Hungry Higgo journo pushes agenda

https://www.smh.com.au/national/women-are-furious-about-the-lehrmann-trial-outcome-men-should-be-too-20221202-p5c39i.html

Mostly a bunch of disingenous words from an activist pretending to be a journalist.

Let’s start with the headline: “Women are furious about the Lehrmann trial outcome. Men should be too”
Which women? Which men? She never says. I’m sure some women are furious (and aren’t) and the same for men.

The piece begins with an attempt to appeal to everyone. What a shitshow this has been for these two kiddies. Awww.

“I am not on the bandwagon of “believe all women”, nor am I on the bandwagon of “all men are bastards”.”
Oh yeah? Let’s see.

“We urgently want a society where we have respect and hope. Respect for each other and hope that we can live in a country where violence of all kinds is erased.”

No we don’t. Such a society is a society that has been lobotimized. What we want is a society where opposing forces are kept in balance. That is how nature works. It’s called homeostasis.

“Speaking generally, obviously, we know that rates of sexual assault are increasing. Earlier this year we discovered 51 per cent of women in their 20s have reported being subjected to sexual violence.”

This one’s interesting. A referenced datum. Clicking on the link you find this

“Anrows used data from the Australian longitudinal study on women’s health (ALSWH) to establish new prevalence rates for women. The ALSWH is an ongoing project collecting sexual violence data, which started in 1996.

The study includes data from more than 57,000 women across several age cohorts.

It found 51% of women in their 20s and 34% of women in their 40s had experienced sexual violence in their lifetimes, and 26% of women aged 68 to 73 had experienced sexual violence.”

Right. So feminism has been so successful that more women are experiencing sexual assault the deeper it has become embedded into their culture. Instead of women being sensible about where and when and who, and relying on fathers, brothers, and community members to sensibly defend them and deter bad actors, they pushed away and weakened the men in the community who might have stood up for them and they became more vulnerable. Strong and independent though right?

So then comes the solution:

For years, I’ve interviewed Michael Flood, now a professor at QUT, one of Australia’s leaders of research on masculinity and gender relations, about our longest war. He says what we all know in our hearts. We must encourage men to adopt a fundamental respect for women’s bodily rights and autonomy and to see consent as important, to understand entitlement doesn’t help anyone, not men as they seek to have long-lasting, loving relationships with women. Men, he says, have a problem.

We’ve been hearing this for a few years now. Femmos (and cucks) want to have their cake and eat it. Men should defend women for ideological reasons, not because those women matter to them personally or because they are family or community. The problem isn’t the men. The problem is that the ideology has a cockeyed view of humanity and nature but these people keep believing it and pushing it. It is a far too successful narrative because so many people cannot bear to think about life as a reproductive game. Instead they insist that rape is about power not sex. No, rape is absolutely about reproduction. The incentives are there, they are real, and no amount of “education” is going to change that. A percentage of men will take those odds no matter what “culture” you try and build around it. Go and watch cattle in a mustering yard, a rooster with his hens, etc.

The only solution that works is one where men are valued and respected. Such men have a reason to care for and defend their women rather than being terrified of losing everything in a separation, being accused of causing fear (now the legal definition of family violence), being denied access to their children, etc. Many hetero men are no longer interested in women (see MGTOW) for these reasons. They’d rather be alone.