Dr. Dealgood

Emily, I'd suggest that you listen to a website called "An Ear for Men". There is a lot of practical male self-help information there that is good for any male friend, sibling, husband or child. Paul Elam can be a bit crude at times but his heart is in the right place and note his target audience is male. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXNNG0ej_6rU9SxCZ4dyq6w/featured A couple of videos he's made really stand out. On female shit testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6tb0D9qfg Understanding gynocentrism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iagiaimds4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNGSg1lWjlg An ear for men is by no means the only content on the web. There is a ton of it and the most intellectual comes out from the MGTOW side of the manosphere. (IMO). One of my favorites but by no means the only one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFgBt7Of-r4 Watch the movie 'The Red Pill' by Cassie Jaye to get a flavor of the Men's Rights movement. Then go to Cassie Jaye's website on youtube and see what she has to say. You may also want to listen to Warren Farrell, Karen Straughan and Jordan Peterson. There are books too that are worth reading all available on Amazon. Google these two authors to get you started. Warren Farrell, Esther Vilar. I don't envy the task you have given yourself although I do admire your honesty. While I don't suggest a MGTOW lifestyle I understand why men are driven to it. I guess the best personal advice I can give you and the most important lesson any man can teach his son is that the best self-defense mechanism any young boy can have to navigate the world of boys is to understand male dominance hierarchies. (Jordan Peterson talks about hierarchies a great deal). The best lesson a women can impart on a young boy about girls is that they should be afraid of them. Another boy may hurt him with his fist, but a young girl can destroy him with a word. To borrow a quote from Warren Farrrell: "Men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength, and women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness.”. Oh and finally... when your son is ready to date... one question he should always ask.... "Tell me about your parents'" or words to that effect. If a women doesn't know or respect her father she is damaged. Empathy is passed mostly from fathers to their children. A women without empathy for males is a borderline and very dangerous. Best of luck! Hope this helps. Note my list above is not comprehensive but the information I have suggested will open you to a ton of other information. Oh and welcome to the rabbit hole!

MGTOW? AWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ya7v5bPLk

@smarterthanone "Well they seem to want it. This is why older women are often desperate to have children." They seem to want "it"? What is "it"? Take risks or have children? IMO they want neither. Generally speaking women are not risk takers and by way of proof I offer the evidence that women overwhelmingly don't take risky jobs. I'd suggest that this is because they are wired to avoid risks. As for wanting children what's your proof? The declining population rate suggests otherwise. The majority of women don't want children. "They don't understand you cant really get them later though even though it seems pretty obvious. " You seem to be displaying some prescient knowledge about an awful lot of people. Did it occur to you that they don't have children because they want something else instead? Ticketyboo made the same argument and I agree with him. I'll grant that there definitely are some people who want children for their own intrinsic worth but for most women they have children to serve a purpose that advances HER purposes. China has a population imbalance in their genders as parents favor sons over daughters. The reason is straightforward as there is no equivalent to social security or CPP in China. By law, sons have to support their parents in their old age. The children there are an old age pension. As China has become more wealthy, the Chinese growth rate of the population is decreasing. You are now seeing the same trends there that you are in the West... women don't want kids. As more state and private resources are thrown at women the less need they have to take the risks of child birth. In third world countries population rates are still increasing. Why? Because larger families bring more resources into the family unit... working on farms, factories, weaving carpets, etc. The children exist to advance an objective purpose. Her purpose. "But the main point is, without at minimum averaging 3 children, your culture is dying. So get practical. Do you want your culture to die out? " Lower birth rate won't eliminate culture or society. It will however ultimately create economic problems and this will create social problems. Particularly as governments are driven by debt spending with fewer and fewer tax drones their wealth redistribution policies and the power they have been given to do it will end. Once the social services on which women depend evaporate and more tax drones are required, I predict that children will show up. My last point is that it is not "my culture" any more than it is your culture. It's her culture. Women are the gatekeepers to reproduction and if they don't want them then they will suffer the consequences. The male fate, for most of us is genetic oblivion and I'm OK with that. (Only 40% of males get to reproduce). I'll add too that "our culture" has no compassion for males, is utterly gynocentric and openly hostile to males. You don't get to ask me to care for something that doesn't give a shit about me.

@smarterthanone Higher education leads women to choose to not want children I think is the argument you are making. I suggest to you that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. There is also a correlation between education, higher IQ and higher income. Higher income means more resources for the self. Provision for one's own needs means that children/husband/family are not necessary. They are optional. Let me throw the question back at you... for an individual women who has her career why should she want to take the risks of childbirth? And it is risky, even today, particularly as women have children at an older and older age. (Speaking anecdotally, a friend of mine's wife died giving birth to their first child. She was 40).

This was a great vid on the same topic:

Badly written. It rambles in an agonizing way. I had to read it twice to make sense of it. After reading it, you realize that she is feminist enough to only care about her grand-daughter but not feminist enough to care about the central core beliefs of feminist ideology. Those being: - Anti-marriage - Anti-family - Patriarchy theory - Man hatred. Her traditionalist views run counter to modern feminist dogma. She is confused actually... she thinks she is a feminist but she is actually a tradcon. So our confused wanna-be feminist who is a tradcon can't understand the modern mores she helped usher in. (Well golly gee, that's typical...) She clearly didn't realize that the feminist movement was never about 'equality'. She also never accounted for the selfishness of female nature and the selflessness of male nature. Having worked hard to dispense with males, ie: husbands, teachers, etc., you tossed out male morality as well. The feminist world she created makes women unaccountable to man and somewhat unaccountable to mother nature. (Her biology). Mind you women complain endlessly about and spend vast fortunes to postpone the effects of aging... but I digress. She is confused because no one explained to her that the 'yeah you go girl!' and 'free the nipple' culture means encouraging female hypergamy. The sexual references she makes is a symptom of unrestrained female hypergamy. Sex is reduced to a transaction. The tradcon feminist author didn't realize until the end of her life that she destroyed her own value system. She destroyed the future of the little bundle of joy she was holding in her arms. To answer the question she poses herself in the essay... Has feminism made life worse, not better for today's generation of girls? My answer. Yes and No. Yes in that there is now a large body of law that privileges women over men. The welfare state guarantees a huge welfare transfer from men to women. The whole justice system grotesquely discriminates against men. Technology and society has liberated women from childbirth and no one shames them for their choices. Society picks up the tab for all their bad decisions. No in that the backlash has started. The feminists have ushered in unrestrained female hypergamy. The 80/20 pareto has kicked in. The folks left out of this system are starting to get pissed off. The slave class of males may one day decide that they don't want to pay for services they can never use. This 'outgroup' has started to organize in what has become known as 'white nationalist' circles. Politics is polarizing and lines are hardening. Feminists depend on men to support a justice system that does not deliver justice to them. At some point the tipping point will come and there won't be enough men to support the status quo. The rebellion will begin. Hope this helps.

@smarterthanone Young women, like young men, generally don't know what they want. I would venture to say that we all deal with the mixed social, cultural, economic and family pressures to figure out what is important to ourselves. That maturing process generally takes place in our early twenties. Starting a family is a very long term commitment and should be taken very seriously. That level of engagement should, (granted in many cases it doesn't), involve people of sufficient maturity to decide that they want to make the necessary sacrifices. Once you get children, you can't give them back. (Unless you live in a state with a 'baby Jesus' law, but I digress...) "If you are looking for a stable relationship and to have kids and such a younger women is FAR better." I disagree. All women are hypergamous at every age. The question is will they act on it. Younger women are still in the 'pump and dump', 'party on' and 'monkey branch' stage of their lives. As a demographic they are in the highest probability group for having the least stable relationships while paradoxically, their bodies are at the best age for having children. IMO, an older more mature women who knows she wants a family and is of an age to bear the children should be what you are looking for. I would never want the mother of a child of mine to be little more than a child herself. Anecdotally, I had a brother who was 21 when he married an 18 year old. The marriage lasted two years and was a horror show. Later on, he was almost incarcerated over child support but his ex shook down my parents for thousands of dollars to keep him free. Society throws men under the bus and marrying that young has about a 100% failure rate. The point I was trying to make about unprotected sex is that it is dangerous and reckless and shouldn't be done at any age. I'm not referring to just the risks of pregnancy. As a man, it is and must be a responsibility you have to take seriously. Getting a women pregnant is the fastest way to get the State involved in your life. Destroying men who do that is precisely what the family court system is set up to do. The end result for the man is poverty, incarceration, suicide or exile by either homelessness or being forced to go abroad. I think you and I will need to agree to disagree.

@omarcrysis We all did stuff that was risky early in life. I just didn't realize at the time what was at stake or how social structures and laws are set up to annihilate men while giving women a free pass. Hindsight is always 20/20. Foresight is much harder... hence why I felt it was worth stating as you apparently overlooked what was an obvious minefield (to me) you were walking through. You got lucky but so many men get their legs blown off early. A women's responsibility to not get pregnant is to herself. Your responsibility is to not get a women pregnant and YOU must take precautions for your own reasons. Never pretend that responsibility soley belongs to a women. The courts certainly won't. The Red Pill answer to your question "how to meet girls" is straightforward. (Stephan Molyneux may disagree). All corners of the manosphere would require you to understand female hypergamy. This is truly key and you may already know it on the subconscious level. Male attraction to women across socio/economic strata is flexible. A women's attraction to a man is not. A women will generally want to marry someone of equal value or higher to her own perceived self-worth. https://www.avoiceformen.com/relationships/a-primer-on-hypergamy/ To be more attractive to women get a job/career/business going and they will come after you. The higher profile/more income then the higher status women. Do you think Melania married Donald Trump for his good looks, faithfulness, moral virtues and wonderful personality? So to answer your question, get your business going, your life in order and they will come to you. And don't put down the local girls. The ones you have met thus far are not the higher quality ones. Your success will bring out the more desirable ones who also have their lives together. If you are in business join the local Chamber of Commerce, (it's Mexican equivalent), look, dress and act the part of someone who is up and coming in the community. Be visible. Note that it is a double edged sword. You may well attract and marry the girl you want. Just realize that if you fail to maintain the promise of status and economic success then your odds of her seeking a divorce will go up dramatically. Worse than that you may find out that your kids are not actually your biological offspring. An 'Ear for Men' is a great website with practical everyday advice for guys like you. These vids are definitely worth listening to to help you choose/find a partner worthy of you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YtvxTI6j8g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H316eYM7l_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBu6yHcqz-Y This final vid is one I strongly reccomend. It doesn't answer your question but I suggest all males of the human species listen to it. Paul Elam is his usual eloquent self. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6tb0D9qfg One final note. There is a segment of the manosphere known as MGTOW. The men who choose that path would not reccomend dating any women. They would ask you why you crave female validation? I don't think you are in this space at your stage of life but the question isn't unimportant. Particularly if you can't find someone... or you suffer abuse at the hands of someone you thought would make a good partner. There is some thoughtful content out there from some of their creators.

I don't normally offer an opinion on personal issue threads as my interest is philosophy, politics and current events. I thought I would throw in my Red Pill perspective. In my opinion, the short answer to your question is "yes". Your subconscious (and your conscious) is telling you that you should break up with your GF. Your subconscious is telling you to 'search' and your conscious is resisting. You are 25, have your life put together, a future planned and working. You have a long vision and are thinking about a partner who will help you on that path and raise a family with you. A partner and a friend. Your 19 GF is still a teenager, you met at a hostel while travelling. Likes to party and do ecstasy. She's also attractive and fun to be around. Great! The disconnect is your short term infatutation colliding with your long term vision. She doesn't fit in the picture and you know it. Perhaps you were hoping her being with you would change things and it may have but not at the pace you want. People do a lot of growing between 19 and 25 and she just isn't there yet and you don't want to wait. Now the advice you have undoubtedly heard before... Young attractive girls are like a carousel. First couple of spins around are fun but after that they are boring, one dimensional and repetitive. Oh and she is from another country... been there done that. You feel guilt because she travelled to see you. If that is the case then pay for her plane ticket back home. It's not working out and you know it... I think she knows it too. That's the problem with long distance relationships. It forces people together faster than normal before a lot of stuff has been worked out. You don't get the chance to know each other better before you move in with each other. It didn't work for me and I don't reccomend it. Last thing I thought I'd say that really stood out with what you said in your post. You had unprotected sex with a teenager! Are you out of your mind?? Cmon dude your smarter than that. Seriously fast way to ruining your life.

Is Jordan Peterson the hero we want? Is he saying things we want to hear or need to hear? Are his rugs really worth... First off who is "we"? I think you mean 'you and I'... and your telling me that you have doubts about him. You make it sound like he was personally responsible for the immigration crisis into Europe and North America. That's pretty impressive for a U of T psych professor... Is he saying things YOU want to hear? Apparently not. I'm going to go out on a limb and will suggest that he neither seeks nor cares for your approval. This being a free society he will talk about whatever he wants to talk about. The only choice you have is to be his audience or not. I judge people by their actions and the content of their speech. He so exquisitely handed Cathy Newman her ass during his interview with her that I have listened to it several times to learn how. It's possible, that just maybe Jordan Peterson has something to teach the rest of us... how to deal with feminist sophistries in public discourse. Your comment about his rugs has shades of the Nellie Bowles' NYT hit piece on JP, 'Custodian of the Patriarchy'. Wherein she criticizes him for his choice in artwork and his bedspread. Are you trying to 'women-splain' him to us? I don't care what his freaking rugs, car or kitchen dishware cost him! Bringing that up has nothing to do with content of his message and is childish.

I have to wonder if JP is 'that' good of a debater. So good in fact that he can artfully sidestep his oponents traps, ignore their barbs but let them feel comfortable throwing them. So comfortable that he allows them to descend into their racist, sexist pits. Then he strikes! Well played Mr. Peterson! Well played!

Like most feminists, your "friends" will only be happy when they have destroyed your world and turned it into a mirror of their own dystopian one. Are you happy in your relationship? Do you feel abused? It's funny but being male I have a hard time understanding women and your conversations. The scenario you describe would never happen among men I know. I am trying to imagine a scenario where any close friend of mine would have the effrontery to say to me that my partner was "oppressing" me and was a sexist. That level of brazen audacity and vileness would immediately end the friendship. It would be a GTFO of my house and never come back scenario. Now don't get me wrong. There is a place where friends should intervene but you don't sound like you are walking around with bruises and broken bones. At a minimum level, any friend worthy of that label should respect the choices of people you choose to partner with. If they don't like it then they should at least be polite and respectfully keep their distance. You definitely have a problem but it is not your husband. I'm curious to know why you have tolerated being interrogated about your choices by your "friends". Just who do they think they are? It's none of their business and you are foolish to enter into a discussion about it.

Michael Dyson came across as a raving bigot and racist. Stephen Fry pointed out correctly that his opponents didn't spend much time talking about the resolution and dwelt in their comfort zone of US politics. Peterson did his best to engage intellectually but the other side was more interested in throwing ad-homs at him.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/middleeast/trump-strikes-syria-attack.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage Yet another war in the middle East. Now we hold our breath and see what the other side will do.

I haven't read his book yet but I just ordered it to find out what he really did say about lobsters....

@Elizbaeth There is a great many things on this planet worth saving, most unrelated to humanity. Mother nature can be rather ruthless when the mood takes her. I feel sorry for all the species about to go extinct. The non-human ones will share the fate of humanity through no fault of their own. Your appeal to men is misplaced. You should be appealing to women. You are the gatekeepers and your gender kicked the ant hill. My last prediction... constant demonization, marginalization and discrimination will only lead to more alienation. Combine that with opportunities being closed and men kicked to the bottom of society in increasing numbers. Now throw in an economic melt down. Those conditions have one logical conclusion. Revolution. Feminism is an ideology held by a minority pushing their agenda. The problem here isn't convincing men that their rights are being trampled. If you want to make a difference align yourself with like-minded folks who are pushing back against feminism. And don't tell men they need to be angry and become heroes. That is staggeringly bad advice. Angry men are routinely shot. The whole security apparatus of the state is set up to shoot angry men. When groups of angry men get together they call that an insurgency and it invites a drone strike. Do not expect the red pill community to go out of their way for you. I will not be flying my X-Wing into the Deathstar to save anyone. I will however, give you the keys and you can do it. It's been fun chatting. Peace.

Two great vids! Jordan Peterson and Sargon of Akkad at their best! The first is JP talking to a feminist reporter in Britain. The second is Sargon's commentary on it. Definitely worth seeing. I love the part about the similarities between the philosophies of the trans activists and Chairman Mao. "The philosophy that is guiding their utterances is the same philosophy". Beautiful.

@Elizbaeth As touching as your personal story is it is also anecdotal and irrelevant to a philosophical discussion about gender. I'll accept that you have reasons for concern for the future and I'll add that you are by no means the only one. As for your agreement with me about the nature of society really doesn't matter to me, what irritates me is your suggestions to resolve it. Most feminists and tradcons use a never ending barrage of shame against men. However, shame only works on someone who has at least a teaspoon of respect for the shamer, even in the abstract. I assure you I can't be shamed. You on the other hand are attempting flattery and agreement to get men to be "heroes" to save you. Your methods are different but your end game is the same... you want men back on the plantation. Back in our gender roles since time immemorial. Classic tradcon thinking. Where does your strange appeal to some distant perfect past come from? Were men better off then? How far back do you want to go? The chivalry of Eleanor of Aquitaine in the 12th century? Roman times starting at 600 BC? Men and women were bound together through privation, toil and frequently dying. The precariousness of life and the social conventions of small human settlements kept men and women together but was it "better" for men than now? Only in the sense that social, religious conventions and female biology (pre-birth control) kept women's behavior in check. Society has always made men responsible. Women were always protected. To me engaging in some historical speculations is a waste of time. You can't undo technology. The world is what it is and there is no going back. Men know now that female empathy came from privation, scarcity and a lawless society. Females take a utilitarian view towards males and that morality, fundamentally based on empathy and reciprocity, is a male virtue that men project on women. Now we have a gulf of distrust between the sexes and judging by my reading of Jezebel... pure undiluted hatred. I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction about the future. I think humanity is going to face environmental catastrophe that will reshape this planet. The polar icecaps will melt, the seas will rise and a whole lot of humans who live by the seas will begin the largest mass human migration inland. Thankfully I will have passed from old age by that time but a lot of other folks won't be so lucky. Second prediction and more interesting is I think there will be an economic meltdown. Much sooner than the first prediction. If you haven't read the book, you can watch the movie 'Too Big To Fail'... it is edifying to know just how close we came to a total financial collapse in 2008. The system runs on two key things... trust and men willing to sacrifice themselves. Not only are those two things becoming less available but so is the US Treasury's ability to borrow money. The system will fail and it will be a monumental meltdown. Sadly, in a feminized world everyone will adopt the female value system. Narcissism, self-entitlement and avoidance. (There will probably be a hefty dose of escapism into BDSM porn too but I digress....) And then there is me. You see I am a 'BLM' guy. That's "Beer, Lawn chair, Marshmellows".... Women set the world on fire and I am going to watch. No more saving women. Solve problems on your own. Oh, and lastly my advice for you to give to your sons... tell them to never get married.

@Elizbaeth " I do, however, think that men are the only ones capable of saving civilization" Nonsense. Women are the gatekeepers of reproduction. Your gender gave birth to society. Your gender decided to upend the social system. You fix it. What is with your fixation on "heroism"? The source of male grievance is the discrimination against males promoted by women. You want your precious civilization saved then perhaps you should focus on another word... try "justice". It's one both genders can believe in. Your other fixation is on "civilization". I think you mean to say society. If you want men to give a crap about society that's easy... society has to give a crap about them. Don't ask us to support a system which is grossly unjust and unfair to us. You "need" men to be brave and heroic??? No you don't. You need men to buy you stuff, build you stuff, prop up your fragile egos and die for you. Your appeal comes across to me like classic tradcon damselling to get us back to the plantation. What makes you comfortable has made me a slave. All your post comes across like your whining for a man to do for you what you are unwilling to do for yourself. Pure nausea to those of us in TRP community.

@Elizabeth "I think, however, that the only chance society has of being saved lies with men getting angry, refusing to abandon ship, and fighting as men to be men out of some last vestiges of heroism and love for themselves and for civilization and freedom. " Men aren't allowed to cry. We learn that as children from our mothers. Men learn they are disposable as teenagers. The state teaches us that when it compels us to fight it's wars. Men aren't allowed to use the wrong tone of voice around women. We learn that as adults from HR. Men aren't allowed to be critical of women. We learn that from our wives. Men can expect no justice from a legal system that is set up to only punish men. We learn that in divorce court. Morality is a uniquely male construct. We learn that when we try to project it on women and they reject it. Now tell me why men should refuse to abandon ship? If the "ship" is a metaphor for society it's not one that I cherish. It treats me rather badly actually. Heroically save it?? LOL. No quite the opposite I think. Time for a female "heroine" to step up and save society. Men have sacrificed enough.

I don't agree with your assertion that MGTOW is every bit as toxic as Feminism. It doesn't promote victimhood. Unlike feminism I have yet to see any of its followers calling for the mass murder, mass castration or mass incarceration of half of the human population. They promote disengagement and self-actualization unlike feminists' 'man bad' 'women good' narrative. Probably most fundamental to their philosophical differences is that the feminist ideology is grounded in Patriary Theory which is entirely BS and has been debunked time and again. It is little more than a conspiracy theory and foundational to their belief system. MGTOW on the other hand look at evolution and biology. I've also seen a lot of peer reviewed social science research. As MGTOW is a male movement they are really keen on facts... facts matter. MGTOW is firmly grounded in society the way it is and provide very specific examples of anti-male discrimination. Not some fabricated feminist fantasy. You are not the first person to make this claim so I am wondering if you could site some examples of the toxic philosophical similarities. I am genuinely curious.

I thought I'd give a more expansive answer to the OP question: Is there a right of a citizen to fight for his country in the governmental army? My answer remains "no". The term 'right to fight' is rhetorical. No one has such a right nor is it recognized as a natural or human right by anyone. To unpack the claim you need to unpack the claim's last 4 words... "in the governmental army". That is in the nation's institution for war fighting. The institution is an employer and what you are really saying is can an institution be forced to employ you because you want to participate in a conflict your country is currently engaged in. Interesting claim as it is unique. Can Ford Motor Company be forced to hire you because you believe you are a great car maker? As a point of principle and practicality, employers pick their employees and not the other way around. The military is no different. In the context of a gender debate, it reminds me of this story: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/the-heat-of-battle-will-be-the-ultimate-test-for-women-in-the-military-says-retired-commander/news-story/2a10b9248de7b6fc985ee150e9df96f4 As such the 'right to fight' claim is pure political sophistry. The actual statement is: Should the military institution be forced to hire any citizen irrespective of their ability to do the job for which they are being hired? The answer to that question then goes back to my previous post about what is the purpose of the military? Is it political?...ie: a welfare organization where any blind, wheelchair bound cripple can claim the 'right to fight' and get a job... or is it to fight wars? It can be one or the other but it can't be both. In either case though it has nothing to do with the so-called 'right'. Also note that so-called 'right' could be applied to any job... Post Office, Foreign Affairs, Health and Welfare... Why do you make that claim only with the military??? Oh wait... it's male dominated, ergo sexist, ergo must be destroyed!

Do women belong in the military? It depends. It depends on whether you take the defense of your nation seriously or not and what your military is there for. Most Post WWII armies have stood idle and not fired a shot. The most active militaries, USA, Great Britain, Israel... are all Imperial states with force as the primary instrument of their foreign policies. Countries like Canada maintain the military in a skeletal state doing the minimal investment to not draw the ire of NATO or NORAD allies. Its purpose is more political than practical. So if its purpose is political then yes, females belong there as much as males. As long as your not doing any fighting its fine. On the other hand if you are almost constantly at war... the USA and Israel come to mind... then it is not ok. An Israeli officer once said "they take their military far too seriously to allow women in the combat arms". Remember Israel is a hopelessly gynocentric state... Are they as efficient as men in the work they do? No. Not even close. In areas where you know they will fail, they fail remarkably. In areas where you think they could succeed... supply, admin, logistics, medical, etc. their mediocrity drags everyone else down. That and their constant complaining, barracks room politics, etc. There are always exceptions but as they are not held accountable or to the male standards they wreck what was an otherwise functioning male system. Are they psychologically prepared to do that work? Sure. If the work is to just show up then mediocrity is an acceptable standard. Women are also psychologically prepared to not do work if they can get away with it. Females are not culturally indoctrinated into male notions of self-sacrifice and disposability. They have less loyalty to their units and the state. I remember hearing of a study that was never published in the Canadian army. (It would be old now, like me). Apparently women tend to get pregnant at a much higher rate before their units are deployed overseas. A women's psychology is to enhance her own well being, not sacrifice for her country. Its males who are taught that sacrifice for someone else is a path to respect. Women rarely buy into that nonsense. Is there a 'right' of a citizen to fight in a governmental army? No. Absolutely not. The army isn't for everyone. Dunno how things are today but basic training weeded out a lot of guys from the military. This is a good thing for all concerned. Also note that modern warfare attacks civilians as much as combatants. Everyone is in the mix whether you are wearing a uniform or not. There is however a male obligation to serve if your country calls on you to do so. The US Supreme Court weighed in on this in 1917. If the purpose of the draft is combat, then men are obliged to do it. Not women. I'm wondering by the line of questions if the OP thinks this is a "fairness" issue. What has "fairness" got to do with anything?? Fairness is a principle that parents invoke to squabbling children to create peace. States are power brokers and they don't give a damn about the concept of 'fairness' except to the extent that it can be exploited for a political end. If you were to ask another question... "Should women be drafted?". My answer is "Hell Ya!! Only women should be drafted as men have sacrificed enough over the years. Time for women to pony up some lives for their countries." That would be "fairness". However we know that this will never happen because society is never fair. Not to men. Society will never use the force they deploy against men, (a firing squad), to get women to sacrifice for it the way men do. Julia Gillard's prime ministership is a perfect example of what happens when a gender bigot takes over the country. (Honorable mention to Justin Trudeau). The Australian army was deemed 'mysogynist' because it was all male. Apparently, any functioning male system needs to be destroyed because it is created and run by males. 'Maleness' is an accusation and evidence of guilt. Something all males should be ashamed of regardless of your station and what benefits you bring to society. For further reading on this topic I can suggest: 'Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster'. Brian Mitchell. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/women-in-the-military-brian-mitchell/1110912979/2692156064043?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Core+Catch-All,+Low_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP79700&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6OKBtoPk1wIVQ7nACh1VrAN8EAQYASABEgLKj_D_BwE

Yet another mainstream interview of a feminist from vagina-cracy of Massachusetts. I’m embarrassed to admit that I used to give money to Public Radio but thankfully the Red Pill cured me of that. The interview of Gail Dines begins at 52:00 in the link below. She is billed as a “feminist public intellectual”, professor of Sociology and Women’s Studies at Wheelock College in Boston. (WGBH November 28, 2017) https://news.wgbh.org/2017/11/28/local-news/bpr-1128-full-show The key takeaways we can get from her non-stop feminist rant: Any movement for change has to be women led. Men need to shut up, get to the back of the line and do what they are told. All women earning the minimum wage have been sexually harassed. · Women with money need to set up web sites that will be used to “out” men. (Presumably because she thinks there are none out there yet). Where women can anonymously make accusations without repercussions. · The Labor Movement, the Environmental Movement, Civil Rights Movement was actually started as a women’s movement, then when it got mainstreamed, men took it over and ruined it. (Sorry William Wilberforce, Mahatma Gandhi, John Muir, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. … you are all members of the evil Patriarchy). · Feminists are men’s best friends! They are the only group that roots for them! -- Seriously… that’s a quote! (I should put it on a T-shirt). Feminists refuse to accept the “biological argument” that there is something inherently wrong with men… it’s actually the culture that makes boys boys and men rapists. · Parents need to be taught by Dines what pornography is. · Women don’t know what they are getting into with pornography. They can’t actually consent to any sex act until they are at least 30. (30?? Why stop there… how about 75?) · Girl Scouts, feminists and Margery Eagan think that all girls should be alienated from their closest male relatives. Giving one’s uncle or grandpa a hug will risk bringing out his inner pedophile and put your child at risk. · The legal system works against women “on every level”. (I couldn’t believe she said this. Only true ideologues could state this. Of course the interviewers give her a pass.) · Men should be guilty until proven innocent. (I think she is describing the status quo). · The research tells us that women “almost never lie”. (Ummm… has she ever met one? I’m sure the “research” is from a highly reputable peer reviewed source.) · Women have no voice in the legal system. · 1 in 4 of Dines’ students have been raped. (Personally I would make a point of avoiding any of her classes… If she is attracting that many rapists I’d suggest she should be investigated for criminal activity. Is she trafficking her own students?). · Rape is the safest crime to commit. It’s pervasive in our ‘rape culture’ and goes completely unpunished. · Privileged women. Ie: White women, powerful women… can’t run any movement because they work to protect their privilege. · There is no such thing as a virgin or a whore. These are concepts imposed on society by the Patriarchy. (And there I was thinking that ‘slut shaming’ was almost a thing universally done by women… who knew it was the Patriarchy’s fault?) · Hugh Heffner stole the feminist movement. (Wow! Once again who knew? If he wanted it all for himself why did he have to unleash feminism on the rest of us? That is staggering ingratitude towards all the men who bought copies of his magazines.) · Women “have to” dress hyper-sexually because of the ‘porn culture’. (Female celebs ‘have to’ dress provocatively or they are “invisible”. This is all due to ‘porn culture’. Not liberated, wealthy women doing something because they actually want to. Kim Kardashian is really a victim of ‘porn culture’. ) · Hilary Clinton was not supported electorally because of misogyny. The pervasive anti-female hatred that permeates society was the root cause. Not that she was an appallingly bad candidate who with unlimited funding, two party elites stumping for her, the mainstream media on her side and her opposing politician bumbling his way through his campaign…. Still managed to lose. Yeah right… there I was thinking it was all Vladimir Putin’s fault…. Who knew? · Men “get it” when they become feminists. Well what can be said? I do indeed ‘get it’ Mrs. Dines. The pervasive culture in our society is not “rape culture”, no it is feminist dogma that is mainstream. The non-stop barrage of outright lies, hyperbole and sophistry that she spouts is taking axe swings not just at modern society but the pillars that hold it up. She isn’t just anti-intellectual and a liar but she is an advocate for a class-based society rooted in injustice. Men are expected to pay the majority of taxes to finance a justice system but we can have no expectation of getting justice from it. Men need to join with feminists to assist them with advancing their anti-male discrimination and if you don’t then you need to be “outed” as a rapist, misogynist on some anonymous hotline. The key values of the Enlightenment: Reason, Justice, Individualism, Skepticism. Feminists like Dines oppose all those things. I invite comment from other readers and there is so much in this interview that we could touch on. For instance Dines is an author of ‘Porn Land’ which sadly I have not read nor will rush out to buy… talks extensively about ‘porn culture’ as if it was driven entirely by men. She fails to mention that women consume a vast amount of porn, particularly sexually violent BDSM porn. Why the double standard? What else? I think we could also weigh in on the word “privilege”. I love that word! It’s a single word that constitutes both an argument and an accusation. When I hear it spoken by feminists I immediately assume that the speaker has completely lost their grip on reality. Any material possession you may have, anything you have achieved, any goal you worked towards, any status conferred on you through you working in a hierarchy can only come because “privilege”. Not hard work. Not individual motivation. Not sacrificing other things in life to achieve an important end. Nope. Your rewards were unearned…. Now give me your job you sexist bastard! Feminists really do have a problem with any merit-based system of rewards. Many of these topics have been covered in other threads. The feminist sharks have smelt some blood in the water and are circling for advantage. First and foremost, everything is about power with them. Never let a good media frenzy go to waste!