« The Publishing Disruption | Main | The Carnival of Creative Destruction »

Comments

Undervalued Male

THANK YOU!!!!

Crypter27

Every word is worth its weight in goild!

A woman

You make me sick with your mysoginy.

I'm sure it sits well with you that women were subservient to men as little as a century ago, but thankfully the rest of the world has moved on, even if you havent.

Yuck.

The Futurist

'A woman' wrote :

You make me sick with your mysoginy.

Translation : You are not intelligent enought to rebut this fair and balanced article on its merits.

In fact, the article predicted that you have no debate skills other than to call people 'mysoginists' (which you don't even know how to spell correctly!! LOL!!!).

Thanks for proving the point of the article brilliantly.

Staring In Disbelief

Comprehensively, superbly brilliant. A bravura performance. My compliments.

seymore butts

wow.. and they said feminists were angry...

I just want to point out, because I cannot even get into how I feel about this article, that all of the links throughout the article that are supposed to back this guys claims either go to another blog site or news articles... there were very few that provided any sort of concrete evidence... But hey, i'm sure you put a lot of time into this and if you want to be this nuts go righhhht ahead. It's your life buddy. You do you. : )

The Futurist

seymore butts,

Why don't you actually address the points in the article, rather than just be emotional?

Because I already pre-empted reactions like yours in the article. You have thus proved the points of the article quite spectacularly.

Oh, and sucking up to 'feminists' will not get you laid, as described in the article. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Mo Afshar

Absolutely Brilliant.
I am a 32 year old American male who has moved to Eastern Europe for all of the reasons mentioned above. My quality of life and happiness have increased 10 fold since I moved to the East 3 years ago.
I also lived in Britain - where the situation is bad, but not as bad as America, in my opinion.
I am well educated (MBA), honest, and hard working. The reality is that I had a great deal to offer to America but felt forced to leave because I, as a male, felt like I was living as a second class citizen. So now, my talents, skills, and tax money will go to the people and government of my new home - and I'm happy to give it to them.
I will also most likely marry my current girlfriend from this country - and not a women from my home country (US).
It's not just in the interest of men for things to change in America, but in the interest of everyone. Men won't accept living as second class citizen forever, and everyone will ultimately suffer the consequences of this.
Thank you very much for this article. I am living proof that the words of this author are not just fantasy and a grim futuristic prediction. It is happening.

All the best
M.A.

CG

My husband has always been chivalrous...opening doors, giving me flowers, checking up on me. I think it taps into a very natural female desire to be protected -- being pregnant now and nearly incapacitated by morning sickness, I can see the logic in that.

You can be chivalrous and not be a 'wimp'.

People in my husband's old neck of the woods (rural Indiana) seem to get divorced a lot -- so I know that world exists. But people where we are don't (urban/"working affluent" community/most folks marry late). I've never heard a woman I'm acquainted with complain about her husband. We all love our men, and many of us are dealing with them being unemployed or under employed in the man-cession.

Maybe the guys around here are just smart, knew how to avoid the crazies (my husband definitely dated a few), knew to avoid getting anyone pregnant while they played the field, and found women with values similar to their own.

Reading this article is like taking a peek into a weird alternate reality, I believe you GK that it exists...but there are places where things are different, even in the U.S.

The Futurist

CG,

To put it into perspective - the average lifetime sex partners of a woman in rural America is 3.

In New York City, it is 20. Yes, twenty.

Mo Afshar,

That is wonderful. You have denied many parasites the fruits of your productivity.

Still get a pre-nup, however, even if you live in other countries. The US had laws just 40 years ago that were not nearly as anti-male, and other countries could drift into worse laws over time.

Are you Persian, by chance?

Zyndryl

This thread is STILL going?

The Futurist, you really grabbed the 'Glutton for Punishment' title with this one.

The Futurist

Zyndryl,

The traffic premium from this article is still strong, even 75 days in. Check out the Sitemeter.

This was an extremely important article, that got the ball rolling on discussing this issue of utmost importance. I said I would kick the '201x decade' off with this, and that it would launch a thousand articles. And it turned out the be right article at the right time.

Thucydides

The Futurist:

While this is a brilliant, brilliant article, I think your readership is due for some new content after 2.5 months.

I realize that you're probably getting a lot of hits to your site for this article so you might be reluctant to slow the gravy train; maybe you can just put a prominent link in the header the top of the page?

Just a thought.

Zyndryl

The Futurist,

No doubt about it. Heretofore this article, I've never seen such a comprehensive layout of the entire issue at hand involving all its components and how they all tie into each other. It was a real eye-opener. I'm quite an Archie Bunker type myself but was still blown away. (for those of you 'meatheads' reading this who are too young to know who Archie Bunker was, you probably don't even know what the hell Jiffy Pop is, either. Too bad...you'll just have to Google it, you lazy bumbs)

And you got almost 51,000 visits in January alone, when you published it. 18,000+ in February and 8,000+ so far this month and we are not (yet) technically half way through it. I'm guessing you'll finish March with 14,000+ hits total.

I passed it on to a femiNazi friend of mine who has quite an open mind (for a liberal). She was shocked at first but read it like 3 more times, asked me a zillion questions (quite a bit I could not answer and I am sure that not even you could have) and then admitted that it made her really, really think.

The reaction SHE GOT when she passed it on her femiNazi sisters was...ahem...less than pleasant, from what I heard.

While being totally anecdotal, I consider that little tid bit right there to be far more important than those aforementioned visits numbers, as extremely impressive that they are.

Now, you just have to figure out how your next articles will ever hope to live up to this one. :)

The Futurist

Thucydides,

True. Well...this article is like 5 articles in one. It has truly ripped the fabric of the blogosphere, and continues to get new links as the 'matrix' becomes exposed.

Be sure to check out the further-down pieces within the Core Articles section. All of those articles have multi-year relevance, and are valid even if written 1, 2, or 3 years ago.

Let me manage the expectations and say that the next article just won't be in the same league.

Zyndryl,

and then admitted that it made her really, really think.

..and THAT is what makes the whole thing worthwhile.

The reaction SHE GOT when she passed it on her femiNazi sisters was...ahem...less than pleasant, from what I heard.

Expected. Note that I preempted the only two rebuttals they have : calling someone a 'misogynist' or a 'loser'. I also explained why this is just projection on their part.

At any rate, pedestalizers/whiteknights/manginas are a bigger threat than strident 'feminists', because of their much larger numbers. Attacking and/or converting THEM is where it is at.


Thucydides

Incidentally, I have also distributed this article widely. The response has been as others have described.

> Be sure to check out the further-down pieces within the Core Articles section. All of those articles have multi-year relevance, and are valid even if written 1, 2, or 3 years ago.

I read the blog cover to cover as soon as I stumbled on to your site.

Dude, I need more Tood!

Not sure what your next topic should be, since you seem to have covered most of the things I also see as future trends.

Hmmmm... how about the social and geopolitical implications of the replacement of mass warfare (a consequence of ballistics technology) with its steady replacement by super-specialized, super-trained warrior (a consequence of the increasing skill needed to master and properly run increasingly complicated front-line mil-tech).

Do you see the upcoming XBox-controller wielding, power suit wearing cyb-warrior as having a social antecedent in the Archer, the Knight, the Samurai and the Kshatriya? Or will the military meritocracy that exists now NOT proceed to aristocracy and caste in an era where not everyone can grab a gun and join the army like every man in the county.

Power will ultimately always come from the barrel of a gun (or it's descendants). How will projected technology affect democracy at a time when the levee en masse is actually counterproductive?

The Futurist

Thucydides,

I read the blog cover to cover as soon as I stumbled on to your site.

I'm flattered. Regretably, my production rate will be far too slow to keep up with your appetite.

I am still too fired up about exposing Misandry. I am more likely to augment and expand this article by another 25%, covering a few more topics, in the next 15 days, than produce a new article.

Joan

I enjoyed reading the article. What I liked the most is your idea about starting men's groups, getting lawyers involved, working to change the situation. I say this all the time. I am an older woman, alpha female, men hit on me every day, many every day, been like this all my life. You are correct that women like strong men, not men they can run all over, and you are correct that women will say anything to find out what a man is made of, men can't take every word a woman says seriously in the beginning. What I see having moved from a big city to a suburb of a suburb are all these men who literally hate their wives, their marriages have been overwith for years, but, they cannot afford a divorce. I moved from San Francisco to Sacramento 8 years ago, and found myself being hit on by married men everyday, thousands of them over the years. I kept thinking about why are they all so desperate and unhappy? Why don't they get a divorce? What is going on? I came to the same conclusions you have, they cannot afford a divorce. Women in suburbs of suburbs, away from big cities, don't work, they don't have much self-esteem, they put on a lot of weight because the sprawl forces them to have to drive everywhere. The men have no communication and no sex life with their "wives" but they would have to pay alimony and lose their homes and children and have to pay child support if they want to get a divorce. I never saw unhappy men in a big city, and I never saw women who don't work, and I never saw married men all trying to cheat. They act like it is all so normal and justified, it's all loser broke men no woman is going to take putting down woman like they are idiots who can't work. In other words, the woman never work, they have less self-esteem than the beta men do, so women are put down and the lowest in the pecking order. I'm alpha female from a big city and worked all of my life, and now I have hick married men talking down to me like I'm the idiot little woman. It's the worst of the worst of the worst situation.

Men who are not so bright in urban areas and not good looking, don't know how to dress, don't have much self-esteem, no woman will take them, so they settle, the women settle, no one knows what they are doing and ten years later you have a bunch of really fat unhappy people who wish they could afford to get divorced, but they can't. These are the guys you talked about who should never have married and should have worked a lot less and enjoyed their lives. These guys work two blue collar jobs to try and play the provider role. The women do set the men up by not working and having so many kids, the poor guys are supporting 5-6 people all alone, working two jobs, never see their kids, have no sex life, and honestly, the men stare at me right in front of the wives like they are so sick and so desperate and almost totally out of their minds. If these people could afford to get divorces and keep their homes and not have to support women who never worked, I would have been meeting single men all of these years, instead of having married desperate men trying to bother me. It's been beyond useless for me to live here. I had no idea when I left San Francisco what I was getting into. This place is horrible, everyone is mean and miserable, all the married men hate their wives. It's scary, and this place, Sacramento, has the highest rate of alcoholism and meth drug addiction and the second highest rate of girls being abducted and put into sex slavery in the nation. Men are grabbing young girls on the streets and hiding them in motel rooms and having married men rape them. I saw it on the news two nights ago and it scared me so much. Now I know why men in cars follow me and pull up on the sidewalk in front of me in vans and trucks when I walk down the street. I kept wondering what the men do with all the pent up sexual energy when their wives are not sleeping with them. When men are stuck and the only ones working and have no sex life and let women tell them what to do, and do nothing for them, this is how bad it gets. There are so many registered sex offenders here, it's a very scary situation.

It's down to felonies - abductions, rape, sex slavery and murder. When I wait for a bus, all these married men in cars stare at me. This marriage in the suburbs stuff and women not working is such a mess that married men are literally looking to abduct me and force themselves on me. This is how bad it really is.

Women from big cities work and are independent and have self-esteem. They are the ones to marry. They are not looking to use a man for money. Thank you for saying tell your sons, start men's rights' groups. I say this all the time. The men sit up here like there is not one thing they can do except harass me, as if one women in a town of one million people is the answer for hundreds of thousands of miserably unhappily married men. They have to fight back though the politicans, the courts. I would have a lot of respect for a man who was proactive, who was taking actions to change this mess. I have no respect for what I am put through here each day. Enjoyed the article very much.

The Futurist

Joan,

Thanks for your comment.

The best website in support of all this now is The Spearhead (www.the-spearhead.com). Please go there and comment regularly. It is at the forefront of thought and action on this issue.

Erik Kieser

This was a fascinating article and list of comments. I am a huge admirer of yours GK - not sure there are many "futurists" who are in your league when it comes to discussions around technology and the trends pointing towards some version of the Singularity. And you're a skilled writer - a pleasure to read your style.

Having said that (and saying this with a great deal of respect) I don't think you're mapping the sociological and psychological changes attending those same trends with as clear an eye. I think that both "conservative" and "liberal" views of gender roles and sexuality obscure, to some extent, an objective view of how those roles and sexualities are evolving and changing. I'm reminded (oddly enough) of Jesus commenting on how it's a bad idea to put new wine into old wineskins. You ruin both. I suspect that some of that applies to this discussion. It feels very much like some of this discussion is "old wineskin" reaction. When I read words (in the comments of your readers) like "FemiNazi" I hear mostly fear of changing cultural patterns rather than identification of real causes of social ills, let alone good solutions.

I look forward to reading more about this discussion, both your words and what your readers say. And I'm going to keep an eye out for other perspectives too - I believe this is the single most important, and most neglected, discussion that we at the present time could be having around the Singularity. Thanks for the time and energy you give this blog.

The Futurist

Erik,

Thanks.

I used to think human nature regarding sexuality could evolve, and I used to be far more critical of the traditional gender roles of women in India, as well as in pre-1960 America.

However, it became apparent to me that the current 'revolution' that women are taking advantage of is actually a devolution back to pre-agricultural norms. Hypergamy is not compatible with civilization, as the 80% of men left behind will not work to their maximum output.

Furthermore, the 'empowered' life that women presently lead is still heavily dependent on taxes paid mostly by men, infrastructure built by men, alimony seized from men, and a level of safety that men agree to maintain. It is a 'bubble' for sure.

All functioning societies had a 'pact' where women don't press their advantage too much when young, and men return the favor later in life. Women have broken that contract, as described in the article. The current moves to socialize healthcare, etc. are just an attempt to subsidize older women (medicare, too, is consumed 70-75% by women).

Derpa

This article does a great job of pointing out some of the many reasons that a man simply has no incentive to want to deal with women any more than is absolutely necessary. With the way things are structured, contact with a female is at best a calculated liability - there is certainly nothing likely to be gained from such associations. From casual relationships to romance, a woman is nothing but a bucket of potential problems - ready to spill over at any moment and soak any man unfortunate enough to be nearby. As much as I like the detail and attention that the author payed to outlining the problems men face (problems that women so enthusiastically create and support), I am afraid that I can't agree with him that men should really care about the outcome in the long run - at least not in the same way he seems to care. The solution to avoiding these problems is to keep women, at closest, at arm's length - and they're best left out of your life altogether. Women are pure liability, lots of problems with no redeeming benefits to justify putting up with those problems. You don't need to get married and you don't need to have kids. The further you stay away from these things the less power females can have over you.

Now, it's true that the feminized justice system could still cause problems to even the most dedicated of bachelors - as even innocent men accused of wrongdoing by a woman are likely to be guilty even if proven innocent. The way to fight this isn't to lead great protests in the street. No, the best solution to the feminist perversion of our justice system is for men to simply walk away from it just as they should walk away from women. What do I mean? I mean stop believing in it and stop supporting it. Let me explain to you now one very powerful way that you can do this - it's called 'jury nullification.' If you're ever on a jury and are charged with deciding the guilt or innocence of a man who is accused of committing a crime against a woman, just vote to acquit. This is something you should be able to do with a clear conscience, as anyone who understands the degree to which feminists have perverted our system must also understand that there's little chance for a man to get a fair trial in such a system. Since it's so likely that a man accused of a crime against a woman has been abused by the feminized justice system, it's a virtual certainty that the course of justice for this man was perverted from even before the moment he was taken into custody. Thus, in light of this fact, simply let him go - vote to acquit. This simple act - multiplied by many angry men nation wide - will shift the balance of power much further and much faster than a 1000 armies of even the most misandrist feminist lawyers ever could.

It makes no difference how much power the feminists wield in the courtroom if they can no longer get convictions. All it takes is one - maybe 2 in some jurisdictions - jurors to vote to acquit and a trial becomes a mistrial. There's a good chance the prosecution will just drop the case at that point - and that chance gets even better if they suffer another mistrial should they decide to try the case again. We don't need mass numbers to make this happen. Statistically, just 10% - 15% of the population would be enough to pull this off. If men just walk away from the justice system that feminists have perverted to their own ends, there'll be nothing the feminists can do but cry as their fortunes turn and crime against women becomes more than just a catch phrase used to bash men. Maybe that will finally give feminists some incentive to start rethinking how they operate. If women want to run society in a ruthlessly gynocentric manner then let them - men should just walk away and let those women fend for themselves. Women have nothing to offer men - except problems and blame. This should be obvious to any man who reads this article and understands it. Since women offer us nothing but trouble, let us embrace 'equality' and repay them in kind.

Casey Weber McCarty

As a woman whom I suppose could be classified into the "rural conservative" label of the authors matrix, I feel compelled to add that if there is any class of people hated by FemiNazis more than men, it's women who disagree with them.

The author references the Sarah Palin phenomenon where the feminists raged against a seeming prototype of what the feminist platform claims to embody. Similarly, NOW and other "women's" groups bitched about the alleged controversy of a Superbowl ad where Tim Tebow's mother proudly references her decision not to abort a difficult pregnancy. These occurrences are nothing short of infuriating to me, and I'm more angered by the glaring inconsistency than just the conflicting political platform. To challenge the morality of partial-birth abortion or abortion as ex post facto convenience birth control attracts FemiNazi hate-mongering that 'the man' (even though many individuals most bothered by these acts are women) is trying to control their bodies (aside, don't prostitution laws also control women's bodies? Why not a pro-choice movement there?) and will claim their platform is "pro-choice." So a woman, such as Tebow's mom, who chose to have her baby despite warnings from her doctors about the risks, should classify as a woman exercising her right to choose also, correct? But sadly, the FemiNazis spend their efforts and fiscal resources only protecting those women who embody their political diatribe, and they could care less about the well-being of any other women.

But the hate doesn't stop at clearly political situations. FN's have produced a culture of women who are hostile to women who choose to live their lives differently ("traditionally," if you will). A woman is not free to choose 'mother/homemaker' as an occupation. That woman, no matter how educated she may be, and any opinion she offers in the public arena is discredited for the simple reason that she is not engaging on the lifecourse path idealized by the FN's. They have somehow placed a social stigma on being a stay-at-home-mom and de-stigmatized being a welfare-receiving-single-mom, as if the latter is more socially useful. A whole slew of FN magazine rhetoric warns how women shouldn't allow men to have control over neither financial management nor child rearing responsibilities in the event that they stopped whoring around and actually got married. Ergo, in FemiNazi world, in order to be considered a productive member of society, women now must take on a demanding career in addition to making all household and child-rearing decisions .It's hardly surprising that with these stress-levels women have a hard time managing their marital relationships.

Single mothers receive numerous tax subsidies (they can go to college for free, receive free childcare, get housing and other welfare perks, etc.) designed to make barriers to her success disappear while such challenges as higher education costs and childcare costs plague poor married couples who require a two-parent income to get by. Under this schema, it is more economically beneficial to be a single mom than to be a poor married mom, or even a poor single woman, or a poor married couple without children. When incentives for creating environments where children are raised by a single woman (and daycare) exceed the incentives for raising children in a two-parent household, the result is a lot of pissed-off, poorly socialized kids who grow up angry at society.

The social strife between "traditional' married mothers and the newly-exalted single mother is evident in even the most benign social interactions. Single mothers can act dismissively to a married mother raising a well-behaved child as though simply being married made raising a good child effortless, requiring no skill whatsoever. Similarly, single mothers (not all, but some) seem to be quick to justify their child's heinous behaviour by reiterating that they are a single mother, as if the empathy one is supposed to have for their situation negates the lying/stealing/cheating/violence of their little hellspawn. Further, in the workplace, if one has the misfortune of having a FN as one's supervisor, the traditional married woman who stays home to nurse a sick child is scorned, while the single mom who stays home because she couldn't secure childcare is handled with the utmost understanding (she is, of course, handling a child all alone…her and her thousands of taxpayer dollars). Single FNs still in the marauding around into their 30's and 40's are even worse in the workplace, preferring not to hire or deal with women they perceive as not competitive since they will doubtless have to answer to family emergencies or consider their career secondary to the success of their family, thereby denying women the very opportunities they claim to champion because that woman is not living the FN prototype lifestyle.

Women need to know that the FemiNazi movement is not interested in promoting or protecting women, but promoting their own political and ideological agenda, which I feel is a statist and Marxist agenda at that. If anything would deprive more people, women included, of more liberty, it is bigger government and socialism/communism. Men need to understand that a great many women (the "quiet majority," to borrow that phrase) are not fans of ball-busting FNs, and are, in fact, actually harmed by these lunatics as much as men.

I am a graduate-school educated, married mother aged 26. I earned more money than my husband when we married (a super fiscally prudent civil ceremony that was my idea) and since then we have taken turns being primary breadwinner as the recession has been bad for my sector and not changed his. I am extremely happy when he comes home at the end of the day and I am equally relieved for him to share in raising our daughter (after all, I got married before having a kid for a reason.)

The Futurist

Casey,

You are absolutely correct. Thanks for sharing, and please fight the fight. Whenever you hear the word 'misogynist' used irresponsibly by lefto-fems, counterattack without hesitation.

Never forget the table of grandchildren in the article. Who is still around in 2025?

MM

Great article! Here in Italy the misandry is strongly institutionalized and in the mainstream thinking every man is also labeled as a "rapist by nature"! Here many divorces end with the complaint of the wife who accuses her husband of abusing their childrens and subjecting him to violence of any kind from the physical one to the psychological one, judicial persecution, stalking... There are numerous cases of suicide and the innocent fathers often end up in jail. More than 90 percent of allegations of abuse are false and crearly instrumental to obtain money from the husbands. And no one says one word! Is listened more a mentally unstable mother rather than a clearly innocent father. In all Europe separated fathers are becoming a real social emergency since they are the new poor population bracket and Germany is proposing a ministry for male equality. It is very important to discuss these themes!

Valkyrie Ice

My my my, three months now, and you've still yet to respond to my breakdown of your article. So much for your boast about how you were going to tear it apart. I'm becoming tempted to to post it here in pieces if needed, just to show your readers how sadly filled with hatred towards women you are, whatever your claims to the contrary.

http://valkyrieice.blogspot.com/2010/01/this-is-in-response-to-post-made-on.html

It's still here, and I'm still waiting.

The Futurist

Valkyrie Ice,

I did respond. You just didn't like being logically dismantled.

At any rate, you seem to agree with at least 70% of the article. The only major part you dislike is the 'Population' part, where I am not even advocating anything, but just providing data.

Plus, I am quite critical of men too, clearly stating that whiteknights are more misandric than the average woman. Again, you avoid this hugely inconvenient reality of the article, which destroys any credibility you might have had as a fair critic.

Nonetheless, as someone who agrees with my article, but then in contradiction says I am a 'misogynist', and THEN cannot defend that against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, shows your own internal confusion. No other commenter has been this self-contradicting.

I have nothing new to add, since I exposed your projection then, which you still seem to be obsessed with.

Valkyrie Ice

Ah, I see, your "refutation" consisted of: "Link to the finished piece. It won't take more than a few sentences for me to expose the logical gaps within it.", which when I did, then as now, you proceeded to blithely ignore? Nor did you "logically destroy" anything I said. You ridiculed it, dismissed it, and claimed that I proved your article correct by calling me a man-hater, attempted to derail the argument by questioning my gender, and tried to use your pseudo-logical "prediction" that anyone who called you out for the bullshit you spouted must automatically be a misandrist to try and justify your non-answer, but I've yet to see word one of a "logical" debate from you.

As for your claims that I have "overlooked" any point of your article? You pretty much proved you hadn't read the breakdown I linked. Considering that with my responses it's twice as long as your original article, I can only suppose you must have suffered from a short attention span, and failed to read it in it's entirety.

I'm not the one failing to defend my point. I made it, quite throughly. Your failure to read or respond to it doesn't negate one word of it, merely illustrates your unwillingness to be challenged on your beliefs.

But then I expected that. And to be honest I don't give a damn whether you actually respond or not. But so long as new pages of commentary are being added to this article, I'm going to keep adding that link over and over for your readers who are intelligent enough to see the BS, and who you disappointed immensely with this hate filled rant. I don't care about you at all, but your readers deserve better.

You want to know why I even bothered to come back? I got this on my facebook this week:

"Read your postings on the Futurist - Thanks for what you said. I've been a big admirer of this blog for some time, but with the January 1st posting I'm just sad. He's brilliant, a gifted writer, a gifted futurist - and pretty much everything you said about him in regards to women, men, and being, well, all the names you called him. :) It's a damn shame. What makes it so frightening for otherwise rational males to face women becoming equals/peers? That anyone can sit with a straight face and say that the best cultural models are those that assume male dominance and female submissiveness leave me shaking my head. I think this is just another symptom of the Singularity - so much is changing so fast, and while we seem more or less adept at managing the technological developments (although I wonder for how long, for some people) I think many people are profoundly uncomfortable with the cultural changes at work. I don't think there is enough lucid discussion about those sociological and psychological evolutions.

In any event - thanks. A lucid voice in a welter of nervous, anxious men."

Do you even have the slightest comprehension of how many more of your readers you've lost by this rabid rant? I'm not the one who's lost credibility.

The Futurist

Valkyrie Ice,

Again, you irresponsibly call me a 'misogynist' while simply engaging in the same projection that I have heavily pre-empted and deconstructed in the main article.

It is you who are the misogynist, as you disapprove of any woman not sharing your extreme views.

I am very critical of certain MEN, say they are worse than the average woman, and say that misandry is unfair to both genders. I praise Sarah Palin (who I know you hate). That effectively disproves your own claim of 'misogyny'.

Since you can't face this point, case closed.

Considering that with my responses it's twice as long as your original article,

Why should I read something 40 pages long, when just the first sentence above shows your claims to be wholly false?

Do you even have the slightest comprehension of how many more of your readers you've lost by this rabid rant?

I have lost zero (I haven't even lost you:)). I see that no one else here has sided with you. Meanwhile, even WOMEN have praised this article. Explain that.

Rabid? More projection on your part, as my posts are far calmer (and shorter) than yours.

As stated in the article, when anyone makes an accusation that is waaaaay off-base, projection is usually the reason.

Valkyrie Ice

Let's see, Your article claims repeatedly that all women MUST BE subservient, that every man MUST BE dominant, that only women of 10+ looks have value, that a woman's sole purpose is as a baby factory, claim that all technological advance is due to MEN ALONE, and call for a violent revolt by men against women to subjugate them again. So how am I "irresponsibly" calling you a misogynist?

Tell me again how you admire women? How you are merely concerned for them, and want to return them to their natural state of enslavement to men, baby making, and freedom from self will?

You're a sham. A self-deluded misogynist on a crusade to return the world to an era where men can rule unchallenged who is masquerading as a "merely an observer."

Your fantasies of male empowerment are going to leave you stuck in the past, old boy. I pity you when the world moves on around you.

Zyndryl

Valkyrie Ice is just trolling, GK.

Don't feed the troll.

The Futurist

Zyndryl,

Valkyrie Ice is just trolling.

True.

Valkyrie Ice,

You still are stumped by this paragraph, despite the 40+ cumulative pages you have written about my article :

I am very critical of certain MEN, say they are worse than the average woman, and say that misandry is unfair to both genders. I praise Sarah Palin (who I know you hate). That effectively disproves your own claim of 'misogyny'.

Since you can't face this point, case closed.

You also need to explain why Dr. Helen praised my article.

Tell me again how you admire women? How you are merely concerned for them, and want to return them to their natural state of enslavement to men, baby making, and freedom from self will?

A total lie. Nowhere have I said anything close to 'enslavement'.

Now, your hatred of Sarah Palin (who I praise) makes you a misogynist, does it not? Again, projection is all you are about.

Your article claims repeatedly that all women MUST BE subservient,

Where does it say that in the article? You are dancing dangerously close to being a bigot against Indian culture here.

claim that all technological advance is due to MEN ALONE,

This is true for 99% of advances. Just like all births have been done by women.

are going to leave you stuck in the past, old boy. I pity you when the world moves on around you.

But didn't you admit just yesterday that I am a very good Futurist?

So a prediction that is not politically correct should not be made, and instead 'PC' predictions that turn out to be wrong should be made? Absurd.

Weary D

This 'Valkyrie Ice' creature is a loon among loons.

Nothing s/he claims to be in the article is in the article. S/He is pulling strawmen out of thin air. There is certainly no misogyny in The Futurist's article, which is somehow 'rabid'? Puh-leeze.

But, VI, are you really a transvestite? Let's talk about that, as it would more interesting than any screaming you are doing about the subject at hand.

Zyndryl

Uhh...I've been thinking...about the graph of 'who will be around in 2025'. There have also been studies by demographers that point to a Conservative dominance in the US for much the same reasons.

However, looking at this non-linearly, with upcoming age extension or even outright immortality technologies hitting it big time over the next two or three decades, wouldn't that even the score a bit or at least extend out the 'demographic takeover' to further on?

It will be in the rich nations that the new anti-agathic treatments will take off first. They will be the societies that will be able to afford them. They will have the old geezers that will desperately demand them. In the US, the continuously spoiled Baby Boomers will also have zero qualms about using other people's money to pay for it.

This doesn't change the fact that lefties won't have enough children while conservative folks will. But the lefties might stop dying as soon as is currently projected. That's all we need: rejuvenated hippies/Can'tMoveOnOrg'ers.

So if true, then the impact to The Futurist's projected trendline will occur mostly intranational than international.

VI: Don't bother participating in this thread. The Futurist may have his reasons for entertaining your crap, but I do no share them. This is one man who refuses to take it any more.

The Futurist

Zyndryl,

I have thought about that. Among the several factors in play are :

a) Health technologies might result in quite a few people abusing their health more, causing life expectancies to stay the same due to equilibrium between the two forces. Only by the 2030s or later will technology overcome even this.

b) Socialized medicine could slow healthcare innovation.

c) A slowdown in later-state aging still means reproductive viability of women ends by 35 or so, so fertility rates may not change.

d) There is something to be said for the 'youthful energy' of people under 40 vs. the lower energy of people above 60.

e) An accelerating rate of change causes more prosperity, but also more stress. Stress ages people.

Note that there are a number of anti-aging techniques in existence today that are not being used by lazy laypeople. Yoga, eating of sprouts, berries, turmeric, avocados, etc. while also avoiding the age-accelerating effects of refined sugar, processed meats, and fried foods can easily extend life by 10-20 years on average. Yet people don't adopt these simple strategies.

Hence, anti-aging technology will have to be effortless to cause mass adoption.

It will be in the rich nations that the new anti-agathic treatments will take off first.

The technology diffusion gap will greatly narrow before *effortless and cheap* anti-aging becomes available.

Hasn't the PC and cellphone gap already narrowed, long before per capita GDP even came close?

But the lefties might stop dying as soon as is currently projected. That's all we need: rejuvenated hippies/Can'tMoveOnOrg'ers.

Conservatives will live longer too. They will be around to see even their great and great-great grandchildren. There will 110-year-old conservatives with 100 people under them in their family trees.

Of course, conservatives are major perpetrators of misandry as well, since they think being whiteknights makes them heroes.

More likely, the block currently known as 'seniors' will bifurcate into the 62-85 vs 86+ groups, with internecine strife between them. Nobody wants to pay for people 30 years older than them, and this includes an 80 y/o not wantng to pay for a 110 y/o.

Joe

what I dont get is by 2020 what do you think the women will be like and how will the bubble pop? what events will happen and are we going to have a generation of 40 year old desperate women? what will the outcome be? we know the thesis but what is the preicted result of how women will react and where will they be?

The Futurist

Joe,

Women who still marry before age 28 and value the family life will not lose much.

Women who currently live an urban shopping/barhopping/mooching life will have far less male attention, for reasons they cannot figure out. They will become more desperate and far less demanding in the dating market. Most will be alone and childless at 40, with no prospects. They will thus turn to the state as a husband-substitute, and vote for expanded welfare in all its forms. But globalized market forces and the erosion of the tax base (as described in the article) will make this impossible. So many will endure much lower standards of living than they do today, on top of being lonely.

In short, the status level of urban feminists will be shattered relative to the bubble levels that it currently resides at.

Joe

Alright Futurist but wont allot of betas or chumps step up to the plate for these women and marry them. Personally an ex of mine confided in me( she found me on facebook years later ) that after me( her 2nd) she had 47 sex partners( among other issues) and lied to her soon to be husband and told him she had only 7. he was a deeply relgious type of a guy that freaked over this but still married her anyways . she was around 27 at the time.

now my point is that he is a chump and a fool, we all know that, but there are still lots of fools and chumps abound. and these guys will put up withy that shit its scary and gross, but they will

How do you know that justice will be served to these types of women and it comes back around to bite them in the ass?


My Question is to you.....and I do agree with your essay BTW,

how can you be so sure? Im skeptical you see I think betas and chumps will and things may just marry these types as per my example

The Futurist

Joe,

Many men won't make the conscious choice - they will just come home from work, eat, and then sit down in their VR simulation. They will not even go out, where women mooch off of them. They will have taken themselves out of the market without ever having deliberately decided to do so.

Also, the male brain will get warped with all this VR sex, so that these men don't find the average woman attractive anymore.

Even more, other men are learning that marriage is a big legal risk for men, so if even *some* men avoid marriage, *all* single women are stressed out as there are a shortage of forthcoming rings.

So Betas and Chumps will be there, but women will no longer be in such a position of power over them (which was unnatural in the first place).

Joe

I dunno man I Dont totally buy the whole VR thing. Im more likely to belive we'll more pissed off people, more lonersm more people opting out of the system, doing their own thing and more cultural meltdown.basically a worse more borken state that it is where people just give up

Edward Thwaite

"Why ... the utter decimation of cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Baltimore ..." Get the ouija board! Call in Madame Blavatskaya from the spirit world! Am I getting an M, an N, an N-word ... probably not.

Valkyrie Ice

You praise Sarah Palin, a woman who SHARES your political views. Counts for nothing when compared to the rest of your article. You are praised by a woman who ALSO SHARES your views on certain topics. I quite clearly pointed out how you divide women into two categories, those which qualify as "women" by your narrowly defined misogynistic views, and those "evil man-hating harpies." You've proved absolutely nothing but your unwillingness to actually be challenged in your opinions. I delineated PRECISELY where I agreed with your article, why I agreed with those specific points, and broke those parts out from the hate terms, violent rhetoric, and bigotry that you wrapped them in. That some parts of your article are quite true has never once been at issue. Your pretending to be anything but a misogynist is.

And, for the record, I don't hate Palin. I simply consider her to be a idiot who is trying to ride the lowest common denominator into personal power. It's not her sex I give a damn about, it's her complete and utter two-faced hypocrisy I despise. Sooner or later, her calls for violence will get her in trouble, and she'll be gone.

Do continue your sham. That ego problem you have was quite apparent in all the self given ego stroking you gave yourself both in your article and in your posts. I can see you have enough fawning boot-lickers to keep you happy. Fortunately, there are those who can see through your bullshit.

http://valkyrieice.blogspot.com/2010/01/this-is-in-response-to-post-made-on.html

The Futurist

Valkyrie Ice,

Yawn....no matter how much you dance around with your projection, you still are stumped by the same paragraph I keep posting :

I am very critical of certain MEN, say they are worse than the average woman, and say that misandry is unfair to both genders. I praise Sarah Palin (who I know you hate). That effectively disproves your own claim of 'misogyny'.

Since you can't face this point, you are stumped. Case closed (again).

Your projection and misogyny have consumed you. No one agrees with you here, or even on your blog. A normal person would take pause through that.

I encourage you to go to The Spearhead (www.the-spearhead.com) and present your views for feedback. Check out this blog written by a woman too : http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/

Valkyrie Ice

Yes, you very carefully inserted a SINGLE LINE into your article that makes a case for true gender equality, surrounded by a sea of WOMEN MUST BE SUBSERVIENT TO MEN AND ARE VALUELESS AS ANYTHING BUT BABY MACHINES, and you expect that to make up for the rest of the horseshit? You praise the darling of the NeoCon radical right, and you think that covers thinking women should be re-enslaved?

Or your little "prediction" designed to try and prevent anyone from calling you on your shit?

Do continue your self-delusional behavior.

The Futurist

Valkyrie Ice,

Yawn....Now you have had a total meltdown. resorting to outright lies (above and beyond your projection, misogyny, and racism).

There are MANY, not one, sentences in my article that are quite concerned about the well-being of young women being harmed. They are inconvenient to your false narrative, so you easily lie to avoid them.

Slavery? Where? Until you learn how to read, you shouldn't be commenting. This is more projection on your part - it is YOU who are pro-slavery regarding people of color who have fled your plantation (as leftists usually are).

Self-delusional? Someone who went so far as to change his gender is hardly in a position to call someone else 'self-delusional'. Again, more projection.

Also, you don't seem to know what a prediction is. A prediction has to be accurate about the future, whether people 'like' it or not.

You have been stumped by very simple points, and no one is coming to your defense here or on your own blog. Your position is too extreme. Case closed (again).

Go to the two blogs I linked, be a man, and make your case.

I see you were afraid to address Zyndryl's or Weary D's points. Unsurprising.

Zyndryl

Hey Valkyrie Ice!

I dig the 3D boobs on your avatar photo! Makes me pine for the coming days when the hot robots/VR babes can compete with women.

- Zyndryl the Misogynist Extraordinaire

ML

There are a lot of good points going back and forth here. Game isn't "bad" or "good" but it does have its flaws and there are predictable ways it can be lame.

The main thing is that game teaches guys how to be attractive to women...but not how to be attracted TO women.

That creates more and more disparity in happiness and is the reason for a sort of growing dissatisfaction that leads these pick up artists to go from girl to girl, getting less satisfaction every time.

Appreciation is key and it's a skill that has to be developed every day.

ML

Here's a site that points to exactly what I mean: http://www.themysterymethod.net

Again it's not "good" or "bad" information. What you can take from this is that it's 1/2 of a key skill...but the other half of that skill, the skill of appreciation, if it's left out, leads to a constant "need" to game...and that is both for women and for men.

ML

One more site on "game" is http://www.thegameneilstrauss

It's about Neil Strauss author of The Game, a new york times best seller. At the end of the book Neil talks about wanting to "get out of the game" as being the main goal of his situation.

That's because he feels tugged back and forth between the excitement and the predictable drama of behaviorist Neuro Linguistic Programming "NLP" style relationships. (Somebody above pointed to NLP, which I think was smart.)

Girls have been using NLP for years to "game" guys. And while it's all well and good for guys to respond in kind, it really just leads to a relationship "tug of war."

The real way then to get out of "the game" isn't the catching sounding "don't play it" but rather to realize that psychological or neurological communication isn't the only strategy we want to use. We also want to employ philosophy - most specifically the philosophy of appreciation. Not every girl or guy will go for this, but the few who are open to it can really have an extraordinary situation.

GJ

@Sparks123 - I just read Atlas Shrugged and you're right on! Ayn Rand had it down.

@Master Dogan: As far as this Mystery YouTube business there are sites like this all over the net about pick-up artists and their methods and they are mostly about manipulating brains. The point is that the second these guys start talking they are trying to get other people to do what THEY want them to do. Instead look at what Ayn Rand was saying, "be the change you want to see" instead of trying to manipulate others into giving you what you want.

Jack

Whats all this about 10s and 7s? If women are just for looking then internet porn should be more than enough for men. Using Venusian Arts to get women or a wife is sick. Not because of the "Art" but because of woman's mentality and trying to manipulate it and live with it.

War on terror predictions have been so good because it was planned by the Zionist crime network. Porn is a weapon of the Zionists that is used on their enemies including the US. Feminists and Leftists are all Zionist supporters!

Great text. I agree with most of it.

Sam

Great insightful and well-researched post about rise of misandry in western world. In my farewell party one of my friend asked me " You know why more of western men are marrying asian women?" He answered i, They give chance for me to be dominant ii, They have less ego comared to feminist centric women in west.

"The irony is that the group that was our enemy in the War on Terror will be indirect yet valuable allies in the 'War on Misandry'."

That statement seemed like islamophobic statement. Did you know a group ike Al Qaeda killed more Muslims than group of any religion? Sorry amoun 1.3 billion muslims we do have our bad apples which kills to enforce their ego as christain militia men found 2 weeks ago.

Indio

Im not a white knight, think Rachel Maddow makes even blazer wearing buzz-cut dykes look bad, and am a conservative. A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE which you seem to rate only slighlty higher than a weather under-grounder, but God almighty do I not agree with your premise. First people are not freaking gorillas!! Some of us may ACT like it sometimes, even an atheist such as yourself (no derisiveness, your choice) would have to admit their are a FEW differences. And 2 everything thing you refer to when it comes to attraction has to do with sexuality, a small though vital part of any relationship. As one who considers himself a gentlemen (wonder how you'll interpret my admission of that!) I am hesitant to say this in your circle, but my partner and I like our primal M/F dynamic IN THE BEDROOM. In most other regards it simply comes down to mutual respect and affection. Its fun to give into certain traditional power dynamics while being intimate, but if I tried to apply your so called gaming on her she would see right through it for what it was in an instant (though maybe she would play along to her gratification while taking none of it seriously, and rightfully so) because she is not dumb, and those who are, are not the kind of lady I think I or most could stand for long anyway. I dont know... maybe what you do works for you, but again I dont think we're in the same kinda circle, and thats what some of the other commenters are trying to articulate as well. Though if you choose to reply to this post please dont lump me in with that Viking guy (or was it gal?)

PS I really admire alot of your other posts before you derailed in my opinion on this last one. Could you maybe get back to cool science fiction stuff soon huh?

The Futurist

Indio,

There is a reason why conservatives are quite invested in the notion that women are delicate and innocent, and thus need to be rescued.

The reason I lost respect for conservatives is a) their inability to deliver results, and b) their eager desire to support leftism when packaged in the form of 'chivalry'.

but if I tried to apply your so called gaming on her she would see right through it for what it was in an instant

No, she would not. This in fact works on smarter women better than dumber ones. You should understand the material before opining on it.

As a social conservative, that you utterly fail to see that the legal system incentivizes the destruction of families, is the main reason social conservatives have a 0% success rate in achieving their goals, or even understanding the issues at hand.

Indio

The Futurist,

WOW! Talk about projecting. I never even mentioned my position on the majority of the opinions you're attributing to me. No wonder you're so smart, you can read books merely by scanning their covers! I merely state that to each their own, and even this is grounds for your trademark brand of subtle contempt and patronizing. Oh well. You're not going to convince me that my way of life is obsolete, and obviously no one here who even elects to agree to disagree is above your derision. You have shown that you are incapable of even feigning mutual respect in many responses to those I do, and do not agree with. Though still... you are unquestionably a VERY smart guy, BUT we have philosophical, and ideological differences. My point was that their not either/or, zero sum. You believe in the purely mechanistic and secular view of the world, and this in my opinion can be even more rigid and hard-line than radical Islam in many respects. Though those of your view are predictably reluctant to address that argument. Well... whatever. Based on your responses to other commentators (some of whom I agree with, and others I don't) I knew their was a 50/50 chance your reply would be negative, mildly insulting. You haven't lost a reader. Your blog isn't the Wall Street Journal, its out there, always accessible. I'm not going to boycott it as others have said, we can agree/disagree. I just wish you could admit there are such issues. Someone either subscribes entirely to your world view (religiously ironically) or their not even the same class of person as you. Isaac Newton/Martin Luther King, or Freud/Nietzsche. I say its a false choice.

Indio

However... I gotta admit its oddly flattering seeing a statement I made re-posted in bold official looking italics on THE FUTURIST. LOL. I've never been quoted before...

The Futurist

Indio,

WOW! Talk about projecting.

I did not accuse you of projection. Read my comment.

I never even mentioned my position on the majority of the opinions

So mention them. But when you choose to make your comment about The Venusian Arts, and not about the other 90% of the article (particularly the very big legal and economic segments, that should interest a fiscal conservative), it is safe to say that issue was on the top of your list.

Now, my main point stands : You should be much more worried about the legal system and government incentivizing divorce, single motherhood, etc., than about men who have adapted to the modern reality.

You're not going to convince me that my way of life is obsolete,

Again, I did not say that. A waaaay off-base accusation is usually the result of projection in the accuser.

But you seem to be going out of your way to avoid the terrible reality that your 'way of life' is heavily penalized in the legal system.

Most social conservatives believe that 'marriage is sacred' and (correctly) want the divorce rate to be back to the 10% it was prior to 1969, but really go out of their way to avoid addressing the elephant in the room, which is that the legal system has made divorce profitable for women through successive steps in 1969, 1986, and 1996.

All conservative principles like personal responsibility, small government, in belief in incentives (both good and bad), and preventing judicial activism that bypasses voters, go out the window on this issue. Hence, socialcons are being revealed as unserious, unrealistic people with a perfect 0% track record of failure. Sad but true.

I was a strident Republican voter until recently (Nov. 2008), but am not now, for this reason. Why can't you see *why* conservatives continue to cede ground?

gotta admit its oddly flattering seeing a statement I made re-posted in bold official looking italics on THE FUTURIST

Where? That is how people reply to comments point by point...

Kelly

Why do you add the 20% the female category where the man is "forced" to file due to adultury and do not add ANY percent back to the male category when the female is "forced" to file due to the same cause?

This IS misrepresenting statistics, if not outright lying about them.

The Futurist

Kelly,

Because female adultery is far more damaging to the marrage than male adultery, since men can't get pregnant, and men are not hypergamous (they are promiscuous).

Even if you dispute the 90% number, you don't seem to be disputing the 70% number.

What is unfair, which I doubt you would admit, is that if the man does a wrong, he pays. But if a woman does a wrong, the MAN still pays. This is disgustingly unfair to men.

Kelly

I do not know if I dispute the 70% since I did not see the actual study or statistics; it was not included it with in the article. Perhaps it is also flawed but I could not say that with any certainty.

I could say, however, that the additional 20% is a number fabricated by the author to assign what I'll call additional impact, or punch to adultery and divorce initiated by women.

I agree with you that in many situations the divorce process can be unfair to men even when the woman has done some harm to the marriage and to her husband.

However, this fact does not alter the pure statistics; they were misrepresented to push an agenda, regardless of whether that agenda has any merit. It doesn't matter whether the divorce process is "fair" or "unfair" in the example. It matters whether the divorce was initiated or caused by the male or the female, which was the premise of that particular argument.

As a scientist, this kind of behavior is completely abhorrent and out of line. For example, a study conducted on whether or not a certain drug was effective could not include people in the "better" category when they might have been helped by another factor (not the drug) without also discluding the people that were made "worse" by some outside factor (also not the drug). Even this practice is discouraged, as it takes away from the power of the outside factors itself and can lead to false conclusions.

Interestingly enough, the 70% number (if it in fact checks out) speaks for itself; there was no need for inflation if the intent was to simply discuss the raw data.

From there, we should look at the reasons for those initiations. How many are frivolous? How many are legitimate? How many involved children? How many were mutual? These things are all relevant and are not included in your essay (which is ok! we could go on forever that way!). I would be truly curious to know where these numbers came from. Do you have any links to the actual data?
------

Also, as an aside to you: I am disappointed with your little jab contending that you doubted I would admit to the unfairness of current divorce law. I am not exactly sure what made you assert something like that but I can assure you that you know nothing about me or what I would admit to. I made no plea to one side of the fence or the other; I simply asked why in the world the author misrepresented that piece of data.

Kelly

--Oops! I made a typo.

Should say "Even this practice is discouraged, as it takes away from the power of the factor (drug in question) itself and can lead to false conclusions."

Tim

I am a male. I think that this is the funniest piece of shit “article” that I have ever seen in my life. The charts and “data” make it all the funnier. Please consider this: I am a male. I can make the choices that I want. No one dictates what I do. I have a girlfriend. We have a sexual relationship. She can make the choices that she wants. No one dictates what she does other than her. If she wants to go screw someone else then that is her business. If I don’t like it, I am free to go. And visa versa. This bullshit “report” is what happens when I guy feels pussy whipped and wants to add a little science behind his feelings of being a baby. YOU need a Man’s Rights Movement…..not the rest of us. Good luck getting this shit published anywhere but here.

Kelly

I'm really struggling here Futurist:

All the statistics I'm pulling up so far aren't matching up to your numbers. Some of the sources are a bit old (2000-ish), but I'm pulling up big differences in reasons.

Biggest categories for women included abuse and infidelty; men had neither of these things in their top 3 (which would seem contrary to your claim that most men filing for divorce were "forced" due to being cheated on). Both listed "communication" as the top reason. Men were LESS likely to leave after infidelity than women, which puts into question your claim that "cuckolding is worse than rape" for men.

I'm also finding something closer to 60% of divorces are initiated by women, not the 70% you claim (which strangely enough, is a DECREASE over time; it was higher prior to the women's rights movement).

I'm seeing that support payments are only ordered in 15% of divorce cases and that a significant portion of these are temporary (ie until the woman can find another means of supporting herself and the children).

There are also some numbers to suggest that the household wealth for a female drops by 20-25% following divorce while the male side goes up by 10% --which makes some intuitive sense. Women are more likely to have been home taking care of children during the marriage and more likely to take care of the children after the divorce so have more mouths to feed with fewer high paying job prospects.

Please tell me what studies you are looking at. None of your links go to any hard data in the area of marriage and divorce. The fact that your data sources are lacking and contradictory to the information I have been able to pull coupled with your inflamatory language, numerous fallacious arguments (Ad Hominem, etc...), anecdotal evidence/reasoning, and unfounded assumptions about the beliefs, motivations, and gender of people who disagree with you makes you sound like a quack.

Which is sad because I think there are some gems in here, including the idea that divorce law is often biased toward females, though not for the reasons that you seem to believe. You are effectively undermining the plight of good men who want amicable and fair divorces and custodial rights to their children.

P.S. To save myself the drama of being accused of not having sources, I will PM documents/links to you if you're interested.

The Futurist

Tim,

Please consider this: I am a male.

See the section in the article about Socialcons/Whiteknights/Girlie-Men. I have explained the psychology of men like you (manginas) in that section. You seem to think that sucking up to women and worshiping them will get you laid. This reveals an incorrect understanding of female sexuality.

Every piece of projection you have uttered has been heavily pre-empted in the article. Thanks for proving key points of the article - you couldn't help yourself, could you?

As you can see, this article has been praised by women like Dr. Helen and Cassy Fiano, who recognize reality.

And no, you don't have a girlfriend. Your writings reveal you to be a virgin, as is your inability to address the points stated. You are probably appalled by the 'Venusian Arts' section.

It is equally likely that you are a FeminOrc posing as a man, however.

If I don’t like it, I am free to go. And visa versa.

If SHE leaves, you still have to pay her payments for the rest of your life. You get nothing from her, though. Again, if you actually have ever been in a relationship, you would know that.

Get a clue.

The Futurist

Kelly,

Also, as an aside to you: I am disappointed with your little jab contending that you doubted I would admit to the unfairness of current divorce law.

So what is your position on current divorce law? Why are men avoiding marriage, because of it?

Even female divorce lawyers say '70-80% are filed by women'. A couple minutes of Google searching will provide you tons of sources.

As far as 90%, I linked to an article that explains why. But the 70% number is high enough to indicate a problem.

There are also some numbers to suggest that the household wealth for a female drops by 20-25% following divorce while the male side goes up by 10% --which makes some intuitive sense.

Totally bogus, which is why you didn't post a link. See the 'Wedded Abyss' link I have included.

Why should the party who did NOT want a divorce have to pay anything at all, unless there was serious wrongdoing? No money should be exchanged on a 'no fault' basis. That is fundamentally unfair, and women would be screaming if the situation was reversed.

of your links go to any hard data in the area of marriage and divorce.

Yes they do. See 'Wedded Abyss' and 'Feminist Gulag' and 'F Roger Devlin Articles'. There are tons of sources, far more than you have provided.

From there, we should look at the reasons for those initiations. How many are frivolous?

Most. The divorce rate was just 10% in the US in 1969. The ability to get a ton of money from the man is the sole reason that the divorce rate rose (mostly initiated by women), when the law changed after 1969.

If you are so sure of yourself, go to The Spearhead (www.the-spearhead.com) and state your case. Actual lawyers are present there to correct your misconceptions.

Kelly

Were you reading at all, The Futurist?
I have stated twice now that current divorce law can be unfair and also stated I would PM sources if you cared to read them.

Second, you are hypothesizing about the CAUSES for statistics without having any information about that portion of the data. Just because A is so doesn't mean that B follows. You must prove a causal relationship, which you have not. I repeat, you sources DO NOT articulate this information.

Third, you only responded to my second comment following your first response.


Kelly

Oh...and finally.

Lawyers =/= Statisticians

The Futurist

Kelly,

Yes, the sources do support the stats. Even if the 90% number is iffy, the 70% is heavily recognized even by feminists.

You are emotionally tied to the notion that 'women only divorce if there is a good reason'. This totally flies in the face of the jump from 10% pre-1969 to 45% immediately after the laws changed.

The other parts of the article explain the biological differences between men and women, the economic considerations, etc. You need to digest this in its entirety.

The point is, many men feel the divorce laws are unfair, and quite a few are choosing not to marry. Even if just 20% of men choose not to marry, now 100 women are competing for 80 men, making all women stressed out.

This is what you need to grasp.

I need to see that you are visibly animated about injustices done towards men, leading to high suicide rates, before I can give any weight to your claim to be against the laws when MEN are mistreated.

Lawyers =/= Statisticians

That may be the weakest point you have put forth. So if a Heart Surgeon gives you a stat about cardio disease, is it invalid because he is not a statitician?

And, according to you, is a statistician the final authority on medicine, law, finance more so than doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc?

LOL!!

Lawyers know their profession, and the stats of it.

Zyndryl

The Futurist, didn't you mean to say, "now 100 women are competing for 80 men" Actually, there are slightly more women than men in a normal population mix. So, it would be higher. 107 women instead of 100 or something like that.

The Futurist

Zyndryl,

The 107 vs. 100 number is entirely due to women living 7 years longer than men, so the surplus of women is concentrated in the 75+ age group. The surplus of women are not in the sexual age range.

Reality

WOW. As a 25 year old professional woman who has been blessed with an incredible father and three very admirable brothers, I find this article, and many of the comments linked to it, an absolute disgrace to men. Actually, let me know take that back. I won't even give you the privilege of being called a man. To be a REAL man you must first be confident enough in yourself to not fear "the woman" but rather love and respect her (to not, is to constantly be stuck in a pre-adolescent mind set that girls are “icky”). My father is actually the one who sent me this pathetic excuse for a “research article”, labeling you “a Neanderthal who must have just thawed out”.

You should stop pulling these absurd and absolutely pointless statistics out of your hat as some sort of pathetic excuse for your bigotry. It is painfully obvious you feel so absolutely powerless in your masculinity that you need to direct your self-hatred towards a group of people you very clearly wish to epitomize. Further, your dismissal of the psychological damage caused by rape is an obvious deflection of your own psycho-sexual issues and palpable unhappiness.

And for the record, statistics and science have no bearing when it comes to the human soul, that which is the real barer of truth and justice. But a matter of the soul is something you would obviously know nothing about. Apparently, you live in a very lonely place surrounded by numbers and “research”, which you desperately try to manipulate to make yourself feel better about your ultimate incompetency as a “man”. Sad, sad, sad.

Janine

'Reality',

Actually, there are a lot of women who like this article, and Dr. Helen is among them.

You give all women a bad name, projecting your bigotry and your own insecurities and inadequacies outwards.

This article has things that need to be said, and that women can benefit from reading.

I bet you hate Sarah Palin too. This makes you a misogynist.

-Janine

The Futurist

Reality, aka Erika Gertz, is yet another example of a misandrist who has no debate tactics other than calling someone an a) misogynist, and b) loser.

Everything she said, of course, is heavily pre-empted and predicted in the article. Misandrists like Erika are simply not capable of addressing actual points, because she has been intellectually outclassed. Thanks, Erika, for proving the article to be true.

What is funny is that Erika admits that the statistics in the article are valid. She just does not like reality being governed by statistics ahead of emotion. This shows that Erika has not received education, but rather indoctrinattion masquerading as education.

Erika is also a racist, given how she disapproves of all cultures (Islamic, Indian, Latin American) that are gender normative.

Curious

Wow, your prediction skills are so good, you even predicted your own behavior. In your "article" you wrote:

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'.
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.

You wrote to Tim:

I have explained the psychology of men like you (manginas) in that section.
Your writings reveal you to be a virgin, as is your inability to address the points stated.

You call men who disagree with you virgins, manginas, and omegas, just because we recognize that women are better than men. You're like the clueless college freshman who has just taken Psych 101 and immediately starts throwing around words that he has absolutely no understanding of. Your debate tactics consist of ad hominems, tu quoques, non sequiturs, and moving the goalposts.

Just out of curiousity, when did Pittsburgh become Baltimore? You mean you actually did some research and discovered that Pittsburgh is a thriving city? So you decided to give your readers some credit upon realizing that unlike you, they're not all psychologically stuck in the 1980s, which is not surprising given your bizarre characterization of the 1980s as the "good ol' days."

It's rather ironic that you aren't willing to read Valkyrie Ice's response, supposedly because it's "40 pages long", because most of those are actually your drivel. Her response is only about 15 pages long.

Oh, and good luck with your gambit of moving overseas to avoid "high" US taxes. Surely a man as knowledgeable about the law as you are knows that the US government taxes its citizens regardless of where they live. Perhaps you will try to renounce your US citizenship. Even if you do, you will continue to be taxed for ten years afterwards. Your admission of intending to avoid taxes might backfire against you and make it less likely that you will succeed in that endeavor.

The Futurist

'Curious',

Pittsburgh is a thriving city?

Pittsburgh is one of the three fastest shrinking cities in the US, population-wise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh#Demographics

Are you really this incapable of doing 30 seconds of research? Just for that, I am adding it back to the article.

Her response is only about 15 pages long.

I read it. It is full of hysterical strawmen and an obsession with calling others 'misogynists', despite VI's own bigotry. It has been debunked logically, by me, and by others here (see Zyndryl). Logic is not your strong suit, so you won't admit defeat.

they're not all psychologically stuck in the 1980s,

Yes, you have regressed much further back than that, as the article explains.

downgraded the percentage of single men from 25% to 20%.

It is actually 22%. I rounded down, but have now corrected that to the exact 22%. Of course, you hide behind this because you are afraid of the main point. The Economist says that if even 5% of men don't marry, women all have to up their efforts.

The broader concept of ratios escapes you.

Surely a man as knowledgeable about the law as you are knows that the US government taxes its citizens regardless of where they live.

Many countries, including India, have tax treaties with the US where if full residency is in that country, the tax rate of the host country applies, as a credit. Particularly for Capital Gains (I hope you know what Capital Gains are).

I know a lot more about this than someone like you.

At least Valkyrie Ice got ONE person to side with him after 4 months of begging across the Internet. Perhaps you and him should go to The Spearhead where transgendered people are discused, and put forth your views :
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/04/22/top-mens-studies-authority-is-a-tranny/

Now, I see you can't actually discuss the points regarding economics, birth rates, divorce laws, and The Venusian Arts. Your ad hominems and projection are because of this incapacity of yours. Unsurprising.

Curious

Pittsburgh is one of the three fastest shrinking cities in the US, population-wise.
Pittsburgh is among the nation's strongest economies, which doesn't necessarily require population growth. Besides, more recent data suggests that its population is growing.

You mean HIS response. The gender a person is born with is what I will call them.
Since you're into pointless, irrelevant nitpicking, shouldn't it be "the gender a person is CONCEIVED with"? I honor a person's wish to be referred to as the gender that they refer to themselves. Besides, if Valkyrie Ice is a man and disagrees with your article, shouldn't that count against you, considering how much you constantly brag about the few women who agree with your article?

It is full of hysterical strawmen and an obsession with calling others 'misogynists', despite VI's own bigotry.
Yet more tu quoque from you. Where in her article do you see bigotry?

It has been debunked logically, by me, and by others here (see Zyndryl).
Unfounded accusations of hysterics and obsession don't count as logic. Zyndryl taunting Valkyrie Ice about his gender doesn't count as logic either.

Perhaps you and him should go to The Spearhead where transgendered people are discused, and put forth your views
Do you get kickbacks from the Spearhead Bitterati for your shilling for them?

Yes, you have regressed much further back than that, as the article explains.
The article explains about me? How did I miss that part?

Many countries, including India, have tax treaties with the US where if full residency is in that country, the tax rate of the host country applies, as a credit.
The tax treaty is for the purpose of avoiding double taxation.

Particularly for Capital Gains
Whew, for a moment there, I thought you were "earning" that much peddling your peblum to embittered misogynists and mama's boys.

I know a lot more about this than someone like you.
Do continue to showcase your superbly transparent attempts at cold reading.

Your ad hominems and projection are because of this incapacity of yours
Really? Then you must have forgotten to enumerate them to me.

I rounded down, but have now corrected that to the exact 22%. Of course, you hide behind this because you are afraid of the main point.
This vacillation on your part is representative of your general tendency to play fast and loose with statistics. Be a man and make up your mind already. You obviously don't understand the concept of significant figures. Your inability to interpret statistics is also painfully obvious. The survey was limited to SINGLE men aged 25-34. More than half of the men in that age group are already MARRIED. The actual figure for men overall is 10%. Why are you so eager to believe what the men say anyway? This is yet another example of your double standards.

The Economist says that if even 5% of men don't marry, women all have to up their efforts.
More moving of the goalposts on your part. Why don't you provide a link to the source? Or you can just take the easy way out and link to Guru Roissy. Why do you assume that all women are interested in marriage? What about the urban shopping/barhopping ones? Apparently, they don't count as women, according to your bizarre calculus. Where is the evidence of women's effort? The marriage rate has been falling for decades, but we have yet to see any signs of women's desperation that is supposed to commence Real Soon Now. By your own admission, women have become more "entitled" in the past 20 years. If men are more in demand for marriage than women, then how do you explain the fact that men are more willing to finance the wedding? Wouldn't the "market forces" correct such mispricings? You never did explain how this "presumption of indulgence" arose in the first place? Here is a novel idea, maybe the Big Bad FemiNazi Government created a Man-Oppressive Law requiring men to pay for weddings? It looks like you don't believe your own BS arguments. You can't have it both ways.

namae nanka

"WOW."

Popped your eyeballs,eh?

"As a 25 year old professional woman who has been blessed with an incredible father and three very admirable brothers, I find this article, and many of the comments linked to it, an absolute disgrace to men."

So three men make up your worldview about the status and conditions of men.What an absolute disgrace.

" Actually, let me know take that back. I won't even give you the privilege of being called a man."

As if you had that authority in the first place.

"To be a REAL man you must first be confident enough in yourself to not fear "the woman" but rather love and respect her "

Reality bytes from a women with three men in her life...I'm all ears.

"(to not, is to constantly be stuck in a pre-adolescent mind set that girls are “icky”)."

And how much of your advice comes from the pre-adolescent mags that you read as a little girl?
Here's a hint, check out if they have changed from this stupid view of a REAL man all this time.

"My father is actually the one who sent me this pathetic excuse for a “research article”, labeling you “a Neanderthal who must have just thawed out”."

Your father has thawed out of his comfy reality, now you should too.

"You should stop pulling these absurd and absolutely pointless statistics out of your hat as some sort of pathetic excuse for your bigotry."

Absurd ok, but why absolutely pointless? ODed on too much women surveys in cosmo?

"It is painfully obvious"

ah....

"you feel so absolutely powerless in your masculinity"

ooh....

"that you need to direct your self-hatred"

ouch.Masochistic projection much, eh?

"towards a group of people you very clearly wish to epitomize."

Back to the kitchen.....

"Further, your dismissal of the psychological damage"

Oh no my mind hurts..

"caused by rape is an obvious deflection of your own psycho-sexual issues and palpable unhappiness. "

Are you a psychoanalyst by any chance? Or do you think that it's a heaven-sent privilege to be able to read men's minds, on account of being a woman?

"And for the record, statistics and science have no bearing when it comes to the human soul,"

LOL talk about inanities and child-eyed babble.

"that which is the real barer of truth and justice."

Justice don't help souls people honey.

" But a matter of the soul is something you would obviously know nothing about."

Enlighten us then?

"Apparently, you live in a very lonely place surrounded by numbers and “research”, which you desperately try to manipulate to make yourself feel better about your ultimate incompetency as a “man”."

chik pow, Freud will be proud,You go grrrll

"Sad, sad, sad.labeling you “a Neanderthal who must have just thawed out”."

Wha.. too cold for your warm-hearted stupid pre-adolescent view of the world? Open your eyes, look around beyond your father and brothers, you might surprise yourself.

Zyndryl

You Curious,

"Zyndryl taunting Valkyrie Ice about her gender doesn't count as logic either."

Uh...I didn't taunt VI about its (there, satisfied?) gender. I taunted VI about its avatar photo. I only threw that in there as a sarcastic jab, too.

My main logical point regarding VI is basically the one I see applies to you: VI was just Trolling. So are you, as far as I can tell. The Futurist takes the time to put up with Trolls because he feels it is better to do so for reinforcing his points -- especially all that free ammo you and VI give in spades to do so. I don't have the patience for that myself. But then again, this isn't my blog, either.

My other, non-VI points were about either certain aspects of the article after I thought a lot about it (and still think about it), like the issue of looking at future history from a non-linear, acceleration-aware framework. You do know what 'non-linear' (esp in this context) and 'acceleration-aware' means, right Curious? Hint: It is very serious and heavily logical stuff that is not intuitive to the layman. It is also how The Futurist 'thinks' in all ways regarding futurist observations. Same with myself.

Here you go, Curious. Just for you: http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/12/are_you_acceler.html

The Futurist

namae nanka,

Thanks for making an example of Erika Gertz.

'Curious',

If you think that a city with among the fastest declining populations is 'booming', you aren't really a thoughtful person. Pittsburgh is certainly not doing any better then Cleveland.

Of course, you are only hiding behind this issue because you are dodging the core points pathetically.

Do you get kickbacks from the Spearhead Bitterati for your shilling for them?

Ah... the typical mental block of a leftist, who cannot accept that the majority (i.e. the normal people) take an opposing view.

The Spearhead is mainstream, where you are the only person who decided to whiteknight a man who you think is a woman.

Pedestalizing women will not get you laid (which you can't seem to grasp from your own life's failures). Pedestalizing men who change their gender is something even less likely to get you anywhere.

Why do you assume that all women are interested in marriage?

They are, more so than men. I provided a backup link (which you, of course, cannot do for any of your hysterical whinings).

but we have yet to see any signs of women's desperation that is supposed to commence Real Soon Now.

Only a man with no direct experience with women would be so blind to the endless lamenting of women who can't get a husband.

You need help, on multiple fronts.

I see that you have neither the courage nor the intellect to debate any of the actual points in the article. The economic, legal, or technological subjects are unmentioned, even though you clearly read the article so thoroughly that you even notice typos.

Projection, as described in the article, is your dominant thought. Barring this, your writings are intellectually empty.

Daniel Hasbo

About a week ago I heard about the European Union as a superpower especially united states of Europe by mark. It's got more nominal GDP versus america and and it exceeds the american population by over 100 million people.It's got it's own parliament, and after the Lisbon treaty, it'll be possible for it to build a common defence and foreign policy. As you seem to be pretty darn good at predicting the future, i would like to hear your opinion on this. Do you think the European Union will ever become a superpower?

The Futurist

Daniel Hasbo,

The EU will never be a superpower, because the EU is not a country. The entire EU is not on a single currency, and there is no single head of state that can command a full EU military (the nuclear weapons of France cannot be used by Poland, and a terrorist attack in Spain cannot use British planes to conduct airstrikes in Afghanistan to kill the terrorists).

German voters would actually be happy to shrink the size of the EU to remove Greece, Portugal, etc.

A proper comparison can only be made between sovereign nations. The biggest EU country is Germany, which will not become a superpower.

Curious

Zyndryl,

Uh...I didn't taunt VI about its (there, satisfied?) gender. I taunted VI about its avatar photo. I only threw that in there as a sarcastic jab, too.

Whatever, my point is that taunts and sarcastic jabs don't qualify as logic.

My main logical point regarding VI is basically the one I see applies to you: VI was just Trolling. So are you, as far as I can tell.

Uh...no, that's not a logical point; that's a value judgment.

The Futurist takes the time to put up with Trolls because he feels it is better to do so for reinforcing his points -- especially all that free ammo you and VI give in spades to do so. I don't have the patience for that myself.

Yet, here you are, responding to me, and ironically agreeing with The Futurist in the process.

My other, non-VI points were about either certain aspects of the article after I thought a lot about it (and still think about it), like the issue of looking at future history from a non-linear, acceleration-aware framework.

"Future history"? Oh, now it all makes sense; The Futurist was describing an alternative reality all along.

It is also how The Futurist 'thinks' in all ways regarding futurist observations.

That's all good and well, but the problem is that The Futurist can't even get his facts straight about the present and the past, let alone the future.

Curious

If you think that a city with among the fastest declining populations is 'booming', you aren't really a thoughtful person. Pittsburgh is certainly not doing any better then Cleveland.

Your tendency to put words in people's mouths dovetails nicely with your postmodern attitude towards facts and reality. You also seem to have problems with reading comprehension; I used the word "thriving," not "booming." Although, come to think of it, "booming" is also a fitting adjective. Here you go, GK:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08collapse.html
http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2010/05/10/daily44.html
http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2009/10/05/daily16.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10124/1055313-53.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09161/976252-53.stm
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/lifestyles/fooddrink/s_643107.html
http://kdka.com/local/2.1587886.html

The economic, legal, or technological subjects are unmentioned, even though you clearly read the article so thoroughly that you even notice typos.

You flatter me, GK, but that particular typo was only in the first paragraph. Speaking of typos, when did Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin become Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers (whose name you managed to misspell)? Are Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin not fair enough for you? Not to mention the fact that your question is grammatically incorrect.

Projection, as described in the article, is your dominant thought.

Pavlovian accusation of projection is your dominant reflex, yet you still can't pinpoint any specific instances of this supposed projection.

Ah... the typical mental block of a leftist, who cannot accept that the majority (i.e. the normal people) take an opposing view. The Spearhead is mainstream, where you are the only person who decided to whiteknight a man who you think is a woman.

If they are so mainstream, why do they need you to "trigger the national dialog," and why do they have that giant chip on their shoulder, which they pathetically try to pass off as some kind of iconoclastic fervor?

Pedestalizing women will not get you laid (which you can't seem to grasp from your own life's failures). Pedestalizing men who change their gender is something even less likely to get you anywhere.

You must have a pretty low opinion of your readers if you think that any of them are so stupid as to try to get laid by making anonymous comments on blogs.

They are, more so than men. I provided a backup link (which you, of course, cannot do for any of your hysterical whinings).

Your backup link provides no backup whatsoever to support your assertion. That anecdote is no more evidence that women are more interested in marriage than the fact that most cookbooks are directed at women is evidence that women are more interested in food. Studies show that men benefit more from marriage than women. According to some surveys, 45% of single women are not interested in getting married.

Only a man with no direct experience with women would be so blind to the endless lamenting of women who can't get a husband.

The same women who are, in your own words, "having a blast" and "riding a carousel of men with reckless abandon"? You have yet to explain how those "lamenting" women manage to get men to finance the wedding. Wouldn't the "market forces" correct such mispricings, if they actually existed?
I see that you still can't grasp the fact that your "22% of men are avoiding marriage" factoid is based on the SUBSET of men aged 25-34 who are SINGLE. What part of 45 x .22 = 9.9 do you not understand? Furthermore, one survey doesn't constitute "many accounts."
I knew that my gender would come up sooner or later. You're so predictable, GK. You're running the wrong script here though, because it just so happens to be that I am a woman. Although now that you have accused me of whiteknighting and pedestalizing men, you can't very well turn around and accuse me of misandry.

P.S. It's interesting that you deleted Snore Snore's comments. Where they too "self-contradicting" for you?

Strawberries

Utterly fascinating. I had no idea that the natural state of human affairs is a hybrid of the best parts of 1950s middle class westerners and the pre-industrial nobility, without their respective dark sides, despite the fact that probably no person has actually lived like this ever. And then the best way to run the economy is by forcing women to be unemployed and married with almost nothing to do (since apparently housework hardly takes any time anymore) while forcing men to work double or triple overtime to support them. I can't possibly see what might be wrong with that.

Zyndryl

And the bubble is starting to burst!

Social Welfare systems across the globe are under fiscal assault and it won't let up, either.

With that, the main prop for Feminist Misandry will be defunded: government social welfare spending in addition to forced cuts in government staffing and other means of replacing Men as providers with Uncle Sugar, instead.

Ah...it is a good time to be alive. Witnessing the Second Fall of Communism right on TV or even on my Droid phone will be a real treat.

P.S. Curious, I still think that the 3d casabas on VI's blogging avatar are pretty nifty.

The Futurist

Zyndryl,

That is an interesting way to put it. While no regime is changing, the dollars involved here are far larger than in the first fall of Communism 1991.

Misandry is heavily tied to the amount of government spending. Note how even 20% of GDP spent to cover up gender realities and substitute marriage cannot even begin to be a real substitute.

Strawberry,

Your reading comprehension is poor, as is often the case with people who dispute the sound logic of the article. I praise Sarah Palin as a woman who DID have both a career and a family, and say she should be a role model, not demonized by 'feminists', as she is.

You probably oppose Sarah Palin.

Curious,

If your whole position is based on the claim that Pittsburgh is 'thriving/booming' despite one of the fastest declining populations of any city in America, your position is even weaker than it previously appeared. By your logic, even Detroit is 'thriving' because good music still gets created there, and even babies are still being born there!!

Of course, you hide behind this point to avoid taking responsibility for being wrong on the relevant points.

Are Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin not fair enough for you?

They are (although conservative misandry also exists), but I wanted women who are less political, who specifically pinpoint misandry and discuss it.

Of course, you concede the main point, which is that 'feminists' are afraid to debate these women.

Are you a woman the same way that Valkyrie Ice is 'woman'? As in, are you also a transgendered person?

According to some surveys, 45% of single women are not interested in getting married.

Ha!!! I thought you at least had some acquaintence with (genetic) women. Clearly, you do not. Also note how you cannot provide links for what you call 'some surveys', but I provided a solid link backing up my stat (which is also obvious in the real world, just as yours is obviously wrong).

So you actually think 45% of single women don't want to marry, but just 10% of single men do?

Although now that you have accused me of whiteknighting and pedestalizing men, you can't very well turn around and accuse me of misandry.

Yes I can, because by your own admission, you consider Valkyrie Ice to be a woman. You consider yourself to be a woman too. You are also exhibiting misandry.

The rest of your message is a pathetic inability to think logically, as well as a sadistic desire to enforce even more injustice against men.

You're so predictable, GK.

Yes. I am reliably logical.

I can proudly say that in 5 months, this article has had favorable reviews from several big-name bloggers, but no negative reviews from any similarly reputable bloggers. In the comments, the shrillest opponents merely behave in a way that was predicted and pre-empted in the article.

Curious

Zyndryl,

I still think that the 3d casabas on VI's blogging avatar are pretty nifty.

That's nice to know, and I suppose you are telling me this because...? Wild guess: you have the irrepressible urge to let me know that you're still not getting any casabas in real life. (Your own moobs don't count.)

Is this one of your "logical" debunkings?

P.S. Thank you for all that free feeding, you just couldn't help yourself, could you?

Curious

GK,

You must be a time traveler. How else would you have been able to provide a link on January 1 to the Charlotte Allen article published on February 15?

If your whole position is based on the claim that Pittsburgh is 'thriving/booming' despite one of the fastest declining populations of any city in America, your position is even weaker than it previously appeared. By your logic, even Detroit is 'thriving' because good music still gets created there, and even babies are still being born there!!

There you go again with your strawmen. That's not my logic, and you know it, because if it were my logic, there would have been no need for you to "reiterate" what is supposedly my logic. Nor is it the logic of reputable publications like The New York Times, The Economist, Forbes, Places Rated Almanac, and Brookings Institution, among others, which are more reputable than the blogs you brag about. Their criteria include affordability, cost of living, income growth, job prospects, employment rates, foreclosure rates, safety, environment, culture, arts/leisure scene, stability, education, health care, infrastructure, and transportation. According to these criteria, Pittsburgh was ranked the most livable city in the United States in 2010 by Forbes and Yahoo! Real Estate, in 2005 through 2009 by The Economist, and in 2007 by Places Rated Almanac. Pittsburgh's economy was rated in the top THIRD among U.S. cities by the Brookings Institution.
Here are the links I kindly provided last time, which you pathetically tried to ignore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08collapse.htm
http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2010/05/10/daily44.html
http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2009/10/05/daily16.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10124/1055313-53.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09161/976252-53.stm
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/lifestyles/fooddrink/s_643107.html
http://kdka.com/local/2.1587886.html

Of course, you hide behind this point to avoid taking responsibility for being wrong on the relevant points.

I am not wrong on any points. You can't pinpoint any "relevant" points on which I am supposedly wrong. In fact, you are implicitly admitting that I am right. You're the one who is wrong, which IS a relevant point. You dismiss those points on which you have been proven wrong as "not relevant."

They are (although conservative misandry also exists), but I wanted women who are less political, who specifically pinpoint misandry and discuss it.
Of course, you concede the main point, which is that 'feminists' are afraid to debate these women.

Your "explanation" doesn't answer my question: why did you list Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin in the first place, only to later realize that they're "too political"? Also, why is it so important to you that they are women?

Newsflash: Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Tammy Bruce ARE self-proclaimed feminists. Do you dispute this? (Let me guess, you need me to spoonfeed you a link?) Are feminists simply those who you don't like? Have these women - a fact that is peculiarly important to you - even indicated an interest in debating OTHER feminists? Maybe Paglia, Sommers, and Bruce are the ones who are afraid to debate.

Given your affection for faux feminists and paranoia about "false" rape accusations, it's a wonder you overlooked the one who made her career milking this topic. So much for your article being well-researched.

Are you a woman the same way that Valkyrie Ice is 'woman'? As in, are you also a transgendered person?

Why do you make such a big issue out of people's gender? So let's see, Tim is a woman pretending to be a man, but I am a man pretending to be a woman? Any ideas as to why your site manages to attract so many poseurs?

Ha!!! I thought you at least had some acquaintence with (genetic) women. Clearly, you do not. Also note how you cannot provide links for what you call 'some surveys', but I provided a solid link backing up my stat (which is also obvious in the real world, just as yours is obviously wrong).
So you actually think 45% of single women don't want to marry, but just 10% of single men do?

Double ha, you misspelled the word "acquaintance".

As I said before, an anecdote doesn't constitute a solid link. You still haven't digested the 7 links about Pittsburgh that I did provide you. But if you insist:
http://www.thirdage.com/living-single/why-some-women-will-never-get-married

Yet again you display your inability to interpret statistics. The 10% figure is based on the general male population aged 25-34. If 10% of the single male population aged 25-34 don't want to get married, then the percent of the general male population who don't want to get married is 4.5%.

I did note that you can't provide a link for your claim that "The Economist says that if even 5% of men don't marry, women all have to up their efforts." Just like you can't provide any supporting link for your ludicrous claim that "Suicide rates of men undergoing divorce run as high as 20%." I also noted how you went begging to the Spearhead Bitterati to provide you a backup link for your unfounded claim that "women initiate 90% of all divorces," AFTER you had already pulled that baseless factoid out of your "jazz".

Yes I can, because by your own admission, you consider Valkyrie Ice to be a woman. You consider yourself to be a woman too. You are also exhibiting misandry.
The rest of your message is a pathetic inability to think logically, as well as a sadistic desire to enforce even more injustice against men.

Translation: you can't answer my question, which points out a gaping hole in your supposed logic.

At least one of your following assertions must be wrong: men are more in demand for marriage than women, men finance the wedding, the market forces correct such mispricings in value.

Your hysterics are interfering with your ability to compose grammatical sentences, which was pretty weak to begin with. How can a message be an inability?

Your bizarre obsession with Valkyrie Ice, and your attendant efforts to exploit her to derail our conversation is making me more than a little suspicious, GK.

Why would my gender even be relevant in the first place? You can't pinpoint any instances of this supposed misandry. Likewise, you can't pinpoint any instances of my "sadistic desire to enforce even more injustice against men." Just like you weren't able to pinpoint any instances of me supposedly projecting or using ad hominems.

Yes. I am reliably logical.

Not quite, predictable and reliably logical are not synonymous; you are predictable in the same Pavlovian way that a parrot is predictable. And you are definitely not logical - reliably or otherwise.

I can proudly say that in 5 months, this article has had favorable reviews from several big-name bloggers, but no negative reviews from any similarly reputable bloggers. In the comments, the shrillest opponents merely behave in a way that was predicted and pre-empted in the article.

Projecting much? You are the shrillest one of them all. Ironically, some of the MRA types don't appreciate your supposedly altruistic, yet ego-stroking "dialog triggering" services. You claimed that your article would launch a thousand articles, yet the only articles it has launched are those which refute it.

Laustcawz

"It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind", so the old saying goes. Of course, when a man does this, it's called
"fear of commitment". Do you know the songs, "Mr. Big Stuff"
& "Material Girl", contradictory feminist anthems that both hit
#2 on the pop singles chart, only about a dozen years apart?
In case you didn't know, there's now a "National Organization For Men". Check it out.

LaustCawz

Try looking up the word, "Misandry" in the dictionary.
As I'm commenting, this word has a red line underneath it,
meaning it's not recognized as legitimate,
yet there've been numerous books written about it.

Religion is often presumptuously used as a defense for men,
as if God, religion, etc., etc. is the only justification
for respect being offered to males.

Also, keep in mind that many males (such as myself)
have been subversively conditioned for decades,
by misandric single mothers, to be feminized, to the point
where very little is left of our original personalities,
goals, dreams, understandings & dispositions.

The full extent of the damage (in the cases of myself
& countless others) can be measured (or at least imagined)
by the skeptical & thorough study of TV shows such as
"Malcolm In The Middle" & "Desperate Housewives".
To quote a line from the latter,
"Monsters are created by...other monsters".

In case my previous post didn't go through
(I don't see it here),
there does now exist a "National Organization For Men".

LaustCawz

Try looking up the word "Misandry" in the dictionary,
then do an online search for it.

Beware the laziness & tyranny of religious fanatics
who presume to use religion, God, etc. as a defense for men,
as if all males are otherwise invalidated.

TV shows such as "Desperate Housewives"
& "Malcolm In The Middle"
should be skeptically studied.

Finally, autism was originally defined as
"an extreme variant of male intelligence".

Kim

It is an interesting outlook, although I do not agree with it; at least a thinking process is evident in it (which is not that common on both sides of the argument.)

i definitely agree with following
-Sexual harassment and anti-violence laws should be apply to women to the sane extent as they do to men
-Women using marriage as a tool of acquiring social status (marriage extravaganza, marring and divorcing a wealthy man, claiming men are commitment-fobs e.t.c. are worrying phenomena, which certainly discriminate against men )

However
- I do not agree that women are not payed equally (and that would be true for almost any part of the world ), for any other reason then men monopolizing workforce
-Women when provided with equal opportunities do not use men for purposes described earlier.(Marriage "have to be attractive to men", because often women do not have a vible alternative.)

Let me get a little personal my mother did not want to marry my father but have agreed(after a prolonged persuasion on my fathers behalf) for "the sake of children"(legal side of the guardianship), they had a private wedding with 4 guests only . She have always earned more, although both off them are highly successful, also she have never considered a separation (they are married for 50 years). On the other hand she have always pointed that women ARE discriminated at the work force, and she had always had to work twice as hard as men would for the similar position, further more she have pointed unwillingness of her father to support her decision to gain postgraduate degree , because-"women don't have to be that smart", while fully supporting similar decision of his son.Of course it just an anecdotal evidence as opposed to randomized and unbiased, which you appear to reference, however my point is different:

I believe both men and women should learn how to treat each other equally and without discrimination of one another. I do a acknowledge that misandry exists, but it does not devaluate feminism

TrollKING

Its not every day that I read something that just blows my mind, but you present such a informative piece that im still going over it. Great Job.

http://trollkingdom.blogspot.com/

The Futurist

TrollKing,

Thanks. If I have changed the direction of even a few lives, that makes it worthwhile.

Kim,

I have noted the points were you agree.

As far as disagreement :

I do not agree that women are not payed equally (and that would be true for almost any part of the world ), for any other reason then men monopolizing workforce

You mean 'paid'.

It is simply not logical that women would be paid less, and real-world experience proves that there is no systematic underpayment of women. Such a tired old lie is uttered only by those with no small-business, private sector experience.

If anything, women are paid more relative to output produced. I have provided many supporting links.

I have provided a logical deconstruction of this belief. Also note the huge gap in workplace deaths, which 'feminists' conveniently ignore.

I do a acknowledge that misandry exists, but it does not devaluate feminism

It depends what you mean by 'feminism'. First-wave feminism (50-100 years ago) had many legitimate goals. Third-wave feminism today is almost purely destructive to both men, and women themselves.

Curious

I take your silence to mean that you can't address my points and take responsibility for being wrong.

I know that you engage in underhanded debate tactics, but I didn't think that you would stoop so low as to excise these parts of my comments from April 30(you can't blame this on TypePad):

At least Valkyrie Ice got ONE person to side with him after 4 months of begging across the Internet.
How do you know what she's doing on the internet? Have you been stalking her?

Now, I see you can't actually discuss the points regarding economics, birth rates, divorce laws, and The Venusian Arts.
Your obsession with white birth rates reveals you to be a self-hating racist.

The Futurist

Curious,

Hardly. Some people actually have better things to do than school disingenuous, obsessive people such as yourself.

There are reasonable ways to disagree (see Kim above), and then hysterical screeching like yours.

So let's summarize your comprehensive failure point by point :

a) You actually think just 9% of single men don't want to marry, but 45% of single women don't? That is why there are tons of articles written by women about 'how to get a man to marry you'. Riiiiiight.

b) You actually think that a city with a rapidly declining population is 'booming' and 'thriving', because...... you feeeeeeel that it is.

I'll concede that Pittsburgh is a 'nice' city (so is Bucharest, Romania), but booming/thriving it is not.

c) You admitted that feminists are afraid to debate non-misandric women like Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Somers. They wrote fair and balanced articles about anti-male bigotry, which they knew would get a fatwa issued on them by 'feminists'.

These first 3 points effectively show that you are not a person to be taken seriously.

d) I have provided links that 70-90% of divorces are initiated by women (F. Roger Devlin essays). Even if 90% is iffy, no one is disputing at least 70%. Plus, you dodge the question of basic fairness, because you would rather get away with a wrongdoing.

e) I see you cannot address the economic section if your life depended on it. Instead, hiding behind a game of finding a couple of typos within comments (not even an article) is evidence of desperation and defeat.

You have been schooled, Curious. Now run along and learn something from your dismantling, and how to contain your own projection.

Then again, you would hardly take responsibility for your own failures. You continue to prove the traits that I pre-empted in the article.

I reserve the right to delete hysterical nonsense from messages. Your obsession with me stems from your own stalking and racism (again, evidenced by your projection). No one obsesses over every single word, and tweak, to this article, the way you have. This is stalking.

Here is an article by Obsidian, about how people like you cannot address the sexual marketplace meaningfully. Then again, he is a black man, so you will have difficulting containing your racism upon reading his article.

You claimed that your article would launch a thousand articles, yet the only articles it has launched are those which refute it.

Oh, big-name bloggers (linked at the end of the article), all wrote favorably of this, while no blogger of repute/traffic has written negatively of this article. Since you obsess over every word of the article, you know this, but predictably chose to lie.

Let's add envy to your long list of negative qualities and inner agony. A healthy society would have no place for you.


Curious

Is it ok for me to respond yet, or should I wait until you have edited your response several more times? (Heh, heh)

Some people actually have better things to do than school disingenuous, obsessive people such as yourself.

Right, like edit your own comments several times.

I see that you have been well-schooled in the schoolyard version of the ostrich defense: Just stick your fingers in your ears and go "Na, na, na, I can't hear you, na, na, na." Your "schooling" boils down to mindless Pavlovian parroting of your internalization of these schoolyard retorts: "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say...."; and "I know you are, but what am I?"

You actually think just 9% of single men don't want to marry, but 45% of single women don't?

You strawmen are getting more desperate; the last time it was 10%, but now it's 9%? You must be a Slow Learner, considering how much you insist on displaying your inability to grasp third grade math: 45 x .22 = 9.9. The 10% figure is based on the general male population aged 25-34. It's rather odd that you keep confusing general for single, since you make the very opposite mistake in the actual article.

What, you don't actually care about a backing link anymore? Well, here you go anyway:
http://www.thirdage.com/living-single/why-some-women-will-never-get-married

I'm still waiting for that link for your claim that "The Economist says that if even 5% of men don't marry, women all have to up their efforts."

That is why there are tons of articles written by women about 'how to get a man to marry you'. Riiiiiight.

Don't you mean "written FOR women"? Why would the fact that the articles are written BY women be relevant? There are also plenty of articles written about how women are oppressed, but few about how men are supposedly oppressed.

This would also be a good opportunity for you to explain why you make such a big issue out of people's gender.

You actually think that a city with a rapidly declining population is 'booming' and 'thriving', because...... you feeeeeeel that it is.

You're still not done with moving the goalposts? Your original claim was about "utter decimation," which you later weaseled down to "economic decline." Pittsburgh is certaintly not experiencing an "economic decline," much less "utter decimation." Using your criteria of population growth, Liberia must be experiencing an economic boom.

Reputable publications like The New York Times, The Economist, Forbes, Places Rated Almanac, and Brookings Institution, among others, which are more reputable than the blogs you brag about, consider criteria which include affordability, cost of living, income growth, job prospects, employment rates, foreclosure rates, safety, environment, culture, arts/leisure scene, stability, education, health care, infrastructure, and transportation. According to these criteria, Pittsburgh was ranked the most livable city in the United States in 2010 by Forbes and Yahoo! Real Estate, in 2005 through 2009 by The Economist, and in 2007 by Places Rated Almanac. Pittsburgh's economy was rated in the top QUINTILE among U.S. cities by the Brookings Institution and Policom Corporation.

Here are the links I kindly provided twice before, which you pathetically keep trying to ignore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08collapse.htm
http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2010/05/10/daily44.html
http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2009/10/05/daily16.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10124/1055313-53.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09161/976252-53.stm
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/lifestyles/fooddrink/s_643107.html
http://kdka.com/local/2.1587886.html

You admitted that feminists are afraid to debate non-misandric women like Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Somers.

You're trying to put words in my mouth again. If I had "admitted" that, wouldn't I be right, at least according to your deluded worldview? Are you saying that I admitted something, but that I won't admit that I admitted it? You admitted that you believe that women are naturally more misandric than men. Are you implying that feminists have some kind of interest in portraying women as misandric?

You still haven't explained why you bothered to list Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin in the first place, only to later realize that they're "too political"? You admitted that your real concern is about promoting your ideology rather than opposing misandry. Also, why is it so important to you that they are women?

Newsflash: Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers (whose name you stubbornly keep misspelling), and Tammy Bruce ARE self-proclaimed feminists. Do you dispute this? (Let me guess, you need me to spoonfeed you a link?) Are feminists simply those who you don't like? Have these women - a fact that is peculiarly important to you - even indicated an interest in debating OTHER feminists? Maybe Paglia, Sommers, and Bruce are the ones who are afraid to debate.

They wrote fair and balanced articles about anti-male bigotry, which they knew would get a fatwa issued on them by 'feminists'.

Naturally, you can't actually name any of the feminists who supposedly issued a "fatwa."

I have provided links that 90% of divorces are initiated by women (F. Roger Devlin essays). Even if 90% is iffy, no one is disputing at least 70%.

You provided ONE secondary source link to your fellow brother in arms, whose link doesn't work, if it ever did.

You don't have the courage to bring up your baseless, ludicrous claim that "Suicide rates among divorced men run as high as 20%." Good luck finding a backup link for that. Even Guru Roissy won't be able to help you out with that one.

Plus, you dodge the question of basic fairness, because you would rather get away with a wrongdoing.

Huh? Your comment actually made more sense before you edited it.

I see you cannot address the economic section if your life depended on it.

Is this an implicit admission that you are wrong on the economics? At least one of your following economic assertions must be wrong: men are more in demand for marriage than women, men finance the wedding, the market forces correct such mispricings in value.

And let's not forget about your harebrained tax evasion scheme.

Instead, hiding behind a game of finding a couple of typos within comments (not even an article) is evidence of desperation and defeat.

So that's how much you appreciate loyal readers. Tsk, tsk.

I reserve the right to delete hysterical nonsense from messages.

Apparently you also reserve the right to parrot the same "nonsense" yourself.

Your obsession with me stems from your own stalking and racism (again, evidenced by your projection).

Don't you mean "your stalking with me stems from your obsession..."? And what does racism have to do with it. So much for your logic.

Then again, he is a black man, so you will have difficulting containing your racism upon reading his article.

Your hideous cold reading non-skill, misdirected by its projection cousin, rears its ugly head yet again. Why are you so quick assume that I'm not black? Besides, if I were a man, why would that article even be relevant to me?

You also weren't able to pinpoint or provide any backup for your ad hominem accusations of my supposed projection, regression, ad hominems, hysterics, screeching, failures, wrongdoing, lies, racism, misandry, or "sadistic desire to enforce even more injustice against men."

Jeffsquire

Dude - Futurist,

I have been reading the comments in this chain, and am quite troubled by what I see.

Two transvestite deviants, first Valkyrie Ice and now Curious, have an unhealthy, stalkerish obsession with you. You said you were 'curious about the rarity of transgendered people'. Let me warn you in no uncertain terms that you are dealing with mentally ill deviants.

There are a number of 'stalker' red flags that one can see, and over here, I see more than twice as many from Curious than the level beyone which I would consider the 'stalker' line to be crossed.

Here, I see everything from saving his own comments, to repetitive ramblings, to barely veiled threats. Extremely long comments are another indicator of instability.

As someone with experience in this matter, I strongly urge you to immediately ban these deviants. If possible, prevent this blog from even being visible from their IP.

I understand your policy of being tolerant of many views, but these are not the types of individuals to be tolerant with. There is no such thing as a sane, stable transvestite.

Please heed my words.

woggy

Great article.
I've read through the whole thing twice now, and I'll probably have another go at it.

On the particular subject of "adult entertainment": Isn't it interesting how a bunch of (possibly left wing) geeks (software engineers and designers) have managed to introduce something (sexual outlets for rejected men) that has, in turn, hooked the feminazis and dragged them out kicking and screaming.
The polite, genteel alite could never get them (feminists) to admit that they consider controlling a man's access to sex to be a (if not "the") primary fulcrum point- where they wield the power, and will often administer their control in a most cruel fashion.
Of course, this is something Joe six pack has always known: too bad Joe usually contented himself to merely joking about it.
While I'm not actually a proponent of such entertainment, I hope that you are correct in your prediction that attempts at banning this form of private entertainment will fail-if only for the fact that it will, no doubt, take the control of access from the hands of the Valerie Solanases of the world (SCUM manifesto-men are "walking dildos") and place it where it belongs: In the hands of no one.
It will certainly boost the chances of young women who've been taught to love men because they're human beings, rather than hate them because they're not women.

I'll quote from the "white knights-social conservatives" portion of your essay:
"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"
Ever set foot in a church?
If/when you do, and you get to know the demographic of most congregations, you'll realize that:
A) Divorced women make up a proportion nearly that of society at large.
B) Seething contempt for men is evident in, above,and around every pew. Never mind any hint of the Bible's clear teaching on male authority. Whiteknights abound-cowering in most pews and behind most pulpits. Just like anywhere else, the only time that the groveling knights and miserable fems EVER say anything good about one of those men I'll call "the old guard" is at their graveside.
C) Most churches use congregational government. If you're minister, with your own kids to feed and your own wife who'll lock you out of your own bedroom-and you have the above described congregation to deal with (ahem..."teach"), what are you going to do.
It's nearly guaranteed that doing the right thing will land you out in the cold.

The religious conservatives' "clam up" response to the injustices of our misandrist society is no surprise to me- and I'll bet it's no accident either-meaning that they've been infiltrated long ago, both at the local level and in their seminaries.

Again, nice job. For our sons AND our daughters.

Engineer

I finished reading the article last night and am only on page 3 of the comments so I don't know if anybody has mentioned these points but I'll go ahead and post them anyway....

Background, I am a 28 year old chronically single black male who is also a college grad and engineer. Let me tell you, this is not really a white men and white women phenomenon. This is happening to everyone and I would appretiate if these type of articles would stop being so "eurocentric" and be "americancentric" of that makes any sense. I find it odd that you mention white males (as if thats the only group that has to deal with this) when you are Indian-American. Kind of remind me of Roissys blog as he also only focuses on white men even though a lot of comments are black (including me).

Also, like Roissy, for some reason you mention the politically left and feminism as if it were part of the same group. Yes, while feminist are liberal democrats, please don't associate the entire left political spectrum as if we all embrace the type of feminism we see today. We don't, they are radicals.

Overall, I generally agree with pretty much everything you laid out. I have been looking for a comprehensive look at this entire phenomenon of male/female relationships in America and this is the clearest and most comprehensive article I have read on the subject. I have a lot of strong words on the subject and will be commenting more here but I wanted to basically make this an introductory comment and finish reading the rest of the comments before I say anything more.

The comments to this entry are closed.