A Question For Women

"Ladies, it’s not a secret that men are walking away from you. A growing number of men under the age of 40 are not getting married. Beyond the four decade hump, many “single” men are struggling to repair lives devastated by the scorched earth system of family law in divorce. Only the truly learning-disabled go back for more in that arena.

A smaller, but also growing number of younger men are not just refusing to marry, they are increasingly averse to dating as well.
They recognize that for you, a date is a non-stop job interview and shit test, with you in the role of prospective employer, and them in the role of unpaid intern to be given endless skutt work in the hopes of someday having a functional relationship. Why would men keep throwing themselves against that wall? Despite the popular narrative in female-oriented media, men are not naturally stupid. So, in ever growing numbers, they’re opting themselves out and walking away from you.

In case you’re particularly slow, men have endured 40 or more years of a public narrative telling them that due to their sexual identity, they are lesser human beings, and you, lovely women, have cheerfully endorsed this message because it implies that you are superior. Believing yourself superior feels good, I’m sure, but the side effect is that in any social encounter you carry the constant assumption that whatever guy might be in front of you is, in comparison to your elevated self, mere scum. A peon who has to bring something extra to the conversation, just to be considered a human worth speaking to.

In addition, the modern social and legal climate is regularly punctuated with empty-of-merit criminal accusations made through institutions other than the police or courts. And rather than treating meritless slander as just that, much of our “progressive” media will cheerfully carry such stories, immolating the lives and careers of those accused, with an insouciant disregard for presumed innocence or due process which not long ago was foundational to any consideration of justice.

Every woman is a possible landmine. You are a potential land mine. How does a man tell you, the reasonable, sane woman from the one who in a moment of pique will utter a few words sending his life right down the shitter?  How does he tell? This is a real question.

However, in response to the obvious male exodus from the institutions of marriage, dating, career climbing in support of a wife, most public discourse addressing the male diaspora uses terms of shame and belittlement. Men refusing to buy into still-popular male destructive social institutions and ideology are routinely smeared as man-boys, failed-to-launch losers, Peter-Pan-syndrome sad cases, and a variety of other attacks on the person. The attempts to shame are purposeful, with a get-back-to work imperative to any man daring to consider himself a complete person with justifiable needs.

Who are you providing for and making happy? If the answer isn’t “her” then you’re not a real man.

Men, for their part, are recognizing that their socially approved identities depend on the approval of women who have, as a class, demonstrated indifference to any aspect of male identity besides female benefitting utility. So why on earth should men continue to entertain female expectations?

Even if some reason is provided in answer to that rhetorical question, men are not playing the game, they’re walking away.

When it is not just a few disaffected curmudgeons saying no to dating, to marriage, or to serving you with their own sacrifice, what will you do?  What happens when rather than a few individuals, corporations and other organizations begin filtering you out as a recognized hazard to their enterprise, and excluding you from their employment roster, or their customer base – what are you going to do?

You might think that through popular and current feminist ideology’s power in mainstream media, corporations big and small will be required to support and serve you, no matter how dangerous and destructive to those organizations supporting you becomes. For a taste of that destruction, witness the emergence of lawsuits against colleges by fraudulently accused and expelled male students.

Rolling Stone magazine’s claim to journalistic integrity is now an international joke. The magazine ran a fraudulent story of a gang rape, perpetrated, it was claimed with the complicity of a fraternity’s members and officers, against facts on the ground that completely disproved the story. That magazine that once published the immortal Hunter Thompson is now an embarrassment to anyone with Rolling Stone on their resume. Similarly, Columbia University, who allowed a fraudster, performance artist and a sexual harasser named Emma Sulkowicz to demeaned the 2015 graduation ceremony by dragging a mattress onto the stage as diplomas were handed to students is now a damaged educational institution. The reputation of Columbia University is now, in many minds, that of a clownish and puerile place where justice is that of the mob, and the temper tantrum of a spoiled, narcissistic child of privilege trumps the traditional liberal values of inquiry, rationality and open discourse.

The damage is real and cannot be sustained. Supporting the values of the feminist enterprise is coming at the cost of the destruction of centuries old institutions of law, education, and journalism. When you destroy something, you don’t also get to keep that thing. This might seem a redundant and unnecessary statement to many readers, but based on the apparent unconcern by law makers, journalists and educators, maybe it needs repeated emphasis. If you have a cake, and if you eat that cake, you don’t still have a cake.

When not just one university, but universities in general are deservedly regarded as a joke where appeasement of child-women with narcissistic personality disorders trumps education in critical thinking and competence in a professional field – then those universities will go away, because they will have no value to prospective students or to graduates of a purchase now, pay tomorrow, fucked up syllabus.

The real world can’t afford you, ladies. And don’t mistake what’s being said here. You’re not too fancy, or high class, or special. It’s simply that the cost of appeasing trumped up female victimhood requires discarding the foundations on which an open free society stands.

Even if you, personally, are not of that rising tribe of narcissistic amoral land mines, waiting for the right moment of offence to sew destruction in your empowered wake you’re still part of the problem. Among myriad other problems, nobody can tell that you aren’t an opportunistic self selected victim sociopath until it’s too late. You look normal, until somebody steps on what they thought was safe ground and you blow their metaphorical legs off.

So when it’s not just a few Peter Pan syndrome, man-boy failed to launch losers who won’t appease you or allow you anywhere near their lives and enterprises, what will you do? What will you do when major organizations and businesses also close their doors to you out of necessary self preservation? Will you play the currently preferred trump card, claim victimhood and use the proxy force of government to bulldoze those doors back open? If so, you’re going to bulldoze the foundations on which those same institutions stand.

Men, which is to say, the ones who in growing numbers are turning their backs on you, will not patch the holes that you are drilling in the boat. They may have even helped build that boat, but now they’re content to see it sink, and you with it." johntheother

Source