There's been more talk about the roles men are supposed to enact concerning masculinity, and while I don't intend for this post to ramble on too much about it, it is rather concurrent with the "child-man" bashing that occurred last year or so.
Funny thing is, you read and hear about the lament from women about the lack of "real men"---whatever that is supposed to mean anymore---when all the possibilities of their other exploits have been practically exhausted---someone is supposed to pick up the tab and pay for all the mistakes and foibles from the past. I don't know why anyone would want to be the brunt of all the resentment because of a misspent youth, but the code of chivalry that runs deep within many men doesn't die easily.
But it can be mangled for good after being abused for only so much. And the long term results aren't always pretty.
When feminists were hell bent to rearrange gender roles, something particular happened. While many will attest that feminism would free up men from the confines of traditionalism, if anything, it has not occurred. Women have choices and license, and men still have responsibilities---and then some. Hell, even a male feminist openly stated that miltary men should be employed to save foreign women from their perspective cultural constraints, without a word about women doing the same. When in doubt, use men by proxy and claim all the credit.
It's curious that the gender that was so oppressed can vote without having to sign up for selective service, or that they are now the majority of college grads and get advanced degrees often with more support, or aren't the victim in a greater percentage of violent crimes, or still (somewhat) out live their sexual counterparts. Not to mention that women are often given lighter sentences than men, even with murder.
As far as benevolent sexism, it still benefits those who decry it, and that's why many will not refuse it. After all, giving up priviledge is not easy to do---especially those who complain that they were oppressed and lack the certain benefits they are already comfortable with, expecting more out of men who already may not realize they are being shafted as I write this.
And yet, people are still puzzled as to why men are dropping out or turning off, so to speak. When skank behavior is excused and praised, and men suffer in the advent of divorce and custody battles, or when women still jump start divorce and others witness how little sympathy men still receive, can they be blamed not when they don't want to engage at all? We still are, anyway. Sure, the older traditional compact had it's drawbacks, but with any social obligation there was a checks and balances of sorts.
And after all this, there are people who want to go back to the old rules. The audacity of this way of thinking is simply stunning.
When men see that there exist women that change the rules in mid-stream to suit themselves and adjust the odds so they win no matter what--and societal norms, policies, and the media to back it all up---if Johnny Normal resorts to playing Xbox on the weekend and slipping on cheap alcohol instead of beefing up his PUA skills anymore, should anyone be surprised? Or are anyone stunned when he avoids single moms like a leper colony in his 30s and 40s because they cry for a beast of burden to raise someone else's offspring, which smacks of a matriachal setting hypocritically demanding the trappings of a patriarchal nuclear family?
When men are shunted with social obligations and women given the illusion of freendoms with universal support from anyone from selfish politicians to the dim witted skank in a local club, it's an imbalance that cannot last.
Let's hope the women that have their heads screwed on straight can convince men not to resort to a crushing backlash, but I'm afraid it's going to be huge. And several of us simply won't listen to their needs after being exploited and then told it's all our fault for this mess. But hey, men's needs never were the order of the day, right?