Health Care, the Lack thereof, and how it Impacts Young Men

This may not be something solely affecting young men, but it does affect them and their health outcomes.

In a word, the health care system in America is insane. The resources are completely mis-allocated. From a wealth standpoint, there should be no problem providing health care to everybody. Yet there are literally tens of millions of people who are uninsured, and are one serious accident away from bankruptcy.

A lot of young men I talk to seem afflicted with a combination of youthful indiscretion and frankly far-right-wing beliefs. Many don't have any health insurance at all, because they don't think they'll need it. What will they do if they, God forbid, get in a serious accident and require hundreds of thousands of dollars in surgeries? This insane level of recklessness is only one side of the coin, though. The other is the far-right-wing belief that if you can't afford health care, you deserve to die.

Why do I call this far-right-wing and not simply right-wing? Because condemning people to death for a weakness is a far-right idea. They couch it by claiming that someone who cannot afford health care must not have their shit together, but that's basically saying the same thing. It's not even a true retort because in many cases, the people who can't afford health care are upstanding members of society, and do have their shit together. They got in an accident, or suffered cancer, and their insurance company decided to cut them off because it deemed the treatment too expensive. Such people have to declare bankruptcy to fund their treatment, and that's if they're lucky.

I guarantee you that VERY FEW young guys today can afford to treat themselves for cancer, or after an accident. Many are saddled with huge amounts of student loan debt to begin with. If they want to get married, buy a house, etc. they don't have the money to pay for extremely expensive medical care! Heck, it's doubtful they'd be able to afford it even if they lived in a trailer. Yet many adhere to insane far-right-wing ideologies that could condemn them to bankruptcy and ruination at a moment's notice.

Now is not the time for far-right-wing ideologies in youth. Young men are already being impacted by the harshness of these ideologies - in addition to the heavy student loan burden, their jobs are being taken away from them by less expensive H1-Bs. Snickering twits like Eric Cantor threaten to destroy their Social Security and Medicare guarantees. In a word, they're being screwed, and screwed badly.

Now I say that these ideologies are far-right wing, and not right-wing. Why am I making that distinction? Because I don't think that any decently sane conservative would support the current system, or a "You can't afford it? You die" system. A sane conservative would recognize that things like the Hippocratic Oath don't only apply to the rich, and set up a charity to guarantee health care to everyone.

It could be very simple. Have a means test. You can't afford insurance? Health insurance drops you because you're too expensive? You get care. Why hasn't something so simple been set up?

There is the argument that such a charity would make it more palatable for insurance companies to just drop people, but it's not like they aren't doing it anyway. No, the simple fact that such a charity doesn't even exist reveals a serious gap between conservative ideology and reality. Then they to normalize this absence with far-right justifications.

Then of course there's the triage argument of "oh we can't afford to treat everybody." That's obvious bullshit. Triage is only valid when there are literally not enough resources to treat everybody. Sorry to sound like a Leftist, but companies are making record profits, the richest have never been richer, and the wealth distribution disparity keeps widening. They have more than enough money to help people in need. I'm not advocating widespread redistribution of wealth, but I think there should be a minimum requirement, such as when a person needs health care.

When the health care act was signed in 2010, Republicans were in an uproar. All of them voted against it- both in the House and Senate. But even a cursory glance at the provision reveals how much safer health care will be, especially to young men, under the act. First, you don't have to buy separate insurance until you're 27. That helps a LOT and you can use the extra money to pay down student loan debt. Insurance companies can no longer drop you or refuse to take you up because of conditions that you have no control over. Yeah, you have to pay in. So what?

The Republicans just hate it because imposes a large number of regulations on insurance companies. They're not against forcing people to pay for something - see the huge military tax burden. In fact, a system similar to this was their idea. Somehow I don't think they really care about the young men they send to wars, nor do they care if a young man is ruined by college and medical expenses and lack of job opportunities. Fuck them, honestly. Not that the Dems are much better, but they at least pass things that help young men, despite their overbearing feminist tendencies.

Feminism and the fuel that it runs on

Feminism is all about freeing women from men and giving them as many choices as possible. Seemingly absent, however, is an analysis on how these choices affect men. For instance, take the example of the single feminist career woman who remains single and doesn't settle down until late in life, if ever. The gender ratio is very nearly 1:1; nature has made sure of it. This means that for every woman who is single and not in a relationship, one guy is forced to be alone, regardless of whether he wants to be alone or not. It may be a good guy, it may be a bad guy, but numerically, some guy has to eat the shit sandwich of not having a woman available to him if a woman refuses to date or decides to chase after a small number of high status men along with many other women at the expense of average men.

When feminism liberated women from the expectation that they should settle down with a guy when fairly young, it necessarily created involuntary celibate men. Of course, a large number of these men will find a woman later on in life, but that is only because the women are deciding to settle down. The choice has been completely ripped away from men. Many men are suffering as incels in their late teens and possibly during their entire 20s because of this, a time when they are arguably the most sensitive to adversity and need companionship the most. (As an aside, this could be partly to explain for the meteoric rise of suicide among young adult men post-feminism.)

Feminists, and sadly nearly all women, seem to fail to understand this. It's not fair to men that women get to satisfy their urges, while men are completely left alone with no choice at all. It's not even being left to fend for themselves in an unbalanced system; it's being completely shut off from the market.

And what's the response that women say to men suffering from this? "You'll find someone someday," "be patient," "look at the good sides in life," etc. They're basically expecting men to be ascetic monks with no companionship or sex needs for years, even decades, while women are allowed to freely do whatever they want. Whatever happened to the concept of ones freedom ending where the others begins?

Now how could women justify this? Well, they could just be plain clueless as to its harmfulness. And in a lot of cases, that's exactly what's going on, especially since this has been going on for several decades and has plenty of cheerleaders from both sexes. But the original women who came up with this had to have known what was going on- or did they? I feel they just had a hatred of men and wanted to gain a leg up on them at whatever cost, and didn't think through the consequences. Sadly, they had (and still have) so much support that the ill effects have been completely swept under the rug. Even many men who have themselves been screwed over and forced into celibacy cheer for the system, incapable of putting the pieces together.

And it's complicated by the fact that not all men are screwed over by it equally, or even at all. Indeed, it serves men on the top of the totem pole very well, by giving them sexual access to women who would have previously been less willing, as they were already partnered with a man. Men on top are in power, and willingly support this, so it keeps proliferating. These guys could generally care less about whether the average man has to go through long periods of celibacy before he gets anything, or that they're throwing tons of men under the bus with the decisions they make, so the problem remains unsolved.

Of course, the problem is, when you screw people over, they tend to be less willing to work for the system. Even many manginas who still buy in to the system, but have gotten screwed over by it, don't put as much into it. How, you ask? Don't they enthusiastically support it? Well, it doesn't need to be a conscious thing. Sure, they've been brainwashed into thinking this system is forward-thinking and progressive, but deep down they have been hurt by it on some level, so they lack the motivation that reasonably well-rewarded men have. These guys tend to get less hard-charging jobs, tend to not innovate as much, and tend to not earn as much as well-motivated men. They tend to channel their resultant rage into an endless variety of ridiculous causes, wasting time and energy. Ultimately, this slows societal progress down to the point where another saner society is allowed to grow and either makes it insignificant, forcibly subjects it or destroys it.

Feminists are basically eating the seed corn of society, and the behavior they espouse is ultimately the kiss of death if men don't wake up and resist it en masse.

Blue-collar men: Criminal underclass or wasted resource?

This is my take on the whole outsourcing of blue collar work and what it's doing to America.

OK, so you take a guy's job away, and ship it to China or something. This guy has a relatively low IQ, and can't or won't go to college and get a degree. What is he gonna do? I've applied for jobs with less than a college education myself, and it's not easy to get employed. And the stuff you can reasonably expect to get employed in is on the level of 7-11 or Arby's. Making $9 or $10 an hour, maybe $12 an hour, tops. If I was a blue-collar guy I'd say fuck this, and turn to a life of crime.

You have a situation where guys aimlessly drift through life, easily captivated by extremism (gangs, terrorism, etc.) and not really contributing to society. These guys wax and wane, going into prison, and then coming right back out and doing the same things they did before. So what you see is someone being a cost to society either as a menace, or a prisoner, instead of producing widgets or doing labor to support society and genuinely be a part of it.

The current solution to this problem seems to be the band-aid approach of giving these guys draconian prison sentences. That way they stay in prison, instead of being a menace. But these guys are still a net drain on society, instead of being productive.

Lots of people from the conservative side will say that these people are animals and really need to be locked up. Are they really sure about that? I'm sure a good percentage are animals that need to be behind bars no matter what, but every single last one of them? It sounds a little hyperbolic to me. And if you take this at face value, and assume that they're all animals, then why is society creating so many animals?

I believe that if gainful employment, not jack-in-the-box employment, is reasonably attainable to someone without a college degree, then a lot of the social problems you see in ghettoes and among the poor underclass will disappear. These people turn to crime because they see no way out, and they're often correct. What's a guy who's not smart enough for college to do? People have TV, they see what middle class lifestyle is about. They don't want to live in slummy conditions making $10 an hour for the rest of their life.

I think the people who are outsourcing the country need to be dropped into a ghetto by helicopter and forced to live there while we rebuild the industrial economy. Stop assuming everyone is college ready and give these people a genuine way out of their problems.

Back to Blogging and Thoughts on "All Sex is Rape"

Well, after a long hiatus, I'm back. I'll be posting more frequently. There were several reasons why I stopped, including school and a forum I'm posting on needing help. But I've got a lot of stuff to discuss, to get out of my head and flesh out in words, and it can't really be discussed elsewhere. So... be prepared for a big dumping of thoughts!

I've been posting on The Spearhead on and off. I am continuously amazed at the injustices that happen to men in the world, and how it indirectly causes women to lose respect as well, which is tragic. I don't harbor anger toward women in general, and am sad that this society is causing them to not really fulfill their potential. I feel bad for most women who seem to be swept up by society and all its ills, and then go on to inflict all their baggage on men who they could instead love. It's such a tragic waste and it's gotta affect them deep down. At the end of the day, they're unhappier than they were in the past, and the stats show it.

Speaking of happiness, I'm reminded of a Dworkin quote where she said that all heterosexual sex is rape. On the surface, it sounds just like the lunatic rantings of a person who hates sexuality, and that's what many people, especially conservatives, tend to classify it as. But that misses the bigger picture of what she was saying. Her claim was that since women couldn't work, or couldn't find an easy path to most jobs, they were forced to marry men, often men who they didn't really like or find attractive but had resources, and that this was really no different from being forced to have sex with a man at gunpoint.

This story sounds tragic, and a lot of people believed it, and that's what gave feminism its power. Now, a more careful analysis shows that this is likely not true, and more an issue of historical revisionism than anything else, but the fact that it seems like women were being oppressed by having a lifestyle imposed on them was enough to give feminism credibility.

So you fast-forward to today, and women can work. A woman who was a director for a government agency remarked in one of my classes how almost no women were there when she was in college, and now it's full of women. (I counted heads and the classroom was more than 60% women; my university is about 54% women overall.) Women can get into any career they want with little impediment, free of the supposed sexism and discrimination that prevented them from attaining such employment in the past.

OK, cool, let's run with that and take it at face value. I'm not sure about its extent because there were always lots of female nurses, and female MDs were not nonexistent either, as long ago as the 40s from an article I read. It probably stretched back much farther. The fact is that women working in an occupation was not uncommon in the past (think secretaries, typists, nurses, etc.), but let's just assume that all women were forced to stay home, married to a man they didn't like so they could support themselves.

Why, then, are they less happy now than they were in supposedly more oppressive times? If feminism's goal was to increase happiness by freeing women from the household, and that was the prime bottleneck on womens' happiness, then there should have been serious, significant gains in womens' happiness over the years. Has society gotten so much worse that women are less happy now despite gaining more claimed freedom? If that's the case we're in a serious bind. I don't think that's what's happening, though, because several other things happened during this time of supposed economic and social liberation that made things worse for men:

• Stagflation followed by a flatlining and net decrease of wages for men, while costs of goods continued to go up with inflation;
• The continual erosion of a savory academic environment, resulting in male children getting drugged for "ADHD" (criminal, in my opinion) because they're boys who can't adapt to this environment. This makes me wonder: Was ADHD such a huge problem in the past? Were hyperactive boys making classrooms so unworkable that it required drugging them with dopamine-stimulating compounds? Something is wrong with this picture. You never heard about this stuff going on in the past;
• The continual erosion of blue-collar jobs that allow lower-IQ males to be reasonably prosperous in society instead of turning to a criminal lifestyle;
• The blowing of problems like rape humongously out of proportion. Rape is a serious crime and needs to be treated as such, but in the current climate, all men are treated like rapists. Feminists have been caught red-handed fudging statistics, and several feminists have even been quoted as saying that all men are rapists. In fact, the Dworkin quote implies this. It's an insult to any man, really, but when taught to young boys, it makes them ashamed of their sexuality, and they grow up to be overly-considerate man children who women don't consider sexually attractive;
• Sexual harassment laws. I think no one has the right to unwanted sexual advances, but this is used and abused badly in our current culture. Honestly, I think that if men were respected more, and thought less as automatically guilty pigs, then sexual harassment laws wouldn't be such a problem, and people would get punished rightly for genuine sexual harassment. But in the current climate, conniving or hysterical women can take advantage of the laws (and corporate policies) to kick out or get revenge at men they don't like. If a man so much as looks at a woman the wrong way he can get in serious trouble. This is not right, and it makes men very fearful of and unattractive to women;
• Sexual liberalization which results in a "game" culture. In a future post I'm going to argue how not everyone is college bound and society shouldn't just assume it, and that there should be ways for these people to be contributors to society. Likewise, "game" culture and casually picking up women just isn't in it for a lot of men. They don't like it, and they want a girl to commit to them, and they want a decent pool of available women for this purpose. Excluding men just because they don't have "game" or aren't super fashionable or are maybe a little awkward is a dead end. It's going to cause the same sorts of problems that excluding blue collar workers from anything above Arby's will cause;
• Making marriage one false accusation away from total financial and psychological ruination for a man, taking the kids away and everything. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't feel comfortable with a woman having that level of power over me. Men have killed themselves over this. And you better believe men are eschewing marriage because of it. The response of governments around the world seems to be to make co-habitation similar to marriage, but all that's going to do is scare men away from cohabiting, and turn them into complete fuck-and-chuckers. It's just going to accelerate the decline into a total game culture, suffering from severe population under-replacement.
  

So this whole "patriarchy," whether it existed or not, is surely non-existent today, and the average man is not nor ever was a rapist. Maybe all this stuff has caused things to be worse for women, too. I don't know. But I do know that heaping the blame for all problems on men is sinister, especially now. I don't think that making it harder for men to find decent women, or making marriage and the workplace a booby-trap laden mess for them is going to make things any easier for women trying to find a partner. It just isn't.

If things continue the way they do, it's going to be harder and harder for women to find decent men, as opposed to players who just want to jump in the sack with them. In fact, that's the reality of life for an increasing number of women. Marginalize men and this is what you get. If women want decent men, they should push to reverse this fuck-upedness, and refuse to participate in its propagation.

The rise (and inevitable fall) of feminism

This MGTOW.net piece focuses on British society, but it's pretty much the same in any feminist country. I've been to several feminist countries and all seem to be suffering from decay as the result of their welfare state coffers gradually being diminished to nothing by all the entitlement mania. I agree with the author that this state of affairs can't last forever. What will happen when no one wants to buy any more government bonds, and the gravy train runs out? The creditors will want to collect, that's what. The outcome of that could be ugly, especially if the men who end up drafted would rather not fight, as they have nothing to fight for.

Feminists and their powerful male allies seem to have failed to have taken one thing into account; when someone is made redundant, they don't work any more. And us men have been declared redundant.

This is what is happening in British Society and, no doubt, in other Feminist infected nations. In Britain there are millions of young men who don't work, who aren't in full-time education, who do fuck all, who basically don't have any interest or motive in contributing to society. And who can blame them? They've been declared redundant. They're not needed. Or, rather, they are needed, but only as wage-slaves to be taxed and, from time to time, as cannon-fodder to be fed to enemy cannons whilst the elite and their ho's relax. And even many guys (like me) who do work only work the bare minimum, avoid marriage and other traps to transfer what wealth we have to women, and who plot to emigrate. Or just vent our spleens on blogs.

In Britain, a single woman can nip to a sperm clinic, get a sample, get pregnant and then get on welfare, the idea of a father - or a step-father, or any man whatsoever - being part of a family now officially a 'sexist' idea and one to be rejected. In the workplace, women get priority in promotions and then get to all but choose their hours (usually very few) if/when they have kids. And if a guy works, he'll be taxed to buggery to pay for hordes of single mothers, effectively forcing him to pay for other men's offspring.

"Why bother?", sayeth us men in our almighty multitude. "Fuck this," we add.

If there's a war, many men won't fight to save this country. I fucking won't. Why bother? Most of us men don't have any attachment or any investment in what this country has become. Given that you'll never hear a feminist cry for 'equality' when it comes to the draft, why the fuck would any man be willing to get his head blown off to protect some whining, ungrateful, abortion-happy women and the powerful men, all safe at home? Fuck that. We might as well join the invaders and wreck some stuff for laughs.

The gravy train of feminism won't last long. What women call 'independence' requires a hell of a lot of funding; the single-mothers on benefits, the working mothers who barely work at all and consume taxes with their 'free' daycare, the Women's Shelters, the NHS-funded abortions for slags who can't keep their legs shut, the Ministry of Bloody Women, the endless non-jobs in the female-dominated civil-service...it all needs paying for through taxes. Taxes predominantly paid for by men, who increasingly shrink from the work-force thinking; 'Why bother?'