There Are No Feminists on Sinking Ships, but there are Men Going Their Own Way

As soon as I read about the recent cruise ship crash that happened off the coast of Italy, the thought of women trying to get off the ship first while men being told to wait until the women were safe immediately came to mind. And of course, upon reading about the story and comments about it online, I found mention that men rushed past women in order to get to safety. Cue the shaming language. Equality apparently only applies selectively.

Obviously, female entitlement requires that men risk their lives for women they don't even know, and plenty of women will post angry comments online about men failing to acquiesce to female entitlement. What made me grin, though, was that I saw a great counter of lots of male posters calling out the feminist entitlement. And so I see this as evidence of the awakening to the feminist illusion of female entitlement and superiority. Something that was once difficult to discuss openly - even on the internet - is now easier to find. Men have started to voice their questioning of feminist domination. 

And in this case of the sinking cruise ship, the simple logic of "Why should I risk my life for women just because I am a man?" was acted upon, and rightfully so. No doubt this could be twisted by feminist "logic" as being callous, but this is not so. I'm certain that most men would be willing to risk their lives for their mother or grandmother, for example. However, why should a man risk his life for a woman simply because she is a woman? Many more men are now asking that question and answering it with "he shouldn't."

There are no feminists on sinking ships. But there may be men going their own way, or at least those unwilling to potentially sacrifice their life for women on sinking ships.
It's now every man - and woman! - for themselves.

The Trouble with Game

A tactic or method that some men suggest for dealing with women (at least women they want to have sex with) is to employ "game." Supposedly, game allows the typical man to get laid by putting in some effort at employing tactics to attract women. These tactics are used to appeal to womens' unconscious desires so that they are attracted to the man and will date and/or sleep with him. Some argue that game is good because it gives men access to some women, whereas otherwise they may have access to none. Superficially, this may seem like a good idea, but it is a superficial solution. It's like giving band-aids to the mortally wounded.

For most men, game does not work, and game is definitely not a threat to feminism! Instead, game subtly plays into feminism's hand.

In a sane society, men will have a sexual outlet. This sexual outlet will be perfectly legal and will be easily accessible for men. Of course, I am referring to prostitution. Women ultimately control sexual access, and prostitution evens the playing field. Some women will always turn to prostitution, so in the absence of feminist control of the state, men will have an adequate sexual outlet. Feminist societies tend to outlaw prostitution, criminalizing it and forcing men to suffer. 

And along comes game, which claims to be a solution to this mess. But game is a tactic for desperate men in a feminist society. It doesn't solve anything. It's merely attempting tricks to get around the problems. It does nothing to fix the problems themselves! This is why I say game plays into feminism's hand. Game doesn't question feminism or the idea that women must be "gamed" in order to date or sleep with them. It accepts it as normal and okay. For this, I see game as being a tool of manginas.

The other main problem I have with game is that it simply won't work for most guys. I've noticed a very simple pattern when it comes to how women choose guys: hot guys get picked, and ugly or just 'non-hot' guys get rejected. Game does not appear to affect this. Women choose guys who are tall, slim, with good faces. It is true that women also choose guys with certain traits such as narcissism and a massive ego, and guys with money. However, I recognize a difference between men who are picked for relationships and guys who are picked for sex. Resources are the criteria for dating/marriage, and looks and traits are the basis of picking a guy to reproduce with. (Guys who have no particular advantage are just left out entirely.) The men who get the most sex are the attractive ones. I don't see variations to this, aside from perhaps the odd exception which doesn't prove anything conclusive.

Desperate men can easily be scammed into seminars or lessons for learning game. If the outlet of prostitution existed in this society, it would cease to be an issue. But in the current societal climate, a man must acquiesce to the wishes of the feminism if he wants to have any access whatsoever to women. And that means game. A solution would be to legalize prostitution. Game is simply a tool used to fleece desperate, sexually starved men. It's a tool of feminists and manginas.   

Benjamin Barnes: Another Needless Horror Story Ending in Violence

I heard about Benjamin Barnes the day the story broke, and although I did not read a news story or watch a segment on television about his killing of a park ranger, I immediately suspected that he is another man who was driven over the edge of sanity. Obviously, mainstream news stories about him depict him as mad, suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or some other hand-wave. Digging for details - especially from articles from the "man-o-sphere" led me to the conclusion that Barnes is the latest example of a man needlessly driven to violence.

It is possible that Barnes suffered from PTSD, and that this played a part in the violence. If PTSD was the primary cause, it was needless that his story ended in violence and death. Barnes was an Iraq War veteran. Soldiers are trained to kill. Reintegration into society is a process for a soldier, or it can be a longer process. Soldiers are trained to react to situations with violence, as per the job. The presence of PTSD can make this reintegration extremely difficult. How does any soldier slip through the cracks in that regard? How is any soldier released from duty back to civilian life without being identified as having PTSD? There are symptoms. This alone could indicate misandry in the form of society and the military discarding soldiers once they have completed service, and not helping them reintegrate into a society that soldiers should immediately return to. 

What struck me even more, though, came when I dug a little deeper. Barnes had been put through custody issues regarding his daughter, and had been accused of domestic violence by his girlfriend. He had also had a troubled past, doing some things he should have done. I'm not attempting to present him as blameless; however, I see the downward spiral his life must have become. Facing a misandrist court system with its exorbitant demands and extortion against men is enough to drive any normal man mad - for a soldier who may or may not have PTSD, I can see how difficult it could become to not simply see red every moment. And we know how the story ended. He killed a park ranger, fled into the forest, and was found dead a day later. And all of this was needless. Not every man who is forced to deal with the misandrist courts will end up like Barnes, although I am certain all men forced into such a situation deal with the same undying rage at a system that hates them. Barnes' scenario was perhaps more severe all in all, but men have snapped who have dealt with less in their lives.

This should be a lesson, although I'm sure the mainstream will forever ignore these details in the background of Barnes' story. This kind of violence is needless, and is completely preventable. Furthermore, there are causes originating from misandry. Ignoring that men who end up doing what Barnes did often had their children taken away and accusations made against them ignores major reasons why a man - a normal working "joe" all the way to a war veteran - may snap and commit violence. The system's blindness to its own misandry guarantees that such violence could happen anytime. 

A man does not kill a park ranger and flee into the forest for no reason, randomly, by accident. I doubt only PTSD would cause it either. But a man whose life is in a downward spiral, and whose downward spiral is helped along by misandry, could do this anytime.