Sandy Hingston's Lengthy Post

Permit me some light-hearted sexist joking here:

Q - How can you tell Sandy Hingston's article was written by a woman?

A - Because it's 6 pages long.

Yuk yuk yuk yuk.

Just kidding.

Ms. Hingston, I'm afraid has wandered into the Manosphere. Of course, like most women, she is unaware of the lengthy psy-ops battle that's been going on, and I fear will be ripped to shreds by some of our lieutenants in the Manosphere. However, if you read her writing, she genuinely is asking an honest question and is unaware. Not really condemning men for "not manning up," as much as asking why.

We've been here before with Kay Homiwitz (sp?), so I'll try to be a bit more brief and keep it under six pages, but still address and answer all of her questions, or rather, the questions of the women/girls she cites in her article. The "you" is not specifically referencing Ms. Hingston, but is a general "you" referring primarily to women in general as well as the emasculated men that I also hold accountable for the current environment men in this country face:

1. You destroyed the industrial economy by voting for politicians to over-regulate and make everything green. We all can't be "elementary school teachers" or "social workers" because, unfortunately, somebody actually has to produce the stuff that the economy needs, depends upon and is made of. Sadly, government services seem to be the only thing that is "environmentally safe enough" to be deemed worthy of existing in this economy. Let me know when you're willing to put a president in the office that would let the XL Pipeline through.

2. You've villainized profit, excellence, and risk taking in the economy which are predominantly male traits and are the primary reasons America rose to its economic dominance like it did. You swallowed whole this egalitarian outcome BS instead of egalitarian opportunity. Socialism is here, whether you realize its economic manifestation or not, and that more or less shuts down the economic incentive men have to produce.

3. You've destroyed any incentive men have on a romantic level through feminism and ignoring their needs, if not also villainizing male sexuality, which:

a. Destroys their incentive to find a wife, have kids, and therefore work for a family, which in turn means they only need to produce essentially a third of what they used to, to survive
b. Makes getting married and having a family too risky a venture (which once again forces them to go the easier route of just supporting themselves)
c. All of which means "getting by" with a low paying job, not "manning up" and getting high paying careers.

4. Hey, don't you guys predominantly keep voting to raise taxes? And doesn't that not only take away more money from men who work predominantly in the private sector to pay for your make-work public sector jobs? Let me see, go to school for an engineering degree, make $80,000 gross, $55,000 net and have people hate me because i'm "rich" OR, get a degree in journalism, live at home, gross $30,000, net $25,000 and save my youth and effort and attend an OWS event.

5. You want men to have jobs? Are there any to have? Taxes are so high, as are regulations, that they're driving companies offshore LEAVING NO JOBS! I love 8.6% unemployment/ 15% U6 unemployment! Hey, while we're at it, let's borrow another trillion for social programs and defunct "green" companies and spend more money on an education bubble! If you want men to man up, how about you study some basic economics and vote accordingly to provide the economic environment in which men can man up?

6. What did you think would happen when the first full generation of men raised by single moms hit the dating market? NOW you want "real men?" Sorry, they're all mama's boys. Oh, and the rough and bad boy type you want? Ritalin kind of vaccinates boys against that.

7. "Hey Dad, I remember you going through divorce and seeing you eat out of a can. That must have really sucked! What's that dad? A vasectomy costs $1,000 while divorce and children cost $500,000? Gee, thanks dad! I'm sure glad I learned from your mistakes! I'm never getting married and am going to bang on my drums all day and I'll STILL come out ahead financially!"

I guess I could go on, but it frankly gets tiresome because these girls just don't seem to get it. You ignore men, male psychology and male sexuality, you put the entire focus of society on women and completely ignore the other half of the population. And after 40 years of that men will go away and abandon their male roles. They will become myopic in their approach to sexuality and interacting with women, and they will change their behavior to benefit them the most with the least amount of risk and the highest amount of reward.

The only question I have is instead of speculating about why or complaining, why don't women just go and ask the guys? They'll tell you the answer...or is it women are afraid of the answer?

Regardless, the whole debate though is actually quite moot. The clock cannot be turned back to the 1970's and undo the social changes that were started back then. Additionally, most of the men I know and run into have adapted to the environment that was laid out for them and most of them are happy. It really seems to be the women who have trouble with men staying home, playing video games all day, drinking beer and being Peter Pan forever. I don't think most men have a problem with that all.

Alas, perhaps girls, you could learn something from my boys or at least gain insight into their psychology:

Boys, see if you can finish my sentence:

"Boys, you know what to do. It's time to ________ _____ _______!"