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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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…
evenhandedblog 