This election more than anything else, will be an election for manhood of America. If we really have been pounded into the dirt by the sisterhood and are comfortable having our mansplaining stifled by law, and being accused of rape for looking at a woman who isn't interested in us, then Hillary really will be our next President. It's the sisterhood against the Alt-right. The unapologetic bad boys who have no use for the female sexual imperative.
Policy? The voters don't care about policy. They care about presentation. And more than ever before this is a choice between a man, with a man's views offered from a man's perspective, and a shriveled, tired, angry woman who sees every indictment as an indictment of all women, and will be happy to present it that way. This is a battle for the manhood of America. Even we skulk off to the back of the cave with the women, or we storm out to the edge of the clearing and face down the saber-toothed Muslim.
My brother believes that voting for Trump is one of those things that people will be much more willing to do than say they're going to do. He expects a big gap between the polling and the voting, in favor of Trump. From this perspective I hope he's right. If we dont' figure out a way to push back on this feminizing of America, our culture is finally finished. With all the damage done to the concept of family by the sisterhood, it may be doomed already. But you know me, I just can't quit.
National Review though, can and has. They have no interest in fighting the culture war that Feminism has brought down on their heads. They are deep in the 'blue pill' mindset over there, and even published a piece by one of their trainees today calling Trump (wait for it) ... a Misogynist and openly stating that his views on women are indefensible. I wrote this in the comment section over there:
Indefensible? Try this:
Trump is not a misogynist. To claim he is, one must first embrace a Feminine-centric worldview with regard to mate selection. It is utterly beyond debate that men have (and do) judge women by their appearance. Women don't like this, but their dislike of it makes it no less a fact. Saying so out loud (which Trump is doing) only represents an unapologetic masculine worldview, and has nothing at all to do with hating women. Anti-Feminist and Misogynist are not the same thing, and Feminists should be vigorously denied the luxury of claiming that they are.
For a long time Feminists have called a male-centric view 'childish' because it looks so similar to the view of young men before they feel women's civilizing effect. But it's actually just a different perspective from which to look at the world. The efforts of women to socially invalidate a worldview like the one Trump cites aren't offered in good faith. They are nothing more than an attempt to impose a feminine defined list of priorities on male mate selection, in contradiction to the list that we men define for ourselves. It's an effort to exert 'female only' control over how relationships between men and women are defined.
Men and women think differently about a long list of things, and principle among them is how they think about what is 'attractive' in the opposite sex. That many women are interested in social and financial considerations when choosing a man (that the vast majority of men never consider when choosing a woman) is not misandrist, it is simply women following their natural instincts.
The same must be said of Trump's much more masculine (if somewhat poorly offered) view. He may not be the best choice of messenger, but that does not invalidate the message. Trump finds many women attractive but not on the terms that women (particularly physically unattractive women - the authors of Feminism) would choose for themselves. But it isn't misogynist to say so. It's a reflection of what men find attractive when they are allowed to set their own priorities, rather than the priorities that our Feminism dominated culture, try to impose on men in their stead.
At it's core, Feminism is an attempt at making female promiscuity socially acceptable and consequence free, so that women who men find unattractive can use it to make themselves seem more attractive. But the real losers of Feminism aren't men, but attractive traditionalist women. Who could argue that men are less chivalrous than they used to be? The marriage strike is a foregone conclusion, and men are (at least in many circles) far less likely to be self sacrificing for women than they were a few generations ago. Those things constituted male 'commitment', and represented an investment in monogamy by men. But there is a declining interest in that investment when the devotion of women isn't equally as assured. Feminism has not only denied them that, it makes the claim that it is morally reprehensible for men to ask for it.
Just like the "Black Lies Matter" movement, Feminism is a hyperbolic political effort that distorts reality and ignores simple facts of male-female relationships. It is the bedrock philosophy of the left which places individual feelings over objective facts, and since it has contributed so greatly to the destruction of the traditional family, it is (in my opinion) the principle component in the liberal destruction of the west.
Thankfully, the counter effects have become so severe (and the third wave demands so divorced from reality) that some women are beginning to see it for what it really is and are no longer identifying themselves as Feminists. It would be awfully nice if National Review could begin to do the same.
Someone with the ID "Brian Stone" in the comments called me "an old fat ugly man who can't get laid and wants to get mad because beautiful women don't give [him] the time of day". My response to her was that Brian was a very odd name for a woman. but it's no doubt one we'll see more often after President Hillary is sworn in.