A political war on women? No, a secret war on men

Men throwing one another under the bus in hopes of getting favor from women is as old as the hills. It is part of "the competitiveness" around getting a mate. Women will do bad unto one another too to get a mate but with by and large an easier time finding one, they just don't get so overt about it as men often will. Women are just as capable, if not more so when no one is looking, to throw another woman under the bus when going after the favor of a certain man. That's another thing, with women's often more-particular targeting of interest in men, they simply find fewer occasions to display their competitiveness than do men. But this is commentary about the personal level. What the author of the article is discussing is the not-so-personal level of electoral politics.

It's here that what pond male pols are swimming in is not so much about competitiveness for female affections so the guy can get some action. Instead it's about getting votes. Any given pol will say just about anything to get the votes he or she needs to get elected. Male pols now think that they need to throw men under the bus to get elected. It's a requirement. If they don't do it, they are going to lose. They didn't used to think this way and so guess what, they didn't talk the way they are talking now. But now they think this way and so they are talking this way.

Birth control/abortion issues are not the only issues female voters care about. Many indeed care a great deal, and perhaps a great deal more, about the same basic issues male voters care about: jobs, the economy, etc. Female pols, female voters assume, are already sold on certain ideas around birth control/abortion, but even if they are not, well, at least they are female pols. So the only thing left female pols need to address is the female voters' concerns over jobs/economic issues. But male pols feel the need to address abortion/birth control because they think they need to reassure female voters that they are on "their side", thus they spend a lot more time talking about these issues than female pols. When they have extra time, they may talk about jobs/the economy, and of course will take the important step of throwing men under the bus if they can find a few extra minutes to do so by finding something denigrating to say about men in general.

One day, I hope soon, pols will wake up and realize that men vote too, and that we're paying attention to what pols are saying and not liking it when they throw us under the bus, continue to ignore our issues, etc. But they won't start paying attention until we make it clear that we're paying attention. That's why it's so important that MRAs be active activists.

government must go on a serious diet; and, the only major groups getting fat at the gov. trough are women and minorities. so, what do the dem's cut, and threaten to cut every time they don't get another fat spending/feeding frenzy?

why, the military, of course, the meat. one of the few real things gov. is required to do. the result is a government full of fat, so bloated and stagnated they can't even get their heads out of the trough long enough to see the whole system sinking under their greed. could anyone imagine a political point (fem birth control) being made about gov. spending on anything just for men?

men have slept too long and woke up on a raft headed over a waterfall. half have signed one-sided agreements where they are little more than wage slaves. a goodly number are too young to listen to fellow sages, when pretty young thangs are telling them how happy they will be, just $ign here.

so, the way i see it, we have two choices. go dem and dam the torpedoes, full flank speed and fill the troughs as long as it lasts, then comes the hard times where the pigs squeal, then starve. the other is to put in repubs who may or may not be able to wean the balloon shaped behemoths away from other people's stuff.

i hope there is a third option somewhere, but who can plan ahead while swimming against the current just to stay alive?

This is just four pages of babbling with the same half point, half made over and over again.

Like fibtastic said it is nothing more than a rant. The author seems to think that women got their on their own merits. They didn't. Government backed women at the expense of men every step of the way. The average woman is by and largely a pawn in a war against men. An individual woman isn't very important to those in power. Everything the government does to help women comes back to harm them. Sabotage the education to flunk boys? Fewer marriageable men out there to marry. Sabotage the family courts to benefit women? Men get more and more unwilling to marry or cohabitate. It goes on and on.

And for those in power, the antidote for poison is more poison.