United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: New Rules for Men
Source:
The American Thinker
URL Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/art ... 2018/10/new_rules_for_men.html
Published: Oct 3, 2018
Author: Matt Patterson
Post Date: 2018-10-04 09:37:29 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3818
Comments: 39
And so we have arrived, in the Brett Kavanaugh affair, the inevitable and ultimate apotheosis of #MeToo – the vilification of men qua men. Now, one accusation alone – no matter how unsubstantiated and uncorroborated – is enough to ruin a man’s reputation, nullify his accomplishments and erase his opportunities...for life. This is apparently the standard set, and accepted, by roughly half of the country as represented by the Democrat party. We have thus entered something new and dangerous. And in light of this new reality, new rules for men vis a vis the opposite sex are required. Here are some baseline suggestions: Even if you do get consent at every stage of the encounter, that still may not be enough. As Cathy Young wrote for the Washington Post, the definition of “consent” is itself disputed and subject to change given the whims of the mob: “Consent advocates already fret that even an explicit ‘yes’ may not be given freely enough. A series of educational campus posters includes the warning that ‘if they don’t feel free to say ‘No,’ it’s not consent’; a Canadian college campaign cautions that consent is invalid if it’s ‘muted’ or ‘uncertain’ rather than ‘loud and clear.’ This advocacy creates a world where virtually any regretted sexual encounter can be reconstructed as assault...” In other words, we live in a world where a woman can consent to intimacy, then retroactively withdraw that consent (the exact nightmare that comedian Aziz Ansari recently found himself in). This is a world in which men and women are not free to find each other, a world in which genuine romance is not possible. Romance, after all, requires maturity and acceptance of a certain ambiguity from both parties. It requires that both men and women accept responsibility for their feelings and actions, responsibility that modern women often seem incapable of exhibiting and, frighteningly, are not expected to exhibit. Nevertheless, men are burdened with strong sexually appetites, appetites honed by millions of years of evolution. So what of your natural instincts to pursue, court, woo women? To find one with whom to wed and mate in order to procreate and advance the species? All I can say is, good luck my friend. Proceed at your own risk. Take heart, though. The sex robots are already here, and are daily growing cheaper, better and more widely available. It won’t be long before men won’t need women at all. Because this ultimately is what men are realizing in our current anti-male hysteria: That interactions with women are often more trouble than they are worth. Congratulations, #MeToo.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
They're only 35% of the country. The rest of us can come together THIS ONE TIME, to crush them in November, so that they pay so badly they change their beliefs. We saw this happen with Ronald Reagan. He rode into Washington an arch- conservative, and one of the things he targeted was Social Security. He was going to privatize it. The backlash was so huge and so ferocious, that he realized that it was the end of his political career his before his first two years in office were through if he persisted. So he completely reversed himself. Thereafter, he became THE staunchest support of Social Security in Washington, insisted that it never be touched, etc. Reagan was capable of doing a permanent 180 degree reversal, an absolute abandonment of his public position and adopting the view of the other side, because he saw that the alternative was the immediate political grave - the end of him politically, defeat, disgrace and humiliation. The Gipper was not a stupid man. Facing political death, he joined the other side. Democrats are stupider than Reagan. For one thing, they believe themselves to be absolutely right and morally justified, and also they believe themselves to be nearly the majority of the country. Reagan did a 180. The Democrats will not. Therefore, unless the rest of us WANT the Kavanaugh Standard to be applied to us for the rest of our lives, it is IMPERATIVE that - no matter what your political beliefs and causes are - Kavanaugh be put on the court, and the Republicans trounce the Democrats in November. There is much more at stake here than taxes and spending. What is happening to Kavanaugh will become the new norm. It MUST be stopped, or it will become a tyranny that you will never be able to fight. Kill it now. Kill it in its cradle. The only way to do that is by giving the Republicans massive gains in November. That can be taken back in two short years. The Democrats MUST be shown that they are only a third of the population, not half, and that their passionately held ideas will not rule this land. Otherwise they WILL rule the land. and that will be really bad.
The backlash was so huge and so ferocious, that he realized that it was the end of his political career his before his first two years in office were through if he persisted. So he completely reversed himself. Without Congressional support NO legislation can be passed. Reagan had no choice. Democrats are stupider than Reagan. Democrats are stupider than my toolbag. There is much more at stake here than taxes and spending. What is happening to Kavanaugh will become the new norm. It MUST be stopped, or it will become a tyranny that you will never be able to fight. Kill it now. Kill it in its cradle. Yup. Right THERE. That is exactly THE stakes. AND only solution. Snuff out this "Resistance" -- which is actually just Team Stalin-Alinsky. CRUSH IT. AND SOROS.
#17. To: Liberator (#4)
Good! Because Reagan's idea of privatizing Social Security was stupid. Fortunately, he faced political reality and came to his senses.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestroughly half of the country as represented by the Democrat party.
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
[President Reagan] was going to privatize it [Social Security].
Replies to Comment # 4. Reagan had no choice.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]