I was linked to an article today, on the Breitbart Report. It was titled, The Sexodus, Part 1, which drew my attention before I realized where I was being linked to. The Breitbart Report, for those who aren’t aware, is a conservative website made by a guy who helped the Huffington Post get off the ground. I don’t consider it a bad place to get news, but it is definitely biased. Seriously though, where can you get unbiased news these days?
So when I saw this article I was excited, I want to discuss the changes in sexual behavior as our society adapts to a new world. Then I realized I was looking at a conservative website, and I realized that the investigation of why and what was happening would be colored a certain way, a conservative way. Oh well, I read it anyway, and you should too.
I knew I was in for a doozie when this article started off and laid down a heavy fire of article links to ideas that would ruffle the dander of any male conservative reading.
“In school, boys are screwed over time and again. Schools are engineered for women. In the US, they force-feed boys Ritalin like Skittles to shut them up. And while girls are favoured to fulfil quotas, men are slipping into distant second place.”
I love hearing that schools are engineered for women. The idea here is that boys being told not to rough-house, get into fights, or generally run around when they should be learning, means that schools are not serving boys. Like a lot of this article, there is a dash of truth. Over the last few decades, efforts have been taken in education systems to help girls keep up, because in the past, girls were having trouble making it to higher education. Certain fields, like math and the sciences, were male dominated. So education shifted efforts to try to help girls want to continue in any field of education they chose. In the meantime, the world has changed, and other social and economic factors, as well as that shift in focus, has lead to male students dropping out of school and being outnumbered at colleges.
So what is the solution here? Crying about how boys are doing bad and that it is the fault of feminists? Well, no, you should focus on trying to help young boys find outlets for their energy, stand for even education that can accommodate different learning types, and try to establish a world where young boys can learn to be emotionally balanced men. Which is something that many feminists do, oops.
“Never before in history have relations between the sexes been so fraught with anxiety, animosity and misunderstanding.”
This part actually made me laugh, like out loud. You see, when the anxiety, animosity, and misunderstanding is only a problem for women, there wasn’t a problem. I mean, who cares if women have long been afraid to walk the streets alone, who cares if there was a fear that you could be fired for resisting sexual advances, who cares that wearing the wrong clothing was considered an invitation to rape. It wasn’t a problem for men, so was it a problem? I’m putting words into Milo’s mouth here, but this still seems like a shallow view of the history of gender relations.
Is there a lot of animosity right now, among the internet population, and us first worlders, yes. The animosity is because of ideals slugging it out, and will continue until society shifts to correct for either side gaining the upper hand. That is how society works. When society perceives a problem, the different sides in the conflict will struggle against each other until we either resolve it peacefully, or something unfortunate happens to resolve it. If people, men and women, didn’t feel that something was wrong, this wouldn’t even be a conversation.
Unfortunately, the way that we socialize kids still leads to differing views on how others should be treated. Men still grow up seeing women as confusing, vindictive, prone to revenge, and manipulative. Women grow up hearing that men are dangerous, rough, distant, and insatiable. The reality is that every man, woman, and anything inbetween, is a person. Attempts to sum them up should be used as vague guides at best, and be treated as suspect otherwise.
So when Milo says, “Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women.” He says it without seeming to realize (which I think is impossible for someone of his intelligence) that women are all individuals who do not have a unified message. Do you want a woman who wants to be treated like a delicate flower? Find her, because she exists. Don’t expect whatever woman you approach to want to be treated that way, find the woman who wants to be treated that way. If you want the rough in the sack freaky girl who is going to burp in your face and literally bust your balls? Get off your lazy sack and find her, don’t treat every woman as if she needs to be her.
Of course that brings us to the other option, and the main thrust of this article. What about just saying no to it all? To this article, this is a travesty. The idea that men would just sit around, masturbate, and play video games, is the worst thing that could ever happen.
Let me tell you, it ain’t that bad. Now, if there are men out there living the no-woman life but being depressed over it, it seems to me that they don’t actually want to live that life. But we have to ask, do you want to live without women because it actually makes your life easier? If so, enjoy yourself, live that life, and I actually commend you to it. The world is overpopulated, so we need some ‘pretty ones’ who see breeding as not worth the effort. To Milo, in this first part, that is not a viable choice. Every man has to want to breed, they have to want to get out there and get a girl. Why, I don’t know, maybe that is his fetish.
There is no requirement in our modern world for someone to have kids. Having two incomes is financially easier, but you can just find a roommate. If you want tax benefits, find another buddy who has given up on women, and get a same-sex marriage going (okay, I guess I shouldn’t advocate marriage fraud).
But what this article says that I find ridiculous, is that women have somehow made it harder to be a man in a relationship. If we believe The Sexodus, women want men to work harder and harder, and women care less about men’s feelings. Milo was quoting this, so it isn’t his personal view (besides him putting it in his article), so I’ll just say to Rupert or whoever he was quoting that he is some sort of idiot.
Really? Really man? We live in the age of going dutch, we live in a time where a woman actually can get a job that can pay the bills, where having equal finances in a home isn’t a surprise, where men can be stay at home dads, etc etc, and still women want too much out of a man? This vague statement has about as much meaning as some guy moaning about his ex-girlfriend while he is drinking a beer, but man does it blow my mind. Man, Rupert wouldn’t last long if he lived in past era where men paid all finances for their house, on top of managing everything that wasn’t related to taking care of the kids, cleaning the house, and growing the herbs.
But no, because of feminists, Milo, and Rupert, and whoever else were quoted in this article, have to suffer. They are the true victims of feminism, men who have to realize that women are not a hive-mind, and that maybe they will have to decide if they want to make some effort if they want a girlfriend. Hole-E-crap-a-rooni, it is difficult to be a man.
Now I don’t want to end this on a negative, so let me say that there are some interesting ideas in this article. The fact that men are deciding they don’t want to go after women, something we have heard cropping up in other first world countries as well. Also, young men feeling confused on how to deal with women (they aren’t the first, won’t be the last, but that is because they are teenagers, not because of feminists). To me, this article suffers from taking several unrelated instances, and then claiming they all have one source (big bad feminists). I mean, Japan has seen less and less men going for relationships, and they are a country known for their traditionalism. Are feminists also ruining Japan? Because last I heard the rights of women in Japan are still behind the curve. Well, we better just ignore that, because it doesn’t fit into the narrative.
If I had to guess at one of the driving factors of this change, it is because of affluence. Even among the middle-class and poor, we are still relatively wealthy and well off in this country. I’m poor, I live paycheck to paycheck, but I’m typing from a laptop, checking my smartphone, couldn’t live long without internet and TV, and I play video games all the time. We are rich compared to other places in the world. So when it comes to how we see relationships and sex, we see it with a pinch of that rich person’s eye. Among the truly poor, children are an extension of your labor force and your economic means, children need to be numerous to make sure your legacy extends at all, a wife needs to be there to take care of your assets and pop out kids for the previous points. Most of this isn’t true in the US. Having a girlfriend is for companionship, emotional stability, and physical pleasure. If the effort to get that is more than it is worth, you can say no. Maybe you have other plans, maybe, like Tesla, you want to focus your mind without worrying about a mate or children. That is your choice, because that choice is viable, because you live in a first world nation.