The Sexodus: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society

a reply to: john452

Sorry dude. I only read what you said because it was above my post which I just wrote. But what the hell are you talking about? Obviously you have never seen some of these women, lets just say I have seen more women who get around then I have dudes. The number are just done and tallied different when they do it.

For instance I remember in high school there was this one girl, well I think she may have had sex with at the very least 20 guys in the school. I can remember at the very least 10 guys claiming to have been with her. But here is the kicker. Generally when guys sleep around, its the guys fault, and when women sleep around its the guys fault. For instance I even had arguments online or some come say to me that so and so guy sleeps around with lots of women. And guys are dogs and all that.

You see that's about as far as that logic got. Kind of like yours. For instance when guys sleep around with a lot of women well who do they get around with? Do they get around with one woman? Do they sleep with her 20 times and call it good? Nope, it took 20 women to sleep with that one guy, so that means there were at the very least 20 willing women who did it willingly. If he sleept with one women 20 times, well that might be called marriage, and I say might.

But hey now man are pigs and since women dont sleep around as much I suppose it all makes sense. You see its simple math here. Its not hard to grasp here, in fact I suck at math but even I can add up these numbers. And well it takes two to tango, and you can bet those 20 women who slept with that one guy slept with plenty of other guys as well. So really who is getting around more now? That one guy who is no doubt a dog and sleep with 20 women. Or those 20 women who slept with that one guy? I know pretty mind bending math there right? It may totally blow your mind and stuff.

I suppose you would be the male version of the feminists who argued there strange point. Maybe you two should get together and get it on or something. Its funny now they to argued how men got around and so women must have, then they point to a guy who got around a lot as a reason why women were oppressed sexually and had it hard, even when they themselfs slept with the guy. Exactly the opposite yet alike of you I would say. You two are so alike you may as well be soul mates. Maybe you should take up feminisim bro, it may get you laid.

I know! I know. Its hilariously silly, the first few 20 times I see that or argue it is funny, but it gets old after a while. Basically what I am saying is. Do whatever dude. I.. Do..Not...Give....A....#. But if your going to argue illogical points with me, well I may not be as nice as I was with the women. I think I called a few of them nucking morons, and for some reason they got mad at me. But hey if you think its your god given manright to do all that and sleep with as many females as you can. Then go ahead and do so. But if your trying to argue those numbers at me, I would tell you now that your full of #.

Oh and in porn like in high school, I do believe you have like 10 male pornstars banging probably hundreds of female pornstarlets and this being porn maybe thousands of other females or who knows. And the females, well I am sure they get around as well. It is practical logic here. After all it takes two to tango, and contrary to this whole feminist hogwash I never seen any of those guys put that much effort in roping them in like they do at the cattle range.

Basically I do not believe that men are or have more of a sexual appetite then females do. In fact I have seen more evidence to the contrary then anything else. Its just you know, not looked on as much, or if it is, well you know rose tinted glasses comes to mind. Males and females have them, different viewpoints on the same thing. Thought usually one thing you both have in common is that the viewpoint most taken is the viewpoint that you want to see.

It's sad to me how easily some people are willing to dismiss those who opt out from society. Saying it's okay for these people to be out of the gene pool is disgraceful. Opting out isn't natural evolution, it is human forced evolution. Guess what, we a terrible at it.

The fact is that most people who opt out are in reality likely to very quite intelligent. Basically your saying it's okay to filter out smart people from the gene pool. That kind of thinking will bring us closer to idiocracy than anything.

What if the next medical breakthrough or societal advancement is resting in the mind of one of these people. Being wasted because society was so quick to accept abandoning them.

It's also disappointing how the debate on feminism in this thread seems to be solely focused on the first part of that article. Feels like very few people actually read part 2.

There is so much more going on in this issue then how the advancements of equality have changed society.

The part discussing the increase in obesity for example was intrigueing to me and has not been talked about here yet. It is a valid point that less fit people make the pool of potential partners smaller.

I don't want to be with an unhealthy person as much as the next person. Which is why I did (am still doing) something about being overweight. I'm finally at a comfortable and healthy weight and it feels good. Still room for improvement too.

This is where it differs from men and women though. Men are okay with women ranging from 5-10. Women however seem to be more about 8-10 these days. Is that everyone's opinion? Absolutely not, but the average of people fall into those numbers.

I'm not a Brad Pitt looking dude, I'd say I'm somewhere at a 6-7. I'm not being down on myself with those numbers, just realistic. As such, it's an uphill battle in the dating scene for that alone.

Numbers is another point. The population is huge! The number of options people have now with dating in any given area is beyond what it use to be. People are less willing to invest time with someone to see what comes of it. They can just move on to someone else as easily as walking through a doorway.

I always see people defending the notion that women ask men out or express their interest to them as well. While I don't deny that it does happen, I would still argue that it is very rare. I have only one time been approached by a woman with interest. Which it turned out was just for sex, something I wasn't looking for. We both left disappointed in that scenario.

Opting out is a real problem in society that needs to be addressed. It's not something to be easily dismissed. Especially now that the entire planet is more connected now than ever before. The entire species may very well be on the line with how we choose to move forward.

a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

So geeks would rather play video games and stoners prefer to smoke weed. And yet somehow this is the fault of women??? Hmmm sorry just not buying it just tells me were raising alot of useless kids.

a reply to: suz62
Pretty harsh standards no? I mean what if you look down there and for some reason you go..."Holly # its a jungle down there, I think I saw something move in them bushland" That and sometimes when you take a # and you know that part were the poop somehow stick to the hairs...So do you like think that is sexy and such?

Whatever floats people boats I suppose. But anyways carry on strange internet person.

I think people are making more of this then it is. I mean I said it before, you got to look on the bright side of things if and when this whole male and female thing goes the way of the dodo. Though I would not hold my breath for it however, it may be a while.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

You are possibly correct as I do come from a family where the women most certainly do wear the pants and who are aggressive feminists. It would be impossible for that to have not influenced my views. I had actually thought I had been rebelling against it but beyond rationalizing feminism because of the savage nature of men as I belief I hold it's possible I may never overcome my conditioning. Realizing this is a start maybe...

a reply to: combatmaster
You know what that's actually good advise. You got problems, well forget about it. There will be other women around, and in a few years even if it takes that long you will likely be better off. And the same can not likely be said of these women and these games. And... Well its not like we will be a shortage of women any time soon. Even if you have to look in other countries or parts of the world it will still likely be better then the headache this # brings.

You sir who sits there so nobly contemplating things, I give you 3 thumbs up. You are quite correct in your assesment, sometimes the answer is to give even more, of a less of a #, then you already do.

a reply to: john452
Well there you go, like I said. Whatever dude, you would not be the first male and definable not the first female to do all that...In fact you may not even be the first billionth. Its a widely believed but close held secret that sometimes humans funk like rabbits, and then make up rules and other # latter on why they did it, male or female notwithstanding.

After all how do you think we are at over 6 billion and counting or so worldwide. That is unless you think the stork brought them all from the moon or whatever. You do have a lot of bizarre weird feminist ideas going on there, and crazy bizarre female logic they use in trying to impart on what they want to do, by saying that they dont want to do it then blaming it on others then doing what they were going to do in the first place. Its kind of annoying, but also hilarious. I suppose its not your fault in being so weird, after all you were raised by them, no doubt you picked up some of there habits.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Kali74

People change and grow through their whole lives, sometimes in that process relationships don't survive. That's just life.

Maybe the traditional marriages have outlived their usefulness perhaps?

And maybe the way we view relationships and need to possess the other party should change as well. It appears that with the disposable society we live in today, survival rates of long term relationships are a thing of the past, and we should all get use to parting ways when things don't work.

So basically be happy for the other person when they want to move on.

I think it's the degradation of the husband/wife family unit that is the major reason for all the corruption going on now, and the reason for lost youths that either end up in the military and sent to their deaths (population control), or on the streets (in the prisons) or if female, one of the ones who will financially rob men in court in the future, (creating the cycle again) or boys who love that pretty face..and will be the victim of the aforementioned woman, taken to court and will leave with the next 18-20 years of his life a financial hell. Women always use the defense that 9 months of in utero discomfort, followed by a few hours of birth using an epidural, (where they virtually feel nothing), is a strong defense as to why men should be the ones to burn financially. I personally would have rather had the epidural and the 9 months than what I had to go through. Shoot both legs..whatever you want...it certainly beats 18-20 years of financial ruin.

At any rate, and back on point, after the family is broken apart by feminist ideas and application by a government who knows that it's best to take out and/or emasculate men, because the fewer Real Men that is left...is fewer that they have to fight. (god knows the women wont do it, and will most likely lay the red carpet for the NWO for giving them everything on a silver platter).

That said, the opportunities are endless for those from a broken family. The female child could end up as a prostitute, stripper a junkie or by derivation of their mothers following the feminist doctrine and collecting a little nest egg for themselves...the daughters will search for the father they never had, who will abuse them sexually, and this wil be acceptable to the "daughter" who now has a "father figure" at least. I know I have had my fun.

Hell, the skies the limit right? Here is what really happens---> The mother (once divorced), cannot control the children, because the children grow angry for not having a father, in their lives, and the female children usually end up trying to find that father figure (as mentioned before), by going for older men (which they trade for sex as an acceptable price). Hmph! Kinda like me.

I will have to thank the feminists however for this part, however even I am human...it's not right...even though it gets me what I want easily. For the sake of humanity, I would want things to work out for both parties and that there would be no psychological deviations or lapses of judgement because of the sins of the mother....who somehow thought it was acceptable to marry a guy, even if she didn't love him. Sometimes lie to him, and tell him that she is either on the pill, or that she cannot have children...just to have that little (convenient) miracle to happen.

Then the games begin! She then benefits herself, and rapes (and yes I said "rapes"), a man of his self esteem, any desires he may ever have, any future, any chance of surviving comfortably. Then the words come, that so many men before me have heard before. I want a divorce. She then tightens those hands on those testosterone pills, to the point of emasculating agony, starts a fight and then divorces him,...and it turns out that she ever loved him in the first place.

Trust me, I know this first hand. Without the tightly integrated family fabric, which once gave us scenarios such as the mother teaching the kids about the world and it's wonders, teaching them about compassion and empathy (things women USED TO BE natural at doing); and the father teaching hem the ways of the world, the evils to avoid, how to stay alive and trades to carry them throughout their lives. Once the family fabric was cut asunder, because it was more profitable for women to divorce the father...get the child..get the alimony, and at the same time call it equality, while having their own paychecks, and NOT having the same responsibilities as men to pay child support, alimony, report to a District Attorney monthly to prove said payments, or to have to buy things for the child because women are not responsible to,
it has caused a rip in that stable system, where husband and wife once worked together...not for the needs of themselves (like feminism teaches), but by working together FOR THE NEEDS OF THEIR CHILDREN. Ever since feminism has started, there is nothing but chaos in families. Men get married, but only women only reap the benefits, no benefit for men 2 be married.

If men cannot pay a couple of months of child support for reasons such as [not being able to afford to eat or being able to pay rent etc] What happens? The court makes it even harder for the man by taking away his drivers license and his passport if he has one. This way he will not be able to get to his job or leave the country.

Women???? No responsibility whatsoever, and nothing to fear from the government. It's all one sided, and against men. Trust me, I have been there and dealt with this. I know first hand how this works.

That said, if it wasn't so profitable for women to divorce, or simply if they had to pay AND PROVE that they paid an equal amount as men in child support or alimony...we would not have all of this animosity from men, children running amok and lost, joining gangs because lets face it...they are not threatened by women (why would they be?). Men are more threatening just by their very nature of being a man, (which is kind of the theme that feminists are expounding on by saying that a threatening image = violence to women) and this kept most kids in line.

My family now, we are tight because we are all on the same page, me and my wife work together, she teaches and shows the empathy and all of that...even home schools our kids. I teach them how to survive and what types of people to avoid, how to fight, and they listen to everything I say because they they have a certain fear of me (respect) as a man who they have witnessed doing what he says he will do...if he says he will do it. I never abrogate anything I say. If I say I will do something...it gets done. They know when I tell them to do something, or there will be a consequence, that I will follow through. I might add, I never have to lay a finger on them. My voice, my authority, my strong stance and the fact that I am over twice their size...is enough to keep them in line.

I think there is a great deal of use for the family sticking together...why do you think the government/Illuminati (or whatever the F* they call themselves today), are trying to break the families apart? Because, it gives them a reason to install a police state and to blame us for it. Because we could not control ourselves. Just remember, back when the families were tight..we did not have half of the BS we are dealing with today.

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: Indigent

When you consider that divorce is initiated by women Something like 70 percent of the time, many times Becuase they are bored or cheat, and the courts are geared against men and especially fathers, and the result of divorce can be financial ruin and financial servitude in the form of child support and alimony not to mention losing ones home, who can blame guys for wising up? I advise all younger guys to wait until you are at least forty before considering marriage and then sign a prenup. A good analogy is skydiving; would you jump if there was a 70 percent chance your chute wouldn't open?

Where do you get "becuase they are bored or cheat" from? Just curious since studies show a lot of divorce filings by women are due to the husband's infidelity. Incompatible and drinking/drug use are others as well. Obviously both sides are certainly guilty of it in many cases. However, I can see there are lots of broad brush strokes being painted thus far.

Just don't get why it has to be about gender. I moved on from the men vs. women mentality a long time ago I suppose. I tend to look at it more as a person being $h*tty or $h*t on sort of deal regardless of genitals.

a reply to: john452
Well generally females are a bit more greedy them males. Thought that is not in itself correct, I have not the word for it right now, but greedy is not it, thought there more inclined to take it to extremes or so and over more stupider stuff, if you know what I am saying. There have been plenty of society ruled by females, they all eventually turned on itself though, our society today is just as much matriarchy as it is patriarchy in fact in a lot of cases its geared toward females more so or so I see things.

Look at war or politics, contrary to many believes I do not believe those are simply male oriented things, and in anything you can bring it down to feminine objectives, even in the way they do things, especially in politics. Back in ashur it was predominately female dominated cults and religions, eventually it became to much so it had to be curtailed, even the whole law were females were supposed to lay with any stranger which came to them if they gave her a coin was a direct result of the previous power structure and fall of the more feminine believes, that and they did not want to have to many females in power again and the whole cults and sacrificing fetuses and blood cults or the orgy cults and the whole raising menchildren to do there bidding and the drug cults more like cartels with religious zealots all in the name of the goddess off course. So you know, # got stamped and restructured and rebranded. There has to be some order you know, so the iron fist came down.

You may not believe me, but hey believe is of no consequence. And a world ruled by females I do not believe would be such a good thing as they believe. And seeing that they never actually had to do the things they say in what centuries, ya its not going to work out like they believe it. Females can be just as cruel or mean or ignorant as males. So I think whenever one gets the upper hand or more power over something, well all the good intentions in the world do not mean squat and never have, and like somebody else once said, walking through an insane asylum shows one that believe means nothing.

But if believe means nothing all you have to do on, are what has happened before. And generally when what has happened before will happen again if given half the chance. Some things never change, and will not likely change, or not in the very least a few million years or so. So no I do not believe a society ruled by females would be better or in fact a males would be all that different then it is now or better, in fact you could say that what you see now is the pinicale of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. It is what it is.

I agree the bigger concern is for western society in general. Falling birth rates regardless of the reason behind them doesn't bode well considering the higher rate of growth in other societies. My prediction is the future will belong to western society bolstered by advances in robotics or Islamic society based on current demographic projections.

Its highly probable that some variations of that will come to be, though not to the degree you think. Or at least we will see. # always happens when you least expect it, and what you least expect has a tendency to happen more often then not.

a reply to: Indigent

This is only happening in Western Nations.

In most parts of the world, feminism is a fiction. So yeah, we won't be extinct yet.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Ha... but I'm a feminist. It's a very small few of us that think we're better than men that wear the label... feminism is about equality and I reject women that teach or preach female superiority or that, for instance, cat-calling is rape. It's rude and uncomfortable but it's not rape.

My post was in reference to men that hate women because they've been hurt or rejected and they blame feminism for it, I was asserting that failed relationships are just part of life... dust yourself off and get back out there.

a reply to: Kali74

My post was in reference to men that hate women because ...

Men don't hate women, men like women they just don't seek to form a family with them as they see as too much hassle due to the indoctrination they have been submitted to their whole life, indoctrination put in place as a cause of the most extreme feminism, that's actually what the article said not that men are not seeking women at all (they seek casual encounters, just not a full relationship), or that men hate women.

But hey its cool, men hate women, they have to evolve to adapt into the equality that represents a society lead by women, or be removed of the gene pool, after all we don't need them.

That have been said here, very equal of them to say it

originally posted by: Kali74
My post was in reference to men that hate women because they've been hurt or rejected and they blame feminism for it, I was asserting that failed relationships are just part of life... dust yourself off and get back out there.

And from what I'm gathering about the OP and their topic, in a nutshell, is "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."

Yes we can dust ourselves off, and get back up, keep going.....Rah Rah Rah! but that is only when the results of venturing into something will not leave the same results.

How many times does a person stick their hand in a fire? The answer to this question is fairly easy.

Also you say "failed relationships", but relationships don't fail, people do, so if people keep failing the same way over and over, then the chaos is perpetuated, and something is terribly wrong. Correct or not?

BTW I applaud you for expressing yourself, views and mindset, in this thread, and not holding anything back.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

The ERA, affirming the equal application of the Constitution to all persons regardless of their sex, was written in 1923 by Alice Paul, suffragist leader and founder of the National Woman's Party. After women’s right to vote was guaranteed by the 19th Amendment in 1920, she proposed the ERA as the next step in confirming "equal justice under law" for all citizens. The ERA was introduced into every Congress between 1923 and 1972, when it was passed and sent to the states for ratification. The original seven-year time limit in the ERA's proposing clause was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at that deadline, the ERA had been ratified by 35 states, three states short of the 38 required to put it into the Constitution.

www.equalrightsamendment.org...

Gee it's been women (with the assistance of some men) that has been trying to get the ERA passed since 1923!! They are still trying to get it passed. But I have to say that it must of been men's decision not to pass it since when you go that far back you find that there weren't really enough women in the congress to make a difference. It's interesting to note that it was between 1972 onward that the social service system ballooned out and that child support system that you are griping about actually started enforcing men's responsibility to their children!!

I would propose that what in fact actually happened was that they more or less bribed the women to forget about this little piece of legislation that WOULD HAVE MADE WOMEN JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS MEN!

So instead of blaming women for all the woes why don't you write a letter to congress and to the state legislatures of those states who failed to pass this legislation and get it passed like it should have to begin with? I mean this piecemeal crap that they put together really seems to have not had much of a beneficial effect and has done more harm than good for men and women!

Both men and women should be held responsible for both the cost and the care of the children they produce as well as the cost to maintain themselves. If they are living together both should be responsible for the housekeeping! Our incomes should be considered separate when it comes to income tax along with any charity programs out there. And well if a man and a women is doing the same danged job equally well they should be getting paid the same amount! That would be what is equal under the law! We are still very much in a situation where the system that they have devised is pretty much like the "acceptable clothing" of years gone by... more apt to weaken women than to give them the strength to be independent! The ERA more than likey would have gotten us to a much better position a decade or two ago!

Also, take into account the internet asshole thread. Many dudes online and in video games are apparently unable to interact with women without resorting to verbal abuse, threats and sexism. I've seen the most awful displays of lack of social skills online myself, and I think some of these guys need someone to tell them the truth and some really do appear to have issues such as the author of the article in OP (the bitterness just oozes through it) and I think there's probably a correlation or cause-effect relationship between gaming too much and being repulsing to women, but is that feminism, or the gaming/porn industry?(if you'd HAVE to blame someone)

Coming to think of it, whatever you may think of porn: it's really not a great teacher in male-female relationships/interaction, or even 'what should sex be like'. Distorted images bring false expectations. Many of those hooked on video games and porn are exactly that, hooked on games and porn. I know someone myself who was that for many years during teenagehood/early twenties and his social skills weren't that great to begin with but this only worsened it. It's as if you put a part of your development on hold/slow it down/even damage it with false info. (the internet and porn, ya know)

And as I said, it's not like the online gaming etc is great exercise in civil interaction that might attract a woman or girl.

Just putting it out there... there seems to be this focus on feminism because it made girls have more expectations themselves perhaps, or broadened their options in the dating scene but is that the direction in which to shift the blame?

Looking at it from another angle we could also 'blame' the porn or gaming industry, if we necessarily have to. Besides, if the gender relations clock would be set back 50 years, would gaming and porn become less alluring? I doubt that. But hey, just bringing some nuance

I for myself don't think it's healthy to blame anything. We see it again and again, people who have lacklustre social skills and are apparently rather off-putting if women react to them in the ways they ascribe to them. (it's a bit meant as an insult of course, those mean women! But it says something imo...) People who somehow lack the ability to reach certain things they desire. Blame helps nothing. Women won't go back to the kitchen (forcefully, at least) and if such were the case, these dudes would have even more issues getting sex, the gaming and porn industries wouldn't cease to 'enslave' these guys. Blame games are pointless if it's about taking control of your life.

Should we blame the woman for not lending her body to soothe his frustrations? Should we blame the gaming/porn industry that's made him an addict? Is he unable to interact with women because he's hooked online in the first place? Does it worsen an issue that was already there and has it little to do with feminism?

It seems as if the writer of this article has his frustrations with women, and therefore blames it on them, without looking at the cause. And HE's the one who's struggling, isn't he.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Ha... but I'm a feminist. It's a very small few of us that think we're better than men that wear the label... feminism is about equality and I reject women that teach or preach female superiority or that, for instance, cat-calling is rape. It's rude and uncomfortable but it's not rape.

My post was in reference to men that hate women because they've been hurt or rejected and they blame feminism for it, I was asserting that failed relationships are just part of life... dust yourself off and get back out there.

The problem is, exactly what happened here... I could not tell if you were a feminist, and assumed you were not. I thought you were just an average woman with no dogma attached. Its the same as throwing crazies into the same basket as people who are called `conspiracy theorists`, who indeed know for a fact that the government is up to no good ..and can prove it. In the eyes of everyone who hears the term `conspiracy theorists`...you might as well be a crazy, despite having a Harvard education or having worked for Lockheed Martin.

The very word feminist excludes men. If it were equal it most likely would be called fe`man`ist. The problem is that there are extremists that you speak of, and that I personally have dealt with who also call themselves the same name. Where can one separate the pepper from the ash?

If you are not one of `them`, then I would suggest that women like you, who endear true equality, create a different name, so as to separate yourselves from those hateful, man hating, segregationists. I would hate to be at war with someone who believed in what I believed in, simply because of a word that represents an enemy in the eyes of men. BTW, I have come to know that there are a considerable amount of `feminists` that think they are superior to men (because the government protects them, of course), and if there are only a `few` that think they are better and more superior than men....you had still better consider changing your moniker for what you represent.....because they, albeit a few, speak much louder than you, and there is an awakening of men happening right now. It will not attempt to discern between the ones who call themselves good guys, and the ones who call themselves masters of men.

If your name is Feminist, I assure you, you will know what equality truly means. (as a note for Homeland Security or other - I will personally enact no violence on women, I am merely predicting the future from the lessons of the past). I am enlightening only. I feel that words are more powerful than th sword anyway....and I am right.

KaLI74..I want true equality between men and women too, and the only reason this is going on is because the American Government is nothing but `divide and conquer`..Democrats vs. Republicans (in the middle..you will never make it), blacks vs. whites, NOW...men vs women,(because of the broken families) children vs. parents, police vs. everybody, bankers vs. everybody, every religion vs. Christianity (now removed from everything that once made America great), because it is so profitable for women to get a divorce and take all a man has in court....we now have women vs men. The education system vs children (which is really the government vs children, as the new generations..if dumb, cant hold the government accountable).

There is a lot more, but I will finalize with this thought. Feminists against women AND men. These radical feminists do not call themselves `radical`, only their opposition does, because they are essentially homeland terrorists..that the government condones. They use every woman as their battering ram through a crowd of men. Anyone else with a behavior of peace, be it a 90 year old man trying to give food to the homeless (a lot in the news lately), a man just trying to grow crops in his own back yard, or protests that are swiftly doused by police bullying ...these people are called `Domestic Terrorists` , while any woman, anywhere, can rob a man, by taking him to court..especially if there's a child involved, and she is heralded by other women as a victim (even if she cheated on the man and he asked for the divorce) Feminists only hear THEIR side of the story, and try to convince all women that WOMAN = FEMINIST...even though it is an ideology that was brought over from Russia by Madame Blavatsky, whose father was a well known Marxist, and she was a well know Satanist.

Women, for some reason just choose to go with it...(most likely because it pays $ to divorce, instead of having to work for 50% of the marriage...why not take it all right ?
The woman automatically wins in court, unless proven to be a total disruption to societies rules (too drugged up to care)...even then she is considered. Men are not even considered, even if he is the better candidate for custody.

Do women have to report to a District Attorney monthly?, to prove how much they have paid to clothe and feed a child?...NO. Do they have to pay child support or alimony?.NO. Its as rare as finding a diamond in a mine.

We supposedly have equality in this world, even though most managers are women today, everywhere you go, and now men are all lower leveled positions (because we are not minorities, and certainly do not have an affirmative action card, or feminist groups banding with the main stream media to speak our case for us. Men are unheard, except in forums...many of which get deleted by a feminist who is working on the site as an administrator or a mod.

If you are different from them....what will you call yourself, once confronted by a man who hates feminists and is willing to make a point of them? I am just curious.

a reply to: dawnstar

Understanding everything you just said, and taking into account our current state of being.

Why is the divorce rate over 50%, some states as high as 65%, and the majority of divorce filed by women?

Are women punishing men, are they punishing the children, or are they anti-family?

imo divorce is not an answer, but rather a permanent solution to a situation they both agreed on, and took vows "for better, or for worse". But then again maybe "marriage" has outlived it's usefulness and the current MO is the way things should be?

Again, the OP and topic is about "Men giving up on women".

Do you blame them when the divorce rate is 50% plus, they get their asses handed to them in the court system, and the fact that over 75% of divorce are filed by women?

People have better odds in Las Vegas shooting at the crap table. lol