Summary: Here is a brief guide to the new war of the sexes. It’s too controversial for the major media, so discussed mostly by extremists. Consider this a rough cut, the boiled down one-thousand word version. It’s a fair version, and so probably disliked by both men and women. Post your critique in the comments.
The war between the sexes has broken out again, in an unusually virulent form. Women, with support of the Left, have created a new order. But neither women nor men appear happy with it. Their complaints, rising in volume and bitterness, have become a dull roar across the internet. Large numbers of both young men and women react to the new gender regime by dropping out and becoming celibate. How many will marry in their late 20s and early 30s? The future of our society depends on the answer.
For years the response to these trends has been mockery and other forms of denial. Now that appears foolish, so the conversation has shifted to the equally daft assignment of blame. Since life is short, let’s guess about a more important question: Why has this happened?
Here are answers you will seldom see in the major media. It’s not an explanation unless women’s and men’s behavior are each described as rational. Here are my first attempts.
America seen from a woman’s perspective
Empowered women have, naturally enough, shifted the balance of power vs. men. One effect is their shift in preferences to bad boys. Technically, men with the dark triad traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. For more about this see The war of the sexes heats up as men learn about the Dark Triad (especially see the links to research showing women’s preference for such men).
Offsetting this, many women have an almost visceral disgust with betas (even more so for omegas), as easily seen in any bar or dance. And there are so there are so many betas and omegas these days. We can only guess why this is so. Falling testosterone levels, sedentary lifestyles (physically weak men), modern education (feminist mothers and in doctrinaire feminist schools producing spiritually weak men), and rising rates of male obesity — all probably contribute to this sad result.
Women who choose to play the game find sex easy to get, but enduring relationships less so. Hence countless complaints such as “Peter Pan Syndrome: A Man’s Fear of Commitment”: “This is when a man is afraid to grow up. They usually put themselves first and do not want to commit to anything. They are unable to face adult feelings and responsibilities.” Also common are operational responses to the new man, such as “Learn how to make him commit: The Secret Lives of Men” by Joel D. Amos.
How has women’s liberation changed marriage? As usual in the social sciences, estimates of divorce rates — and which spouse initiates them — vary. Roughly 40%-50% of first marriages end in divorce (that fraction varies with the couple’s social and economic circumstances). Women initiate roughly 70% of them.
The reason for high divorce rates is also easy to see: economics and logic. This WaPo article tells the tale, although masked by the usual feminist framing (here’s another study with the same conclusion). A substantial fraction of women marry men, get the children they desire, have men help them through the difficult early years of child-raising, realize they no longer need their husband, and file for divorce. The government extracts child-support payments, with levels set by notoriously pro-feminist family courts.
America seen from a man’s perspective
“You dismiss her beauty and good nature, yet I would be very much mistaken if your sex in general does not think those claims the highest a woman could possess!”
— Said by Emma in Jane Austin’s novel. See the filmwith Gwyneth Paltrow!
with Gwyneth Paltrow!Women’s liberation has produced a range of reactions by men. Some men have responded by abandoning the rat race, & changing American society (explaining some of the otherwise mysterious decline in men’s labor force participation). Some have become insurgents, employing Game to get sex (the equivalent of 4GW in real war) — faking the behavior of alpha males. There is the Men’s Rights movement. And a thousand and one websites where men complain about women.
Women’s economic independence means that they can — and are, of course, entitled — to dress, diet, and act to please themselves instead of men. The result can be seen on America’s college campuses. That cures men of the sexual assault called “lookism”! Work, sports, computer games, booze, and drugs provide what many men consider adequate substitutes to pursuit of women.
As for marriage — it now comes with high rates of women divorcing men, women-friendly family courts, and inescapable child support payments. Does it make sense for men to marry? Women raised with kick-ass role models are fun, but often difficult to live with (watching the great romances on TV shows creates the urge to scream “don’t do it” to the male lead). Sex is easy to get for those who use Game. Why play a game with such high odds of losing big? Romance is just bait in the trap for men.
See this extreme example: “I’m A Woman Who Cheated On Her Deployed Husband, This Is Why I Did It“. She skillfully deploys feminist philosophy to justify her actions. Note that she still collects his pay, but plans to leave him eventually.
Will men’s willingness to marry change? Watch the men of generation Z!
Music provides another perspective on modern America
Music videos provide a candid perspective on these matters. Here are two examples by great pop stars.
Taylor Swift shows how hot women can play the game in our era.
Have a beta boyfriend to take you to dinner and a movie. Have him take you home. Kiss his cheek at the door and fondly wave good-bye. Then go back out with your real boyfriend. A bad boy, a real man. He might treat you like dirt and mock your feminist principles. But you’ll love him anyway. Just as Taylor Swift does.
Life as an omega: you can dream, but that’s all you get.
For the advanced version, look at some rap videos.
Rap videos show real men. Men mysteriously exempt from feminist condemnation for their misogyny. They show that women love them. No wonder so many alt-right white guys are racists. They are envious.
Conclusions
We have set up trends in American society that might work out badly for us, as our younger generations react to them as individuals logically — with unfortunately aggregate effects on them and society.
How to fix this? Working for social change is like searching for the end of a ball of string, or looking for the right cleavage point in a raw diamond. Right and wrong are irrelevant. My guess (emphasis on guess) is that men are the key. For two generations America has sought to produce weak men. Physically weak. Spiritually weak. Uncertain about their role in society and very identity.
My recommendation would be to change this, starting with an emphasis on men’s physical strength. Diet and exercise. Make men strong again. Makes hats with the MMSA logo! It is a simple and achievable goal, from which many benefits would flow. More about this on a future post. Especially important: what white men can learn from black men (short version: a lot).
For More Information
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about romance, about women and gender, and especially these…
- Beckett shows our future. She chooses wisely & marries Castle, but dreams at night of her alpha ex-boyfriend.
- “Castle” shows a future of strong women & weak men. As for marriage…
- The feminist revolutionaries have won. Insurgents have arisen to challenge the new order. As always, they’re outlaws.
- Men are abandoning the rat race, & changing American society.
- Why men are avoiding work and marriage.
- Will today’s young men marry? America’s future depends which of these answers is right.
- We’ve become a low testosterone America. Pussycats? More research needed, stat!
- Our scary future: sexbots are coming, powering the ‘sexodus’.
Books about the coming revolution, an alternative solution.
What total nonsense women like and love nice guys…the endless refrain from heterosexual women ‘where are all the nice guys’.
Women are not expecting perfection, just, whether for short term sexual hooks up, medium term dating (with sex of course) or long term relationships, someone who is nice. As we say in Australia, a good bloke.
Classic story, in some way a man and women organise a date. The women spends a lot of time making herself look good, she is smart and bright, wants someone to talk to….often has lots of sexual fantasies beforehand. Then the date ..the man looks like the cat dragged him home, talks only about himself, talks over her, show no respect …and gets angry when she knocks him back for sex that night.
Right, there is no sex wars, but there are heaps of heterosexual women nearly desperate to hook up…but for some reason men are duds these days …and it is not the gym…it is…are you a good, interesting, funny, fun filled man? Someone she can trust and be herself with? With a man like that, someone she can trust ..she will organise wild sex nights… But she has to like and trust him…
Never in history have there been more women, more confident in themselves, and in their sexuality, desperate to find a ‘good bloke’ …and been disappointed.
The issue is what has gone wrong with men, the ones I grew up with in the 1970s (no less) had no issues about this. They were fine about it and loved it and women loved them because of that..
Too many Hollywood movies perhaps? Where the woman falls in love with the psycopathic killer ( in reality she runs way so fast).
Duds as men.
LisaM,
“What total nonsense women like and love nice guys”
Sadly, that is not so. Look for research about the Dark Triad personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. A large body of research during the past several decades shows that these are quite attractive to women. Even the reliably-leftist/feminist Wikipedia (briefly) acknowledges this.
LisaM,
My comment, continued (I accidentally hit ENTER). For more about this subject, see The war of the sexes heats up as men learn the Dark Triad.
Here is an assortment of the research on the subject, in chronological order to show its evolution. Each refers to many other similar studies.
Not all women like the same guys. The stereotype is that women like the bad boys in their teens and twenties, incidentally when women have power and when men decide what they should become. Once women get older, they might prefer nice guys, but why should a young man deciding what to be care?
Tony,
“Not all women like the same guys.”
Yes, I think we all like that. Almost every sentence in articles like this could have adverbs inserted: most, sometimes, etc. But that would make them mind-numbingly boring. But it’s unnecessary for most readers.
“Once women get older, they might prefer nice guys”
Good question. Or perhaps they want nice guys even less. Probably someone researching women’s preferences for dark triad traits has studied its variation with age.
Look, I’m not pointing out the generalization to be a pedant. I’m pointing it out because it’s relevant. There are two issues here, supply and demand, and the changes in the tastes of women.
If women over thirty complain about the lack of responsible guys, while 20-year olds like a-holes. It is pretty well known that when women are fertile they prefer more manly men. Women’s fertility drops like a rock after 30, so they might start to appreciate responsibility and other beta qualites more.
“In all three studies, preferences for masculinity in male faces were highest in women who were at a reproductively active age. Preferences for masculinity were lower when females were peri-pubescent, post-menopausal, or at ages corresponding to these groups. ”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060226
When men are young and deciding what to become, they look at young women. However, men’s experience make no sense to older women, like LisaM and her friends. It may also be the reason men are taught to be betas, because that is what their mothers like. So men perceive, alpha gets laid, and beta gets old women in exchange for a lot of work.
Women perceive dating as having fun and then settling down. What they don’t understand the the ‘having fun’ part is the one that matters to men the most, when women have the most power, and that men adapt to women’s behaviours.
Supply and demand is also an issue. You would get the result from those a lot of those studies, should 10% of men be abusive and predatory, while 30% of women prefer such guys. It is a simple unmet demand.
Tony,
“I’m not pointing out the generalization to be a pedant. I’m pointing it out because it’s relevant.”
Are you are referring to “Not all women like the same guys”? Please read my reply. I didn’t say you were wrong. I said that most readers understood what I said — there was no implication that each and every women likes “the same guy”. I suspect you did as well.
“Women’s fertility drops like a rock after 30, so they might start to appreciate responsibility and other beta qualites more.”
As I said, you might be correct. Human behavior is difficult to understand. Lots of counterintuitive results. Hence the need for research.
“In all three studies, preferences for masculinity in male faces were …”
Again, perhaps so. Perhaps not. I’m uncomfortable assuming that “masculinity in male faces” is a trait in the alpha/beta distinction or an indicator of a dark triad personality.
“When men are young and deciding what to become, they look at young women.”
The data from online dating profiles shows that older men also like young women.
“You would get the result from those a lot of those studies, should 10% of men be abusive and predatory, while 30% of women prefer such guys. It is a simple unmet demand.”
I don’t understand. These studies measure women’s preferences, whether fulfilled or not.
Tony,
“Look, I’m not pointing out the generalization to be a pedant.”
I forgot to add the most important detail. Being a pedant is business as usual here. The more, the better!
Lisa M
I’m from Australia too, Sydney to be exact. So I feel qualified to tell you what I see, and I see this:
-A Saturday night tour of the eastern suburbs night scene will show you massive numbers of young women, dressing in range from the elegant to the slutty, draped over the arms, and more, of a guy who looks like he should be on a ”Wanted”poster.
-Women in their 30s will tell you ”I need to find a good man to marry. I’m running out of time. He’d better hurry up…”. I was told this by a woman employed as an actuary. Obviously she could not apply logistics to her life.
-Share a coffee with a woman of marital age – I’ll stretch it 18-35. Ask about her relationship. She will tell you she is living with her boyfriend. Does she have plans to marry? She’s unsure, even into her 30s. She will tell you she’s not ready, that she needs to be sure etc. You ask her why and she will tell you ”because my previous boyfriend was an a**hole. The one before that was a b*stard. The one before him cheated on me. Then the two before that were stoners and…””- you get the picture?
Young men have become cynical. ”When you ask a woman about her past relationships, triple the number she gives. If you ask one of your mates, halve the number he gives…”
What can be gained from these admittedly anecdotal observations is that
-B*stards, A**holes and Stoners get a lot of sex.
-Good men don’t.
-women make appalling choices when it comes to men.
-Women are driving the marital age further and further upwards.
-Men, if or when they want children, have to pay for women’s lack of foresight – and, the more educated she is, the worse it gets, by mortgaging HIS future for HER IVF treatment.
Couple this up with the notoriously biased Family Court system and ”no-fault” divorce, and you can see men have a dud deal.
Australian men have responded to feminism by exogamy, or marriage outside their ethnic group. Two censuses have told us that exogamy accounts for the majority – 56% of all marriages. Mostly this consists of a European man marrying an Asian wife. Yet this too has peaked, since once women are exposed to the culture of misandry here, they will also take the cash and prizes of the children and leave.
The birthrate of the country is declining rapidly, and the labour force and tax base has to be bolstered by importing people. Most now come from a tribe of Middle Eastern unassimilatable barbarians.
How much longer can feminism be sustained?
Don’t underestimate the role of the economy in the flaking out of young men. There are very few winners, and fewer critical decisions being made at all levels of the economy. The roles where testosterone is actually needed are in fewer and fewer places. I think we as a society know what we want in men and even feminist men would agree. We want strong, dedicated, loving and loyal men but the system we are in by design emasculates and often pays less for the qualities we desire. I think this economic contradiction which is quite complex in origin is a very big factor in the decline of men.
roamer,
That’s a powerful comment. Deep matters, deserving some thought.
“We want strong, dedicated, loving and loyal men”
Yes, women want men who are dedicated to them, love them, and are loyal to them. What are men are getting in return? The high divorce rate and inescapability of child support payments make marriage quite a risk.
Since we can’t see the reality of people’s lives in the aggregate, I like to use tv and films as mirrors of our society’s self-image. Movies and TV shows about romance have become either grim or less realistic than Star Wars. The big romances in Castle and NCIS New Orleans showed alpha men being broken into betas by their women. Pride and Prejudice has become has become as relevant as Beowulf, so it’s remade into a zombie movie — or the misleadingly named “Unleash Mr. Darcy“, in which he is a hapless beta mail brutally mocked by Elizabeth.
I figure this is part of declining male participation in the workforce.
Boys and girls still grow up with different socialization and expectations. My impression is that by the time most girls have grown into women, they have learned a set of skills which fit well with the demands of most jobs. They know how to suppress ego, keep the peace even when abused, and work steadily to get necessary tasks completed adequately despite demoralizing conditions. That’s what we’ve always taught women, and despite decades of feminism, that’s what most girls learn today.
Boys are taught to excel. Swing for the fences, and bask in the credit due you. (Never mind the failures; failure is the inevitable price of success.) It’s the right fit for being a rock star, or a marketing genius, or a CEO. It doesn’t fit most real jobs available to the non-elite, non-exceptional population.
Men used to have an alternative; punishing physical labor was honorable. Now… be punctual, submissive and adequate… that’s not what boys are taught, and the men into which they grow aren’t equipped to handle what it does to their egos.
This isn’t new, but as globalized everything makes the opportunities to be “excellent” at anything fewer and fewer, while corporations strive to reduce every job to one in which competence and compliance are all that’s needed, the mismatch between what we are training (socially and psychologically) men to be and what slots in the economic machine we have for them to fill is growing worse.
Coises,
That’s an intriguing perspective!
In the For More Info section you’ll seek links to posts that give an alternative explanation. Men ran the rat race to get women. Now they can get sex without doing so, and running the rat race to get a wife is (for many men) not worthwhile. So they drop out. Lots of evidence for this, but mostly annec-data.
But this creates a large number of alienated, weakly socialized young men. Their core programming is to form packs. People need meaning, and will write their own if not given acceptable scripts by society. I believe we’re seeing this today. While the intelligentsia focus on fantasies of wonder women, a counter-revolution is beginning. As usual, it begins on the fringes of society — people considered the “deplorables” by the great ones.
The whole thing seems like the prisoner’s dilemma.
I’m curious why you think men are the key? I assume that women, imbued with newfound power, should take up the yoke once held by men. “With great power comes with great responsibility” no?
Cato,
“imbued with newfound power, should take up the yoke once held by men.”
Because I suspect (guess) that a counter-revolution is coming. America has experimented with oppressing, not socializing, its young men. In response they are following their core “programing” and forming packs. The result might be unpleasant for our society. My question is how best to put us on some sort of path to a decent future.
“should take up the yoke once held by men.”
While a useful ideological construct for the Left, I doubt that is an accurate representation of western history at any point in time. For centuries men have been used as the disposable fuel for the west’s economic and military engines. Considering them to be some sort of ruling faction is absurd.
Cato,
“The whole thing seems like the prisoner’s dilemma.”
That is a brilliant observation, going to the heart of our situation. Easily winning Best of Thread. More profound than anything in my post. I’ll have to think about this.
Men need women. Women need men. They will resolve this social train wreck together. And until…..best resolve it for yourself and then maybe society will get a clue and follow along. Enjoy yourselves ladies, there is a price in all of Life.
Men will resolve this alone? THAT is exactly the idea that’s wrong here.
But nice post on trying to bring it front and center.
” They will resolve this social train wreck together. ”
Or not. Most cultures that have existed no longer do.
Tony,
That’s a powerful observation! Where are the Scythians?
Breton,
“Men need women. Women need men. They will resolve this social train wreck together.”
The most common reaction in these comments to radical social changes is denial. As in its always worked out before, so it will again! Will the new industrial revolution result in massive net job destruction? It didn’t before? Will easy effective contraceptives (eg, the pill) allow a massive transformation of women’s role in society, taking on many of the roles of men? Can’t because it has never happened! etc, etc.
Technology does almost unbelievable things. It makes possible equally unbelievable possibilities for society, for good and ill.
I went through this with Dana yesterday on a previous thread. She freaked out, probably never to be seen in the comments here again. Not the first nor the last to have that reaction. Future shock.
Reading Prisoner’s Dilemma analysis plays right into this and many issues facing one in a life of interaction. Studies seem to confirm the ideas that you must come to this wth eyes wide open and good intentions with a lead of responsibility:
(Sample)
“By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.
-Nice
The most important condition is that the strategy must be “nice”, that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an “optimistic” algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore, a purely selfish strategy will not “cheat” on its opponent, for purely self-interested reasons first.
-Retaliating
However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as “nasty” strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.
-Forgiving
Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.
-Non-envious
The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent.”
Great suggestion, PD that is.
arguing that the bad boys’ attractiveness to women is a recent phenomenon is plainly ahistorical. see shakespeare, malory, flaubert, lawrence, the bible and the raggle taggle gypsy (black jack davey is a clear case of the dark triad) for details. it has ever and always been so. what’s actually changed is the freedom of women to act on their preferences since they are no longer regarded as the property of their fathers and, at least for the most part, we no longer stone or burn women.
Jay,
“arguing that the bad boys’ attractiveness to women is a recent phenomenon is plainly ahistorical.”
True. Citing Shakespeare is great evidence! But did anyone say that?
“what’s actually changed is the freedom of women to act on their preferences”
Agreed. This post attributes it only to “women’s empowerment”. It doesn’t discuss what that means. By “empowerment” I referred to social and economic factors.
“since they are no longer regarded as the property of their fathers and, at least for the most part, we no longer stone or burn women.”
When were young women in America last considered property of their fathers? The 1920s in urban America? The 1940s in rural America? Women’s shift in preferences is more recent. I haven’t see data about this, but my guess is that it started on a large scale in the 1960s at the earliest.
i see your point fm, but not sure i agree. who did the girls go nuts over in the 1940’s, bad boy frank or nice guy bing? who did the female filmgoer salivate over in the 1950’s marlon brando or jimmy stewart? who got the hormones pumping, pat boone or elvis presley? when my grandmother and her friends used to sneak out of the house in the 1920’s to take the “a” train to harlem i’m fairly certain they were not going there to meet nice jewish boys (although they no doubt married those nice boys later).
Jay,
Thank you for your incisive comments. They have pushed me to more clearly think through what I was saying. I’ll take some of these answers – along with your comments — and make a new post (with due credit to you).
” who did the girls go nuts over in the 1940’s …”
Those are all valid points! As you show with those examples and your powerful ones from Shakespeare, girls have always been attracted to bad boys!
“although they no doubt married those nice boys later”
Yes, that’s exactly the point. Economic independence of women had been growing since the late 19thC, but took a “quantum leap” with the invention of modern contraception — giving women control of fertility — and the massive increase of State support for child support. The latter point gets too little attention. There were two elements to this.
(1) Paternity testing became possible when crude blood tests were developed in the 1920s. But it became an effective tools in the 1960s, with the invention of highly accurate HLA typing. And even more so in the 1980s, with RLFP testing, and the 1990s with PCR testing.
(2) The massive increase in divorce rates following abolishment of traditional marriage (retroactively) with the adoption of no-fault divorce laws. The innovator of this massive social science experiment was Governor Ronald Reagan, who signed California’s Family Law Act of 1969. Lots of children with mothers unable to fully support them.
(3) The increase of out-of-wedlock births.
(4) The rise of feminism, shifting the role of husband and father from patriarch to cash cow.
The result: lots of children needing support. Would they be starving waifs, wards of the State, paid for by welfare, or supported by the biological or marital father? The decision of the bureaucracy and courts, seldom expressly stated, was to aggressively use the last option whenever available. Family courts became engines of feminist theory, and government agencies became the extraction machine for child support payments.
Note the one-sided operation of this policy. For an unmarried man, a positive paternity test means payment of support. For a married man, a negative paternity test (infidelity of the wife) means paying child support.
The result: women were unshackled from the need for betas, and more able to pursue bad boys.
Note the major “finding” in this post, ignored by every commenter — most of whom give the ideological PC objections (not including you, of course). For women playing the game more aggressively, they can marry a beta. Have his child (the more aggressive can have an alpha’s child, usually surreptitiously — but sometimes openly), have the beta’s help in getting through the first few years (i.e., mother out of work, child requiring intensive care), then divorce him. It’s time to chase alphas (sometimes for real, sometimes just happy to be rid of the beta husband).
This is a social revolution on a scale seldom seen in history. The resulting changes will be large beyond my ability to foresee — or even imagine.
There’s nothing good about a relationship with a woman, outside of sex – and men’s fantasies can easily be filled with porn and hookers. We’re visual, don’t cha know. Women are nothing but trouble and extremely entitled. The new rule for men globally? Never give a woman any level of legal and/or financial power over your life. Being single rocks. Not being married rocks. Not having a girlfriend rocks. All are pure freedom from gynocentrism and the entitled half. Women are predatory socialists by nature. Word is out.
Once upon a time, a prince proposed to a princess…the princess refused and the prince lived happily ever after. The End.
Feminism is the best thing that could have happened to men. Ya’ll women can take care of yourselves, build your own cities and fight & die in your own wars. Men are done with your histrionics and manipulation.
Tim,
I hear similar thoughts often from men my son’s age (early 20’s).
“Ya’ll women can take care of yourselves, build your own cities and fight & die in your own wars.”
We’re all in this America boat together. Let’s not go nuts over this.
We’re all in this America boat together. Let’s not go nuts over this.
#metoo
#timesup
Seems that women dropped two nuclear bombs like this…and are surprised that men now seem them as radioactive. Men are deciding that a robot that lays there or interacts with them is preferable to a flesh and blood female. Men are seeing that even consent or a bad date can ruin their lives or a woman can accuse them of something from YEARS ago and wreck him.
Women are using social media to play the Judges from Judge Dredd…THEY are ‘the law’ and if you don’t comply, they have the final say in the game….only problem is, they are finding fewer men that want to play that game.
Women want the dark Triad…they can have it…more men are asking ‘what’s in it for ME?’ and seeing nothing, are walking away, saying any guy who chooses to deal with this can have it…I’m out.
It is always a pleasure to read writing worth reading by someone who can write and write well. I had referred this piece to friends and remarked that the author did a remarkable amount of fencesitting. I might advise him that his attempts to appeal to the female agency. well…if done for rhetorical consistency I guess it’s laudable. Otherwise quite useless.
Then I read the comments. I should have skipped them. The following interchange caught my eye. Commenter:“Ya’ll women can take care of yourselves, build your own cities and fight & die in your own wars.”
OP: We’re all in this America boat together. Let’s not go nuts over this.”
_____________
Excuse me Mister Fancy Roman Name..
That whole “my fathers bled for this land” song is drowned out by the bleetings of harlots and the certain knowledge that smashing them flat with extreme prejudice is not only honorable and right.. but the ultimate embodiement of Liberty and Godly Manhood. There is NO AMERICA where 50% of the population gets a pass on shedding their blood.
Let them stack their corpses on their own Normandy. Let them EARN America. Or if shirking is allowed… “fight your own damn wars”
“We are all in” . No sir. We are not. I stand by my own service and all the males of my family’s service. Let woman REALLY soldier. Let them die. Let them serve. Let them slave. Let them bleed and sweat and be given utter hardship. Flag draped coffins in well formed rows. A second Arlington.
And if they will not.. (and we both know they won’t) .. then .. it’s time to pass the popcorn and let them burn alive.
Which is it Mr. Fancy Thinker. Is it okay for women to shirk the toil? Well then we get to shirk it too. Blood for blood. Kindly own yourself to be a hypocrite. You should have blessed him for peacefully effing off to do his thing. Not waved the flag.
Vet,
(1) “Excuse me Mister Fancy Roman Name.”
“Fabius Maximus” is the name of the website. I am its editor. Just as there is no “Mr. New York Times.”
(1) “There is NO AMERICA where 50% of the population gets a pass on shedding their blood.”
(a) Two hundreds years of Americans would have considered your remarks to be insane.
(b) You appear confused about the battle lines today. Feminists want women to be in the combat arms. Conservatives oppose them.
Seems to be aimed at both males and females who value men with biceps that are bigger than their brains.
Anton,
“Seems to be aimed at both males and females …”
The opposite sex sets the standards for beauty. I doubt male peacocks are happy with their large tails that scream “here I am, eat me.” Or the brightly colored male fish.
Or girls with their elaborate hair, make-up, and heels — all designed to simulate the biological cues programed into men.
It’s just the way we are. The difference today is that feminists are attempting to declare our natures to be illegitimate. As in “Men’s fixation on young women is another sign of masculinity in crisis” by Arwa Mahdawi in (of course) The Guardian. Both ignorant and totalitarian, the essence of radical feminism today.