Feminism, the choice to demonize, also a betrayal of young women

Understanding why young men are giving up on relationships

Imagine that it was always known that domestic violence initiation was originally known to be two way!

Imagine that this was overturned by a study that was done by a tiny group in the mid-west, that asked only women victim questions, and only men perpetrator ones, and that was embraced as the gold standard because feminists said so.

Imagine that a few years later, the leader of that mid-west group acknowledged this approach was flawed, and did not lead to solutions, but that was ignored for decades.

Imagine after decades of this flawed approach, having dominated the training of police, the establishment of shelters and the administration of law, the notion that police trained to know they were expected to arrest the man, and knowing the man would have nowhere to go if they arrested the woman anyway, would not be influenced by that, could not be questioned, even where lots of other sources of data, pointed in a very different direction?

Now imagine that anyone who dared question this narrative was asserted a misogynist, deemed a monster and socially routinely attacked by those who claimed to speak for women?

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/…/dfd34b9885268e2e9e0…

So the “irrefutable” evidence of women as the primary victims?

I do not know of everywhere, but I do know in most of North America the police were trained based on the Duluth Model, and the systems established by it. I am quite certain the same was true in the UK… even decades after Ellen Pence acknowledged it utterly broken, after the reality of the perpetrator questions asked women, were not published, decades after Strauss, had researched the issue in a gender-neutral way, years after Canada’s GSS – revealed more not fewer male victims of domestic violence.

https://www.domestic-violence-law.com/blog/2016/april/women-or-men-who-usually-instigates-domestic-vio

When the CDC, among many others, points to women initiating at a higher rate, what does that say? When we see the data, and those advocating for a gender neutral position, say it is not gendered, while citing data, that suggests women initiate at a higher frequency?

Years after it had been clearly shown that nurses associations created (Ontario among others) best practice guidelines, that examined only women as victims. This was a choice to ignore the findings of a couple of meta-analyses re-examining the raw data, from studies that asked women and men the same questions.

Note, how this feminist, claims to care about male suicides, but will not allow an honest discussion of abuse, except based on a model that starts with the presumption of male guilt and female innocence. Where domestic violence against men has been shown to be a leading cause of male homelessness, and the social impact of being abused especially publicly is a known source of shame, loss of social standing, depression and the stigma being labeled an abuser or the issue a cause of social isolation – all known to contribute to suicide.

It is also a choice to ignore the causes of suicide while feigning care. She may believe she cares, but the refusal of serious discussion, or of the route of the model that underlies all she asserts, means in effect she is unable to honestly care. Yes more women die in domestic violence, but we also need to ask, how often have serious injuries to men, been chalked up to things other than domestic violence? The bias of looking only at women coming into the hospital would add up, but how many, who knows, because we are not looking, which itself is a strong indicator of a lack of care.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746

We know from considerable research that reactive violence is generally the most deadly – but is an abuser really the victim when they die at the hands of their victims? Feminists answered that very clearly and loudly for women, when it has been a man killed at the hands of their victim.

What if, women initiated more violence? What if we were missing men who were actually victims even when they died, because we presumed they were the initiators? What if the data that has been collected but not discussed, had the women involved themselves were telling us – that they were often initiators, and we were ignoring that?

When women’s own answers – with regards to dv research say, they are more likely to be violent? Where the reality of not publishing that is, “that society is not ready”, but the cause of that is clearly a feminist narrative that has said “women good men bad” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bHJhPlgU4M

What if all of the came dangerously close to applying with regards to issues around consent? If it had been deemed that informed consent was the standard required, at least when men were the ones seeking consent, but in the inverse young men had seen that this had not been applied equally in the inverse. Say if a large portion of women had acknowledged they would consider lying to get pregnant? Would that not be failing to get informed consent?

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/women-lie-cheat-and-steal-1131837

What if a similar portion of men suffered sexual assault, while only rape could be discussed and it was routinely pretended that this was inclusive, even where it had been defined as requiring a female victim and now required the victim to be penetrated, not forced to penetrate? So when there had been a routine variant of “women don’t rape men” as a cause to loudly demonize men, while rape was defined as the “carnal knowledge of a female, by force or against her will”?

What if a decent sized chunk of men realized this and noted when the few attempted to speak to it, they became instant targets, with no apparent support from women? What if other men started to circulate the truth quietly? Had been for years?

What if, when a very feminist woman, seeking to reveal the hate of these men when she looked instead found her own double standards? What if, when she tried to speak to the other side, she was instantly labeled a hate monger, and there was a serious attempt to scream her down, and block her movie from being shown? What if the women who came to understand as a result of this movie, or did before, still struggled to be heard?

Oh – I would suggest that the Red Pill movie, was an important turning point, because of how the media and women’s groups dealt with it. Cassie Jaye herself, in her further discussions, did an excellent job of both revealing how she was poisoned by the distortions, but feminists reactions to it, sight unseen, even where made by a woman who had a record as a feminist strongly presenting women’s side… screamed.

What if after the awareness started to spread, after there was an acknowledgement happening of female abusers and male victims, female predators and male victims, an acknowledgement that female pedophiles existed, and the science that was present did and had long pointed to this doing the same harm to boys, as it did girls, but nothing changed, really?

What if the agencies that led the way in pushing the lies and blocking services for men and ensuring all funding was controlled by agencies concerned only with women, were still presented as the ones who needed to lead in these fields? What if, even after this was all understood, agencies that had to be understood to be violating the human rights codes in Canada, and similar elsewhere, continued to be painted as the saints? What if those who pushed the distortions got to pretend they were never prejudice, while continuing to offer only women services, and give endless excuses as to why men’s shelters should not have access to the only funding tagged for domestic violence? Where they continued to quietly block changes to how police were trained, but could not be criticized without broad attack?

What if most young men understood how this fed into family law? Where they fully understood how a man being abused would be arrested, and then that arrest could be used as cause to block access to children in family court? What if men understood this or just the straight up accusation was a commonly suggested tactic suggested by women’s lawyers in family court?

What if the same approach had seemed to apply to cheating? Where no woman would, or if she cheated he was doing something wrong, but if he did, he was horrible? If when she cheated, he was made responsible for the children that were not his? if he was painted as a monster for having doubts, but a woman suspecting a man was ok, and the difference was often being written off now to women being “better liars”. This as opposed what men had seen as, her suspicions being supported as his fault even when he was innocent, his suspicion being cause for her to “leave the bastard”, when he was? When the reality of him understanding that 50% of women in that same survey, said that they would not inform their partners that it might not be their child, if they became pregnant by another, of course made further impression.

Women showing up – but not being heard.

Could this be why we have been seeing men – not showing up for change, but simply presuming there is no care? I would ask, when we see the core cause of male homelessness, as domestic violence, and pretend this is not a massive issue? When we understand the way this ties to parental alienation, and hence suicide, and pretend that was not further a direct impact? When we see the mass of women who saw this clearly themselves labeled as misogynists by other women? When fatherlessness, could only be discussed for years as him having abandoned the children, where it was known the most common causes were her getting pregnant by a man she either never intended to have in his children’s lives, getting pregnant by a man who was clear he did not want children, or parental alienation aided by family courts and that “silver bullet” of accusing him of domestic violence.

When truth can’t be spoken, when trying to seek balance, and present both sides is constantly screamed down, when female child sex predators collect child support from their victims but this could not be discussed because even suggesting a woman would do, what women have asserted they have done?

When the reality of these lies is finally understood, whose reputation lies in taters, and whose continuing trust in other lies in ruin? Who has been betrayed and has cause to believe this reflects broader society? Whose ability to build trust required to pursue relationships, is destroyed?

Yes of course it is feminists, but more than that, those who have tried to champion boys but were silenced also lose credibility. Those who argue that “we just did not know” lose credibility. So when women start showing up in the organizations that support men’s causes, they find far more young women, than young men signing up. They discover young men were there, and exited there as well. They discover that the awareness was had by young men a decade ahead of them, and the reactions to the clear truth, already spoke to them.

Timing matters so do labels

What happens, when we start to see things like this, in this context?

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/caitlin-moran-feminism-men-overlooked-1.6982762

“Moran’s argument goes like this: that many men have, over the decades, stayed relatively silent while feminism flourished. “

The question with regards to the cause of silence, and its reality, needs to be understood, as does the label you choose to use when discussing it. I would ask, why would any young man who grew up around feminism take her arguments with any credibility? Any man who saw the reality of how feminism, reacted to Cassie Jaye?

Was it that men were not trying to talk, or was it that those who did, were maligned and destroyed? The discussion around harm to boys ignored, until those boys were men, now examining their own choices?

So, young women today, looking around and asking why men don’t want relationships, consider how women like this painted you. How the reaction of so many of those men’s teachers, mothers, and other adult women influenced his views growing up, where he likely saw the double standards long before he became an adult?

What did they tell your peer men? Where should you expect he will be willing to discuss? How likely is he to have been in a space where your opinion would influence him, before he had already drawn conclusions, that he may not be all that open to revisiting.

Here is a core issue, note how in the Daily Telegraph article, she discusses the priorities of men’s rights activists? Where it would very much seem she has no contact with any – really? How what she asserts is so different from what men like Warren Farrell and Tom Golden , or women like Alison Tieman, Karen Straughan, Bettina Arndt advance?

Notice the reaction in the CBC piece to the need to listen to men, as being laughable, or how traditional masculinity being attacked is laughable, but is that fair? How many shelters are there in English Canada for abused men? How many shelters for abused men are their in the US? What is the closest one? Remember the above , and as Erin Pizzey made clear, one of the primary causes of men’s homelessness, was in fact domestic violence, what does it say that violence by women or female sexual abusers or predators could not be considered? What is the basis of the assertion of mra’s being homophobic? It certainly is very far from my personal experience, and it does not appear to be something that has been seriously discovered by those who actually went and talked to these men? Are we pretending that groups like pick up artists, like Roosh V is one, even where he has not made such a claim, and has certainly been disowned by the those who do present themselves as seriously speaking on men’s issues.

Why is it, that these accusations can be seen as anything but hate, given those advancing the argument, have yet to acknowledge what is now well understood, yes some women do abuse, molest and predate?

Taking the CBC article further, as it is typical of the narrative sold, what is the position that Green takes on “traditional masculinity”? Would it matter that its funding comes through organizations that have also been at the core of defining domestic violence as something where women are the exclusive victims? Organizations whose own funding relies on a model of women as victim? https://www.bridgesinstitute.org/guyswork

What is the impact of the loudest voices of women still not distancing themselves from those who pushed the lies? The impact of the socially acceptable voices, still seeming to embrace and encourage double standards? The impact of those who pushed what can only logically be seen as deliberate distortion, now seem further protected, because they have been able to claim to be the voice of women? What now, as older women who gave these positions power, seem to want to allow only a quiet change of channel?

What now?

I would suggest young women have been handed an extreme mess, that too many of their elders, seem to insist on adding to. What is the serious impression made when their loud elders, protect their fiefs by furthering distortions? What happens when those who are being accused of misogyny and homophobia, are themselves women or gay? What impression is made when the lies by those who were loudly supported implode, and those constantly demonized, turn out to have been the ones speaking truth?

Worse, what happens when the reaction to this itself has already taken on a gendered reality? If a host of young men drew conclusions from how their concerns were being spoken of, and how those who raised clear truth were attacked, demonized and even driven to suicide, what reactions would we expect?

What would we expect if

They saw the damage to boys education, who dominated the educators doing the harm, and how raising it was addressed?

The reality of female sex predators and how that has been dealt with and discussed?

The reality of female abusers?

Child abusers?

Parental alienation?

Would it matter that anyone who dared raise these issues was loudly and publicly attached as a misogynist?

What if those who made this normal – refuse to acknowledge it, and thus do not allow young women to fully understand the message sent, and therefore do not know what needs to be said or done, let alone be heard by young men on a broader basis.

Conversation deliberately blocked

Note Danielle Smith’s point, and how feminists have tried to attach people like Roush V to the movement, where neither he, nor they suggested he was.

So one has to ask, what is the effect of trying to shout down film, other than to raise awareness about it? What was the effect of asserting that any discussion of issues for men, was misogyny? Especially when Danielle Smith – was a standout exception at that point? The effect of calling men like Warren Farrell a rape apologist for suggesting consent was a problem the other way as well, especially when this was the only voice that could be heard for years.

What is the modern impact of having already made it clear that being concerned about fathers who were driven to suicide because of parental alienation or to homelessness because they were the victims of abuse, was misogyny?

That raising these issues, as Elizabeth Hayes did

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOhcB01pqxw

was good enough reason to cast you as enemy, and demonize you until you committed suicide?

What should we expect when, even as these positions are climbed down from, there is no acknowledgement of the cause or nature of error? When we see, that there has long been research that pointed to the lies, and it was buried and ignored? https://canadiancrc.com/PDFs/The_Invisible_Boy_Report.pdf

Young women are being told older women did not know, but they need to ask why, when the research was there? Could it be, that men could not be heard? Masculinity was under attack? Would that not explain only permitting a discussion of bad men, but never bad women?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc6aJC46Q8 what does it say, when asking about female predators, is attacked by feminists and asserted to be an attempt to cover for men? When looking makes you a bad feminists, while feminism claimed to be about equality?

What does it say, rape still is all that can be discussed, even when the definition changes but still excludes primary female perpetration against men?

Click to access nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

It does matter, that only rape can be discussed, when it is defined as

“Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types, completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.

-Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.

-Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.”

Yet, that was all that could be discussed, and the basis of demonizing the likes of Earl Silverman, both by the SPLC and The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/earl-silverman-suicide/315761/

Note the failure to mention the data that would be in the very next table – defined by the following…

“Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

-Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another female’s vagina or anus.

-Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen.”

So – clearly forced intercourse by a man would have qualified as rape, but by a woman it would be forced to penetrate… so why could only the former and not the latter be discussed, where the year in question was 2010, and there were 1.27 million rapes of women, but 1.267 million forced to penetrates of men.

Should we expect this to be seen as innocent error, given the definitions in the CDC report are directly adjacent, as are the tables? What does it say, when those blocking the discussion assert any questioning of their positions is misogyny, and this is widely accepted?

Young women set up

Young women are understandably upset that trust is vanishing for them, and men are increasingly giving up on dating, are no longer approaching and see relationships, and especially marriage with increasing doubt.

Older women do not seem to appreciate the messages they sent, but if young women look, should they see that as a reasonable ignorance? Older women act as though they would never looked the other way, if they knew, is that what we should expect young men to believe? If a woman could walk right into a locker room of pubescent boys in the midst of changing right past a line of the mothers of those boys? If they saw mom laughing along to what they knew she would be horrified at, gender reversed? Cheering on, what she would see as suggesting sexual assault – gender reversed?

While women can adjust their views on domestic violence, they are gaslighting their sons, and daughters alike when they pretend they would never have been ok with women being abusive, when the reality of the social experiments makes clear that women did not see a problem with a man being hit by a woman, only a man hitting a woman was a problem – to the point where “it does not matter what she did” could and was openly said including on network television. Mom, is not erasing the impression made from laughing along with Sharon Osbourne, Wendy Williams or any of a number of other stupid, when he was a boy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6_klWFzzgw

This especially not, if she was angry about the suggestion that there were abusive or predatory women.

You are not erasing the impressions made by the double standards around abuse, with quiet change.

You are not convincing a young man he will be safe of cared for, if your advocacy around fathers, is limited to their importance to children.

You can’t fall in behind the father’s rights movement in order to convince a young man marriage makes sense or there is care for the person filling that role, because those men are arguing for the needs of kids, because they “know” there is no concern for the mass of suicides in their numbers, or for their jailing for child support they could never have afforded, or for the homelessness, they suffered as the result of being abused. Women falling into to magnify the voices of these men are demonstrating a care for children, not the men who are fathers, and hence not changing the views around whether fatherhood is a sane decision for their peer men.

This is the broader problem for young women today in terms of credibility, to have an impact they must both lead and be heard, and the older women who did believe in feminism and who controlled the narrative, now seeking to allow quiet change, are in effect blocking them from achieving credibility.

The dating rules – do not mix well with him being aware

Too many other women are telling them that things really are as they were when the women giving advice were young, and suggesting they need only quietly walk away from feminism, and a good man will find them. Except lots of young women who never believed in feminism, never accepted the lies are not being approached.

The notion that it is not how she feels, but what he believes that will influence his behavior, itself seems a taboo subject. If he is to find her, does he not have to be looking? To do that, would he not have to believe he can identify the woman who will not be convinced to dispose of him?

Will he not have to believe that he can see and identify a good woman, even where he is hearing from women about how good women are so good at lying, as the reason women could get away with cheating?

Would not such a woman see the reasons that approach makes no sense in a world where she should be aware that he risks being asserted a creep or worse if he does? Would not such a woman know that expecting him to pay to get to know her, is in effect telling him she has a value he does not? Pushing for him again the notion that she sees him as disposable?

So a woman sees the importance of fathers, and how in a society where the choice to discourage other male role models means they are likely more important for children even than mom,

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4EBaANvQBp/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

has made a powerful statement with regards to children. However, it may leave them massively open on another front.

Again fathers matter but when his question was “do we care about those men”? did we make an impression?

How do you ally yourself with men effectively if it actually is a problem that men generally can’t be heard speaking up for men directly? How do you get credit for it, when those men who can be heard don’t stand for broader organizations?

When the men who can be heard and seen and have organizations, are those who present their issues in terms of children and the like?

When the organizations speaking for men on campus, are dominated by women?

Where men who are talking to men, are mostly doing it in closed online spaces?

What do you say, when you realize the double speak around things like toxic masculinity, where men are blamed for how boys are, but it turns out mom, not dad was the one telling them that “boys don’t cry”? When the young men remember that, and have observed how other men had their own lived experience around this dismissed in the past? When they already observed what she discusses below?

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by World Of Wisdom (@worldofwisdomx)

What happens when this is the dynamic he observed, but discussion was blocked in open spaces?

https://news.uoguelph.ca/2019/11/mothers-push-gender-stereotypes-more-than-fathers-study-reveals/

Where he observed the assertion that it was “patriarchy” and suggesting anything else was loudly and angrily asserted “misogyny”. What happens when the truth is quietly acknowledged only after years of screaming it down, and those who saw it long ago, are no longer willing to believe?

How should those who seek quiet reform be seen?

Since many, if not most of these were the advocates who advanced the gendered lie, they should be viewed with profound skepticism, especially by young women.

While many acknowledge seeing the lie today, few will acknowledge the prejudice they held they would have instantly labeled hate in the inverse. Young women especially should view them with skepticism. The baggage those who insisted only women needed shelters will come should be understood by young women to disqualify them, and more importantly, young women seeking credibility should be making this clear very loudly. Young women should make clear that those who pushed lies and ensured abused men would be arrested are the ones being unreasonable when they expect to be trusted.

Those pushing to keep the same people and institutions in the lead of social issues are making a choice to sacrifice the credibility of young women, in order to allow themselves to not face the reality of a hate they advanced. The assertion there was no hate is ludicrous, because if all you did was invert the narratives in any other area, the very same advocates asserting they did not hate would be the first to scream misogyny.

How can you expect credibility if those who advanced the lies, and gained influence from them, are then continue to hold sway over the delivery of services after those lies are seen? How do you expect domestic violence or sexual assault counselling centers to be taken seriously by those honestly concerned about male victims, where they were loudly decrying only men could be perpetrators or only women victims only a handful of years ago?

How can you expect the education of boys to be seen as a real concern when the very people who refused to allow consideration that there was a problem, now demand to lead the solution?

Women need to be the loud voice

One of the great disasters in the retreat from feminism is not just the constant attempts to recast positions, or have people present and push the issues of men within feminism, it is asking, even demanding men lead.

There is a reason that the men who have been involved in men’s issues have so often pushed women to the fore. If men are the leaders in seeking protection for their sons from female predators, from female abusers, protecting their sons from damage to their education in a system dominated by female educators, what impression will that leave, even where most women are fully on-side? What is the impression when they manage to show the massive distortions that have been contained in a feminism, that for so long claimed to speak for women?

My only disappointment with Cassie Jaye, is how she reflected sorrow and disappointment far more anger when she realized how she had been misled. I feel rather strongly that the voices of Karen Straughan and Janice Fiamengo are more appropriate for the generation they are part of, and they are far more angry that Cassie’s.

I would suggest to young women, they need to be focused on their own credibility, and that means seeing those selling quiet change with extreme skepticism. We need to understand, things like men molested as boys continuing to pay child support, reveals the sort of blindness, that those men withdrawing are paying close attention to. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/talking-about-trauma/201902/when-male-rape-victims-are-accountable-child-support So those who want quiet change seek to leave the evidence of a lack of care staring young men in the face.

They pay attention to the way Universities are evolving, knowing full well that the “Dear colleague” letter was triggered by a deliberate and known distortion, decades earlier… https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-campus-rape-myth and they understand there are a number of cases where the real question was always his consent, but he was the one expelled. Note, how even this criticism of that “study” predates the letter. Also, how he is guilty, even where she does not think there was a crime. So when there is a demand for quiet change, do we think young men will quickly trust?

Education, the sudden concern, and a set up

Note we are starting to discuss boys education… but before we have any actual headway, we have already seemed to define women as the primary victims of that harm…

So we are starting to be concerned about the education of boys, in a context seriously harmful to the credibility of young women.

Women as victims – of damaging boys and men

The evidence around harm is long standing, notably identified by among many others, Hoff Summers, well over 20 years ago (who by the way was late to the party). Who is a feminist who actually believes in pursuing truth. She she was asked to teach a gender studies course, suddenly saw huge issues – the issues around the research underlying the changes to education was one.

https://www.aei.org/research-products/book/the-war-against-boys-how-misguided-policies-are-harming-our-young-men/

The problem today, is that while her voice was heard, it has been ignored for more than a generation.

We know from research at least 30 years old, that boys benefit from a particular type of book in the early years, long seen, and frankly that kind of book has been largely removed. We know boys benefit from exercise breaks, and again if we are honest have known for at least 30 years, yet they were removed and replaced with drugs. We know boys, like girls, benefit from the presence of members of their own gender in school, and yet as we saw above, there was a distortion created in pedophilia such that being a teacher especially in the lower grades became an unreasonable risk as a man.

While they talk of the emerging awareness of boys being graded more harshly https://bigthink.com/thinking/boys-graded-more-harshly-in-school/

it would be important to understand, that the finding that boys are more harshly graded is one that has been repeatedly found for at least a decade prior to the publication of this article. What should be more concerning however, is the reality that not only are boys more harshly graded by female teachers, they are aware of it.

Boys have correctly predicted the impact of gender blind grading on their own test scores, when this was examined in the UK. Worse young men are aware both of the importance of male role models in the schools, and have presumed reasonably the cause of their absence. They understand why men are not going into teaching. They have also noted that boys are much more harshly disciplined. They have also long been aware of what we are just starting to be able to discuss.

Boys left to fail at school because attempts to help them earn wrath of feminists, says ex-Ucas chief

What the former chief of University admissions in the UK speaks to in the article above.

We can say we are concerned about boys education, but young men will have good cause to question why now? The reality that damaging their education and opportunity was not a concern, until it started to hurt the choices of their peer women, is likely to result in the hardening of conclusions already being arrived at.

This for a generation of young women who by and large had already rejected the hate of feminism years ago, and yet are the ones facing the heaviest blow back. Worse while it is tempting to blame their peer men, their peer men have no cause to believe there is any particular personal care, especially as long as the expectations of these young men having to fulfill traditional gender roles in dating and marriage is pushed. He should be expected to fill the role of earnings after a choice to deliberately make that harder for him? He should be expected to approach, where that was clearly said to be predation on his part? He should be expected to plan and pay, so he should presume no woman would take advantage, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary? He should presume she will care, where what he observed in the last generation for which he has data, exactly the opposite would seem to have been demonstrated?

Note she is being told constantly by older women, that he will just ignore all this, and she should pretend nothing happened. She should pretend, that a culture that screamed at her peer men, that his wellbeing did not matter, and harm to him was a source of mirth – will have made no impressions….

Generation betrayal really

Unfortunately young women are about 6-8 years behind their peer men, but working quickly to close the gap. When these young women combine the other generational choices, they will likely find a package they can sell their peer men, that makes it clear this is, and always was a generational betrayal. The package is excellent, if those young women choose to take it as a whole. The cost of housing – is a choice of zoning which is also why cities cannot fund themselves in terms of infrastructure renewal, both understood in the 1980s or earlier. The understanding of the long term impact of large and continued deficits, well established in the same time frame. The impact of social programs that make it harder to transition to work, that undermine family structure, equally so, and one need only review the early interviews with Thomas Sowell, the leading light in economics in this area from the late 1970s and early 1980s to understand, or review the interviews CBS did with young black women about not seeking pregnancy while excluding the father from the mid 1980s to understand.

I would suggest to young women, they not lead with women as the primary victims, but own, that they are collateral damage, but accept that the harm to them would always have been understood by anyone not obsessed with their narrow agenda. Young women should not be quick to forgive and keep an eye on their own credibility, their mothers may tell them that they can rely on what amounts to the “women are wonderful effect” – but I would suggest that is exactly what feminism destroyed…

The breakdown of the dating market – examined

https://egalitarianjackalope.wordpress.com/…/men-hunt…

I think this is a fair view of traditional dating strategies and also speaks directly to what is breaking down and why.

However, I think that it understates the problem because the author is trying to keep her point narrow.

Within the context of her examination, she absolutely has a point when she says.

“and, I think every woman would benefit from hunting at least sometimes, and men would benefit too, in the following ways: “

I would suggest one of the reasons that a lot of women today do not want to try that, is the first benefit she lists….

“Women would share in the burden of constant rejection and the up-front effort of approaching targets of attraction.”

While it would help a lot of women understand the male perspective and would help women develop a more stable form of self-confidence, by forcing it to be more internal, I would also suggest that a lot of women are afraid of the pain that would entail, and while some do not really appreciate the male experience, I would suggest the most reticent do

Some clearly do not appreciate being on the other end and do not understand just how different their experience of rejection is. Lads, Britain needs you to do you duty and flirt this one being a classic, where she is shaming men to initiate because she does not understand the incredibly soft and gentle rejection she finds too off-putting to allow her to initiate, is gentler than what most men experienced on cold approach 40 years ago, and things are seen to have gotten worse, not better.

However, I think that there are a lot of women, that are concerned that if they approach the wrong man, they will be at risk of payback for what they have seen other women do to men. They understand that feminism was placing all men in the same basket, and are reasonably concerned (because it is happening) that a lot of men will not treat women the same way.

Few women want to risk the type of humiliation they have seen women they too find distasteful have subjected men to. Most women are understanding that they should have found a voice, but also know that the first one to do so would have paid a terrible price.

However, we need to reach beyond this dynamic issue and examine where women can fish, or have considered fishing, and how those spaces and dynamics have shifted.

While many women go to the gym and would like to be approached there, the social cost imposed by the few, and the desire to make it just a workout space by many more, has made this a non-starter for most men. This is made far worse, by the routine insistence, that what would be understood to be signaling is denied, so most men, even the desired ones, will not act upon it.

Home Depot, may be seen as a fishing ground for women, will men feel approach in such a space is reasonable? Or will they presume it a trap, if she is too obvious, and presume they are misreading if she is not? Feel the risk is too high, to work on the possibility that what she is doing is intended as signaling or presuming that they are within the acceptable target group she is signaling.

Her point around fishers seeing the approach as pestering and harassing, is also understood by men as having a VERY low threshold, if they are not within her desired group. The men that most women likely actually want, will have been the first to have reached the understanding he is supposed to just know if he is in or not the target group, and since he does not know, will presume he is not.

What if fishers are using luars that they presume appealing, but today only appeal to the very men they do not want to attract, and fishing for the desired types is only possible in spaces where the desired men will not hunt? So, let us say, that bars and apps are dominated by men who are players, but women actually want a relationship? Where do those relationship oriented men exist, where they are open to being tempted and acting on it? The relationship guy is the long term, guy, the same men who are most aware of risks. The risks of approach at work at the gym, the grocery store , Home Depot, have all been raised dramatically, and he is not the one who goes to the bar to hit on women. The why women complain of players and users, is because they dominate that seen, not relationship men.

All of this, however discusses only one side of a two sided issue. The other half, which she understandably avoided, is reward. Men understand what she is talking about in terms of her acting especially nice etc around him, when she wants him. However, the reward is based on how she will be once she has him. That is not the look of the lures in the water, but his expectations of treatment once on the boat. So his understanding of how a relationship will work, is very material to his willingness to take those risk, and make those investments. Here, what she does not discuss, is the other half… what happens when the hunter sees the game as poisonous, the fish, sees the lure as a trap?

The loudest women are seen partner shaming, and generally denigrating their partners in other ways too often. The same thing that has kept women silent with regards to issues around approach, has kept women silent here, with notable exceptions. However, the silence means there are few other voices, and little sense that this is not accepted sport amongst women. This adds to the concern around divorce, parental alienation, baby trapping, being arrested when abused etc.

Women as victims – of damaging boys and men

“Broke men are hurting american womens marriage prospects”

The New York Post did women and dating no favors with this series, especially given that this came out shortly before the pandemic and played perfectly into a narrative that was already well underway among men. A narrative that pandemic coverage itself reinforced fabulously. It is incredibly dangerous that the entire series has been written by women, and framed for and directed at women. This especially given that men will have likely its most important audience. Men of course are going to read this from their own perspectives, and many in a context where they heard a lot of feminism’s women as the exclusive victims. They will note the concern or lack thereof, for them, in a series that discusses the harm to women of damaging boys and men.

Order matters.

The last in the series of articles, should have been the first. It should have been the context within which the others were read.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/27/why-is-a-good-man-so-hard-to-find-blame-the-war-on-boys-and-men

It is more than unfortunate that the order made the above last and the below first

https://nypost.com/2019/09/06/broke-men-are-hurting-american-womens-marriage-prospects

Women should consider what that first article actually says and the implications of the headline. The implications of women having to “date down” and how making this a hardship for them speaks to how they will be understood to view men and marriage, even where men have been shamed about not being romantic enough, and how romance seems defined by what they do or buy for her. The assertion of what a man is supposed to bring to a marriage, and what questions that triggers with regards to what a woman is supposed to bring. When they weigh that against what they have been screamed at about, and how women are the victims of the wage gap, and now women are the victims of men earning less as well?

Consider how this article paints women as the victims of men having less education, and men being pushed into the gig economy, without discussing the causes of this, where the younger male audience will be dangerously aware. Leaving that for weeks later, sets a frame, not just for women, but for men.

Context does as well

This article fell within that series of articles examining the shortage of economically attractive men.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/15/dont-ditch-a-potential-husband-over-his-income

A word of advice to women, with regards to understanding how hard it would be to trade up, and the need to work with the man you have. However it is again important to examine the piece, when read by a man. I would leap first to the “advantages of marriage for men” and read that from the perspective of benefits accruing to him from those asserted benefits.

If he is working harder, and longer and spending less time with friends and more time with family after marriage is that really an advantage? If that was his preference, would he not be doing that prior to marriage? Also, men are dangerously aware of what is said of men after divorce and how social isolation becomes a huge problem for many. We have blamed men’s nature for this, but if this is attached to marriage? Is that not the natural result of working more and seeing his own friends radically less? Would that not mean that one of the things that men suffer from in divorce, and that has been asserted a burden on women in marriage, that is sustaining a social space, is actually something that marriage, hence her, imposed on him? Would that not infer that she replaces his social network with her own on him while married?

Also if he does not prefer all those hours at work, why is he doing it after he is married? Is not the earning more money and working more hours the result of requiring more money? Why does he need more money after marriage if he has a partner? Would that not infer marriage either causes him to want a radically higher lifestyle, or she is responsible for a greater increase in the household expenses than her income brings?

He is likely aware of the message of women being the consumer power (can’t miss the feminist message around this) he will know women spend the majority of the household income. What conclusion do we expect young single men to arrive at? Especially since they have likely seen mom driving the household spending and decor growing up. He has likely seen the memes regarding men and their minimalist lifestyles, and noted that men’s rooms seem less filled with artsy possessions most of the time.

Message to men – and bad timing

So what message did men get? How can they get past the multiple ones here? These are especially damaging in that so many feed the same narratives men were already getting from the group of men saying they would be better off single, and that women do not really care.

How does the message that women want to marry a man financially more successful than them fit with him being shamed about objectifying women, and how he should love her for who she is? The assertion that without money he brings little to marriage, and she is the victim of the reality that he is less successful, says what about marriage and women to him? The reality of starting with the last article, would have put this in a very different context. Consider starting instead with the context of – look what we did to men and boys, followed by now look how it has hurt us. Instead we get, look at how we are hurt, poor us, we are the victims of having damaged boys education and affirmative action pushing men into the gig economy. Reality is, by the time “war on men” is raised women have already been defined as the victims of choosing to damage boys, where the damage was largely done by women influenced by feminism.

This is a particular problem because it came very shortly before the pandemic lock downs. It was followed with long series of articles of how women were the primary victims in the pandemic, even as more men were dying. Men noted that if it was men getting all that overtime, odds are that it would have been how they were advantaged by the pandemic. They noted how the frontline workers getting credit, where not the ones dying at the highest rates, the men who were required to do jobs that had to continue were dying at a faster rate, but how it hurt women seemed the only topic of discussion permitted. It fed the narrative that women do not see men as people or partners but wallets or ATMS extremely well.

The messages timing and dating – the perfect storm.

A lot of people noted how it was like dating collapsed post pandemic. Initially most seemed to attribute this to loss of social skills, increase in shyness etc. and surely all of those would be factors. However, few considered the possibility until the PEW research bit came out, that the number of men wanting to date or seek relationships had collapsed.

We need to ask, why the explosion not just of single men, but men who did not want relationships? Was it the sudden acceptance of narratives that suggested to men they were better avoiding relationships? If so what gave those narratives around why men should stay clear such sudden weight? Would that not also explain the sudden complaints around “situationships”?

While these pieces do not alone create that, they are typical of a good deal of the discussion for years leading up to this bit of research. Men had been hearing how it was women who were hurt by the shortage of “marriageable men”, i.e. men with post secondary education previously, where they were also being made aware of the research that had been done for years on the issues for boys education. Somehow the clear damage to boys education never seemed to get traction, but women being hurt by a lack of educated men was. This seems a clear message to men, about what is cared about, and it is not them.

These all fit perfectly with what young men were already hearing in terms of women as the only victims that counted, fit perfectly with a meme about what Hillary Clinton had said that had already gained currency a couple of years previously, where she had said “Women have always been the primary victims of war. They lose their husbands, their fathers, and their sons in combat”. They became conscious of how that speech, did a great deal to launch her political career.

It was a dangerous number of men were also aware how men who questioned after she gave the speech in the 1990s that wording were attacked as misogynist and told they were monsters for asserting women did not suffer from this, where the specific criticism had been “THE primary victims” as opposed to among the primary, or just victims. The reality being clear… he does not count in his own death, nor does he feel the pain of loss, only women. Men were starting to notice how it had been asserted to be misogyny for men to not support Hillary, as opposed to her seeming contempt for men.

Men had already noticed and started discussing the previous reality of bring back our girls. Where the kidnapping of 280 girls was a crisis, but that this had happened repeatedly with boys seemed a non concern. It was clear that more than twice that number of boys had been burned alive in their schools in a couple of incidences in the previous couple of months and over 40 times that number kidnapped, and that merited little discussion in the west, but suddenly this was misogyny, even though to that point nearly all those kidnapped and killed had been men.

Unfortunately for women, just as we were exiting the period of pandemic restrictions, Russia invaded Ukraine and men quickly picked up on two things, all the discussion was about the refuges and how horrid it was for them, and that men had been required to stay to be available to fight and day. The latter while noted got radically less coverage. This brought attention to this as a broad pattern, where some men started examining crisis after crisis, and how when nearly exclusively men died, gender was not mentioned, but women dying was potent.

The impression left, was the media seemed to believe, men care when men or women die, women well, care when women die, and care only about the deaths of men in so far as it hurts women. The message to men from the media, politicians, feminism and the permitted discussions, women care about harms to women, but not men. Hence why the harm to the education of boys and opportunity for men, would have women as the primary victims. A narrative these Articles from the New York Post fit perfectly. It is, for men already in doubt, these are the perfect capstone, especially when followed by the coverage of the pandemic and Ukraine.

Generational issue

We need to ask, does the media reflect young women? Are they, or their mothers the target audience? Should young men presume that young women see themselves as the primary victims of the choice to remove boys role models, alienate fathers, arrest abused men, damage boys education? I doubt very highly that would be fair, and I do not believe that young women are so present in the men’s issues groups because they feel that way.

However, I do think young women have a massive problem with how they are perceived. While they have been walking away from feminism, or rather most have never belonged, the perception is not translating to being seen to care. The presence of women in the MRA movement, or how many are disgusted by the lies in domestic violence or the lack of care for their male peers, is not being communicated in a way broad enough to build trust. The women who are seen, are seen as exceptions, the unicorns. There are simply too many slightly older women who have pushed the narrative of women as the primary victims, and even as feminism is seen to have hurt boys, defined women even as the primary victims of feminism, for the good of young women.

Here fact may be less important than perception. It may be that women are indeed deeply harmed by feminism, however we need to ask the source of that harm. Is not most of that harm the result of alienating men and damaging their ability to act as the traditional partners women now seem to want? Yes women may want to stay home with children, not being able to may amount to a larger harm to her life satisfaction, than damaging his education and opportunity did to his … but that there could be no concern for the harm to him first, is what is so damaging. It is that what he would want does not seem to have even entered the equation.

The narrative of women as the primary victims of feminism feeds the most damaging of echo narratives among men driven by feminism – that is women only care about women. Even if women end up by being the largest victims of feminism, they are the collateral damage of an attack on boys and men, and starting with the accidental damage not direct target sends a message. What is the message of not focusing primarily, at least initially on the harm to boys education, men’s careers, and the reality of the other sources of alienation?

We have equally largely ignored the harm to fathers from parental alienation. While the harm to children may be more important, the his choices will likely be driven by this even more than the harms of fatherlessness. The harms to the man, is a required focus for women seeking to limit the harm of feminism to women. Yes children are important and need their fathers, and however that is what fathers and others have already been focused on. The question now floating around the heads of men not given full voice, even in their own minds but the crucial one, is likely is his humanity even seen. The reality that we have been leaping past the mass of suicides among fathers created by family law, is answering this question with a very loud no. It needs to be understood and said, that most men absent were removed, not abandoned their children, and the courts and lawyers have directly encouraged women to do this, by using the lie around domestic violence as a weapon in court.

Leading with women as victims of feminism is a choice to destroy trust in women.

Expecting men to lead and be the loudest voices in the reframing, and correction from feminism is equally dangerous. There is a reason that women have been pushed to the fore in the MRA community, and a hazard with pushing men to lead with regards to fixing boys education and men’s opportunity. The reason is the hazard that is created when it is only men seen to be concerned with the wellbeing of men, even if most women quietly support them. This furthers the prime harm of feminism for women, the powerful impression it created that women are consumed with the wellbeing of women only. Exactly the opposite of what is required to restore trust.

The lies, fall out and young women being gaslight

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html

Note in the year she is discussing – there were an equal number of forced to penetrates, but it does not sound like the same was done with regards to men being coerced.

Note the large flaws in methodology, and how it would inflate the numbers of rapes, and cause a woman who had a drink or two before sex to be classed as a victim (where she is still fully able to choose). How it would class repeatedly asking – as criminal, but when a woman does it on many separate occasions (and they do, it is just men would be socially destroyed if they dared complain)? If this methodology persisted, what would the effect be? When the broader society, notably men, fully understand this, who is it, that will be seen to have driven these choices? What will these men presume the purpose was, and the implications of that?

It is like the bias in Duluth, where women were never asked abuser questions, nor men victim ones, in the original design of that model. Further, even when the lead person acknowledged that issue as a fatal flaw, it could never get broader discussion.

Is this not in effect a small group of older women who silenced all others having clearly and loudly told men (most importantly young men) in the name of all women that only women counted, and men were responsible always, even for women’s bad decisions, because “women good, men bad”. Was not the same thing replicated in dv, where her beating him was in effect a cause for celebration?

Do we not appreciate that this sort of thing https://nationalpost.com/news/the-dark-secret-of-juvenile-detention-centres-is-the-sexual-abuse-inflicted-by-female-staffers is likely happening in other spaces, and the female offenders in question have been made to think their actions are unimportant (even where research clearly indicates the opposite) and also have been given cause to believe they have no real reason to fear being caught.

How did we arrive at the notion of “no woman would” really? The research from decades earlier made it clear that women did, and there was great harm when they did. It also discussed the issues of social blindness. We need to ask, why reports like this one https://canadiancrc.com/PDFs/The_Invisible_Boy_Report.pdf from health Canada, did not get discussion? Why it is, the research it cites, which is years old, and other, never received serious consideration. The experience of Michelle Elliot when she tried to do research in this area provides powerful conclusions. This is to say, those who screamed her down and in effect accused her of misogyny, were feminist women. These feminists did not care that there were female abusers, only men should be seen as accountable in their narrative. The reality of these narratives, and the hate behind them, should always have been clear. Yet many of those who believed thought they were doing nothing wrong, and even when they saw that there were male victims and female perpetrators chose only to change course quietly, and believe that the previous lies did no harm. Even those many of those who always knew, did not seem to think this would do real harm, or that harm would eventually come of this, but that it had yet to happen.

Are not those who believed this would not do harm, now the ones telling their daughters that nothing changed in dating? Telling their daughters they should just wait for him to approach. Blaming social media, where their daughters resorted to getting affirmation on-line because it had been cut off in person? This while a growing number of their daughters struggle with their mental health because of the natural result of demonizing men? Are they not in effect gaslighting their daughters when they tell them that they should just wait the guys will find and approach you? As though nothing changed, even where the evidence is overwhelming it has. Just as bad are they not encouraging their daughters to blame men, for not approaching, where they were happy to have men screamed at to leave women alone? Happy to laugh at men abused and cheer on women lying to get pregnant? Or at least look away and pretend it was not happening, even while it had spread to network television? Pretend it was not happening, where they knew their daughters peer boys were watching their own mothers laughing along?

I would ask, when younger women, realize that work was never privilege and who screamed at men around this? Who remained silent? When they realize that there were always male victims of domestic and sexual violence, and how those who tried to say something were screamed down, and by whom? When they understand the choice to silence even the women who pointed to these lies, and the fact that women like Karen Straughan and Alison Tieman had to use pseudonyms for years to be safe? When they understand why they are not trusted, as the message sent in their name was, they thought it was fine for them to do, what men were monsters if they did? When they understand who drove Earl Silverman and Elizabeth Hayes to suicide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOhcB01pqxw because they dared speak of their own experience and point to the lies.

When young women understand that this was a choice to blame all men while writing female predators a pass? When they appreciate their elders could and should have seen this, and today are pretending nothing happened, or worse, that it is up to the young to fix their own problems, when these were pushed upon them? When they read what Hoff Summers, among many, said decades ago, and how it was promptly ignored, what should they think? Who should they blame? Should they not conclude they were set up, and gaslighted? Should they not be furious with their elders who denied there was a problem, then lied to them about what it was, and then told them they should fix it, while refusing to find their own voice, and as such ensure that the mainstream media would not cover it? When they understand that their mothers did not want to work either https://archive.ph/JTzBQ, but said nothing just slowly stopped encouraging the telling of the lie (remember that survey is now over a decade old)?

When young women understand the harm to boys education was long ago understood, and one of the reasons he could not support a family if he wanted to, can be seen as concrete choice? When they understand the choice to discuss this in terms of harms to women, where the alienation was already well underway, and was quite understood? Young women should believe this was not a lot of self-serving bs at their expense, and a mess that they are now left with? When they look at the reputation of women with their peer men their mothers inherited and compare it to the one they receive?

When young women understand their peer men can and do make the argument that women have supported abuse by women, and because of their mothers generations choices, they can only argue they personally do not? Where their mothers would never have faced such an argument, and had they unlike young men today, there would have been no evidence to make it, as opposed to a mountain of it.

It is not that the hysteria overtook society, it is how we are dealing with it. Young women have a right to expect their elders to own they were wrong, to have their elders openly acknowledge that the narratives were misguided. To have their elders acknowledge that men would be correct to not trust the agencies that denied the possibility there could be abusive women, to be a part of, let alone lead in the area of domestic violence. Same with sexual violence.

Yet young women are often being silenced and still having to fight their elders where the truth is beyond clear, and even when their elders see it, they too often merely fall into silence… so as the social harms grow, can they blame their peer men for not trusting where they too see the hate that was pushed? That seems to be what they are being encouraged to do, as those who pushed the hate try to pretend they have no responsibility. The young women who see are reaching critical mass. Many are finding ways to build trust on a personal level with young men, many are not, because they do not know how to open the discussion. However, those men and women know who placed barriers to trust. They see those very people, will soon be demanding pensions from the young whose lives they have derailed, from the young men whose education they promoted harm to, who they told abuse and harm to them were things to be celebrated, and from the young women, whose choices and trust they set alight for fun.

I would ask, what should we expect from the young who see? As they see we expect them to pay for their elders, where trust was so badly betrayed?

The problem with the Peter Pan Argument

New York Post – Childish men are to blame for women having kids late in life

There is a very basic problem with the “Peter Pan” syndrome assertions/accusations that so many have been so ready to throw around. It failed to ask why men were not secure in their careers, why men were falling behind, why men did not seem to be going after the big careers, without examining what was going on underneath.

Now a lot of people have woken up to the impact of the choice to damage boys’ education, the choice to create hiring preferences for women. The latter was simply a choice to not hire a man if there was a qualified woman available.

So men not “growing up” because they are not ready to marry, when they know she may well demand to stay home, and he will be resented if he can’t earn enough to permit it?
https://archive.ph/JTzBQ

Consider that men have always been in the audience, and they understand how men are blamed for not blindly supporting their wives wanting to suddenly be a stay home mom.

Men heard men blamed for not pursuing the woman – who stepped off the partner track at 32… to find a partner, at her level~ First question most will have is, does she expect that man to be at the level she would have been had she stayed on the track? So, when they want kids, where does he have to be in career to make that work?

Affirmative action – delay or derail men’s careers

Given she was very likely pushed to the fore by her firm to some degree for political reasons, the men who would have been there, are where? Yes – that is correct – they were sidelined and therefore not on the partner track, or only being able to get on it after 30. So, they are not at her level, because she was boosted at their expense. Are they expected to chase her? If they want kids (say 2), that means they need to meet, date, build trust and settle down with her, in say 3 years? Oh – and they have just gotten on the partner track which means they will be working what hours?

It would have been really important to include in this piece the causes of why young women are earning more – that was clear in the data from studies published years before this piece. It would be important to discuss the causes of men being far more hesitant, or not believing in marriage. It would be important to have discussed the impact of affirmative action, before just blaming men for not being ready. What are men hearing with regards to how they will be treated within marriage, and how they will be seen?

Husband to blame – when wife reverses herself?

I would ask, why is he the issue when she is the one doing in effect breaking her word? Were his arguments even considered, or was he instantly painted as the problem? Is going to 1 car actually a non-issue where most Americans live? Did she pay any attention to where the explosion of hate started – that is in the suburbs with women feeling trapped in the home? Why should he not ask questions in a period of great change, where she is absolutely reversing herself from what she said she would want? Note the tone she uses around him “going there”… where the impact of hormonal changes in the period immediately after birth, that stretches out into the period of nursing – is well known. Why is it that when she abandons the frame she brought into the marriage – he should not be disappointed, when that was part of the basis of the union? If a man suddenly does a 180 like this, do we not wonder about his mental health? She suggests that “men have fallen prey to this narrative as well” where Venker misses, it may not be a question of the broader narrative, but rather been influenced by what she personally has said in the past. She misses that a woman is convincing a man to reverse herself entirely. She ultimately blames culture, but she started blaming the husband. She also misses the reality of no savings etc… and misses that they were on the same page, and the woman shifted. Most importantly she in effect asserts that her promises are not material, only his.

The husband not asking in the past, does not mean he did not have doubts. Frankly she radically changed her views, and it is no different than having married an ambitious successful surgeon who suddenly wants to stop working. If this is a man who suddenly stopped, would we not ask questions? If he wants to stay home to raise the child, would that not trigger a host of questions? We can say it is different, but he married an individual based in part on what they claimed they would always want, and she is seeking to unilaterally change the deal — and he is broadly being painted as the bad guy.

Not growing up, or reasonable adaptation?

So – is this not the answer in part to why men do not want to marry? If she is not held to her commitments, and he is to blame for her choices, why would he engage? Why would he hurry to marry, where he is not far enough along in his career – and yet we blame him for dating younger women, blame him to not chasing women he will have no time to build trust with, and blame him when she breaks his word? Would not his being very cautious around this, ensuring that he is positioned to weather these things, and only pursuing women he has time to build trust with, and only doing so after he is in a position to absorb such a change in her choices, not reflect acting like a responsible adult?

Is not the core issue, having failed entirely to examine the reality of risks, incentives and resulting perceptions and expectations for men? Should we expect him to believe there will be care and support, when he grew up seeing dad painted as the bad guy? Where female teachers graded him more harshly? Where he sees abusive women seem supported and abused husbands painted as the problem and even arrested? Injured men – a source of humor?

Older women – defined women to men

Consider the following was just fine, and young men, when they were boys saw their mothers watching this…..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tTUREalxVQ

So he knows violence and serious injury are just humorous when he is the victim of her violence!

What message did he get with regards to consent? Where he knows that in 2001 – 42% of women said they would consider lying to get pregnant, but for a man to tell such a lie, he knew most women would see this as sexual assault. So if he perceives that his consent is not seen as material by women?

What have we made clear to young men? When he can see the double standards, knows he is disposable, understands his education and opportunity were undermined and sees that to have been a choice, but he should just believe? Who told him that he should be slow to trust? Who is telling him that her word doesn’t count? Who has made it clear that fathers are disposable, and then to blame when disposed of?

Changing narrative – but what has been said – was said, and actions not words are convincing

So, we are increasingly understand this is a question of adapting, not one of growing up. However, young women are now stuck with the impressions made by their elders. The impressions created by their older sisters, cousins and mothers being angry at men for something largely created by a choice to not examine the other side. The impressions made by screaming men down when they pointed to the now obvious.

We can now say that we see men as also abused, and the importance of fathers, and that consent needs to be two way, but do we not still have a problem? We suddenly are starting to see abusive women and predatory women and their male victims, seeing the reality of disposed of fathers etc. and hear women starting to speak up about how this is and has been wrong, but we need to ask, what are men likely to actually react to? We hear men told routinely that “actions speak louder than words”, but why is it, that we do not seem to believe that applies equally the other way?

Why no shelters for men? Does it matter that lots of organizations now acknowledge that there are male victims, or that institutionally the supports for domestic violence were organized around the notion of only women could be victims, largely based on a loud lobby dominated by angry women? Does it matter that they see their errors, when it results in them going silent and leaving the institutions they created on the basis of a lie? Does it matter that all domestic violence funding is all tied up with Violence against women, when all funding for domestic violence flows through groups created on the basis of a gendered narrative, that was always a lie?

So even while it may be institutional imperative and inertia that keeps things in such a state, is it reasonable to expect young men to believe where the reality remains he can expect to be the designated bad guy, when she does things that would be deemed abuse, or sexual assault if he were to do them? Where no action has been taken to create the impression that this is not broadly supported by women?

Young women – betrayed by their mothers and grandmothers silence

It is worth noting, that a lot of older women, even most, have woken up from the false beliefs they held. Most now see that domestic violence is not one way, that consent is a two way issue, that boys education has been harmed, that fathers are important, and even that the courts have created the circumstances where moms were likely to alienate fathers unfairly. However, having screamed down men for decades, told them they were misogynist monsters for believing that any woman could, the very women who led the charge that defined men as enemy other, often seem to expect men, to lead the charge on reversing those impressions.

They will say the insane like – “the next generation needs to take up the challenge” where the challenge is entirely repairing the trust they destroyed and repairing institutional damage they created, and worse politicians that have no reason to think those women will not attack them if they listen to the next generation. They will say insane things like, men need to lead against the feminist narratives, where they already destroyed men and women who did point out the flaws.

They will ignore that the first and most important step in repairing trust, is acknowledging error, which only those who made it can. They will ignore that expecting the next generation to restore trust, where they have never seen the conditions required to create it – is asking the young to do a task orders of magnitude harder than it would be for them, if they would just acknowledge they have culpability.

Young women, an alternate path

Let us be frank, the young women who have seen from the start the lies around domestic violence, cannot say “we made a mistake”, they cannot say, “we were wrong”, they can’t explain with any credibility any motive that would justify what was done. It is, in the cold light of day, quick clear, you can never see a female abuser, if you ask only women victim questions, can’t see a male victim of sexual predation, if you only allow a discussion of rape, defined as “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” as it was prior to 2012, or even reasonably a man coerced into sex by a woman, when it excludes being forced to penetrate. You can’t explain how the reality of women choosing to stay home on relative earnings could be missed, when you always saw it… or explain how the view of it being women forced out of the workforce dominated all discussions, where the demand was for work to be “women’s choice”. Where you know it was always known, women tend to marry men as educated as them, how would not it be the women with the highest earnings potential would also be evidently the ones most likely to enjoy choice… and how https://archive.ph/JTzBQ the findings that most working women wanting choice to exit – would somehow not apply to the ones with the highest earnings potential.

Frankly, how can young women, who never believed in the hysteria, explain the loud proclamations and misandry of those who did? So how do they deal with a reality of an older generation that will not acknowledge misandry for beliefs that gender reversed they would instantly label as misogyny?

Trust requires -accountability

The short version, I do not believe young women can reverse the impressions made on their peer men, without acknowledging that their elders did hate men. I do not believe young women can build broader trust, and recreate the historical norms of men believing in family, initiating and pursuing, in relationships, without dealing with the spreading awareness that what has been, can only be understood as hate. They cannot hope to restore trust – without accountability for those who chose to spread it, and those who continue to resist change. Can’t hope to restore trust, without being part of helping to create spaces for men, and not expect men to lead in that area. Can’t hope to restore trust without taking lead on holding predatory women to account.

Can’t hope to restore trust, without demanding accountability from those who knowingly lied around domestic violence and sexual violence, but going the next step, demanding accountability for those who refused to question, even after it was made clear that only women were asked victim questions, and only men perpetrator ones. Can’t hope to restore trust, if they do not see the current domestic violence agencies who continue to quietly assert that shelters are not needed for men, or acknowledge that the reason they may not work well for women is they continue to refuse to give women initiator counseling.

Can’t hope to restore trust, where a woman is collecting child support from a man she sexually assaulted as a boy -and in effect confessed to it – when she named him the father. Can’t hope to restore trust, while only her consent is seen to matter. It is in short, if those who lead the creation of policies while believing a lie, will not take leadership in reversing their positions, and acknowledging the harms, young women would be well served by drawing a clean and clear line between themselves and those people, where they are clear that they see their choices as hate, and seek to hold them accountable accordingly.

We can say young men should be involved in this as well, however, one of the great mistakes I routinely hear from anti-feminist women, is a demand that men lead the way back. To put it bluntly, men cannot do the heaviest lifting here. The perception that women do not care was created by the actions of women influenced by hysteria and reversing it, can only be done by women themselves acting to for change and to hold those who promoted hate to account.

If you blame men for acting on their own interests, where your demand is in effect they act on yours, should you not understand you are choosing to alienate them further? So, young women need to be seen to be acting to create a shared interest before they can approach the issues. Today his argument that those are in effect her children, not their children, because she will keep them and the house in any conflict and he will be obligated to them, even if they are the product of her cheating. Oh, and another of the imploding lies is women don’t cheat, where the “no woman would” has created the impression of women covering for bad women, instead of holding them to account – another space where the generation that fell for the feminists distortions betrayed their children, including, if not especially their daughters’.

Dating, the implosion, time to look at the messaging to men.

Approach why him?

I would ask, what does it matter if most women want men to make the first move? Let us accept for argument that 86% of women want men to make the first move… but if we are to accept that, we need to ask, what are they doing to enable that?

Note it is said the majority of single men have not approached a woman in the last year, and we are starting to hear women in effect shame men, for not approaching. Is that not also in effect what the question is – the way it is being asked? The “Why don’t men approach anymore?”. Especially when tied directly to “Women don’t bite”.

So, I would ask, why is it up to men? While women have heard it is men, who drove gender stereotypes, it is mom, not dad, and early educators, nearly all women, that drive gender stereotypes. It is actually women who drove them, and young men have every reason to question mom’s perspective if she has not been loud about the issues for boys. Has she ever spoke of it, other than to be heard about predatory men?

What are the risks and rewards for the initiator?

What is the reward system? and Who is responsible for it? If men are to be the initiators, then women must be responsible for the rewards and risks of approach. The use of shame around men not approaching, seems to be a clear assertion that it is a duty, but consider what this implies.

What messages have been sent to men around approach? Lots of people think it is just natural for men to be the ones who approach, but in reality that would require a specific cultural context. Dating was not a thing for millennia, but arranged marriages and matchmakers were. Are the conditions present? We can imply it is a duty for men, but that implies something onerous, unpleasant and generally a burden. The reality is also, that duties are only felt to those who act as though they have a symmetrical obligation. If that impression is erased then assertions of duty will not only fail, they will backfire in breeding resentment and further avoidance.

Risk

Men are hearing, in what amounts to a shaming approach, that they should approach women, that women do not understand why they are not. The assertion that it is safe to do so, that “women, don’t bite”

Don’t they though? The TikTok videos that attack men for “staring” where even a close look makes it hard to see if he did more than react to seeing motion in the corner of his eye, or looked for longer than would be the norm for satisfying basic curiosity. The reality not so long ago men saw women deliberately embarrassing men who dared approach a woman, if she did did not think him worthy. There is a reality that a loud portion of women have made it clear that any public approach is predation.

Are women seen to socially shame and attack women who have made such videos? Women who loudly shame men for approach in social settings? Are they seen to answer the women who think any public approach is predation (except in shaming men)? Note on the videos from social influencers, while it is clear that many women support the likes of Joey Swoll, they are not the ones visible. So if women are seen to be either silent or cheer on actions that undermine trust, what is the natural understanding likely to be reached by the men, and what should the natural reaction expected to be?

Asserting women do not bite today, is like pretending dogs do not bite, while both of you are looking at a 50 stiches required mess just made by a dog that mauled. While it is clear, that there is every intent to make sure that dog suffers no consequences.

So, given men saw women broadly ignore or support women when they react in a abusive fashion to approach, and even in things that fall radically short of approach, what is the natural reaction? Would it not be to stop or radically reduce approach?

Contrary to what some women may believe, this has been happening across a growing group of men, for decades, just offset by a smaller group of men filling the void with what amounts to a mass approach campaign (mass marketing, replacing personal sales). This was obvious to some – back when “The Game” was written.

So the perceived failure of women to hold women to account, has radically raised the perceived risk for men.

Reward

Consider what amounts to marketing that has been done on behalf of women. The body positivity movement that has shamed men for having preferences, the self-love, you are perfect the way you are narrative that has washed out over the world. Note first that same body positivity, loudly excluded men. So the loud message delivered on behalf of women, that he is short and overweight makes him a loser, but her, well she is a god, and he needs to treat her that way. Note however, as is starting to be discussed, there is no expectations that she owes him any respect or positive treatment, that would be oppressive.

So he has been told he should ask, plan and pay for the date. This with someone who thinks herself perfect, and him just above contempt? Consider further how he has heard routinely it is somehow ok for her to seek to change him, but he must love her just the way she is. He should pay to spend time with someone who looks down on him?

Marriage as a goal?

Where is this headed? Marriage? Where he is loved cherished and bathed in love? Is that the message he has likely been receiving? Does he get that from the social commentary that all that is wrong is always husband? The policy that has made clear, that “it does not matter what she did” when it comes to domestic violence? The reality of seeing women cheering on abusive women, or lying to get pregnant?

There are basically 3 camps on marriage, that have been visible to him:

1) the feminist one, where he is oppressive monster. The one backed by the endless complaints -where he has already noted, even when dad spends more total hours, mom stays home kids are in school and she is in the audience of hours of daytime tv – he is the one not doing enough.

2) the conservative one, where if he reads the benefits of marriage, they sound far more like burden, works harder, to earn more, spends less time with friends, and less time at fun, and these are the benefits, and

3) the one that tells him if he is sane he will steer clear.

What view has been reinforced by arguments around the “shortage of economically attractive men” ? What view has been reinforced by the social conservatives supporting women who suddenly reverse themselves and want to stay home and shame husbands for having doubts, when the marriage was built around her having long asserted she would always want to work? The impression left, when he is the problem when she seeks to massively alter the arrangement to her benefit with increased risk and obligation for him?

Which one wins the argument, when you look at it from his perspective? Would she, not need to sell him another version of marriage to get him to consider it?

If he starts with that view of mating and marriage, and he has to initiate in order to create a relationship, where he understands this is goal, why would he initiate? If he does not when does she get the chance to sell another version?

Provider expectations

If men are to be the ones paying, would that not imply they would be the ones expected to provide? So boys education, was it supported, or undermined? We know what boys need to learn to read, but that was removed, what does that mean? We know boys benefit from role models, but the space for them was made hostile, even while female predators were protected by the same narrative. We know that the narrative was work was women’s choice, and thereby knew some would choose not to, did the policy allow for that, or was it built around the assumption that when women had choice around work, and men had obligation their numbers would be the same?

Well, affirmative action was established in a way that presumed women would not exercise a choice, that a large majority have declared they wanted to be able to exercise. So, women were offered additional opportunities, that is they women were discriminated for, but that can only be done, by discriminating against someone else. So, if we offered women, affirmative action, we pushed men into the gig economy.

If we presumed women were the victims in any encounter on a university campus, even when they were the initiators, we made that space hostile for men. If we offered women radically more gendered scholarships (11 times?) more scholarships, we explicitly pushed up the relative number of women with higher education. If we removed books for boys, treated them like a problem in schools, and removed their role models, we pushed down the number of men who would seek higher education, by making schools an uncomfortable place, and undermining their ability to succeed.

To be clear, the change in ratios in University, has been a policy choice, and one that made clear that men were not of value. The narrative that created some of these choices, utterly missed the cause of why post war – Universities had been dominated by men. The GI bills, that paid for men to be in University, were the result of a burden of combat imposed only on men. The surge of draft dodging men, in the 1960s and early 1970s, again, the result of a burden imposed on only men. Yes, a great deal of the excess of men in university was because of sexism, but we need to consider that a great deal of that sexism was AGAINST MEN, not for men.

Did we know that boys were being systematically more harshly graded? More importantly still, did we know that boys knew they were being more systematically graded? Did we know that boys knew they were subject to more serious discipline for the same offences? Did we know they were correct? Did we know that this was mostly female educators doing so? The problem is, the answer to all the above is yes.

Who drove this, and who was on the front lines of this, for him? This has to be about his perspective, if it is his actions we are examining.

Conclusion

You cannot demand, what you will not defend. Doing so radically increases alienation, and creates hardened views around reasons to avoid, not to engage.

So, have we defended fathers in marriage? Have we given both sides equal consideration, or have we presumed guilt and innocence based on gender. Have we paid attention to how fathers were removed, or have we assumed his guilt, and shamed and dumped on them when they found themselves dealing with a wife who suddenly wanted change who took the advice of a lawyer to level false allegations?

When there has been domestic violence, did we presume his guilt and her innocence, and even when we knew she had hit first, because she said so, what has been said? “It does not matter what she did”.

What has been revealed with regards to women’s answers with regards to initiation, that was not previously discussed? What if a critical mass of men noticed the implications of this, say 15 years ago?

What if they observed the loud assertions of misogyny, around anyone who dared point to it? What if they noted that rape, was the only sexual assault that could be discussed, and it explicitly excluded the situation where the coercion to intercourse was by the woman? If they noted how there were men driven to suicide by attacks on the basis of similar numbers, that was supported by the studies, but the discussions never allowed any of the categories that would include male victims of female perpetrators?

So, what was defended? What was attacked, and who did it? Can we say a positive outcome for men entering marriage was defended?

So he should ask, plan and pay, is based on what? If there was no interest in protecting him place in marriage, and he has been cast as disposable and blamed when he is disposed of, why would he seek marriage? If he won’t seek a long term relationship, why would he waste money in dating? Why expose himself to the risks or approaching?

So, if it does not seem to make sense from his perspective, and the causes of this are clear and on the public record, what is the effect of shaming him, if he does not initiate? Does it not just further close the channels of communication, make it harder still for women to have credibility as they seek to fix the alienation?

If you did not defend the value of marriage for men, or men as partners, you should not expect the next generation of men to see partnership as a desirable thing. Shaming them for not pursuing it, does not make it more desirable, it merely clarifies the lack of concern. Perhaps if women who abused their partners were punished and their victims supported, it might be different, if young men had not seen as boys, how a woman lying to her husband to get pregnant or torturing a man who wanted to leave his abuser, was comedy, it might be easier… If his education was valued for him, not just harm to it considered a problem because was less good at serving her. If he had not been blamed for her choice … etc.

Can young women fix this, yes, but not by shaming men, but by seeing the messages, the harm, the reality that most women wanted the option to stay home, even where policy was driven on the basis of that being oppression, and starting to find voice accordingly. However, pretending these were innocent mistakes, will not close any of those gaps. Those who pushed the gendered models, should be seen as knowing what they were doing, even if they were caught up in a hysteria, because trust can only be built on the basis of accountability, and the simplest logical questions – reveal the lies, and young men are very aware of this. The reality of the reaction to the movie The Red Pill – screams a choice to deny discussion.