Dispatch from year 2030 :        

In short, for the first time in homosapien history, women could freely, and with few or no negative consequences, bestow their sexual favors as they liked.  Crudely put, they could "give it away" if so inclined. 

        ("It”, of course, was what men had been devoting most of their time and energy trying to get since Day One.)  

"Any woman who wants to have fun knows how easy it is to get attractive men in bed." 

Even an average looking woman can have casual sex with relatively attractive men." NY Times' reader comment Dec 2013

This was by far the biggest event in the history of human behavior.  This was the equivalent of adding another driving wheel on the eons-old mating loco-motive engine while at the same time switching the whole train onto a different track. 

“It is hard to think of any cultural transformation in human history as simultaneously swift and profound as the changing place of women in the lives of Western societies in the decades after World War II.”  Yuval Levin – The Fractured Republic 2016

Many women loved the new track and the thrown-way-out-of-balance shuddering engine because they were no longer pregnancy-oppressed and could start behaving more like men 

"Today’s feminism exhibits instead what might be called jailhouse sensibility — a purposefully tough, at times thuggish filtering of reality that is deliberately stripped of decoration or nicety; snarling, at times animalistic; instantaneous in taking offense . . . Into this vacuum, feminism speaks a message of ostensible hope: We will rein men in by other means."  NatIonal Review j

Initially, guys also unreservedly loved the new train and track.  But that was just because this Brave New Trip’s benefits and rewards were being reaped immediately -- but the "sex taxes" weren’t immediately levied.  But they were coming – big time.

The initial benefits for men were fab!  For the first time in history, most vaginas were open -- selectively -- to the public and the "1 + 1 = 3" section was taken out of the sexual equation!  It seemed like the all time ALL TIME best deal ever!  But then, as they say, “be careful what you wishbone”.  

Midway through the “revolution”, the TAXWOMEN (backed by their male female-ass-kissing sycophants -- particularly in the media) started coming around – and then coming around quite a bit. 

They came, as they put it, “to take from the men and give to the women”.  And to justify/rationalize their increasing taxation, they started convincing themselves that – all things considered – men were a huge societal negative and deserved to be heavily taxed.  All the trouble on the planet since year one, they claimed, was the result of man’s natural born oppressiveness – made possible by a grant from the Violent Behavior Foundation.

All the astoundingly marvelous good things men had written, invented, created, discovered, etc., etc. – that was all dismissed because, well, women would have done the same thing except – they’d been oppressed by men.   Feminists spreading this stereotype-type “gospel” – that was one of the new, increasingly heavy taxes on men. 

And the gospel caught on. 

 NY Times TELEVISION: 

On TV, Men Are the New Women

Recent genetic research suggesting that the Y chromosome is devolving -- turning men into what Steve Jones, a British geneticist, labeled the ''second sex'' -- has found support in prime time. From CBS to the WB, the fall shows depict men the way women were once depicted: as supporting characters propelled by their biological imperative. And perhaps because science has made it so much easier for women to conceive children without a partner, these television fathers do not know best.’

"The definition of feminism is technically clear, but the feminist movement is often not. It’s about equal treatment of the sexes until it’s about different standards for women. It’s about women and men being capable of all the same things unless it’s about the special circumstances for which women must be compensated. It’s about being empowered until it’s about an indecipherable hierarchy of privilege and victimhood."  The Federalist

Another huge tax levied was the “Sexual Harassment Tax” and this tax put men’s necks in a loose noose:  as long as they behaved themselves, no problem.  Should, however, a man begin to act like a normal male in the presence of a female he was sexually attracted to – flirt, hit-on, ask out, touch, bother -- the noose could be quickly tightened.  (See my Sexual Harassment Ironies elsewhere in this blog.

"By a hasty worded convention linked with the ideal of female independence from the male, 

all unwanted “advances” (as they used to be called) were stigmatized as “sexual harassment.”  

A simple gesture and even staring might bring on the charge, the consequences of which ranged

 from penalties at law to compulsory “sensitivity training.”  Jacques Barzun - From Dawn to Decadence

At the end of that rope were the legal system’s new protections for women, and woe to the man who ran afoul of whatever ever-changeable boundaries a given female had set for herself -- with a given male.  (I say "ever-changeable" and "with a given male" because, as Chris Rock once observed, if Clarence Thomas had looked like Denzel Washington, we'd never have heard of Anita Hill.)

While on one level these new protections seemed reasonable, the problem was that the fairness of the laws was greatly undermined because prosecution tended to be based on testimony that was often rooted in hyper-sensitive subjectivity -- and sometimes in retribution.  And, as we shall see, it was considered terribly insensitive, even evil, to suggest a female might be capable of exaggerating, or perhaps even lying.  That would be -- you guessed it -- "blaming the victim" -- a sin of the first order.

 Likewise, it was considered taboo to suggest that, say, by going up to a guy's place and getting drunk and then having sex -- and then deciding she'd been taken advantage of -- a woman was perhaps unfairly absolving herself of any responsibility for what had transpired.

contributory negligence:  in law, behavior that contributes to one’s own injury or loss and fails to meet the standard of prudence that one should observe for one’s own good. -- Encyclopedia Britannica     

Likewise again, it was labeled insensitively brutish to suggest that perhaps dressing or behaving in a sexually provocative “look-how-hot-I-am” manner --

 -- and then expecting your average Joe Blow to be a gentleman -- might not exactly be coming to grips with the realities of human nature.

(See my Hot But Not to be Bothered section elsewhere in my blog.)

Which brings us to the major “1st degree Felony Tax” – the business end of the noose.  This was the feminists’ crusade to legitimize the right of a woman to have a man fired or imprisoned on her word alone – no corroborating evidence necessary.  Like, “If she said he did it, that’s good enough for me!” -- and feminists pleaded from the very bottom of their hearts that this was right and just.  

Amazingly, there were some do-gooder saps in the judicial system that found this idea entirely reasonable.  Remarkable, no?  Like that! -- (snap) -- we went from “innocent until proven guilty” to “He did it!  Take my word for it!” “Who needs evidence?” 

 Now that is a weapon – and we are supposed to believe this feminist "off with his head!" prerogative is legal -- and moral.

"Mrs. Clinton believes that people accused of committing sexual assault should be presumed guilty — specifically, that their accusers have “the right to be believed."

   In other words, the girl accuses and the university immediately identifies him -- so as to prevent him from reoffending.   Such is feminist justice.  His right to due process is meaningless compared the rights of the victim/accuser who, by the way, wishes to remain unidentified as the guy is railroaded on her word alone.

(FYI, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was run out of town by feminists for postulating an entirely legitimate -- yet politically incorrect -- question.)

 Then there was the Title IX Tax:  This tax was based on the absurd, easily disproved premise that women are as interested as men in participating in competitive athletics.  This tax destroyed most men's swim, track, and gymnastic teams. 

 Then there was the value-added feminist tax -- 

                the so-called “bi-sex” tax. 

This played off two things:  men’s fantasies of babes “gettin’ it on”, and a significant percentage of women who find other women sexually attractive                                  

                                                                                                ANIMALISTIC 

                                                     HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONS WILL COME TO AN END

“Sexuality is an intricate intersection of nature and culture, but what's happened now is that the way the universities are teaching, it's nothing but culture and nothing's from biology. It's madness!”  C. Paglia

  "One possibility, which I take to be the view of a number of the feminist writers who criticized my column, is that the division in stated [male/female sexual] preferences is itself a social convention — one of the legacies of patriarchy and male privilege, an entirely socially-constructed divergence that reflects the historical shaming of promiscuous women and the devaluing of female sexual pleasure."  Ross Douthat NY Times 

       "the division in stated [male/female sexual] preferences is itself a social convention"

This particular tax was much steeper than it first appeared.  Many women loved the new bi-sex option, and it caught on much faster than anyone thought possible.

   "Heterosexual relations as we know them will come to an end"                

 The way this big tax manifested itself was by putting men in the position of not only having other males as rivals for a woman, but now having female rivals as well. It wasn't until the late 20-teens that the true costs of this tax began to squeeze men’s balls -- hard.   

Then there was the “Death of Motivation” tax.  

"Passion in its general form of libido is at the heart of every kind of fierce ambition, political or artistic." Jacques Barzun

As alluded to earlier, the primary motivation – the nuclear fuel, as it were -- for men going out and creating, inventing, discovering, etc. was to attract beautiful -- and willing -- females.  After the asteroid hit, it became increasingly unnecessary – pointless even -- to undertake the humongous amount of effort required to accomplish "great things" in order to find attractive sexual partners. 

 Thus, many formerly would-have-been ambitious men began easing off the “triumph” quest.

Washington Post – Oct. 2010 -- There is, indeed, a desire to admit male students in many colleges simply because 57 percent of today's undergraduates are female, while 43 percent are male

NY Times --  Three women earn college degrees for every two earned by men. Of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most in the next decade in the U.S., all but two are predominantly filled by women.

Women now earn 60 percent of master’s degrees, about half of all law and medical degrees . . .  Most important, women earn almost 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees.

 “We’re [women] going through a major evolution, and men haven’t had the same evolution.  At some point we’re going to have to do something to bring them along. What are they doing? Get it together!  We’re going to have an entire generation of smart, stable successful women go without men.” – Rashida Jones -- August 2012

                        "WE'RE GOING THROUGH A MAJOR EVOLUTION, AND

                        MEN HAVEN'T HAD THE SAME EVOLUTION"

                              NY Times headline -- August 2012 -- "Men, Who Needs Them".  

"Ultimately the question is, does “mankind” really need men? With human cloning technology just around the corner and enough frozen sperm in the world to already populate many generations, perhaps we should perform a cost-benefit analysis. . . Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?"

By 2013 – and this was certainly unprecedented -- men were being outperformed by women in a great many fields.  To quote myself: 

Girl, you represent a cataclysmic change

The frames of reference have been rearranged

I do believe the balance of the power’s flipped

All the girls are kickin’ ass – the boys are p-whipped

Finally, we got the overarching "No Wearing the Pants" Tax -- which basically meant that when pair-bonding, the male was no longer going to be permitted to, as they used to say, “wear the pants”. 

His innate, natural inclination to dominate was to be permanently suppressed.  This was, unfortunately, the equivalent of passing laws that volcanoes would no longer be allowed to erupt.  Sooner or later, things would blow, which they did.  As we know, in the late 20-teens, male violence against women skyrocketed.

 One final note:  All these taxes came down particularly hard on those 20% or so of men who simply didn’t have enough sex-appeal to get in on the sex rodeo but were still being taxed as much as other men. 

This group, historically frustrated, shifted into hyper-frustrated -- and some became dangerous.. 

It was sort of like this:  back when most women withheld sex unless you married them, an unappealing male could take comfort in knowing that many his fellow unmarried men who actually did have sex appeal were also having a hard time finding attractive and willing sexual partners.  However, when the revolution kicked in -- and most men seemed to be easily finding accommodating women -- well, that was a far, far more bitter pill to swallow.  It was members of this minority who often opted for mass murder, and later triggered the war.                      

"Well-off and well-educated women, particularly those of progressive mien, have been aping the vernacular of sailors in port for quite a while now, as Ariel Levy mapped nine years ago in Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture."  National Review