The War On Men: 10 Ways Masculinity is Under Attack

The author's contention that the full-frontal assault on masculinity in American society is being driven by the gov't isn't true. The gov't is heavily complicit with feminism but they didn't invent it. They started to support it only after they realized it was going to buy them votes from a lot of women and feminist men. When feminism first surfaced, by no means were they supporters. But after they realized that women's votes were easy to get just by promising women more stuff, they were all for it. Of course where they could, they threw men under the bus. That's where item 8 comes in.

However a lot the things he listed aren't under gov't control, at least not directly. Hollywood/Mad'n Ave. going on male-bashing campaigns is done in hopes of making bank off women's buying choices. But these misandrist ads and movies/shows have been of limited impact, at least IMO, since they've assumed male-bashing will appeal to today's female consumers. I am not so sure that's true, however. But it does appeal to feminists, and that's no small percentage of our population.

And how he can pin things like "metrosexualization" and a lack of male role models in society on the gov't, I don't know. Some things the ppl in general decide regardless of what the powers-that-be want. For example, declining fertility: how does that help the gov't? Is it the desire of a "Leviathan" to eventually rule over a nation of elderly people with very expensive medical conditions and only non-taxable income? I think making the argument that "women" are not responsible, but instead the gov't, for the various kinds of problems men have as a group is a serious stretch, given the negative financial and other implications of doing so. It'd be one thing if the US had a non-term-limited president, etc., but it doesn't. So the motivation isn't really there in a focused place to reduce the population to state dependency. History has also repeatedly shown that welfare states don't last long (e.g.: the USSR didn't last very long, and it was very much the poster child for "welfare state"). Anyone paying attention to how trying to create a high degree of workless state dependency among the pop'n can see it's a really bad idea, esp. for the society's elites, since eventually, the "unwashed masses" decide enough's enough. So despite their complicity with feminism in some areas, my own opinion is that highly effective campaigns waged by feminists are largely responsible for men's declining condition, but just as importantly, mens' overall lackluster defense against femimism as well as providing a good number of "turncoats" to the feminist cause has done just as much if not more than the gov't could've done acting alone.

My own take: a gov'tal system like ours encourages very short-term vision for policies and actions. Since most pols seek re-election until they are red-carded by the voters from the statehouse/mansion, they promise delivery on constituent demands for *whatever*. Long-term plans don't count for much, esp. as the ppl have a short memory, as it were.

I think essentially the government is waging a proxy war against men on behalf of women. It does so because a lot of politicos have realized a woman's vote can be bought for goodies such as welfare. And, when it's the government doing it, the female can pretend she's not to blame. In that regard, I agree with Matt: the author missed out on the dynamic involved.

Now, female power differs from male power. Female power is based on powerlessness: pretend to be dainty and powerless, and the woman can get the big, strong man to do whatever she wants. Ditto for political power. The poor, helpless woman can get the (male) politico to do whatever she wants. Feminist politics is pure old-fashioned melodrama--the male hero rescuing the damsel-in-distress--writ large.

Otherwise, while I could pick some nits, I liked the article.