One of the pernicious effects of the nexus between Feminism and various forms of Christianity is the presumption that women are of higher character than men and that therefore men should obey women. This tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy on the surface.
The more women insist on controlling public discourse, relationships, politics, etc., the more men are punished for authentic behavior and rewarded for passive-aggressive behavior, with “reward” being of a fashion which in the end is of course damaging.
On the other side of the spectrum are men who are so damaged by the degrading society that they come to fulfill the role of “boogeymen,” with poor impulse control, narcissism, etc.
Sane men, in obvious reaction, withdraw from society altogether.
Of course the character of women suffers in these scenarios even if the delusion that they are merely long-suffering victims of the evil menz might obscure that fact to many. Otherwise reasonable men might begin to assume that these evil menz who women speak of are the majority, or that their own masculine sexuality makes them evil (i.e., “objectification” of women), and therefore they eagerly allow other men to be further suppressed such that passive aggressiveness becomes the normal discourse.
This further cements the misapprehension. Meanwhile, of course, women of poor character relish and crave power, but it is never enough. Misguided men crave the ability to protect women from what they see as the evil of their own masculinity, and women of poor character and duped women defy them at every turn, with the result being more damaged women, more frustrated men, and therefore, the prescription is more of the same.
All failures of socialism are blamed on “not enough socialism.”
Meanwhile, protecting women from other women becomes nearly impossible. Therefore, women are forced to perform their own protection, making them harder and meaner and otherwise less able to garner protection from men by men in terms of feminine attractiveness, like some sort of prison social dynamic. The State apparatus of course unevenly protects the worst of women while offering little protection to the best of women and nearly no protection to men at all except for the worst panderers and “magic minority” currently in favor.
Meanwhile, women of good character are effectively forced or duped to take leadership roles that they don’t necessarily even want while meanwhile having little or no protection from villains at every juncture of both the feminine and masculine varieties. All the while, their problems are blamed in the public discourse as “not enough feminism”.
In a demographic situation where a disproportionate number of the fighting men have been killed or injured, and male property owners are also in short supply such as after a war, I can see the utility of extending suffrage to women. However, such a situation, in my view, ought to be temporary, until the population of property-owning men from 35 to 65 is restored.
Therefore, it would seem that The U.S. Civil War effectively killed masculinity in the U.S., even if the patient was still breathing at the time, with World War I, II, and the Vietnam War providing further demographic imbalance insults. I say this, even though, as a backlash to the feminine imperative of Prohibition, there was a period there prior to “second wave feminism” where masculinity was in full swing, thereby setting it up for a fall by means of an over-correcting socially-engineered “pendulum” of social trends. For details on this process, please see Steve Sailer’s pieces: The Ultimate Minority Right and Prohibition: Twin Sister of Women’s Suffrage.
(Those men who haven’t been effectively castrated are advised to lay low.)
Similarly, by means of swinging the Pendulum to the extreme, Prohibition both caused and killed the ability for men to organize productively outside of hereditary power or The State. “Organized Crime” today is only permitted by State-sanctioned players. “Disorganized Crime” however is doing just fine.
Men who organize outside of the state purview are the population from which masculinity arises. This is my own exposure. No wonder my standards are higher than I can attract. I’ve had it way too good. One of my readers has pointed out to me privately that perhaps I am an “Alpha Widow” in that I’ve already peaked. If such is the case, I’m obviously either going to have to relax my standards, “train,” transform my sexuality, or forego it altogether. I’m currently leading toward option 1 and 2.
Sharing him, however he should come into my life, would seem to be a given. I can live with that if I don’t have to defer to some “Alpha Submissive,” in person, because I have not yet met one who I can trust not to betray me somehow. Similarly, I maintained a hand’s off attitude with Axel’s other play partners unless one was clearly negatively impacting him personally, in which case I would offer my opinion as solicited. It was still his prerogative of course however to decide whether to keep at arm’s length or forgo contact with such a toxic creature. I don’t regret that stance even though I lost big because of it.
However, I have some cause for hope in the future in that I’ve seen young men with new and greater awareness than most of my peers. It is unfortunate for me that I am no cougar. I’m happy for those young women who learn to appreciate them. At least I can have ideological satisfaction, perhaps, one day, and otherwise live in a superior society than I am now.
Fathers of sons and grandsons are also in my radar for this reason.
At some point, even the jaded, nepotistic journalists with no skills but repeating the narrative, such as described by Roosh to Karen Straughan (and I went to school with some of these creatures) have got to realize that there’s no one in charge. Surely.
Not even importing “rapefugees” will fill the gap in society, because, as always, violent criminals do not exemplify masculinity but rather the damage that society inflicts on it.