Because the same folks who advocate for false accusers, who rail against due process for men in criminal and family court, who claim both moral superiority and the right to turpitude with impunity, who push men around, knock them to the ground, step on them, and kick them when they're down - those same folks have the screaming audacity to act shocked and appalled when these maligned men get fed up, pick themselves up, turn their backs, and walk away. My opinion of that response is simple: Kwitcherbitchen, ladies. It's your own damned fault. You have no business complaining.
In recent weeks, I've been part of more than a few discussions on the topic of the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement. In the process, I'm learning that women with any understanding of the evolution of a man going his own way, who are willing to acknowledge why we aren't justified in complaining about it, are few and far between. What I've heard from other women is often hypocritical at best, coming in the form of "encouragement" like "not all women are like that," and "don't let a few bad eggs spoil your opinion," empty words, when offered to survivors of habitual or chronic abuse. At worst, there is hurling of denial, accusation, and resentment, with complex versions of "how dare you withdraw respect," "how dare you reject our judgement" and "how dare you deny our control," the likes of which are nothing more than a demand that men not learn from experience. Most of this response seems to stem from a sense of ownership which feminist advocacy claims over the realm of relationships, social interaction between sexes, and most emphatically, over sexual interaction.
The general social and legal treatment of males has begun to remind me of a book I studied in a high school literature class; Richard Wright's Black Boy. The passage that comes to mind as a highlighting parallel is the recounting of Wright's first job interview.
"Do you want the job?" the woman asked.Wright goes on to describe his incredulity at the senselessness of the woman's expectation that he would honestly answer such a question, but I remember at the time that I read the story feeling outraged at the woman's implied assumptions in asking. The question suggested that being black meant he was suspect. The rest of the discussion demonstrated that sense of superiority among racist whites which lead to the treatment of all blacks as children, as mentioned in the text following the conversation. Further, the candid presentation of the insult represented by the initial question, "Do you steal?" struck me in its callousness, cruelty, and elitism. This woman felt entitled to treat Wright as an inferior being simply because of the darkness of his skin. To her, his ability to form and adhere to a moral code was questionable, and his emotional response to mistreatment and misjudgment irrelevant, all for no better reason than because he was black. I left the discussion with a sense of impotent disgust and anger at the folks who chose to embrace such a heartless, barbaric outlook. I wondered, what the hell was wrong with these people, that they could live this way, think this way, talk this way, right to the faces of their fellow human beings?
"Yes, ma'am," I said, afraid to trust my own judgment.
"Now, boy, I want to ask you one question and I want you to tell me the truth," she said.
"Yes, ma'am," I said, all attention.
"Do you steal?" she asked me seriously.
I burst into a laugh, then checked myself... I had made a mistake during my first five minutes in the white world. I hung my head.
"No, ma'am." I mumbled. "I don't steal."
She stared at me, trying to make up her mind.
"Now, look, we don't want a sassy nigger around here."
"No, ma'am." I assured her. "I'm not sassy."
In the past, the treatment of minorities in this manner was widespread and overt, supported in society by political writing full of made-up reasoning and lame excuses, well exemplified in a quote from John C. Calhoun's February 6, 1837 Senate Speech.
I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe—look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse...The statement overflows with condescension. The hypocrisy of a politician in the service of a nation begun with one group's quest for freedom from the control of others who viewed them as inferior, arguing for the control of others he views as inferior, shines a glaring light on the arrogance and pomposity of the culture of supremacy. One must assume oneself to be grand before one may consider one's acts of aggression against and oppression of others to be a kindness. One must fully immerse oneself in the murky bog of intellectual bigotry before one may presume to hold others with such falsely benevolent contempt.
I see the same thing in today's feminist attitude toward men, shown by the treatment of them as borderline animals with violent tendencies and barely contained sexual impulses, instead of as fully established human beings. Wright's white employer treated him as dishonest, stupid, and lacking in either the emotional makeup to be offended at the assumption, or the right to act on it. Feminism universally paints men with equally sweeping, bigoted generalities. Males are treated as potential criminals; batterers, muggers, mashers, molesters, rapists, murderers; portrayed as inept, as deadbeats, as lacking emotional maturity and sensitivity, and as intellectually inferior, all for the purpose of excusing subjecting them to the very same disdainful and authoritarian treatment from which the civil rights movement has actively sought to relieve minorities throughout history.
Feminist advocacy has pushed men into a corner, restricting them to narrowly defined, impossible to fulfill roles. In conflicts between men and women, men are designated by various western laws as perpetrators, presumed guilty until proven innocent. In family court, men have become nonpersons, nonparents, interlopers begging for any share in the existence of their children - for crumbs from the table of parental involvement - seen as undeserving of regard or relationship, yet fully responsible for the well-being of the families from which they have been expelled. In education and the workplace, males of all ages are targets for both harassment and persecution, using female-centered human resource and behavioral policy to give women control over even the most minute aspects of interaction. Literally, everything they say, and everything they do not say, can and will be held against them. In daily life, men are subjected to disparaging humor which women need not tolerate, treatment with suspicion which women would not abide, shaming of natural behavior in ways which women have fought to escape, objectification which women refuse to accept, and pressure to conform to standards of instinct control and self-denial which women have been protesting for generations. Every exposure to female scrutiny and behavior, from the simplest everyday interaction to the complexities of various relationships, presents men with the threat of unwarranted censure under the feminist rules of intersex engagement.
The widespread female attitude of superior contempt, combined with activism which has successfully advocated the bypassing the human rights of men in the pursuit of female interests, and the application of double standards in every aspect of male-female interaction, has pushed some men beyond the point of reasonable tolerance. In response, they have chosen to withdraw from the arena of male-female relationships in every way, opting out of collaborative personal investment in any woman. Such vulnerability could result in being used, abused, accused, adjudged, and enslaved. Why face the risk?
Now, after heaping pressure, resentment, bitterness, anger, hatred, blame, shame, and lies upon men as a group, after bawling first for equality, then for preferential treatment, now for absolute power, after shoving men to the side in the pursuit of self-interest, the femosphere has the gall to be offended at the rejection represented by MGTOW.
The basis for protest seems to be the assertion that just by virtue of our existence, men owe women some level of regard. It's not supposed to matter that currently, women are abusing feminist-won power, successfully using various false allegations as a weapon in disputes, a means of shutting down fathers seeking to maintain family relationships following divorce or separation, as a tool to control every minor interaction with men, and even as a means of garnering attention and sympathy from other women. Men are expected to ignore the very real danger of being subjected to anything from public censure to prosecution and imprisonment with no recourse against lies and other misconduct.
Even though men are all treated as perpetual suspects, and despite abuses they may have encountered in past interactions, they're supposed to presume innocence for every woman they meet. Even though they've been objectified, marginalized, and devalued, they're expected to offer social respect for our sex, acting on the assumption of altruistic nurturing and higher moral disposition, with no supporting evidence other than the difference in genitalia. After decades of feminist protest against traditional relationship roles and demands for sexual equality, men are required to accept a set of rules of engagement imposed for the purpose of treating female sexuality as a commodity, while simultaneously ignoring the mercenary, exploitative motive behind the hoops through which they're being ordered to jump.
Somehow, despite feminist assertion that women are entitled to pursue sexual gratification with the same enthusiasm and indifference they've attributed to men, men are still expected to make all of the effort, leaving women free to approach interaction with the attitude of, "What's in it for me?" While feminist advocacy has fought to free women from the presumption of female sexual consent within a relationship, the same group continues to assert the demand for male consent to relationship in response to sexual interaction. The choice of men to ignore these expectations, to refuse to cater to the rapacious nature of female dating criteria, flies in the face of the existing entitlement franchise. Far from acknowledging the iniquitous degree to which women, under modern social norms, have taken that entitlement, feminist advocates treat this resistance as a form of insubordination, claiming that by withdrawing their much-abused trust and intimacy, men are somehow denying women control over our own sexuality. The argument, reduced to its basest level, is that in order to ensure female sexual freedom, men cannot be allowed equal right to say no. Feminists claim total, uncompromisable proprietary ownership and control of consent agency. This, broken down to its simplest form, is a demand that straight men submit their will and become nothing more than slaves.
Ladies, what honest, compelling reason can you offer to counter the existing circumstances which provoked this defensive movement? Would you seriously advise anyone to place his heart back into the meat grinder that human courtship has become under the management and regulation of modern feminism? What reward potential can you possibly offer which has not been previously ruined by other women? What protection can you assure which has not been eradicated by feminist activism? What comfort do you have that is greater than lip service to an empty room? My answer to all of the above, the only honest answer I can form, is none.
This is a bed we have made, not a circumstance inflicted upon us by men. If our concern over the growing distance between us is genuine, if we have any motivation at all to regain the regard and interest of men, we need to realize that it's not men's job to address that. It's on us. If we don't want men going their own way, we should quit pushing them around. If we can't quit pushing men around, we need to accept that eventually, "around" rightfully evolves into "away." We are faced with a choice: Make the effort to earn back the regard, the trust, and the consideration to which past generations of women were accustomed... or accept the adversarial role into which feminists have unceremoniously shoved us, and give up the privilege associated with being "the fair sex."