This is very well written, and I would agree on some, if not most of the major points it relies upon. However, there is one problem--as I have started looking at the HBD/Manosphere/Game sites, I notice--the vast majority of those reading/commenting think of themselves as "alpha" males. Is this a problem?
Posted by: Andy | July 02, 2012 at 06:04 AM
Andy,
It is not a problem, because of those blogs which are savvy to Game, the men writing them actually are 'alpha', meaning they are more attractive than 80-90% of men. If the knowledge they are imparting is helping other men learn, that is a positive.
Comment sections can get tedious, but you have to find which sites have a commentariat you like (quite often, the commentariat are very different from the host, like in The Spearhead, where the host is one of the nicest, most professional, and most polite people, but a good number of commenters are deranged, jealous, and very loserish).
Posted by: The Futurist | July 02, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Cham,"I'll defend Suze Orman. She's a faiancnil adviser, not a family relationship manager."Then tell her to stop acting like one. I have heard her on numerous ocassions telling women who call in to leave a man and get a divorce stat. She doesn't know the circumstances or what may be going on. If a woman takes the family money to shop and overspends on credit cards, she coos sympthetically, "girlfriend, you are trying to fill yourself with shopping. Are you upset at your husband, life etc.?" A man is expected to be responsible for his debt no matter what. I have heard Orman on very few ocassions tell a man to watch out for a girlfriend or mother who overspends his money, but it is rare. She talks a good game about "power" for women but in reality she sees them as helpless, irresponsible and unable to separate emotional from faiancnil decisions.
Posted by: Puji | July 04, 2012 at 11:23 PM
NOW and the feminist monvemet have always been overrated; female equality has been the result of a culture that evolved with a free market economic system, and the resulting technical advancement and division of labor. This is also true of other advances, such as the Enlightenment, which was really the result of the evolution of Anglo-Saxon culture in a free market/commerce based society. The Enlightenment was not driven by intellectuals, except for the the failed French version.
Posted by: Neiglyn | July 05, 2012 at 03:53 AM
This why no man should ever marry woihtut having a prenup.For some reason people shy away from prenups because they feel like they take the romance out of the marriage. But the bottom line is that prenups just override the the laws that dictate how the assets are distributed if you decide to split the sheets in the absence of one. You are just agreeing to the State's formula. Hardly anyone actually understands those laws when they go into a marriage.Not having a prenup is exactly the same as not having a will. Without a will, you are simply agreeing the you want your assets distributed according the the State's formula upon your death.Virtually everyone has a will, but hardly anyone has a prenup, including myself; but I got married when I was young and idealistic.I keep trying to get up the nerve to ask my wife for a post-nup, but so far I have been a big chicken.
Posted by: Isela | July 06, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Perhaps reality has a point seerwhome after all. Maybe many women are nothing more than hookers, giving it up for and to the hubby of the highest bid.I know I'd never marry a virgin. I would definitely need to view and test drive that stuff first. If it ain't any good enough, throw it back. And now, with the way the feminist movement is going on about things, I feel free to toss in they need to be good at oral sex as well. And with absolutely no guilt feelings, or male pig feelings about it. Turnabout is fair play. It ain't men bringing it on. It's them. I don't believe I'll every feel guilty of wham, bam, thank you ma'am ever again.
Posted by: Goretti | July 07, 2012 at 11:19 PM
What drivel.... You manipulate statistics, misconstrue history, all to support your viewpoint. You're no better than the feminists you attack. The root of the matter is that throughout history you have sermonizing buffoons claiming the end of the world has arrived because of such and such inequality or sacrilege, when in reality life carries on. The courts in most western countries (the US is occasionally an exception due to its ridiculous elected judges and partisan supreme court) have very fair judiciaries, and individual discussion in a business setting is rarely biased.
On a personal level, I feel that I have heard more anti-female sentiments than anti-male, but that could well be because I'm more attuned to the former. Regardless, almost every 'fact' you stated here reeks of anti-female bias, and revisionist views on history.
I have to admit to only making it about halfway through your piece, but I doubt it improved very much. You should remember to apply the same critical view to your own work as you do to others.
Posted by: Adam Martin | July 11, 2012 at 07:54 PM
Adam Martin,
All the statistics are cited from reputed sources. You just don't like unpleasant truths.
Check out the poll. The readership agrees with the article by a landslide margin.
Misogyny is imaginary. Misandry is real.
Posted by: The Futurist | July 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM
It's true, it's all true.
I am one of those evil lesbian feminist misandrists and we have been plotting as a hive mind collective for several years now, the subjugation and elimination of all of the MALE gender for the benefit of the great mother earth our ultimate objective!
We forsee our lesbian female paradise to be a reality even earlier than you predict - 2018 to be exact. Or is it earlier? Maybe I just want to keep you on your toes, not knowing exactly when or exactly how the great bloody revolution will come, letting you instead toss and turn endlessly through sleepless nights, the better to wear down your resistance for when our mighty uprising comes into being!
We will first make of all beta men dysfunctional eunuchs, good only for rubbing our feet and doing the household chores.
The alpha men we will put to hard physical labour, occasionally choosing one with which to breed - not sexually of course, instead simply milking him of his seed for artificial insemination, leaving him unsatisfied and forced to turn to other men for fulfillment!
All existing male children will be raised as female, with the necessary hormones and surgeries to complete this.
Meanwhile, our sciences are so advanced that we can engineer all future children to be female, thereby ridding the earth of the pestilence known as man for good! Finally, the great mother earth will be able to breathe freely!!!
We have these plans in place and they are developing at a rapid rate, even more rapidly than we had dared first believe. So many of us have ensnared rich men from whom we ruthlessly take money, adding it to our collective kitty towards the great cause whilst feigning that we are going "shopping". So far, foolproof.
But you, dear Futurist, what of you...? Well, your prophetic visions have alerted us to the fact that it is dangerous to allow any man to run around thinking his own thoughts and speaking his own mind. Whilst there is literally nothing you can do to stop the coming revolution, still we have set our sights on you first... we are coming for you... we are coming for you first. We want to be there when your first hopeless screams rend the air as you witness the end of mankind and the rise of the gynocratic age! Don't sleep... don't ever sleep!!!
Posted by: Lesbian Feminist Hive Mind | August 07, 2012 at 04:29 PM
You have put too much thought into all of this. It isn't some pissing contest over who has been/is oppressed the most. Life is difficult for different people in different ways. You seem to be suggesting that there is only space for one type of 'victim'. The presence of misandry does not negate other forms of discrimination against women, various ethnic groups, economic classes e.t.c.
Posted by: Clovis | August 17, 2012 at 03:37 PM
The Misandry Bubble is being critiqued here;
http://matingmarket.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/why-has-the-seduction-community-been-overrun-by-the-mens-rights-movement/
Posted by: Ms. Ann Drew Bubble | August 21, 2012 at 04:21 PM
"For those misandrists who say 'good riddance' with great haste, remember that blogging can still be done from overseas, and your policy of making the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes that your utopia requires depends on that top 1% agreeing to not take their brains and abscond from Western shores."
If they retain American citizenship, (and who wouldn't considering the freedom that comes with being a US passport holder, shit we don't even need visas for 6 month stays in the world's best countries), then they still have to pay taxes to the US.
Posted by: Ms. Ann Drew Bubble | August 21, 2012 at 04:25 PM
"Lastly, anyone with a young daughter or sister, who is about to enter a world where it is much harder for all but the most beautiful women to marry"
Are you kidding me? Have you seen the land whales that marry each other these days? You need to amend that to, "...who is about to enter a world where it is much harder for all but the most beautiful women to marry THE MOST HANDSOME AND WEALTHY MEN."
The average and below average folks have never had an easier time finding each other, dude.
Posted by: Ms. Ann Drew Bubble | August 21, 2012 at 04:41 PM
Ms. Andrew Bubble,
Your comments are incoherent and poorly formed.
And your so-called 'critique' of The Misandry Bubble was pathetic. You pick about 2 sentences out of the entire article (ignoring the other 99.9% of it), and even that you argue against strawmen that have not been said or even implied.
If you think that is a 'critique', that is, again, pathetic on your part.
For one thing, you think feminism is 'great' without even being aware that it has passed laws that have sent thousands of innocent men to jail, without due process or compliance with the US Constitution.
You know very little about the concepts of Men's Rights OR Seduction.
Furthermore, you seem to think US citizenship is the only one that enables '6 month visits to many countries'. A lot of citizenships enable the same. Get a clue.
Posted by: The Futurist | August 24, 2012 at 11:05 PM
I'm amazed at this article, it covers a lot in a *relatively* concise and very informative treatment!
As an economic analysis, the bubble comparison is brilliant.
FTR, I've only been reading any serious MRAs for a week or so now.
One thing I've been saying for a couple years about "Women's Liberation" as far as entering the workplace, amounts to workload. If women wanted to share the same workload equally with men, that would be wonderful. A fifty-hour workweek could be cut to twenty-five each, leaving much comfort and satisfaction for both -- of course, for couples who wanted to do that.
But entering the workforce for the same workload as the male is not a cooperative effort. It is competitive in that if exhaustively implemented it would fully double the labor pool while maintaining the same number of consumers in any environment, therefore halving the value of labor for everybody. The only context where it could be more productive for the couple would be if they were themselves employers, and the more they employed themselves the more that would be true, but at the expense of doubling everyone else's workload with no gain in real value.
I am inclined to understand that your political persuasion operates along the mainstream left-right political continuum (which I believe is in itself an insidious elitist power grab for the sake of molding the debate in arbitrary pseudobinary or at best one-dimensional terms), and that your own position along such is proudly dextrous.
I was able to take this with a grain of salt, but many intelligent leftist readers I know, who could be persuaded along the angle of this thesis, will jump at any opportunity to dismiss this piece on purely popular political grounds. Tne recommendation I have for future compositions is to try to minimize anything that isn't directly relevant to this. "Socialism" means so many things to so many people that just uttering it is its own can of worms all over the place. (Which is why 'air quoting' 'feminism' helps a ton, since it means everything from 'equality under the law' through androgynism to matriarchalism!) One as well-thought and written as you should be able to cultivate this to greater precision.
And for someone as good at recognizing sinister and oppressive agendas, it's hard for me to believe that you seem to consider the War on Terror a somehow worthwhile or necessary pursuit, when I see it as a massive transfer of wealth and power from the USAmerican people as well as an imposition of the dollar by force onto the oil trade when, for all we know, in a free market (which libs or cons wouldn't know one if it bit them in this ass which, incidentally, it does every time they meddle with it) oil would be nothing but a dinosaur. (Even though it kind of IS like Soylent Dinosaur Fuel). Anyway that last one is off topic so feel free to e-mail me. Just an example of things that might alienate otherwise receptive converts!
Thanks again for a great article!
Posted by: Ian | September 20, 2012 at 06:35 PM
Manhood Academy has been saying this for ages. It looks like the experts are finally catching up: www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5OdQGbVNa4
Posted by: Brocklee802 | September 27, 2012 at 10:26 AM
This article has changed my life. Thank you.
I've always had this sickening sensation of being emasculated by modern society, and feeling as though my natural male tendencies were somehow "wrong". This explains everything perfectly.
I am a 25 year old male who has never even been in a relationship, and of course every woman I meet would describe me as one of the nice guys. I have been such a schmuck all this time!
Well, I am off to attempt learning the Venusian Arts. I've ordered "The Game" by Neil Strauss, and hope to make some progress towards evening this divide in which there seems to be double standards for every aspect of life now.
Call me a misogynist; I simply don't care anymore. I am fed up with trying to find my soul-mate in a distorted society. I hope we can achieve true equality, rather than what is labeled as equality but is most certainly not.
Posted by: TJL | October 05, 2012 at 08:12 PM
I read this article and have to agree with everything. The one thing I have to disagree with is the comment that suggested moving to Australia to get away from the misandry in the US/Canada. As an Australian male I can only suggest that you don't as our system is just as bad as the US/Canada, only about ten years behind you.
2011 saw the introduction to the Domestic Violence Against Women & Children Act that saw basically the same laws as the VAWA laws brought into Australia and ignored 30% of victims of DV: men. With the act there now only needs to be a 'fear' by the woman of the man and that's enough to remove him from ever seeing his children without trial. They also made it so it's not a crime for a woman to make false accusations of DV against a man. Oh, and our 'Act' was co-written by a woman who actively participates in SCUM, kind of like having a white-supremist helping to write immigration policy.
We're also about 10 years behind collapsing because our debt levels haven't reached the point of collapse that the US has. We've been riding high on the resource boom that's kept our debt levels to manageable (although the government is doing it's best to spend like it's going out of fashion).
Our Universities still treat men like they're rapists just waiting for opportunity, our airlines have policies that assume all men are pedophiles just waiting for opportunity and our family law when it comes to custody could easily rival the US or Canada for equality, or lack thereof.
It's possible that our aging population will present problems, but we've had very high immigration for many decades which may lessen the impact of the aging problem.
There's another problem that Australia has that I don't know if the US has, which is non-mandated, but socially coerced preference for hiring females over males. One only needs to look at many well-paid government departments to see over 90% women working there. The feminist groups still argue that "the top positions are more than 75% male", but looking at the top positions one only needs to realize most of them are over 50 years old and will be retiring in the next few decades making the clear successors their current subordinates: their mostly female staff.
The biggest problem though lies in the private sectors like Engineering where big companies, the ones that have mostly male staff over 50 years old, are hiring female graduates only to try to 'balance the numbers' only to have the women leaving for more family friendly companies when they start having children, leaving the companies to have to train up replacements. This wouldn't be such a problem except that by only hiring female engineering graduates they leave male graduates either going for leftover jobs in smaller companies, sometimes in rural areas (in Australia a rural area could be five hours drive from the nearest city) for not a lot of money or not able to work and get experience in his field of study, forcing him to find an alternate vocation.
They are trying to do little things to try to slow down the drain (recently they made it so that single mothers will get less money once their youngest child turns eight years old to encourage them to get back to work) but they're facing backlash from every women's group there is. Fancy a government thinking they could expect a woman to return to work once her child is school full time!
In Australia the suicide rate is of roughly the same proportion as the US is, only instead of our government spending any real money on it ($800k promised to mens issues in 2012 Federal budget) the government led by our female Prime Minister proudly announced that the Australian government would be committing $320 million dollars to other small island countries to help women in those countries develop their careers. That's right, the CAREERS of women who aren't even citizens of Australia are worth more than the men who ARE citizens!
So, in summarizing, so sorry for the long post, but I feel Australia and the US/Canada have much in common with regards to their situations and attitudes, but Australia is ten years behind with everything and may be able to ride it through while other countries are falling. Our country has a poor history of seeing what other countries do wrong and seem to repeat those mistakes with the belief that it somehow will work better for us.
P.S. This doesn't really fit into this message, but I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are on what you think might happen if a major World War were to break out and men (including those who have been disenfranchised with the system that treats them like dogs) will be expected to 'man up' and go to war.
Personally I see this being a major shortcoming in our country's foresight because how many men are going to want to put their lives on the line to defend a country that not only has a history of treating them like s**t, but also of treating returned servicemen like s**t? This has certainly been the case in last few wars.
Posted by: AussieRealist | October 06, 2012 at 04:59 AM
This is the best article that I heave read in a long time....you are a STAR!....I am getting ready to leave North America also....fuck the Feminazi losers...let them starve!
Posted by: Mark | October 26, 2012 at 02:39 PM
I spent the entire day reading this post - hunting the elephant. I'm sure you've heard the expression about "ignoring the elephant in the room." No elephant. While I appreciate your labors and envy your energy and writing skills and both agree with and learned from your post; I must point out that you've utterly neglected the role of the mass media in the Feminist Movement.
It is amazing to me that hundreds of millions of women across the globe have been infected with and joined the movement and not one of them bothered to look up the word "feminism" in the dictionary. My dictionary says it's a cult. If you have an old dictionary lying about - your grandfather's perhaps, you can verify this.
http://twentiethman.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/gods-gift-to-women-2/
The elephant in the room that no one recognizes is television. Television is not a member of your family. It was my misfortune to be eye-witness to the mass brainwashing of America. You were cuckolded by your best friend. Your wife ran off with the TV. Television is the Alpha Male in everyone's life.
While hypergamy is an astute analysis of female behavior it is the behavior of feral women - women stripped of all culture.
I see women as victims as much as perpetrators; they are simply parroting slogans burned into their memory banks by advertising campaigns.
Complexity devolves to simplicity and labor unrewarded is abandoned but the mass audience television so brutally abused no longer exists and Pandora's Box has been opened; the women can't massively be deprogrammed, so it may take generations to heal this social disaster, if at all.
Sexual Equality is an oxymoron and an unattainable goal.
This post was recommended to me by my son. I wish I'd seen it sooner.
The Twentieth man
Posted by: The Twentieth Man | November 16, 2012 at 11:34 PM
I just had to forward this article to you:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/money/article/-/15428447/paying-for-aged-care
This is in Australia where apparently "in 2050 an extra $60 billion will have to be found to look after our ageing population".
The article mentions about how "what may come as a shock to many is that, according to Newspoll, young people are more willing to be the bread winners for their parents' twilight years."
I'm not sure if they mean that young people today are willing to look after their parents, or whether they SAY they do (knowing the old-age pension is safe for the next decade at least) but want their own children to look after them when they're old.
No mention at all for who's going to pay for childless people to live in old age...
Posted by: AussieRealist | November 20, 2012 at 04:37 AM
I think you missed an important point.
Feminism creates revisionism: Let me explain.
Feminists make girls believe that men have always had the chance to choose what to do, to have a carreer, to study or not... but they forget that before the "class revolution" in the mid 20's (depend for which country we talk) and before, men had NO choices: education, university, choosing your carreer was not an option for 99% of the men. Only a small percentage of the elite could actually do that. The rest of them just had to work (HARD) to survive and earn enough money for their familly. Truth is, feminists present men work like 'fun', like a choice, while it was no choice, it was an obligation, a hard obligation with the pressure of failling that was forbidden! They also seem to forget that jobs were moslty physically hard and dangerous...
So no! working before the industrial revolution and before the birth of the Tertiary (and higher sectors) sectors was NOT being on a computer with a mouse and a phone!
feminist totally forget the 'class revolution' that gave men some rights, before that, men were tools and had a way more diffult life than women!
Another important point: in Europe, women and men pay the same amount of their wage for their retirment (state retirement). How is this possible when you know that men still live in average 8 years less than women!!!??? so basically, men pay now for women' retirement... men offer 8 year of free retirement for women, this should be reflected in our wages!
Posted by: Alcapon16 | November 23, 2012 at 04:14 AM
Sparks123:
you are using a faulty datum for Life expectancy.
If you look at the life expectancy charts prior to 1920, They virtually always include infant and child mortality figures. Prior to the 1900's infant and child mortality was extreme, and out of a dozen children born (or stillborn) you could expect an average of 4 to live to reproduce.
Once you account for insanely high infant mortality rates and a much higher rate of deaths due to 'misadventure, starvation, and murder', you will find that healthy adults actually had a slightly HIGHER life expectancy than today. Adults that never had any accidents could be expected to live to 80, and an end age of 100 or higher, while unusual, was actually a higher percentage of the senior population than it is today.
Posted by: Brigadon | November 25, 2012 at 11:54 PM
This is an amazing read, true to its core. I'm only twenty one years old and I've been single for over three years. I had plenty of chances hitting it with different girls, but they all felt 'wrong', so I pushed them aside. I'd also like to add that I wasn't exactly sure why they were wrong for me. It was just a gut feeling.
Having read this article and having time to reflect, I realized that these girls were either gold diggers, uncaring, self centered, or simply vicious cunts.
The best we, as good men can do for the rest of our brothers is to spread this message and open their eyes to the harsh realities that they may be subjected to.
Posted by: Alex | December 04, 2012 at 07:48 AM
You just know you're reading a truly great social treatise when the work in question features a picture of the Fonz. Why, I believe Thomas Paine's seminal Rights of Man originally shipped with a cover etching of MacGyver.
Also, Macho Man Randy Savage would kick your ass for using the definite article with his name. A minor point to be sure, but it's as worthy of serious analysis as anything else in this essay.
Posted by: kiki | December 31, 2012 at 06:13 AM
i read your article many times but can't totally understand it.I understand the basic premise of misandry bubble.I still don't understand how it will burst.
USA can print unlimited dollars,can sell trillions of dollars of treasuries,can spend a trillion per year on military and nothing seems to happen to its economy.US can still give free food,UE,SS,medicaid.Many goods are imported from all over the world.In fact,any other country might have failed but US is holding very well.There are no food riots,trains,planes are running on time,cars and goods are still sold,malls are full,restaurants are busy.Sure there is unemployment and underemployment but the country is running well.Even the police in smallest town now have military grade weapons.
So in nutshell,recession haven't hit US bad as many predicted.
And economical problems don't suggest change in societal laws which benefit lot of angry power hungry feminists,judges,lawyers,police,politicians.
The business is win win for the above-mentioned people and they don't see any disruption.Feminists are going to be even more tyranical when real dictatorship gets established in USSA.
My guess is USSA is going to become a full matriarchy when feminists start toppling white men from their jobs.The demographic trend suggests women will be 60 % of total population and they will be in majority for very long time.No social change or law change will happen because of power of female voters.
Posted by: man | January 11, 2013 at 04:04 AM
Wow this was a super, super long read but well worth it! Overall, amazing would describe it. I believe it would do great good for young males these days to read this, and have a solid understanding of what it means to be a man. Most importantly the explanations you give offer a lot of answers we face in modern culture when dealing with women.. Time to do some fact checking, but I love how you really did your research this one. I run a men's magazine myself and love coming across articles like this one! ps. "What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex'" I couldn't agree more! Thanks!, Brian http://www.nextluxury.com
Posted by: Next Luxury | January 21, 2013 at 11:25 PM
Absolutely amazing article. Definitely opened my eyes to what the problem of modern society is. I always felt that something was wrong, and now that I know I should do something about it. Either that, or just move to a different country more supportive of men. Which countries would you suggest to accomplish this?
Posted by: Eric Young | January 29, 2013 at 06:28 AM
Myth of female oppression my ass.
Yes, it is a myth, as explained in the article - The Futurist . Either debate the actual points, or shut up.
Posted by: Saphie | February 26, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Wonderful article. I love that it's now 2013 and so much is coming true. Looking forward to the collapse.
Posted by: Francis S | March 20, 2013 at 04:15 PM
Haha! This is awesome. The long, slow, pathetic defeat of manginas like myself has a URL. Thank you for consolidating so much of the whiny, entitled, sadness of the death of misandry in one place.
I particularly enjoy your predictions. Everything you "foresaw" is either picked off the pages of Time or Newsweek or out of the mouths of other sad, white men who have been crying similar cries since before the Women's suffrage movement.
The good news is that you, like they, will gradually lose. Women will gain more legal protections, more (well-deserved) professional esteem and more freedoms. This will have complicated sociological effects on the world. You won't like some of them. I might not like some of them. Women might not like some of them. But overall, we manginas are the ones who are going to lose.
Posted by: Stacyvlasits | March 21, 2013 at 07:17 PM
Futurist, I'm going to have to disagree with you that 10-20% of children are not the biological offspring of their putative father. That's the number of paternity tests that come back negative, and if a man got a paternity test in the first place, it means there was already some suspicion. According to research, the average worldwide cuckolding rate is much lower, with a worldwide average of 3.7%. Interestingly, this research reinforces your point that women are hypergamous; paternity fraud is more likely to happen in impoverished communities, to men of lower social status.
Otherwise, excellent analysis. I just hope you're right and it will collapse by 2020, this shit has gone on long enough.
Posted by: David | April 05, 2013 at 06:38 PM
Loosers!
Whiny loosers.
It's just beautiful to watch evolutionary forces in a process of eliminating me as a failed woman.
Posted by: Sarah | April 26, 2013 at 11:26 PM
THIS ARTICLE IS A BUNCH OF BULL
[[You are merely stumped by the solid logic of the article, which is why your visceral reaction contains no intelligent counterpoints. Your reaction is that of someone who has been intellectually outclassed by a huge margin - The Futurist.]]
Posted by: MONIQUE | May 01, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Hello mate,
Just stumbled upon your article, I would like to thank you for entertaining me with such fallacious thesis. You match the exact definition of a demagogue, making stats talking in your favor, picking "friends" website who are already drawn to your cause and so on.
I genuinely believed at first that you were ironic, but turns out that you are a 100% serious about it.
I am tempted to re-read this and write an anti-thesis and post it here over the week-end, but given that you have a better command of English than me, I do not wish my time to go to waste.
One thing that disturb me, you speak of America, your arguments are relevant to the US and a few things about the UK(where I live, and are by the way, totally wrong and misconcepted). Yet you mention the Western World in its whole. Could you please tell me, is Europe included in that Western world ?
Do you seriously believe that everything you stated for the US should apply de facto to Europe ?
I am a French citizen, and let me to tell that none of what you have writen is relevent to my country nor to Italy where I also lived.
Nevertheless, who would worry about the opinion of a cheese eating surrendering monkey anyway ? (Which is offensive, if I was a monkey I would file a lawsuit for being compared to French people ;))
Have a nice day and just meet a genuine nice girl, not one of those fake money-hunting city girl who'd resort to prostitution for getting anything they want !
[[Your message is not even coherent, nor does it even address the points of the article. At any rate, the poll in the article overwhelmingly agrees with it, and your inability to rebut specific points or even avoid the pre-emptive description I make in the article about people like you, proves it all.
You have no idea how much someone like you proves the solid logic and irrefutable facts in the article. - The Futurist. ]]
Posted by: Anthony | May 17, 2013 at 06:07 AM
God Damn. Excellent article that I wish I had found sooner. Thanks for taking the time to write this!
Posted by: John | June 24, 2013 at 08:35 AM
This is the most ignorant, wholly unprecedented, pack of bologna lies that only a weak willed, uninspiring, crap-brained person could every possibly believe is any where near a logical assessment and conclusion in any framework of scientific thought.
For the love of all that is Holy, GO TO COLLEGE.
[[Go to college? Frankly, if someone wanted to make feminists look angry and unintelligent by pretending to be one, they could hardly do a better job than this comment - The Futurist ]]
Posted by: Rita | June 24, 2013 at 03:04 PM
Don’t forget ancient China. Men were forced to be altered into eunuchs. Then they were despised for being mutilated. If that isn’t oppression then I don’t know what is.
Posted by: TruthSeeker | June 25, 2013 at 10:52 AM
Hi - excellent read.
Why do you sound so negative about Britain in your conclusion please?
Posted by: Phil | July 07, 2013 at 03:26 AM
Hello Phil,
I get the impression that in Britain, misandry is even more coded into the law, and that since Sharia courts are allowed, many men are opting to go there for, frankly, a better judicial outcome.
Also, the tax hike in Britain saw a significant wealth exodus, that is not quite as easy to invite back.
Posted by: The Futurist | July 07, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Somebody pointed me to this article after i created this post.
http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/youll-need-more-than-just-your-vagina-to-compete-with-the-future-nsfw/
It's almost uncanny how much i ended up coming to the exact same conclusion you did during The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation section.
Your page is required reading for all inductees into the sphere.
[ Thanks! - The Futurist]
Posted by: M3 | July 18, 2013 at 11:50 AM
While this article is mainly written about the US I feel it applies to all first world countries. As an active MRA for almost a decade (often fruitless activism but with small successes that are worth it in my opinion) I see it happening in Europe too but more so the Islamification of the culture. Already 11% of British men are converting to Islam and this is something that is largely unreported by the main stream media. Even the demographic winter is nigh unstoppable now as far as I can see. While the same market forces in the US may not apply to Europe, I see it heading in the same direction. I do however feel that it is going to get a whole lot worse before it hits bottom. In the UK single motherhood is now approaching 80% (as in other urbanized areas of other countries) and the laws have become even more draconian. Men in France cannot get paternity tests as they are banned, catcalls carry huge fines and prison time and fathers have lost almost all rights to their children and the list goes on and on. The Bologna Process (established in 1999 but on-going) has instituted a new academic policy this year of reducing mathematic entry levels into STEM fields for women only while maintaining the higher standards for men, this coupled with quota places for women only and affirmative action policies making a comeback surely means that Europe is heading in the same way. The London School of Economics has issued a study last year showing that men and boys in education are being marked harder than their female counterparts. Germany has also given serious thought to implementing a bachelor tax on men and once Germany does this the other EU countries will follow suit. The union of universities I attended has also introduced women only scholarships at a time when women outnumber men 65% to 35% in third level education. As a nurse (who is a woman) of 10 years I see a growing problem too with the medical professions as more and more women are being given (quota) places over men to study to become doctors yet in my experience they last no more than 10 years in the profession before they drastically cut their hours leaving male doctors or foreign (mostly male) doctors to take up the slack (and male doctors are in the minority now in the profession). I suppose the same scenario applies to other professions but I will only speak of what I have observed. The fact is that men take less out of the system across all spheres and contribute a hell of a whole lot more yet more and more they are being marginalized by the very system they have helped create that women benefit from (because feminism and women en masse want more and more government goodies which are being funded by men). I can only describe what I am seeing as a form of parasitism and men are the host keeping women and the State floats. But the men are leaving now and extracting the parasite from the body in growing numbers, numbers that should truthfully alarm both women and governments. I hope feminists enjoyed the party because they will be one big mess left and no one left to clean it up but women. I'd like to leave a quote from a commenter on another blog from a few years ago that sums up the situation as I see it.
"I did predict that Islamisation of the West will occur over 6 years ago. More and more western males will also embrace Islam as it will give them protection and power over women whom in Islam are “half that of a man.
The future looks grim for the white male, Christianity, agnosticism, atheism and other non Muslim faiths. You speak of anarchy, but that will not happen when Islam is the majority.
However, one thing’s for sure, either way with Islamisation or not feminism is f*cked and worse still, women really don’t know just how big a hole their digging for themselves. The horrors we hear of the sex slave trade of Eastern European women will happen to them and there will be no one prepared to protect them. We will certainly see the rise of misogyny on a tremendous scale as no forgiveness will be given, to a once pampered, protected and respected part of the fairer sex within the west, who had it all, we gave a yard and they took a mile. One thing goes without saying and that is if you f*ck with nature, nature will only do the same back. The bond has been broken between male and female. The respect for women is disappearing faster than a chicken in Ethiopia. Being a man who once put women on a pedestal, I’m now the complete opposite (although certainly not a misogynist) someone, who’d never go to the aid of a “damsel in distress.” Why? Well they’ve created the state, so let the state protect them. They’ll find that an even more impossible event in the future, as more and more men will no longer feel the need to treat a part of society that treats them like sh*t.
Women are about to enter a new dark age, either with or without Islamisation and I hate to say it, but they’ll have created it and brought it tumbling down on top of them like a tonne of bricks, themselves."
On a final note, I do have a good male friend who works in an EU research think-tank for academic and societal issues (as well as a senior lecturer at my old university) and he has essential expressed the above views (the Futurist article I mean) as well as clearly indicating that those n political power are well aware of men's marginalization but they are in a catch 22 situation. Governments need the vote so they have to keep women happy but by keeping all the goodies going they are causing the implosion (one beyond anyone’s imagination in my opinion).
This is the way all of Europe is going so take heed America and Australia.
Posted by: Nuala | August 06, 2013 at 02:49 PM
@Nuala, I work in a University in administration and I can attest to the growing sexism against men that is being perpetuated mainly by women. This is now a growing trend in some universities in English speaking countries from what I have observed while working at two universities and from stories from other colleagues. I have done and still doing my part to battle it but it is a losing battle. I have seen male applicants being put to the bottom of the pile for places in courses even though they were vastly more qualified for the place, in terms of grades and extra curricular work. Not just in STEM subjects but in humanities as well. Some colleges are calling for exam papers to be separated in to male-female piles and when the female pile's average is below the male average they will bring up the marking for all female papers in that pile to normalize it. This is suggested for STEM subjects to attract more female graduates as there is a high dropout/transfer rate. I guess in the future this will eventually make it's way into the mainstream media but as I see it no one cares about discrimination against males. It is practically lauded by some of the former women's studies students who now work in administration and the upper tier of the university system do not care as long as they have the numbers and funding.
Posted by: Marietta | August 07, 2013 at 03:39 AM
(Please don't mind my grammar). But as I see, the scenario might be different in future. I can feel that in future even if males disengage from this so called feminist society and discover their new ways of living such as in video games (which is currently male dominated), in the end it would be men who would get downplayed again, if we don’t do anything. Feminization of video-games has started to happen, and just like governance, academia and all the other areas (which were erstwhile male but now are dominated by females). In future we may again see video gaming market and other male spaces (which at present is very few) bending towards females as soon as they enter it and start demanding for themselves. Well that is not the problem either, but that fact that very engagement of females with males which has been disastrous often may become true here too. I see the feminists constantly blaming patriarchy for all the wrongs that have been done to both women and men. But I suppose they are wrong. Totally they are wrong.
PATRIARCHY HAS NEVER BEEN AND WILL NEVER BE. PATRIARCHY HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE. Same applies to matriarchy as well. It all depends on what we believe in, and how we think about it. WHAT FEMINISM HAS DONE IS EXPOSE THE HALF REALITY - ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STORY. I am a resident of a developing country, which is not rich enough. It was raining heavily today (2/8/13) whilst I had gone to the market. Parking arrangement was not in order. I being male was strong enough to park my bike, however I saw most women were constantly asking the park keeper (a man) to park their scooters, and hand lift them in case of congestion. Viewing this I started with my retrospection. I might say, well without conformity, that a 100 years ago or so most western world would have been similar. These tasks which most women didn't want to perform did not do it. At that time working outside, etc. was really dangerous and hence most women preferred to stay inside. Now claiming that patriarchy made them stay, made them dependent is just a false statement intended to misguide people. Actually even in those days it was men who had a worse deal. Men were literally thrown out from the comfort of their homes to protect women. (Only those who remained were the alphas, old or children just like today’s alphas who do have a good deal). What did most men do with that, when they were thrown out literally? They, unlike most women, didn’t complain. They made altogether a new world, on their own. A world of their own which we what see today, before it was invaded by feminists, who brought with them all ills to men. And now that these feminists own it, I see men again building their own new world as in video games etc. Once this world becomes a phenomenon, I can see women again invading this world in their fucking name of fucking EQUALITY.
Point I must emphasise it we as men must fight for us. This world will be created by us, through our hard efforts, HARD EFFORTS OF MEN. And this time we are not going to let this world go into female hands so easily, who do not understand the meaning of sacrifice. Why should we give it to them, when it’s known that most of these women will again try to downplay us as the history tells us? Let this time, there be a REAL EQUALITY, and not just EQUALITY!! And if these so called feminists influenced women really want their choice, their freedom, go on! Go, enjoy your life! Foo those women my advice is: “why don’t you leave us alone if were are so troublesome, so monstrous, so freedom restricting? Instead of complaining all the time and winning why women can’t have it all, why don’t you too make a world of your own without our help. Stop invading our territories!!”
Right to live is a fundamental right. All what is needed for men is the right to be left alone. Obviously our right to be left alone. But stop complaining, be accountable for your deeds, start working harder! (I know how much hard you have worked to become strong independent women. Really! I must acknowledge that! INDEPENDENT, EMPOWERED WOMEN who depends on state funded schemes, alimony, female only scholarship, male invented technologies, taxes which are mostly paid from men’s side and the list goes long). You! “Consumer women”, if you really don’t want to depend on “Producer men” go and make world of your own if you really find men troublesome, stop invading our world (Men’s world), and IF YOU DARE INVADE OURS ABIDE BY OUR RULES!
Posted by: Joker | August 08, 2013 at 10:14 PM
I realize this is an older article, but I feel the need to give my 2 cents still, even if no one ever reads it.
I was under the impression VAWA covered men too based on a few articles I read when it was up for renewal. Regardless, I always felt the name of the act was rather ridiculous. Violence is violence is violence, no matter who it's committed against.
Not entirely sure why people are bitching about men fearing cuckolding more than being raped. These men are not saying cuckolding is worse than a woman being raped, for fuck's sake. They're saying they themselves feel more worried about being cuckolded, which may very well be because it happens more frequently to men than rape does - I'd have to check the statistics on that though before I claim that is the definite truth.
What I have seen in the US is that these groups who feel they have been oppressed gain more power, evening things out. They then take the lead from their "oppressors" and do the same thing, claiming it's ok because, well, the "oppressors" (who are now the ones being oppressed) deserve it. For all the sexism I've experienced in my life, I do not want to perpetuate that cycle. I do not want ANYONE to experience that.
I used to identify as a "feminazi." Now I don't even call myself a feminist, but an egalitarian instead (and yes, I'm well aware there is no major movement associated with this term, but I also think mass social movements employ mob mentality far too much as it is). I think hardly anyone is free in America, so I'd like for us to establish freedom (in reality, not just on paper), and for EVERYONE to be allowed it, no matter the gender or race. I do think women are more oppressed in certain areas of life, but I also think men are in other areas.
I think modern feminists (in general, not all) are effectively weakening a woman's sense of agency. I do not ever want to be hired for a job because I'm a woman. I want to be hired because I am competent and fucking awesome at the job. I do not like that feminists tell me my opinions are a result of the patriarchy or men's influence on my life. These are my opinions, and I often arrive at them after doing extensive research (that is, reading information written by both men AND women). It is so easy for them to discredit other women's opinions when they disagree just by saying they aren't really their opinions - that they are being subconsciously controlled by men. This is especially ridiculous in my case because I was raised by a single mother and grew up with my two sisters... I had very little male influence growing up (and I actually repeatedly had it banged into my head that all men were shit), and most of the men I knew were not worth a damn. This formed the basis of my opinion about them.
So what swayed me? Well, first, both sexists and feminists like to behave as if women have no appreciation of logic (I seriously have read feminists saying logic has no place when discussing sexism, as if it being an emotional issue automatically excludes logic - this really offends me). This isn't true in my case at least. Logic and extensive research into statistics are what solidified my belief.
So what made me even consider looking into the research? The fact that as I got older, I met many men who were respectful, kind-hearted, and some of the best people I know (including my husband). If feminists want to call this patriarchal influence, then fine. I call it the melting of my icy feminazi heart thanks to the existence of good people in this world.
My best advice for men? Use logic and kindness. In the face of hatred, be rational and good even though it is difficult. Any acting out by you will only strengthen their "cause." It's not fair, I know. Just be aware that you have sisters who show solidarity; I am not the only one.
Posted by: Kelsey | August 23, 2013 at 01:06 PM
As a point of information (someone else may have mentioned this and if so I apologize but I see this so often I can't stop myself from mentioning it, I see it too often and I think it leads a lot of guys to an unnecessary despair they don't need):
The numbers claiming that historically 80% of women reproduced but 40% of men did. In point of fact while men to engage in competition, there are dominance hierarchies, hypergamy appears real, it is possibly to grandly exaggerate these things, especially if you accept bad numbers.
The estimate on historic male/female reproduction were based on the "Most Recent Common Ancestor" for both males and females. When it was printed that two women reproduced for every one man, that number was between 50-100 thousand years ago for our most recent common male ancestor and for females was 200,000 years ago, leading to a 2 to 1 split favouring females.
Revised studies have found that for males it's about 142,000 thousand years ago and for females is around 177,000 years ago.
This means that the 2:1 conclusion is way off. There is a slight skew towards female ancestors, but not that big. Also, some of this may be accounted for by female exogamy and the fact that women have children earlier then men do, and also there is (some) evidence that exclusive same-sex attraction is somewhat more common among males. Although there is reason to believe that there is a slight reproductive benefit to being female on the whole, the 80/40 split can lead us to wild conclusions that are not easy to jibe with other features we see among humans.
Some useful references:
The original article asserting the 2:1 reproductive advantage
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/11/2047.long
TMRCA for females estimate:
http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/04/copernican-reassessment-of-human.html
TMRCA for males estimate:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21601174
Something fun to think about regarding the differences in historic male and female populations:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21109223
(Note: None of this means we can completely throw out the rest of it, and there is probably room to continue debating the numbers and their significance. Just, as with most scientific information, try to avoid sweeping conclusions from a single data point, especially when that data point may later be called into question. Thanks to my friend Alison for digging up this research.)
Posted by: Dean Esmay | September 06, 2013 at 10:44 AM
Hillary Clinton, a woman, a feminist, is going to become the next president.
You're gonna write an article about it? I don't think so. Hahahahaha
Posted by: Cindy | September 11, 2013 at 02:47 PM
The only thing I don't see happening here is when you pointed out that one of the Four Horsemen - the adult entertainment industry - could somehow force women to re-evaluate the stance of feminist misandry and the need to reaquaint themselves with the art of "making a man feel loved". This will not develop for 3 reasons:
(1) the adult entertainment industry will eventually catch-up and cater for female needs also, perhaps even allowing women the option to set robots in 'ultra virile' or 'rapist' mode to satisfy their lust.
(2) Japan provides us a live example of what could happen when females and the State make excessive demands from the male populations without giving nothing in return. In Japan marriage is still solid business with divorce rate lowest compared to all other advanced economies but it suffers from the same misandrist bubble as in America. Yet females haven't learnt how to make men love them the old fashion way. Far from that, in fact they rebel even more and push men down even more and demand even more from the Government, threatening conception-strike! Instead what happened in Japan was that capitalism stepped in to fill in the gap; despite prostitution being as illegal as it can be in America, Japanese entrepreneurs have found all kinds of loopholes to cater for this needs - hostess, paid-date, masseuse, escort, and the ultimate premadonna of seduction, the Geisha, there's virtually a girl to satisfy every sexual and non-sexual companionship need a man could dream of overthere without the need for commitment! Add to this: video clubs (masturbating hotels), online brothels, and live-size sex dolls! Today Japanese married men abide by their misandrist wives' rule - they don't cheat, they don't expect them to cook, don't expect them to leave their jobs, don't prevent them from prioritizing their girlfriends, in fact they don't expect NOTHING from their wives at all. The man is entirely satisfied with masturbation and intimacy with one of the above mentioned "experts-therapist". While in the West a pissed wife may send her hubby on the couch and expect him to crawl back the next day or so, in Japan, less she begs him back he never bothers to come back! Some marriage goes sexless for over 20 years like that before the wife decides maybe 'she' needs to crawl!
(3) the above two, and your whole article should have painted a clear picture of women's mentality (i.e. mental - ability)! Tell women they should be polygynous and polygynous they shall be. Tell women they should be polyandrous and so it shall be. Tell women to be monogamous and monogamous they shall be. Tell them to be virgins before marriage and so they shall be, tell them the opposite and so they shall be! Tell them the family is a myth invented by men to imprison them, and so they will believe, tell them gender is a fictitious social construct and so they will believe. Tell them it was rape and this man raped you and they will believe you. Tell them all penetrative sex is in fact rape like Andrea Dworkins and others have argued, and they will look at you all amazed and bewildered and believe you! Tell any beta man to take a drug that would sterilise him (preventing him from producing sperms) for 24 hrs in order to fuck a beautiful woman without the risk of conception, you are sure he will turn you down; tell girls not to ovulate for periods sometimes as extended as 20 yrs in order to be "equal" to men and so they will without questioning! Put them on the pill for acne or irregular periods (a natural sign of fecundity) or to prevent cervix, overian, vaginal and God-knows-what-other cancers and so they will! See what is happening here??? The Biblbe puts it this way: as Christ is to men, men is to women (1 Cor. 11:3). And the Bible was right. Woman will obey blindly any individual that shows even the slightest Alpha Male authority! In some cases people who never even had a family on their own, or biological children or were even heterosexual for that matter, people like e.g. Kate Millett, Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkins, Gloria Steinem, Simone De Beauvoir for instance had tremendous success in passing their misandrist, anti-family and sometimes unscientific claims as proper policies for heterosexual family women, just by acting Alpha!!! Believe it or not but a woman would obey to the letter everything an Alpha individual would tell her, deviating only occasionally to check whether the Alpha's claim to Alphahood is (still) valid! In this respect even if the Misandry Bubble collapses and women are devalued feminist will still blame it on men and women are too gullible to stand against feminists' Alphahood. As you mentioned in the Four Horsemen their husband, the State, may get fed up with them, but we must not underestimate these Ultra Lesbian-Alpha feminists. They are very alpha, assertive, vocal and strong in their attitudes, they can easily sway female voters in their direction even in times of economic crisis, and with a bunch of White Knights in their ranks, it is not impossible that by then they may occupied half of all parliamentary seats either through direct vote or through the help of affirmative actions! They may even occupy the majority of government-elected seats by 2030, thereby controlling the State itself!!! Given the direction Japan has taken I find it difficult to believe that women will just rescint their case overnight especially with Female Supremacist Feminists speaking with Alpha authority in somewhat similar manner the Talibans speak to their followers!!!
Posted by: David | October 19, 2013 at 02:40 PM
Last month I turned 65. I have seen the rise of 2nd wave feminism (and the new more misandrist form in 3rd wave feminism) and misandry and once called myself a feminist. Being a young woman when first introduced to it, and the numerous branches, I bought into it because it felt good. It made me feel good emotionally as a woman. I am older and hopefully wiser now and I can tell you that it is toxic in the extreme. I see countless younger women buying into it with fervour without any forethought or critical thinking and they become more sexist then any man could ever be. My life was fortunate, I worked for a major pharmaceutical company, worked my way up through the ranks (to an executive position) and saw (and in the beginning felt) that sexism was holding me back but in truth it was my sense of entitlement and lack of respect that I showed that held me back. Men inherently know that respect is earned, women, sad to say, we expect it simply because we are women (often with attitudes and never acknowledging the things men have done or do). A friend of mine often compared it to dancing and sadly we women have forgotten the steps or rhythm of how the dance even goes, completely putting the whole thing out of whack (as she would say).
I look around me now and see all we take for granted and oh what an age we live in where everything is convenient for us. Maybe I am maudlin in my old age but I look around me and see technology, roads, buildings, simple conveniences like running water, electricity, cars, the simple logistics of the very conveniences like food in stores and the houses we live in and they were in the vastly major part built and put there by men. A lot of women get angry when they hear that but I say to them; Stop, look round you and tell me I am wrong, you may be able to point out the things that women have done but why can’t you acknowledge what men have done and are still doing. Women in the past and even more so nowadays show no appreciation for men; there contribution and women (I include myself) bought into the feminist nonsense much to our own detriment. I have so many friends, as you tend to have when you get to my age, and I see all my female friends divorced, single, some without children but all unhappy because we never really learned to form proper relationships with men or understand that men’s needs matter too. So many of my friends put off having children until it was too late or put off marriage (even just meaningful relationships because they bought into the career woman mantra). For some women it’s what they want and good for them, women are the ones with all the choices and men are the ones with all the obligations, but priorities change as people change and the one thing men knew long before women did is that you might tell yourself that you live to work for your job, your career, but at the end of the day you (even if you are a woman) are nothing more than a drone and expendable (“here’s your gold watch now don’t let the door hit you on the way out). Loved ones, family, the people we care about are what are important. I have seen it so many times now. Jaded colleagues, jaded women who tried to take on the world alone and wind up truly alone. I was lucky, I worked my way to the top, retired early, worked alongside some fantastic men (the odd old school dinosaur which was rare) and but mostly truly duplicitous women, I have a family and I had a loving husband who like most men carried far more on his shoulders then most people (especially women) acknowledge men do or even realise they do and all for their loved ones and family. The great works of art, poetry, grand gestures and the romantic things that men do were done for those they loved, for the love of the fairer sex (a now dead concept thanks to feminism and its toxic by-products). Men did not do all of it for sex like women so easily say nowadays, it wasn’t because of objectification or patriarchy. It was because men inherently care about women but sadly I wholeheartedly believe that the majority of women do not inherently care about men, there are always exceptions but we have bought into the feminist dogma that men are to blame and always at fault. We have ignored women’s choices and actions and even biology to the point where no one mentions it anymore and there will be consequences to it all. I can already see it happening but try as I might to advise younger women they do not listen nor care. It is so much worse nowadays and younger women do not even realise it until it is too late. This blog does a great job or connecting the dots as to what is going on but there is so much more that it does not mention.
The thing women haven’t quite caught onto yet is that men have learned (and are catching on fast) from all that has transpired these past few decades and they no longer hold women in the high regard that they used to, or at the very least are more weary of us. Both sexes are going to suffer because of all of this, women more so in my opinion simply because we ignored our part in all of it and men( a growing number of men) will no longer have our backs when things get bad. To those women who scoff at that and say they do not need them well that is fine "for you". But society, civilization needs men and to any woman I say, stop and look around you, look at the city, the world, the relationships, the very interplay that has held us together and gotten us this far.
Posted by: Adriana | November 18, 2013 at 06:55 AM
Gave you some link love. Plus a little about my first girlfriend who taught me "game" in 1962. Richard Feynman also gets a mention.
http://classicalvalues.com/2013/11/nature-men-and-women/
BTW love your comments over at The Spearhead.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/
We are very much in agreement on "game" etc. .
BTW a Met Life agent who is a very close friend also thinks Obamacare will put us in recession.
Posted by: MSimon | November 27, 2013 at 03:59 PM
Not so sure about Feminism being left wing. She dumped that Socialism guy back in the 80's when he kept going on about the workers rights and trade union meetings and hooked up with Capitalism. They've been going steady ever since, she helps provide cheaper labour in the growing service industry and he empowers her as the new aspirational middle class. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/feminism-capitalist-handmaiden-neoliberal
Posted by: Gawaine | December 28, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Very thought provoking treatise. Thanks for all the effort you put into this.
The "manosphere" comes to late for me: I'm in my late fifties and realize now what a chump I have been played for. But it is not too late for my son who doesn't realize that he is playing a rigged game.
Knowing what I know now I marvel that there are still young men out there getting married in 21st century America.
Posted by: Robert | January 15, 2014 at 02:10 PM
As to all of the previous references to Islam, the following is something that I just heard so I cannot verify it as I am not Muslim, do not plan on becoming Muslim, do not even live in the country I've heard this about, nor ever been there.
That being said...In Afghanistan, the Taliban instituted a strict male work outside the home/women work at home, because of the scarcity of jobs AND the women, if working outside of their home, are not obligated to share the money they earn with their families the way that the males are. This means that women would directly take jobs away from other families if she worked outside of the home by taking away a job from a male. She could customarily keep the money for herself without sharing it with her own family. This might or might not be an Islam custom or just Afghani custom or none of the above, but it does have a certain verisimilitude to it. I would prefer truth to the appearance of truth.
What this means is that women are customarily relieved of the obligation/responsibility to provide monetarily for their families, whereas the male MUST provide protection/money/resources to the family.
I would hope that this can be either confirmed or denied by a returned US Veteran or even better an Afghan that reads this blog article.
Posted by: Richard G. | January 17, 2014 at 02:54 AM
I wish you had written more about agency in the prevailing misandry. It has occured to me that it is at root political. Simply put, women don't really get politics. The more women are promoted as anti-thesis to male thesis, the more dilute and compromised our democracy grows. In the UK, where I live, the levels of disengagement from the democratic process would be a real concern,if it wasn't deliberately precipitated. I think men are too busy with personal survival to bother with something as intangible as elections, and our acquiessence is allowing the nature of our nation to be changed beyond recognition, very little of it for the good as far as I can see.The promotion of sexual inequality in favour of women is serving the interests of the people who are profitting from the changes. I believe it is socially engineered, and the idea that it is being done out of a moral imperative is going to be exposed quite soon but still to late.
Posted by: mark fennell | January 23, 2014 at 08:39 AM
So far I have read only the executive summary and I agree with the main claim. In fact I thought I had invented the word "misandry", but now I discovered I had not. I would like to know who´s the author of this article, to be able to cite it. I could not find its name inspecting the site.
Posted by: Pablo Gustavo Rodriguez | February 15, 2014 at 02:45 PM
This is a very extensive overview and makes some enlightening points. There are also some serious faults. For example, the author very perceptively points out that historically, sexual access to a female was through her father, and this is something which might need to be considered in an evolutionary analysis of our behaviour today. I doubt however that chivalry derives from this (i.e. a need to impress the father). Steve Moxon in 'The Woman Racket' calls it 'deference' and quotes a study of certain (Marmoset?) monkeys in which such behaviour is evident and innate.
Most seriously however, is the classic omission of how we arrived at the lunatic situation in which we find ourselves today. The author's scheme--
Strident 'feminist' > pedestalizer/white knight > average woman
should really be--
Jews > Strident 'feminist' > pedestalizer/white knight > average woman
Sorry, but that's how it is.
Simon Sheppard
Posted by: Simon Sheppard | March 29, 2014 at 03:54 AM
Awesome article, I couldn't agree more! Thank you so much for articulating so perfectly everything I have come to realize myself! I am a good looking 29 year old male with a good job and I will never get married because of the horrors you described about the current state of marriage! American misandry is totally out of control and the feminazis will take it even further if they can! Men and moral women need to take a stand against this soon or America will continue it's tailspin! I recommend that every intelligent person (men and women) read this whole article! Thank you once again, awesome job!
Posted by: richie | April 04, 2014 at 08:30 AM
Author...what happened to you man? Your views are so profound, so learned. I wish I could be more like you.
Posted by: oracle133 | May 12, 2014 at 12:53 PM
You are once again proven correct with what happened in California just this weekend.
Posted by: pol | May 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM
I would like to subscribe to this blog but FeedBlitz isn't working.
Posted by: Caprizchka | May 26, 2014 at 10:20 AM
Damn, this really solidified my emerging views.
Posted by: Anon | May 27, 2014 at 09:16 PM
Spot on. It's happening guys. It's happening.
Posted by: somwane | September 24, 2014 at 09:02 AM
A tour de force...thank you.
Posted by: Pierre | October 02, 2014 at 05:03 PM
The article was interesting,
Albeit a little morose. (Like end of days prophecies)
I do enjoy reading perspectives on society, and seeing predictions.
The thing is, if less people are reproducing and getting married, it means there will be less people.
Population will decline.
When studying statistics (and yes I concur on also having seen the male perspective on cuckolding being more emotional damaging) it is important to look at the actual curve of how people act/react. Only 10% of the population deviates at any given time, 5% being criminally deviant, the other 5% being uber-moral...
I don't think there is anything wrong with having less people in society. Are there less happy people in society these days?
Yes.
Maybe men may not feel the need to buy bigger homes, and get lesser paying jobs, but conspicuous consumption is not only due to the shopping of females. Single men getting higher paying jobs to get bigger and better trucks to impress their peers and to show that they are attaining success is still a motivating factor.
Changes in society happen all the time, reflecting changes in values, and reacting to the situations people find themselves in.
I do like that you elaborated on your views in a way to be able to take a look from your perspective, i was intrigued and chose to read the whole article.
I am curious as to how you would rate Canada against the United States as to the social inequities you are trying to address.
Thank you
Posted by: Tigeress Araya | November 05, 2014 at 10:47 PM
It would seem many who support MRAs or MGTOW are engaging in the same shaming tactics as feminists. Go take a scroll through any video on feminism or MRAs where they show up and it is all shame, shame, shame.
It was bad enough having to deal with all the BS of feminists but now we have to deal with the opposite who reflexively bleet WHITE KNIGHT, Mangina, or some other repetitive drivel and throw around hateful, inflammatory crap like a monkey with IBS.
The only plus is the joy I can take knowing that both groups are driving each other nuts. I'll take my schadenfreude where I can find it.
Posted by: Joe | January 08, 2015 at 08:39 PM
Feminists want the power to order U.S. Male Soldiers to fight and die imposing feminism in all countries.
Posted by: jeff | January 31, 2015 at 08:58 AM
I thought I was a lone wolf... seriously.. Now that I found this I have had a renewed strength. I see the author has been mia lately?? I hope "they" didn't find him and have him killed for preaching truth. I did notice a couple of posts lately by women and I wish I could talk them into talking to a couple of womens groups. Adriana has a great after the fact view.
Posted by: goawaybabymommas | February 23, 2015 at 02:47 PM
Great article. I'm one of those no-fault divorced dads in the 83% tax bracket. I pay 33% to the government, and then 50% of what's left over to my ex as "shadow alimony," even though I have my kids nearly 40% of the time (not complaining about that--I love them and was against the divorce).
You absolutely nailed it with this article. Thank you. I had been thinking of starting a blog, something like www.nofaultdivorceddad.blogspot.com (made that up--not sure if it exists), but frankly you have said everything and I have nothing to add.
So what I'm going to do, instead, is link this article to my friends and family who I think can stomach it, and print thousands of copies and start leaving them in public restrooms, etc, like you proposed in the related post.
Posted by: divorced dad | February 24, 2015 at 10:34 AM
I cant wait! It seems like there are still too many men out there simply adhering to the status quo. Men need to wake up. And I hope it is going to be soon.
Posted by: dodo | March 01, 2015 at 12:52 AM
Women destroy everything, because of their infurious greed, constant lying and egomania. They are inhumane creatures, because they have no humanity within them. Also because they dont contribure any sort of significantly to civilisation and never have.
This is why islam WILL win and take over.
Just a fact. YOu can choose to further ignore it - and i'm sure yu will - but that doesnt help you in any way.
Posted by: WokenUp | April 08, 2016 at 07:38 AM
This is one of the most pathetic and self-indulgent rants I've ever read in my life. Your entire argument falls apart at the premise and then just continues to glide downhill from there.
This concept of alpha and beta males and living within a codified patriarchy is drawn from nothing other than assumptions you are making about how our society should be structured by observing the social organization and behavior of some of our closet primate cousins - in particular gorillas, who have polygamous societies centered around male dominance.
However, what any biologist will tell you is that our closest relative is the bonobo, and bonobo society is much different than chimp and gorilla society. For one, it's largely female dominated, with blurry lines between "alpha" and "beta" roles among and between both males and females. You know, kind of like human society. It's also less aggressive and more peaceful, not like human society, because we still effectively live in a patriarchy.
The reason I am a feminist, despite being a man, is that it is indisputable that women are superior in all ways.
I mean, have you ever wondered why humanitarian work centers so much around educating and empowering women around the world? Could it possibly be because so much research has conclusively determined that societies are more stable and more functional the more social and economic clout women possess?
Posted by: Kevin | May 13, 2016 at 01:04 PM
Kevin,
Your ignorance is impressive. For one thing, bonobos only exist because a river protected them from predators and competition (chimpanzees). If not for the island, chimpanzees would have eliminated them. They are not our closest relatives.
You could not rebut a single statistic provided in the article, and every 'point' of yours was already heavily debunked. Why are you not troubled that 99% of military troop deaths and 93% of workplace deaths are of men?
You only refer to rigged 'studies' designed to dupe suckers like you.
For a 'man' (and I use that term loosely) to be against some fictitious 'patriarchy' is the height of being pathetic.
Anyway, a 'male feminist' is always a creepy predator in disguise. Women know this, which is why women avoid 'male feminists' at all costs.
Posted by: David S | May 13, 2016 at 01:20 PM
It seems, things have begun to change. With little fanfare, states have begun changing custody laws to default 50/50 and the feds have proposed eliminating imputed income and proposed minimum income allowance for child support payers. Once again, you gentlemen are dead on in your accuracy. It is not surprising, given the spinelessness exhibited by our current weakened politicos, that these changes would occur while the public is distracted by the presidential election. Hopefully, more is to come....
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/03/15/more-time-for-dads-states-weigh-changes-to-custody-laws
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/nprm-flexibility-efficiency-and-modernization-in-child-support-enforcement-programs
Posted by: Tom | May 29, 2016 at 06:28 AM
This whole article is the reasons why MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) exists, because of everything listed here. I might send this to that MGTOW YouTuber Sandman.
Posted by: Dan | June 20, 2016 at 03:06 AM
If 70 percent are filed by her and female adultery is as prevalent as male adultery then why wouldn't you subtract the women who were forced to divorce their husbands by their husbands actions from the total? Shouldn't the number be like 55 percent then?
Posted by: linkreincarnate | June 25, 2016 at 02:50 PM
Wow! I just became acquainted with Khan's writings. This is one of the best articles I have read in a long time. Khan is a brilliant thinker and writer...evidenced by all of his articles in this blog. He has taken great risk publishing this 2010 thesis, and I commend him on his observations, research, and conclusions. He is like a lone voice crying in the wilderness. It is now 2016, and I find nothing yet that contradicts his predictions.
Posted by: Jimmy | June 28, 2016 at 08:32 PM
Thanks, Jimmy.
Posted by: Imran Khan | June 29, 2016 at 09:14 AM
What is the word for a woman like cuckold?
Posted by: Margaret Bradley | August 13, 2016 at 10:49 AM
Margaret Bradley,
Technically, a woman cannot be cuckolded, as she carries the fetus. It can never be the offspring of another woman. A man, on the other hand, can be lied to about paternity.
Posted by: Imran Khan | August 13, 2016 at 03:37 PM
Only just came across this. This is a remarkable and insightful piece of writing. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced about your arguments relating to marriage but they sure made me think. Thanks.
Posted by: Rob | August 22, 2016 at 05:50 AM
While reading your mind-opening article, I was repeatedly struck by how often your statements were validated by an old TV show, the Public Broadcasting Service's “Frontier House.”
Going back and re-watching the final episode (https://youtu.be/OAAv5raZBbU) was instructive, as long contiguous segments of the episode consist of cast members saying nearly-verbatim statements confirming the truth of your arguments in the Misandry Bubble.
The premise of “Frontier House” was that it intended to be an MTV-style reality documentary of a 5-month experiment demonstrating what it would be like for three 21st Century married families to be transported back to an 1883 Montana homestead, using only period-appropriate materials and methods.
It quickly morphed instead into a gender war.
If the people in the show had had the benefit of the terminology and philosophy you present here, they would have better understood that leaving the 21st Century necessarily also meant stepping back to a time before the gynocentric world existed.
Every adult on the show expressed clearly seeing what happens when stepping outside the Misandry Bubble. The men and children thrived, while the women were miserable. All of the men experienced genuine contentment and gratification for the first time in their lives, despite challenging physical work and risk, simply by being freed from Gynocentrism. The women experienced: hell, repetitive drudgery, forced labor, being stuck in the kitchen.
All of the women resented the men for enjoying contentment. Strangely, they also appeared to resent the men becoming physically fit.
One wife said, “This place is like a men's playground, like a men's dream come true.” The women felt “like support staff” to the men's word.
Another wife said, “Men are so much less complicated than women. Women want more than just shelter and food. They want something to look forward to. They want to be entertained. They want a break from the monotony. In five months, I've only had about probably only 3 or 4 meals that somebody else prepared. All the rest, I've done. It's almost like I was transported to a labor camp for 5 months. I have experienced depression here on the frontier. I have never been depressed before in my life. I've never had to deal with that before, and here I've probably been depressed easily 3 times a month for a day or two, where I felt like all I wanted to do was go back to bed and cry.”
That same wife, upon returning back to civilization at the conclusion of the experiment, showing off a washing machine said, “To me this symbolizes, definitely, freedom.”
Interestingly, all of the children thrived in the artificial pre-gynocentric 1883 world. They all expressed enjoying the work they did on the homesteads. After returning to civilization, all of the children said they were “bored” doing nothing all day. The teenage girls said, “you get kinda tired going to the Mall all day.”
Since the female children thrived in this environment, while the adult women did not, one must wonder how much of the women's “hell” was simply the withdrawal of the windfall of gynocentric deference which they experienced as “normal” since the day they were born.
At the conclusion of the experiment, the youngest husband had streams of tears running down his face at the prospect of leaving. Both of the older two couples got divorced after the show. It's unclear whether it was the females who initiated the divorces.
The wealthy wife said that she experienced “lonliness” while her executive husband was away traveling for business (to support their lavish Malibu home). Her husband re-married a younger, beautiful Vietnamese wife (perhaps because she's from a non-gynocentric culture?). See, http://erahouse.tumblr.com/post/45248000405/where-are-they-now-frontier-house.
With the other couple, it's possible that after metaphorically swallowing the Red Pill and seeing the true nature of reality for the first time, the other husband just could not force himself to go back to the Matrix of 21st Century urban society. For a few years, he returned to the same homestead (albeit with modern conveniences this time), performing work for the ranch owner, and writing in his spare time.
Thank you very much for your insightful article. I shall ponder it carefully while awaiting the forthcoming popping of the Misandry Bubble. I'm doubtful that this will occur as soon as 2010, as I envision the status quo tenaciously hanging as tightly as possible on until the bitter end. But, as the wife above said, it's nice to have something to look forward to.
Posted by: Mark | September 21, 2016 at 11:53 AM
This article is funny... because it turns out to be pretty relevant after all at at the tail end of 2016. I just finished a self imposed four year hiatus from women and dating in general because I just felt tired of being treated like a dog all the time and had given up.
I am attractive, good at sales, and so "smooth" and capable of attracting them, but just decided I was better off on strike.
I recently have seen misandry rampant in almost all media I can find, and the dating scene was worse than it's ever been. I'm so shocked, I realized it was time to beef up on my reading(I'm a good dork, when I realize I don't have a constructive understanding of something, I hit the tomes). I googled to find out what the male version of misogyny was (because of course I didn't know, who does?). I read the articles, followed links... And here I am.
Note to author: as you claim, your article ended up being very relevant years later after all. You should probably think of all the words people might use to find the word they are looking for, Misandry, ex "opposite of misogyny" and use them as tags.
Posted by: Tony | October 02, 2016 at 10:51 PM
"Female entry into the workforce is generally a positive development for society, ..."
No, it is not for reasons stated in the article but not considered. The primary motivation for women to marry is economic.
Once they seriously enter the work force, particularly at high status positions they replace men who could support families, create a virtual desirable male scarcity, and promote wealth inequity by creating super couples and impoverished single moms.
The displaced men have no social prospects and no incentive to be productive or to be fathers.
With 'equality' in the work place there is no commensurate equality in the home in that no woman wants to marry mr. mom.
Posted by: Emelio Lizardo | October 09, 2016 at 03:14 AM
And here I thought I was the only man thinking about these issues for the last many years :) - outstanding essay!
Posted by: Daniel Hildebrand | November 23, 2016 at 08:31 PM
http://www.henrymakow.com/schoolaskedmychild.html
http://letsrollforums.com/living-car-after-false-t22664.html
Posted by: Dan Abshear | December 05, 2016 at 04:50 PM
Sadly the article speaks the truth...
Posted by: Anonymous | December 10, 2016 at 05:06 PM
To quote Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory, " Bazinga ".
Posted by: Mary Whitfield | February 12, 2017 at 05:09 AM
MGTOW is the only way.
Posted by: John Smith | May 18, 2017 at 04:06 PM
We are three quarters the way through - and I think we are on track. Its clearly exponential now, with other trends distrustful of the status quo (such as nationalism, libertarianism, trumpism, altright) getting entrained and carried along with the same force, heading towards god knows what conflagration by 2020
its also germane to notice the rise of young female conservatives hooping on the anti misandry bandwagon, such as here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFW0z0Y5TR4
Sure sign that anti misandry is now mainstream.
Posted by: Stephen murray | June 29, 2017 at 12:49 PM
I disagree with some points, but the overall gist is generally true.
Now that we're 3/4 of the way through the decade, however, as usual we've encountered some odd happenings that could not have been predicted.
For example, the release of, and the rather large acceptance and appeal, of the movie "The Red Pill" - a documentary made by a feminist studying the men's rights activists who ended up shedding her feminist label due to such, or that the honey badgers would spring up. The concept of a men's rights anti-misandry group forming which had actual power was outright rejected by the author, but he made a fundamental mistake - he assumed that no woman would ever realize that she was screwed with how things were going.
No one cares about what men have to say, and as stated in the article, men are called losers who can't get laid (despite most MRAs specifically became so specifically BECAUSE they got laid - having their children taken forcibly away from them, false rape accusations and so on), or called misogynists and so on. But... society in general wants to protect the women in that society, and when the women start fighting for men's rights, then things potentially can change. This has led to things like the ICMI, which had not been predicted.
The rapid devolution we're seeing with literal riots, anti-fa, BLM, and other extremist groups, paired with those extremist groups blatantly taking over less extreme groups - examples such as BLM taking over Bernie Sander's own presidential candidate speech, or the more recent application of brown and black stripes onto the LGBT rainbow flag, or college campuses going to such extremes as to holding their faculty hostage - is also forcing average, normal people to realize that maaaaybe there's a problem after all.
A large part of the misandry bubble, as it's so eloquently put, is that it's a problem which gets ignored. By its nature, it will inevitably pop, however. There's no real getting around that, and I don't believe it'll pop for nearly the reasons which were cited. It'll pop because of the inexorable trend towards greater extremism, which will cause moderates to back down from their support of these things, and for average people to recognize what they'd tried to ignore. It may very well lead to civil war, as well, because other issues, such as the wealth distribution bubble, will become volatile under these new conditions.
That wealth distribution bubble normally breaks when 87% of the wealth of a country is controlled by the top 1%. We're far, far past that and are now over 99%. This has never happened before, but we've gotten good at distracting individuals by having the average wealth levels just high enough, with cheap costs for entertainment, that the average person doesn't notice. With certain things becoming hyperinflated, namely things like movie tickets doubling in cost within just a decade, TV becoming obsolete with the vast majority of people 30 and younger not bothering with TV any longer, and other such tools which had kept the populace sedated, that's also going to change things massively.
These are, of course, caused partially by the issues brought up in the article though. The increasing costs of maintaining an ever-bloating bureaucracy with negative population growth and a declining tax base as men move away from working to their potential, was destined to inevitably lead to the point we're now rapidly approaching.
The biggest issue though, is that most people haven't really understood the causal link. Most are under the flawed assumption that it's the shift to communist extremism that led to this, rather than the misandry bubble which is less obvious than the communist riots we're seeing.
To some degree people realize the SJWs are in the forefront of things, but they assume they're a symptom rather than a root cause, and in a way, they're correct. The SJW mindset is both the cause and the symptom - it's a self-reinforcing cycle which generates more of the same issues.
Other things which could not have been predicted, such as the election of Donald Trump, or Brexit, or the UK's botched election with May suggesting things like bringing back fox hunting and insane internet controls, have also heavily altered the cultural landscape and acted as minor pressure release valves.
These will slow the inevitable, but they won't prevent the pop.
I would argue that we're going to see things accelerate from this point on, but as we've seen, there's always some odd, unpredictable major events which can shift things rapidly. History is centered upon keystone moments, large events which allow for dramatic shifts in policy and public demand. An example of this was the picture of a drowned child from Syria washed up on shore, which led to the immigration explosion in the EU.
Riots alone haven't been enough to cause such an occurrence with the misandry bubble, and to be perfectly blunt and honest, there's probably no event which could cause people to suddenly have a large shift of empathy towards men as men can't really be viewed as victims due to how our society is structured.
As such, I'm predicting here that the pop will be indirect - it will probably be the SJW/anti-fa/communist bubble that pops first, because someone's going to try to assassinate Trump sooner or later -- and they'll succeed. Or some other similar leftist event will push the right far enough that they lash back, and though I'm a left leaning individual myself, it's pretty obvious that the left is absolutely screwed if the right decides to fight back. Pushing them too far will be a slaughter because the left is simply not fit for fighting people who actually push back, only for the stereotypical act of like a woman who punches a man repeatedly then acts surprised and breaks down crying the first time he hits her back a single time, or even so much as dares to threaten such.
They can dish it, but they can't take it back, and that will be where things turn around. Not because of the misandry thing, but because something will happen which will push full-on extremist right wing politics to the forefront again and you'll see a return to traditionalist values even if they don't understand why those values worked, but it will probably stabilize things considerably after that breaking point.
And for my final prediction - I don't honestly think the world as a whole, nor the governments involved and so on, will ever truly understand what they did wrong that led up to this situation. They'll return to traditional values without any comprehension of why they worked previously, which will inevitably lead to a second collapse a few decades after, because those traditional core values are no longer applicable in the modern day, and they won't be able to adapt them for the modern issues that are faced.
And as one group falls, the overcorrection will take its place, and we'll probably see the left rise heavily in its place, and what we see at this moment as bad will be nothing compared to how they'll react in the flip after the one we're about to see in the next few years.
We shall see what happens. It's too chaotic to predict fully - not in the sense of random, but that it's strictly ordered and with 20/20 hindsight, we'll see clearly how one event led to others, but we can't currently see the major keystone moments that will shift history because those particular moments are too complex to be predicted accurately. We can only gauge the general trends and direction, not the specific moments that tip the balance.
Posted by: Catreece | July 01, 2017 at 05:51 AM
but that it's strictly ordered and with 20/20 hindsight
No pun intended..:)
Posted by: Kartik Gada | July 01, 2017 at 02:10 PM
"Lastly, the religious 'social conservatives' who continue their empty sermonizing about the 'sanctity of marriage' while doing absolutely nothing about the divorce-incentivizing turn that the laws have taken, have been exposed for their pseudo-moral posturing and willful blindness. What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why. No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission. To be duped into believing that a side-issue like 'gay marriage' is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates by creating incentives for divorce (divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays), is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon. Aren't conservatives the people who are supposed to grasp that incentives drive behavior? An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled 'Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda'."
I'm not too dimwitted to comprehend why. But as a Christian what can I do?
Posted by: Paul Jensen | July 03, 2017 at 04:45 PM
Further sign of the exponential raising awareness. Check the savagery in the comments here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4754914/Where-good-men-gone.html#comments
Men are Misandry aware now - I even see that word used in the comments.
By the by, same article is also a sure sign of how worthless the Mainstream Media is now. Garbage news.
Posted by: Stephen murray | August 04, 2017 at 05:15 AM
Masterly
Posted by: manu | August 09, 2017 at 06:29 PM