Your first mistake is the ridiculous usage of the word "misogynistic," which was originally coined to describe systematic hatred of women. Systematic -- as in, built into social structures like the Jim Crow laws that systematically limited the rights of Black people from the 1800s to the mid 1960s. Now, the term is being used to describe any male that recognizes and openly discusses the fact that woman are not inherently virtuous -- that they too are flawed creatures governed by their primal instincts, just as men are. "Disrespecting" women that aren't worthy of respect is not "misogyny." If anything, it's exposing them to the equality that they demand because they're being treated the way a man would be treated if he acted so... uncouth.
In today's society, men as viewed as intrinsically worthless. That means, on a base, core level, we're seen as expendable resources. There's an evolutionary argument to be made also. If the world were suddenly reduced to rubble, one man could rebuild everything by impregnating fifty women. One woman with fifty men, however... and, well you'd have a problem.
In the past, men recognized this and were encouraged to accept this as part of their stoic nature. Because they were born without value, they realized they had to CREATE value. Hence, the great cultures of yesteryear. Yes, they had their flaws, but when was the last time the world has seen a period like the Renaissance?
See, certain "powers that be" realized that it's much more profitable for them if men were forced into a working class, encouraged not to actively create, but to passively consume. But, as men, our primal instincts urge us to explore, to conquer, to dominate, to expand, to create value.
What's the solution for this rich, elite global class? And if you don't think they exist, go watch the movie "The Big Short" on Netflix. It's the true story of how elite bankers caused the global economic crisis of 2007-2008 (when all the banks were getting bailouts). I watched it other night and literally just sat in a dark room for an hour afterward, stunned. Anyway, the solution is to demonize and attempt to suppress men's natural masculinity by labeling our innate impulses as "toxic." Using advanced psychological warfare, the average male is now forced into a passive, consumption mode. We're not encouraged to create, or be free. The focus is now on transferring that power to women -- which isn't a bad thing, we should ALL create. The issue is, men's natural drive to procreate is so profound that we'll lay down our own birthright for a CHANCE at getting laid.
But there's a universal law called the principle of rhythm. The pendulum swing manifests in everything, and it's about to explode in the global elite's faces.
The phenomenon you're incorrectly calling "misogyny" is basically men realizing that this system is not worth investing in and as a result, they're rebelling in droves. Completely rejecting the system and checking out. They have no desire to be honorable, or zen, or whatever, because THOSE are character traits that would benefit the system. Honor means nothing for the man who lives for himself and himself alone. They aren't "attracting bad women." They're going for "bad women" (if such a thing exists) because, in their current state of being, a woman serves no purpose to them other than satiating their sexual thirsts.
Who are you to judge? Our society is sick. On some level, we recognize that there's something wrong at the core, and we're all turning to extreme measures as a result to "fix it." Not getting political, but there's a line in "The Dark Knight" that explains the manifestation of this apparent clusterf*ck of a presidential election (here in the US):
Bruce: "Targeting me won't get their money back. I knew the mob wouldn't go down without a fight, but this is different. They crossed the line. [Referring to The Joker]"
Alfred: "You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation, they turned to a man [or woman] they didn't fully understand."
So, stop looking at it in terms of "omg, they hate all the wimmenz!" There's more at stake here than just "da misogynies."
In today's society, men as viewed as intrinsically worthless. That means, on a base, core level, we're seen as expendable resources. There's an evolutionary argument to be made also. If the world were suddenly reduced to rubble, one man could rebuild everything by impregnating fifty women. One woman with fifty men, however... and, well you'd have a problem.
In the past, men recognized this and were encouraged to accept this as part of their stoic nature. Because they were born without value, they realized they had to CREATE value. Hence, the great cultures of yesteryear. Yes, they had their flaws, but when was the last time the world has seen a period like the Renaissance?
See, certain "powers that be" realized that it's much more profitable for them if men were forced into a working class, encouraged not to actively create, but to passively consume. But, as men, our primal instincts urge us to explore, to conquer, to dominate, to expand, to create value.
What's the solution for this rich, elite global class? And if you don't think they exist, go watch the movie "The Big Short" on Netflix. It's the true story of how elite bankers caused the global economic crisis of 2007-2008 (when all the banks were getting bailouts). I watched it other night and literally just sat in a dark room for an hour afterward, stunned. Anyway, the solution is to demonize and attempt to suppress men's natural masculinity by labeling our innate impulses as "toxic." Using advanced psychological warfare, the average male is now forced into a passive, consumption mode. We're not encouraged to create, or be free. The focus is now on transferring that power to women -- which isn't a bad thing, we should ALL create. The issue is, men's natural drive to procreate is so profound that we'll lay down our own birthright for a CHANCE at getting laid.
But there's a universal law called the principle of rhythm. The pendulum swing manifests in everything, and it's about to explode in the global elite's faces.
The phenomenon you're incorrectly calling "misogyny" is basically men realizing that this system is not worth investing in and as a result, they're rebelling in droves. Completely rejecting the system and checking out. They have no desire to be honorable, or zen, or whatever, because THOSE are character traits that would benefit the system. Honor means nothing for the man who lives for himself and himself alone. They aren't "attracting bad women." They're going for "bad women" (if such a thing exists) because, in their current state of being, a woman serves no purpose to them other than satiating their sexual thirsts.
Who are you to judge? Our society is sick. On some level, we recognize that there's something wrong at the core, and we're all turning to extreme measures as a result to "fix it." Not getting political, but there's a line in "The Dark Knight" that explains the manifestation of this apparent clusterf*ck of a presidential election (here in the US):
Bruce: "Targeting me won't get their money back. I knew the mob wouldn't go down without a fight, but this is different. They crossed the line. [Referring to The Joker]"
Alfred: "You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation, they turned to a man [or woman] they didn't fully understand."
So, stop looking at it in terms of "omg, they hate all the wimmenz!" There's more at stake here than just "da misogynies."
