New York Times Shamelessly Promotes Misandry, Leftists Still Fail to Elect ‘The Bitch’
The far-left publication The New York Times continues to promote a distinctly Anglo-American brand and agenda of misandry. They published yet another hit piece on men and traditional gender roles just before Hillary (known around here as ‘The Bitch’) suffered a stunning defeat in the 2016 election.
It’s yet another indication The Official Narrative from mainstream media is coming apart at the seams.
An Op-Ed article entitled The Men Feminists Left Behind drips with predictable male hatred, and serves to reinforce the fact you as a man need to be checking out of The System at your earliest convenience, taking the benefit of your labor and your tax dollars away from it. Whether you expatriate or MGTOW Ghost, remember one of the central tenets of minimalism and Going Galt: It doesn’t take much for a man to live on.
Women like the author of this article take your productivity and resulting tax dollars for granted. Maybe if they had the rug pulled out from under them they’d stop hacking at the goose that lays the golden egg.
Gender equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity is the first agenda item in the screed by Jill Filopovic:
For women, feminism is both remarkably successful and a work in progress: We are in the work force in record numbers, but rarely ascend to the highest ranks. Women are more visible in public life and create more of the media and art Americans consume, but we still make up just 19 percent of Congress and 33 percent of speaking roles in the 100 top-grossing films.
Funny, she didn’t mention the lack of women in blue-collar, dangerous, and dirty jobs that skew heavily male. Feminists only want pie jobs, not the difficult ones men suffer through on a daily basis.
This brings up another interesting point. As women move to completely dominate society, feminism is only successful in killing America and killing the West, not reinventing sexuality and gender roles.
No matter how bad things get demographically and socially, The New York Times clings to 1960s rhetoric about how wonderful pedestalizing women and marginalizing men is. Rather than encouraging women to return to traditional roles as Anglos commit demographic suicide in America and Western Europeans follow suit, it doubles down on the idea that women need to displace men from their roles in society.
It really is one of the strangest times in human history to be alive. Jill goes on:
Men haven’t gained nearly as much flexibility. The world has changed around them, but many have stayed stuck in the past. While women have steadily made their way into traditionally male domains, men have not crossed the other way. Men do more at home than they used to, but women still do much more — on an average day, 67 percent of men do some housework compared with 85 percent of women. Male identity remains tied up in dominance and earning potential, and when those things flag, it seems men either give up or get angry.
The above paragraph highlights what comfy bubbles feminists like Jill spend their entire lives in, thanks in large part to the labor of the white men she hates so much. They can spit fury at men for not marching to the feminist drummer only because women have it so good they have time to sit around and dream up pablum like this.
Women still spend, on average, 90% more than they earn in Anglo America thanks to the government tit, a misandrist family court system, and the Female Free Ride through life. Men spend less than half of what they earn statistically. In other words, women would not have it so good if it weren’t for male dominance in the work force.
Just to compare and contrast, in traditional Latin America that I’ve expatriated to, women happily prepare delicious meals, do housework, and have kids while demographically moribund white women still cling to an attitude of imperialism in which they’re “too good” to do traditional female things like cooking, cleaning, and propagating the species.
And Jill, baby, male identity remains tied up in dominance and earning potential because that’s what moves merchandise in the sexual market. Women still select men for utility value and earning potential.
When women stop screwing men who are either Alpha assholes or Betas who possess the Holy Trinity of money, status, and power we will see male identity shift away from dominance and earning potential. In other words, that’s simply not going to happen as women see men as nothing more than disposable utilities. You’ve just proven that concept with the tone of this article.
More Tired Rhetoric
Jill then pivots to attack Trump, in a totally fallacious argument when one analyzes the reason he actually won the 2016 election. He won because demographic subgroups OTHER than white men voted differently. Hillary isn’t president in part because suburban women chose to vote for a strong man instead. Still, it’s cute to hear her spout the propaganda we’ve heard so many times.
Mr. Trump offers dislocated white men convenient scapegoats — Mexicans, Muslims, trade policies, political correctness — and promises to return those men to their rightful place in society. With his string of model or actress wives, his beautiful pageant girls on competitive parade and his vulgar displays of wealth, Mr. Trump embodies a fantasy of masculine power reclaimed. Mrs. Clinton, an unapologetically ambitious woman running to take the place of a trailblazing, successful black man, symbolizes all the ways in which America has moved on — and in her promises to help alienated men catch up is the implicit expectation that they, too, must change.
Blah blah blah. We’ve heard this shit ad nauseum for the past two generations. Trump’s landslide last Tuesday represents the biggest possible “fuck you” to this narrative possible without a full-scale revolution.
It’s impossible to say whether a female president would help normalize female power and heal some of the rifts made visible by this election, or if she would so enrage many men that these gaps will only cleave wider. What is clear now is that this is the great unfinished business of the feminist project, a long-fermenting suspicion brought into bright light by this election: Expanding roles and opportunities for women cannot usher in full gender equality unless men change.
Actually, it’s not that Americans wouldn’t elect a female President inasmuch as they don’t want to elect a total fraud, liar, and criminal. Hillary was a terrible candidate in many ways, and Americans are beginning to realize feminism is a death style, not a lifestyle. It isn’t progress, it’s regress.
Feminism is unnatural and destructive to a society. The “feminist project” will be brought to an end one way or the other: by the masses awakening to just how suicidal a philosophy it is, or by natural selection as feminists and those who listen to them die off and are replaced by groups who don’t adhere to this ideology.
Jill then goes on to tell us knuckle-dragging men what we need to do:
Men don’t need more masculine posturing or promises to restore them to forever-gone greatness. What they need is to make their own move toward gender equality, to break down the stereotypes and fetters of masculinity.
While the church of feminism continues to preach predictable and tired talking points like this, the world is changing around them.
Umm, Jill actually men don’t need more feminist posturing or leftist promises to finally displace evil men from their roles in society. Women need to head back to the kitchen and back to the nursery if Anglos are to survive as an ethnic group. The failed feminist project must end.
The Bitch’s loss and Trump’s victory are hopeful signs that cancerous feminist rhetoric like that in this 11th hour hit piece on masculinity might just have met its match.
Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.