Censorship at Quora on a MGTOW Question

Some time ago I answered the following question at Quora.

What do feminists think of men going their own way (MGTOW)?

My answer can be found on the site at https://www.quora.com/What-do-feminists-think-of-men-going-their-own-way-MGTOW/answer/Peter-Gregory-Kelly

The question had been on the Quora site for some time and getting quite a few upvotes. Then a few days ago I received 2 emails from Quora.

Quora2

Quora

I had the option of appealing either by submitting my answer and claiming it is not in violation of Quora’s policies or by editing my answer. It needed an edit to iron out some typos and improve on points which needed to be better expressed so I edited my answer and appealed. Their reply was thus:

Quora Moderation reviewed and rejected your appeal regarding your answer to: What do feminists think of men going their own way (MGTOW)? This decision cannot be appealed. Learn more about Quora’s policies here. Mon

Quora did not email me their rejection of my appeal. It was only posted as a notification on the site. Nowhere does Quora specify WHAT was in violation of their TOS.

My edited and improved answer below.

I was MGTOW before the term existed. It is a rational course to take and one that presents itself as the most sane.

We live in a time favouring hypergamy. This is the tendency of women to favour male partners at or above their social and educational level. In recent decades we have seen women occupy most positions at tertiary educational institutions. This is all very good for the women but it creates a situation
where many women can not necessarily be matched. This is sad but true. Nothing to do about this.

The effect on men however is also tragic. This is lead to competition for fewer females at their level. Ordinarily this would be healthy for the women except many women will be left out at the end. A female doctor is not going to marry a male labourer. Thus we see an increase in biologically unsuccessful men. Unsuccessful in luring women through no fault of their own except to be in the wrong percentile. The reaction to this frustration can be anger or depression and related problems. The reaction of helpers like therapists is to “skill up” these men. Better communication skills, becoming better men, learning to please women etc. That is fine in the micro but will fail in the macro. Imagine an effort to increase the number of people with above average intelligence. While such an effort may increase the intelligence of people the project will fail by definition because “average” moves up.

It is easy to see with partnering that if 80% of women want 20% of men, that with any improvement in the desirability of unmatched men to women that what is a “good man” will be redefined to restore the 80/20 split. This is especially true in the area of education where men can not now attain an education sufficient to satisfy the shopping list requirements of most women.

The dilemma is that women want equality with men in the macro but they also want superior men to themselves as life partners in the mcro. This is how the slight dimorphism of homo sapiens plays out. it’s biology and there is nothing that can be done about it.

The result will be “blame the victim”, shaming of men into relationships with women is only adding to the problems of men. More depression, anger and more suicide. Men presently have a suicide rate 4 X that of women and for this the reaction is to “blame the victim”. “Man up”, “suck it up”, “Peter Pan”, “Man Child”, “Basement Man”, “Suck It Up”, “Commitment Phobia” and “GrowUp” etc and no empathy. At most, what is wanted is to change men and upskill them in this therapist’s fool’s errand described above. Workable for the male at the micro individual but fails to capture the bigger picture in the macro.

MGTOW takes away the negative effects of this undue male on male competition and all the bad effects flowing from that. Effects which take a toll on even successful males as they must work harder to provide and satisfy the hypergamy hunger of their partner, least a better proposition, in the form of a “better” male makes his presence known, leaving said man without his assets, his children and a bill for child support and no sympathy (suck it up).

A MGTOW who has walked away from relationships assures himself of less drama, less need to overwork and more time to tend to his own needs instead of everyone else’s It is an opportunity for growth and wisdom should the MGTOW take advantage of it. The man can for the first time become a “human being” instead of a “human doing”. He can value himself because no one else will unconditionally value him. He is only valued for what he can do for others.

It can be a challenging path initially because it is natural for men to want to compete for women and it does take insight to see this is to the genes’ advantage and not to his personal advantage. Women for their part like men to be competing for them. That is a driver for chivalry and for white feathering in war (especially in WWI) (no fight no nooky). The lack of a desire of some men to fight over women is frightening to many women. It forces women to face up to their biological selves.

Women have responded to this threat of seeing themselves in the mirror by constructing such narratives as the “rape culture” hysteria. Here women can legitimately express a fear, real but exaggerated and goad men to fight other men, to become a white knight for her. A case of “them over there are the enemies, go get them (and to the victor goes the mating rights). Let and him fight over pretty old me.” The reaction of women to MGTOW is predictable. This analysis is consistent with thinking in evolutionary psychology.

I really do see not anything offensive in my reply. I can only imagine that a group of feminists have done a working bee to downvote as many MGTOW replies as possible. A sufficient number of downvotes triggers a “collapse”. Quora for its part is going along with the pressure. Real intimidation and bullying.

Advertisements

The Assimilation of Aborigines compared to the War on Boys

From the 1930s until the 1960s and even into the early 1970s successive Australian governments had a policy of assimilation. It was believed that aborigines were going to die out. Under assimilation policies the incomes of aboriginal people were garnished and held by the Protector of Aborigines. Pocket money change was paid to the aborigines. Major expenditures like travel or to buy a car needed the approval of the Protector of Aborigines. In recent decades the monies kept in trust is unaccounted for. Additionally their wages were lower and there was segregation in the use of public facilities. In Perth aborigines needed to vacate the city before the evening. The people lived on missions looked after by religious missionaries or government bureaucrats.

A part of the policy was removing half caste children, that is children of mixed European and aboriginal parentage, away from missions and families and putting the children up for adoption. The workers in the church, on the missions, in government departments were certain that “it was all for the best”, “think of the child.”, “a mission is no place for a child”. The heartbreak involved formed part of the tragedy of what was called the Stolen Generation.  The child removalists believed themselves to be noble and righteous. They cared for the welfare of the aboriginal peoples. But they were absolutely certain of their cause to the extent that that they were blind to their own humanity as well as being blind to the plight of the heartbreak left in their wake. These do gooders prided themselves on being more morally upright than those who brought atrocities including mass killings in conflict between European settlers and aborigines in the 19th century. These do gooders social worker analogues sawed themselves as giving palliative care to a dying people. At the base of this kind palliative care for a dying people was a chauvinism about the “advanced” peoples, social Darwinism, sometimes eugenics and an absolute certainty that what they were doing was the right thing. It goes without saying that there was no need to listen to the aboriginal people themselves. “You’ve got to be cruel to be kind” and “tough love”.

This is the same absolute certainty which is seen today in the treatment of men and boys. When Erza Klein asserts “spike of fear” in a Breitbart article Ezra Klein: Men Need ‘Spike of Fear’ with Sex to Prevent Rape or when Catherine Comins asserts that “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” we are seeing people who really honestly believe that it’s “for their own good” and if a few eggs have to be broken to broken to make scrambled eggs then so be it. In this and in the Stolen Generation one’s won humanity is put to one side in service to a high ideal. One outs aside empathy and compassion. This is the effect of being blinded by the light of an ideology. In the USA countless cases of male students having their college studies terminated and their lives ruined because of the abuse of Title IX for minor, silly or actually fabricated cases of harassment. The same logic of Klein and Comins could be used to justify miscarriages of justice of say black men in the Jim Crow south because sending a “spike of fear” into those scumbags will improve public safety. There is a ruthlessness in Comins and Klein which would be rightfully condemned if made in any other circumstance. In fact there is the cold efficiency of fascism echoing with no regard to the consequences and the only reaction if any is usually laughter at the plight of unlucky males.

That brings us to the unpleasant potential for escalating the cruelty against men and boys. There is laughter at the abuse of men by women and an impatience with their pain, even as feminism complain that “men need to learn to express their feelings” (so that we can shut you up again). One thinks of what it took to get ordinary Germans to commit extraordinary abuses on others. We can gain a clue to what motivates other people by observing ourselves. Insight into ourselves. Something feminists avoid by projecting on to others that which they fear exists in themselves. There is a certain point in the slide into hate where no appeal to logic or common sense can help and will not be allowed to help and where the mere reluctance to join the hate movement makes one a suspect. The “spike of fear”. Erza Klein may wish to live in such a society but I do not.

Not all men will be treated unfairly, they will only fear that they may be so mistreated. Basically men can be “protectors” of the paranoid delusions of extreme feminists or they can look forward to be persecuted by those men who are. To be one of the “protectors” or one of the persecuted at the hands to a “protector”. If you’re one not one you must automaticly be the other, the hated other. This is the utopia that feminists want to deliver all of us to but I get the sense that we have been there and done it all before in lessons of history we have now all forgotten.

I will end this post with an image meme which speaks for itself.

Julie Burchill2

Young fatherhood may be a risk factor for early death

This post is inspired by an article “Fatherhood in Early 20s May Raise Risk of Midlife Death” at

http://m.livescience.com/51734-early-fatherhood-midlife-death.html

The article can be summarised by one sentence from it as reproduced below.

In the large Finnish study, researchers found that men who had their first child by age 22 were 26 percent more likely to die in middle age, compared with men who fathered their first child at age 25 or 26

The article doesn’t go into the reasons other then some speculation that the education and careers of young fathers being short circuited and thus being forced to support his family with lower paying and more dangerous work.

“…interrupt career plans and push young dads into lower-paying jobs, which could impair their health”

The factors will not known without further research but the results suggest that fatherhood and family life in general takes a toll on men. There are many stresses associated with family life and men generally have few resources and few people who will want to listen. “Be a man”, “suck it up” and “man up” are common put downs while the problems of women in general and mothers in particular are acknowledged.

This caused my brain to recognise a pattern. That this that since the 1960s and 70s the difference in life expectancy between men and women has narrowed from a maximum of 7 years in favour of women to 4.2 in 2014 in favour of women. In the period 1975-7 the average life expectancy of men in Australia at birth was 69.6 years and for women it was 76.6 years, a difference of 7 years. See

http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Mar+2011

Fast forward to 2014 statistics the life expectancy for men is 80.1 years and for women it was 84.3 years. See http://www.aihw.gov.au/deaths/life-expectancy/

Over this period the median age of first marriage has increased. See

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/a8d1bea8a2ff1b33ca2570ec001b0dc3!OpenDocument

This is a graph from the above site.

AusFirstMarriageThe observant reader would have noticed on the tables of the previous web pages listed that the  difference in life expectancy between men and women was narrow near the end of the 19th century and widening out to the 1970s before narrowing again towards today. This widening of the difference in life expectancy in the 1970s mirrors the dip in the median age of first marriage in Australia. See

AusLifeExpect

I can guess that the age of fatherhood would bare some relationship with the median age of marriage. It looks like that early marriage and early fatherhood are health compromising choices for men. If that is the case the Finnish study linking early fatherhood to more likely early death of males does not surprise me.

This highlights the need for more study of mens health issues in general. Trends in mens health are occurring under the radar without comment or interest. The narrowing in the gap of life expectancy for men and women is good news for men. The reason as I can see may be worrying for policy makers. The implications for the value of marriage for men and its cost in terms of the health of men are areas researchers should take an interest in. The implications for the MGTOW movement are obvious although I will not talk about MGTOW in this blog.

Shamtrinos – some thoughts on the shaming culture

Other people’s opinions of you is none of your business. – Leftleaningantifeminist

Care about what other people think and you will always be their prisoner. – Lao Tsu

Shaming is a part of our landscape. No one wants to be ostracised but yet this seems to be social policy whip of choice. Doing or not doing anything because of a fear of social ostracism is one of the worse reasons to do or not do anything. It is on the lowest rung of values. Those employing such instruments as policy implementers really show the utmost contempt for other people. In short it is simply disrespect. It works in a situation of “insiders” who talk to each other in one vocabulary in one narrative and who talk to “outsiders” in terms of clichés and in a vocabulary of emotional manipulation like shamming. The inner party and the proles.The superior and the inferior.

In our feminist times there is a shamming vocabulary used against men by both feminists and non-feminists and by women and the chivalrous men stepping up to save their honour. “Man up”, “take it like a man”, “Peter Pan”, “commitment phobia”, “suck it up”, “take responsibility”, “mansplaining” and “man up” are just a few examples of these shamming barbs. On Twitter there are the derogatory hash tags of #MenzFeelz and #WhatAboutTheMenz. There are also a few oldies like “sissy” and “wuss” are also optional shaming barbs. Regrettably the mens movement has also developed a few of their own like “mangina” which I think is counter productive because it appeals to an emotional centre instead causing pause to think.

For men this is further complicated by the demand that men “express their feelings” at the same time as a combination of social and biological reasons work to discourage exactly this. Whatever the rhetoric women both forge and test men for stoicism. Women will one minute describe an ideal “sensitive” man and in the next minute will actually despise a real sensitive man. One minute women will talk about how important it is that men express themselves and in the next minute will demean such self expression with “male tears”. This is the conflict between the ideal and the reality. In evolutionary psychological terms women will test and forge men assisted by other men because in the context of the African savannah women need need a strong protector and provider and such a male will be rewarded with mating rights. The offspring of such a union will be more likely to survive with a strong provider. These values are consistent with stoicism. This pattern is followed even today even given of the absence of sabre tooth cats and mammoths today.

It is evident that calls for men to “man up” or claims that all men are (……fill in your own insult……) is really testing and forging men to stoic standards required on the African savannah. This can sometimes take on tribal scales. Shamming men with white feathers in WWI or asking men to take cat callers/domestic violence offenders/rapists to task if not actually do violence against them. The basis for Jim Crow and mob justice. An atmosphere close to that today with the rape culture hysteria. Mob justice is not fair but it can be understood in context of our biology. The global labelling of all men as having some kind of “original sin” for which men need to confess and atone for is an extension of this sort of shamming. It is also evident the gender politics is an extension of general primate politics in the wild but with more a elaborate vocabulary. The issues pertaining to that vocabulary are not important or the real focus. The instincts expressing themselves through whichever vocabulary is what matters.

However the real profit from the conditioning for male stoicism on top of what may be biological may be to the detriment of feminism. Men can gain much more personal autonomy by deciding not to be shamed. Not a naturally easy task given the threat of social ostracism but a training in stoicism is valuable here. Shamming barbs are intended to get a reaction. It is why they are fired. Think of these shaming barbs as neutrinos. Neutrinos are sub-atomic particles which do not react with anything. Millions are passing through your body at any time. Think of shaming barbs in this way. Passing through without interacting. We can call them shamtrinos.

Misincelry or Hatred of Incels

We all understand the terms misogyny and misandry. The basic definitions are given below.

Misogyny – The hatred of women.

Misandry – The hatred of men.

The first one is found in standard dictionaries but the latter is not found in most dictionaries. The last word was in use before the Mens Rights Movement and even probably before second wave feminism.  This is why I have not quoted the definitions  from a dictionary reference. One is recognised by standard dictionaries and the other is not. Such is the power of feminists to put pressure on to others that even dictionaries will bend to their demands. I am coining a new term – misincelry or hated of incels . First some more definitions.

Incel – Short for Involuntary celibacy. Someone who in spite of a desire for sexual intimacy is sexually celibate. About 2/3 or more of incels are men. I believe that this gender imbalance of men over women in incel numbers is explained by a biological tendency towards hypergamy of females towards males, the desire of women to marry upwards. This means a greater number of sexually frustrated and unmatched males than is the case for females. It is not an officially recognised term in therapy.  Related terms are love shyness and true forced loneliness.

Vocel – Voluntary celibacy for whatever reason. The opposite of incel. The vocel may be asexual and not have any desire for a sexual relationship or may have have chosen to refrain from acting on his/her sexual desires for religious or other reasons. It may be for a finite period such as before marriage or it may be life time decision such as being a member of a religious order or being tired of sexual relationships in general.

Asexual – A type of vocel. The person has no desire for a sexual relationship or from Wikipedia, “ is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity“.

Hypergamy – The tendency of women to marry above their own position or at least at their own level. A male doctor will be more likely to marry a female nurse than a female doctor is to marry a male nurse.

True Forced Loneliness – Similar to incel in that they have no success in relationships. As good as a synonym. The term was coined by Bill Greathouse. From urbandictionary.com is this definition “…. areforced” to be alone because they perceive other women (or men in some cases) to be rejecting them….”

Misincelry – Hatred of incels as defined above.

I have noticed an impatience, frustration, judgement, shaming, belittling and insulting of incels from men and women and very frequently from feminists, very often from the same feminists who criticise men and non-feminist women for ” impatience, frustration, judgement, shaming, belittling and insulting” women”. This is similar to feminists complaining about being “silenced” and then shouting down their critics to the point of ruining careers.

I don’t think this comes down simple rudeness or social blinkers although these things do figure. I believe evolutionary psychology explains much of what is observed in misincelry as well as bullying, racism, homophobia and transphobia. This is where sociologists and especially those of  a strong ideological bent are opposed to evolutionary psychology.

In my post on Oppressive Etiquette I gave the examples of Japan and the US south under the Jim Crow laws. Today feminists are exercising the same requirements for etiquette from men towards women as whites required from blacks under Jim Crow.

This is all the more onerous for men with autism or Asperger‘s syndrome who are more likely than average to be incels and for men who are generally more socially awkward. Feminists on Jezebel and Wehuntedthemammoth web sites take pleasure in shaming in rubbishing incels. One is reminded of school yard bullies. In this case however our feminist messiahs must place themselves on the side of “good” and to that end construct complicated narratives to make their victims the “villains”. Projected hate. A classic example of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender).

This is an extension of the sport of shaming men in general which many women (not limited to feminists) feel free to indulge in a way which would not tolerated if the target was black, Asian, Jewish or of some other demographic minority. This is a way to express the same dark angels of our nature in language which is approved by the cerebral cortex and society collectively. Take a look at this quote by Julie Burchill.

Julie Burchill2

I have substituted Jews for men and Nazis for feminists to see how similar to extreme racist rhetoric is to that of radical feminists. This is not an isolated example. Women and feminists of the non-radical variety, the so called NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) either put their heads in the sand when confronted with this rhetoric or they become offended, not for the men put down and insulted but for the implication that all feminists are like that. After making clear that ALL men must take responsibility for the outrage of Elliot Roger these feminists are quick to distance themselves from any responsibility for their ugly sisters. Double standards as usual.

So to describe the penchant of feminists and many non-feminist women, (joined in by many men happy to impress women with their bullying prowess) to kick incels in the teeth and do do so with relish I have coined the term misincelry. There is no way to control others so that they will nor shame us but we can control our reaction to just shaming. This applies to all shammed males, not just to incels. I will make another post about this called Shamtrinos in the future.

The Gamergate Controversy

Other more knowledgeable blogers and gamers than myself have written in detail on the issues of the #Gamergate controversy. I will not repeat what has been said but I will make just a blog entry on my overall view of gamergate.

Gamergate reveals just as much about feminists as it does about the gamers. It is an important lesson on hubris and self delusion by feminists but one I expect they will not learn.

The brief history of feminism over the last 40 years is one of conquest and domination of one area after another. Academia, education, publishing, media, judiciary, politics, and into many subcultures of some religions, atheism and scepticism, The onward march seemed inexorable. It is instructive to google “Atheism Plus” and the story of splitting atheism with the influx of feminists who branch stacked organisations and wrought the changes they desired. I have seen this in other organisations.

Enter the new target for feminist reform, the gamers and their culture. The infiltration of gaming journalism and the conflicts of interests between the gaming media and games developers. On one side there is the gaming feminist infiltrated media and games developers against the gaming public. The expectations was that gamers would fold and submit like all other combatants have before them. Alas all has not gone according to the script. Gamers have resisted and reacted instead of meekly complying.

The reason for this is that feminists have not understood the reasons for their success over the decades and have allowed themselves to be filled with hubris such that the ability to learn is impaired. Many generals have made this mistake through history. Self flattery will get you all the way to ruin. Recall the march to Moscow in winter by Napoleon and Peloponnesian wars.

Much of the capitulation of men to the demands of feminism has been attributed to rationales of one type of another. To justice, to logic, to equality, to ending harassment and discrimination et al. Much of that does figure but there is more and that unrecognised factor is the factor I believe explains the lack of success of feminists to reshape gaming culture to their preferred design. In reality biology is much deeper seated than realised.

In fact chivalry, the protective instinct and a desire to please a potential female partner all operate at a conscious and unconscious level of personality.Peer pressure is also at work. At the very crudest level is the possibility of sex or its withdrawal.

Enter the drive by feminists to conquer the gaming world as they have triumphantly done in all other areas preceding. This is failing big time because feminists have fail to heed the wisdom of Sun Tzu.

Sun TzuThe Art of War at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

Reduced to to most basic reality gamers are nerdy, basement dwelling Aspergers male virgins. That is the stereotype and a very easy target for making fun of. An acceptable playground outlet for letting loose the inner fascist for some exercise just as one might exercise their dog. One does not exercise their dog on one’s neighbours’ front yard and takes care to ensure this doesn’t happen but instead one will find a suitable dog park for this purpose. It is the socially acceptable thing to do. With gamers all the usual standards of polite behaviour can be dispensed with and a great many dogs have been scent marking this new territory as dogs are want to do.

Of course the diversity of gamers is far more broader than that but there is a certain attraction for socially awkward wizards and virgins in the gaming world. What very simply has happened is that feminists have threatened virgins a sex strike. As if that ever had any chance of working. It is with the gaming game that feminists reveal that they do not really know themselves. This was already obvious by the apparent lack of insight into their own deeper motivations. They have also revealed themselves to be ignorant of their enemy and deluded about their cause. They have revealed their arrogance. While the media has brought the feminist line on Gamergate the gaming world itself has not succumbed to the effort.

I do not remember another occasion when a subculture targeted by feminists has so successfully resisted such a corruption. 

Below are a few links for more information on Gamergate.

http://porlawright.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/gamergate-the-players-and-the-played/

http://www.returnofkings.com/46346/gamergate-why-feminists-want-to-destroy-gaming

Oppressive Etiquette

There is a common notion that manners separate humans from the other animals. We are higher than the animals. We have manners because we are not animals. I completely disagree with this notion. Humans have manners not because we are not animals but precisely because we are animals. Manners or etiquette as I will now refer to them as is really nothing more than the dominance/submission behaviour we see in animals. The nature and degree of etiquette varies from culture to culture but in this it is like language. All humans speak some language and human brains are biologically to process language but which language is spoken depends on the culture of upbringing.

I have an untested hypothesis that the degree of etiquette in a society matches inequality in that society. Take the example of Edwardian England. In that period in the early 20th century inequality of wealth was at its zenith. At that time the degree of etiquette was at its most extreme. The separation between upstairs and downstairs staff in the great English houses, the forms and courtesies in the social arena and the protocols of ladies and gentlemen. A downstairs maid could never allow herself to be seen by the household family as she cleaned. There was limited fraternisation between the classes except as prescribed.

The next example I will use is shogunate Japan. In feudal Japan there was extreme inequality and this was reflected in the power of samurais over ordinary people. A samurai had the power of life and death over subjects. He could draw his sword and decapitate anyone for any and no reason. It is no wonder that the custom of bowing is so entrenched in Japanese culture. A biological act of submission seen in many animals. Reducing one’s height as an act of appeasement is universal not only among humans but across species. The top dog, underdog routine is familiar as is the tail between the legs. To express dominance in a challenge or as a bluff in reaction to danger the opposite holds true. A cat arches its back to increase its height. A dog will raise the hair on its neck. Seals will rear up into the air. Frill neck lizards flare their necks to increase their size. For humans hands on hips serves to increase at least our width. Raising our heads and “looking down our noses” slightly increases our height. The disparity in power relations has improved since feudal Japan but etiquette forms continue in more subtle ways.

For exhibit 3 there was the Jim Crow south in the United States. There was such inequality which translated into oppressive etiquette in a really extreme and deadly way. A black man just looking at a white woman the wrong way could be lynched.  It imposed impossible and onerous etiquette obligations on the black community. Anything could be construed as lynch worthy.

Enter the now dawning etiquette in the feminist age but before going there I will clarify further my thoughts on the link between inequality and etiquette. The uneven distribution of wealth in Britain reached its peak during the Edwardian period. Wealth became more evenly distributed in the decades following for various reason centred around redistribution measures by governments and wealth destruction episodes like the great depression. The waning inequality was matched by more relaxed standards of etiquette. This accelerated after WWII as did the redistribution of wealth. In the third quarter of the 20th century another peak occurred and that was the peak of wealth equality. Since the late 70s under Margaret Thatcher and onwards wealth has been becoming more concentrated among the very rich. We also saw in the 3rd quarter of the 20th century concern about a decline in good manners, young people not showing respect, people not knowing their place and so on. These concerns are all centred around lower etiquette standards stemming from a less stratified society. The same was true for other western countries. The decline in good manners at this times disguised the good news of a more egalitarian society. The good manners” in particular related to the treatment of women, opening doors, pulling out chairs  and the like. Women were not necessarily privileged but inter-sex relations became medium and currency for the expression of etiquette. Under my model it wasn’t so much the feminism of the 1970s which caused men not to open doors for women but a more relaxed climate of etiquette in general. If one does not have to bow to one’s master why would one bow to a women or open a door for her?

Today the world is moving towards extreme inequality of wealth but we have not seen the rise of etiquette forms to match. It is my prediction that we will. There may be a lag period. Just as in the Edwardian period the relationships between men and women we be the most natural fracture line for increasing forms of etiquette to flow. Enter the ready made rock formation already laid out with such fracture lines called feminism.

There have been campaigns to make men more appreciated by men and treated well. How to behave in the workplace. How to date. How to proposition a women, the answer being you must get a “yes” at every stage. How long you can look at a woman (remember Jim Crow). The the USA Tittle IX has been used used to impose ever more onerous etiquette obligations on men in College. Men must be aware that “she fears you” and must always be attentive to making women feel comfortable. Imagine substitution “white: for “woman” and “black” for man”. Jim Crow again. What constitutes sexual violence and rape on American campuses is becoming more vague. Some colleges have stipulated an eye contact time before it becomes a campus discipline issue.

Here is a post on the blog Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced. The gist if it is that a guy must behave as though he could be injured if a woman is spooked. The justification is because “preventing violent assault or murder”  is a daily routine for women.  She gives this advice.

My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry.

She calls every man a “Schrödinger’s Rapist”. He may or may not be a rapist. She  then gives this advice.

…you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment.

In other words you must be a mind reader. This is REAL Jim Crow material. If she is mad and demented that is all tour fault. You should know before hand. If she strikes out unprovoked by you she is justified because she is a women living in a war zone of her own imagining. Pity the poor aspergers sufferer. Too bad for the bloke with awkward social skills.  This is oppressive etiquette.

Although seemingly unrelated the increasing inequality in our society will usher in a new more anxiety inducing onerous form of etiquette and feminists fears and hysterias will form the substructure for the form it takes. Some men will suffer a “lynching” like experience. Other men will be recruited as “white knights” to defend the honour of our ladies against the “rudeness” of socially fumbling awkward men. An opportunity for a game of “let you and him fight” over pretty old me and to the victor goes the spoils.