Why is it that in the west, in e.g. large cities, there's a glut of single, educated, professional women.. Living singleton lives. Homelessness/rough sleeping is 90 % male, and on the rise. All those homeless guys, we just accept (along with a related type of suicide that comes with loss of income/status when nearly homeless). And all those bachelorette women. And we make no connection. Why is it not the other way round? What would society make of it, if it was the other way round? Why has it never been the other way round? What happens when we prioritise male education, as we used to, rather than female, as we currently do?

Of course, back when men's access to higher education and some well paid professions was prioritised there were some abuses of women, in a system that constrained some women's choices, and limited some women's abilities with a "glass ceiling" in these professions. But even when men were given priority for education, and for certain higher status careers, we forget about the abuses of some men in a system that (still does) constrain men's choices, and limits their abilities with a "padlock" on the homemaking path, (and sometimes fatherhood path), or the continued lack of social acceptance for men working in female dominate professions e.g. nursing, or attending/having any influence on certain university courses e.g. "gender (men are bad) studies". And men, now more than ever, have nothing like women's well funded glass floor that keeps people above a certain level, that stops almost all women becoming destitute, but without fail looks the other way when men drop out of society. Men have Swiss cheese rather than a glass floor, and always have.

Why was it that when men had almost all the responsibility to be the guarantors of financial provision - and an education system that recognised this responsibility by prioritising male education, to enable them to meet the expectation women would put on them when seeking a relationship to earn for her and any family she might want - this get's rewritten to the solely grievance-based feminist viewpoint of being simply "male privilege" - when there was in fact an equally large responsibility, failures and all, and a massive number of men living up to that responsibility, and giving large amounts of wealth to women, families, and society.. Except.. we still have most of that, and men still only have the career option, while their education is being taken for granted by an overwhelming majority of female, and feminist, teachers, who have made it their mission to only ever increase female achievement, and take offence at the fact that men are the ones left behind, and deliberately sabotage any efforts people try to make to give boys an adequate education.

Why is it that there are, still, massively more women that are provided for financially by their male partners (by men who still only have the socially acceptable path of financial provider) - by men who didn't mind how much their partner was capable of earning.

We should make more of the fact the men - don't mind how much women earn, they have no problem at all being generous, and are accepting of any level of income from a partner, in general. "Why can't women be as accepting of being a financial provider as men are??!!"

If they're going to be gender Marxists on broad sweeping views of career outcomes, and education outcomes (and moving from Marxist into gender supremacists on the education point.. i.e. gender fascists?) then how can they also pay almost no attention at all to the financial support gap. AKA gender sustenance gap. Men giving money to women for their livelihoods. Men giving money to raise the family a woman has always wanted. Men giving money to feminist establishments in their taxes. Many men and political parties voting for feminist causes to be funded by their taxes, but many women usually siding with feminists when they almost universally stamp out even recognition of men's issues, let alone beginning to fund them, or allow them to begin to be studied in universities. Men funding universities that simultaneously call them toxic, and use the few men that do succeed at the only thing society vales them for - despite slogging through our gynocentric education system - and becoming high earners for their families and society... and then using this against men.

To be clear - I'm not a gender Marxist. I don't think we should blindly seek equality of outcome. It is OK for men and women to have different roles and outcomes which form because of:

  • The-set-of-all-men-and-all-women's relationship choices - like women being less likely to date someone who's at risk of homelessness (to avoid herself/future family becoming homeless), or men being less likely to date someone who's promiscuous (to avoid being deceived about the paternity of any future children). - these choices mean men and women will always have different relationship options, despite society viewing men and women with "equal value"/being agnostic to their relationship potential.
  • Men and women's ability eccentricities (like chance of being a good nurturer & risk averse, or a good pioneering inventor & risk taking). Like having more nurses that are female, or having more plumbers that are male. Or having more prisoners that are male, and more pole dancers that are female.

We cannot mandate outcome while people have free choice, and the set of all men's and women's choices and abilities average to be different, giving men and women different relationship options and outcomes, and different career options and outcomes. Yet, we appear to have the "courage" to be gender Marxists for education, earning and career options, with 40 years of activism to mandate equal outcome - maybe we should start to point out the other side of the coin, the relationship responsibility side and financial provider side, which was always there, with men holding up their side of the bargain all along, despite us giving women all possible right to choice, mitigating any responsibilities, all of the beneficial outcomes, but none of the negative outcomes. This was about removing women's tendency treated as sex objects - which was entirely legitimate to want to do - yet men are still treated as success objects.

So, if I did take a page out of the gender-Marxist book, from a page that actually addressed both sides of their gender "equality" manifesto, it would say that men should push for equal relationship outcomes for gaining financial support, which would mandate as many home-dads as housewives, and no more shaming of men that live by a woman's income as "scroungers/deadbeat dads" - to stop men being homeless/committing suicide/turning to crime to give them some other path if they are not successful at a profession. And billions in government funding, to "meninist" establishments, education establishments all changed from the ground up to accommodate almost exclusively male higher education, etc.. But I'm not saying that.

Clearly though, given society's expectations on men and only men, that they must be successful at a profession, we could at least point out that education is, still, more vital for men, just as it always has been and always will be - men's education and professional competency is vital for men, women, families and society, in a way it will never be for women, as long as so many women want no part of this vital responsibility to people other than themselves. And the current misbalance, in the opposite direction, should be tackled even harder than it was when it was other way around. Tackle the misbalance that destroyed a masculine-centric education system to replace it with a gynocentric education system, which - especially for underprivileged/working class men - ruins their life chances, and is probably a very significant factor that's turning so many men to suicide/homelessness/addiction/prison, in addition to a failure to provide for families & society.

And in addition, as long as women have both paths - earner, and homemaker - and men have earner or bust, and always have had only earner or bust - lets stop being so surprised if men as a group do better at being earners. Lets just recognise that men's education must not be taken for granted as it currently is, for everyone's sake. Males are the only sex for whom education is vital, the only sex you can (still) be much more sure will have to use that education to support a partner that might not be able to earn, or might just chose to have the man take up the economic slack at any given time out of convenience. The sex that is still more likely to use it to support a family financially while the mother happily tones down her career to become a good homemaker, to give her family the best future. Sure, men that are born into privilege, into a good education, money, work ethic, connections, have privilege, and an "easy time" of it, but this is kind of privilege that by definition comes just as often to women - and they still have double the initial choices any privileged man has - they still can chose earner or homemaker, and with just as much initial privilege - except actually more so.

​

What I'm not saying.. in "meninist" language -

"Why do women see men just as banks? Men are accepting of a woman no matter how much she earns - often the less the better! But you ask a woman what man she'd accept - oh, he has to be successful/wealthy! Women are just gold digging whores, that want to bleed men dry of their wealth!! Such a double standard! End condemning men to being homeless/committing suicide!!"

Though, for actual equal of treatment of men's and women's issues currently (if we both got to be gender-Marxists), maybe men should be saying that.. Sounds far-fetched? ...

"Why are men allowed to sleep around.. often the more the merrier!! But you ask a man what woman he'd accept - oh she has to be a saint! Men just toxic bastards that want to conquer all the women they can, and put another notch on the bedpost!!! Such an unfair double standard! End slut shaming!!"

​

Individual people are allowed preferences, which will cause apparent "hypocrisies and injustices" when looking at group outcomes of men and women as feminism and "meninism" does. But we can at least make reasonable effort to mitigate some of the pitfalls caused by the differences in opportunities, as civil rights did for women - mitigating women being treated as sex objects - which we should now do for men by mitigating them treated as success objects, by seeking equality of opportunity to e.g. reliability of income (including from a partner, or more robust access to education), housing, quality of life, or domestic abuse shelters, etc.

Seeking equality of outcome is unjust, we are different. Seeking equality of responsibility? I'm not sure.. It might seem unjust, as we have different abilities and preferences, but we used to have it, broadly. I guess it depends what we think civilisation is for. Equality of responsibility does not seem too much to ask though, given that feminism is all about "equality", women not being weak etc. And, well, if they're earning their newfound "privilege", maybe it's time they got back to roughly equal responsibility, either by reducing men's responsibility, or increasing women's.

It's also unfortunate, but not surprising how how society cares about trans suicide rates with respect to trans issues, but no hint of caring about men's suicide rate and so caring about men's issues. I can't help but think suicide actually is a pretty good meter of how a group is doing. In China the rate is 1:1 M/F. For all China's issues, men and women seem to actually have about equal responsibility.