I recently saw a question posted to an online forum, asking “If a woman chooses to be alone with one or more men – is she agreeing to be raped?” Pretty obviously this was a stupid question, and it was likely posted in an attempt to troll readers into responding out of emotion. The question, however, when considered in an inversion of context, bears some consideration.

Does a man, allowing a woman, or women, into his presence – tacitly agree to be falsely accused of sexual violence? This is not a question of legal precedent, or of rights; it’s a practical question for practical men to consider. False accusations are rampant and go largely unpunished.

When considered against the ever mounting catalog of men’s lives destroyed by false rape accusation, the answer is obviously yes. A man freely associating with women is agreeing in advance to be personally destroyed by false accusation.

The fact that men generally continue to associate with women, and seek out female company indicates pretty strongly that most men haven’t yet realized the obvious. In a society of escalating false accusations and rapidly disappearing legal rights for men, such as legal presumption of innocence – men, by female association, give agreement to false accusation leveled against themselves.

This obviously informs a few imperatives for male behavior, with a focus on self preservation. In fact, it is a major factor in the growing phenomena of Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) along with other branches of male self actualization, including Zeta masculinity.

A fairly common attempt at dismissal of the men’s rights movement is the claim that men’s activism is purely reactionary, and constitutes a backlash against the nearly universal mainstreaming of feminism. This rebuttal, which attempts to dismiss men’s activism, is factually correct; but in being so completely misses the point. Thanks in large part to the successes of a half century of lobbying, activism, and feminist changes to domestic policy and law, male human beings are both legally and socially second class citizens in Western cultures. Establishing the veracity of this assertion has been the focus of hundreds of articles on this site, and thousands elsewhere – and re-iteration of the evidence would be a distraction in the present narrative.

It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that women enjoy legal privilege and protection that men do not. It is further a fact that women, by accusation alone, can and regularly do destroy men’s lives by leveling false accusations of sexual violence, for the most trivial of gains. When caught, such false accusers suffer almost no consequences and demonstrate almost no remorse or even recognition of damage done.

Recent changes to the legal definition of rape represent an escalation of the already omnipresent climate of false rape accusation. By drinking alcohol, a woman renders herself legally incapable of informed consent to a sexual encounter. This means that sex after a few drinks is, by definition, rape; whether a woman says yes, or even initiates sexual or romantic contact herself. This change in law comes after years of lobbying and activism by feminist organizations including the women’s law center in New York, and says a lot about women’s adult volition and self determinacy. After a few drinks, a woman is no longer a competent adult. In this re-definition, a man, by contrast, remains an adult. This is not the patriarchy telling women they’re lesser humans, this is feminism redefining the law to make it so. However, the most deadly consequence are to men, who might foolishly treat women as if they’re still self -determined adults after 2 or 3 drinks – and consequently find themselves feeding the machine of the sexual grievance industry.

This is the social and legal reality of male identity in the 21st century, and it informs some necessary choices men must face.

The most obvious is the previously mentioned MGTOW, men going their own way. This has been discussed in some detail in numerous articles on AVfM and off it. However, most discussions on the subject address it from a position of male philosophical and practical necessity. What’s not usually discussed are the direct effects for women, of men self actualizing apart from socially acceptable male utility and disposability.

In almost all discussion of men within the mainstream, the feminist – and unfortunately, even men’s rights circles, whether men are being vilified and belittled or not, the value of men is always based on utility. Are fathers necessary for children’s development? Are men responsible for the majority of scientific and technological advancement? Do men still do society’s dirty and dangerous work? The jobs which account for 93% of workplace deaths being male?

Do “good” men pay for child care, and “bad” men default on alimony? Do “real” men hasten to deliver women to the first seats on the lifeboats, whether the ship is called Titanic or the Costa Concordia?

Whether good or bad, all such questions revolve around a conception of men as utilities of greater or lesser value to women. There is no whisper of indication from any camp besides the men’s rights movement, that men and boys have value simply because they are human beings. This is recognition of a human value women enjoy without question, while men are either valued or despised based on a utilitarian consideration to women.

The point of this discussion is not to exhort women, or feminists, or men – including male feminists – to recognize innate human value in those with the biological fortune to own external genitalia.

This discussion is a public notice of what the requirement of male survival through MGTOW or Zeta masculinity means, when considered from the utilitarian view of male humanity. Does a man, allowing a woman, or women into his presence – tacitly agree to be falsely accused of sexual violence?

Yes.

This means men choosing a rational path of self actualization which excludes their own convenient disposability; this path will produce some unfortunate outcomes for women.

MGTOW, or Zeta masculinity, encompasses more than just a few catch phrases and rules of thumb. It is informed by a necessary ethic running crossways to traditional thinking. To the slow witted or the self interested chivalrists and traditionalists, this will appear uncivilized and hostile. To the adopters and shapers of this ethic, the valuation of humans as disposable utilities has a similarly sour taste.

Zeta masculinity entails a consistent ethic, but that ethic aggressively discards any obligation to people who de-value male humanity. For Zeta males to do otherwise would be an embrace of slavery.

The ethic encompasses the following points:

The traditional cultural onus on men to protect women is gone.

This deal is off. This means the ability of a woman to cry out and instantly summon and direct the violent capacity of every man within hearing is finished. A woman is subject to assault, or robbery, or any other physical altercation in which men would traditionally always step in without hesitation to protect and shield her. A man is under no ethical, legal, moral or social obligation to value the life of a woman above himself, and in fact, a new ethic should condemn such stupid self sacrifice as unmanly, weak, and foolish. If a man’s humanity is not recognized beyond his utility, then what possible social contract can exist to compel him towards risk or sacrifice?

The onus to provide is similarly relegated to the waste bin. Shiny cars, expensive watches and clothes are all sexual signals. Although frequently denied, it is not a secret that the visible signs of high income in a man are of principal interest to women looking to secure access to that income. Indeed, social censure used by women against men commonly focuses on men’s imputed income or financial status. This is seen as normal, in fact, a man who doesn’t out earn a woman is effectively invisible to her in most cases. The “wage gap” will often be cited as a logical reason for men to finance romantic engagement, despite the fact that no such wage gap exists. Zeta males whose self identity doesn’t include this financial servitude will not be financially underwriting other adults simply because they own ovaries. This seems simple and inconsequential, given an understanding that not only is there no wage gap, due to persistent affirmative action, but female university graduates are also rapidly outnumbering male grads. Obviously, this means women’s average earning potential is quickly outpacing men’s earnings.

In the romantic context, women who expect the traditional male-pays social model to continue are faced with changes to social expectation forced directly by female favoring affirmative action. Even assuming men as a demographic were to foolishly continue supporting an exploitative view of men as women’s financiers; this is an increasingly untenable model, based on the shifting economic balance created by male targeted sexual discrimination in higher education. Piled on top of this is the emergence of the Zeta masculine ethic, in which male financing of female entitlement is entirely rejected. For women, this means that female evaluation of men as viable romantic partners – including evaluation of those men’s income presents a rapidly shrinking pool of men still foolish enough to allow their own continued exploitation.

Unfortunately, this has consequences far beyond destruction of female preference in romance. For growing numbers of men actualizing a Zeta ethical path, a refusal to pursue high stress, high status careers has a long term impact on larger society. As always, good men and the corpses of good men are the fuel nations run on. A collective refusal to burn in this machine forces changes to the landscape. In Japan there is a social phenomenon, independent of the western men’s rights movement, but analogous to Zeta masculinity, that has emerged under the publicly dismissive nomenclature “grass eating boys”.

According to reporting from macleans.ca: “Just as they {“…soushoku dansi—translated to “grass-eating boys” or, more commonly, “herbivores.”} disdain old-fashioned alpha males, they scoff at the status-conscious consumerism of their parents’ generation. Grass-eating boys aren’t big spenders and they don’t take flashy vacations. They are close to their mothers, prefer platonic relationships with female friends, are attentive to their appearance and have fewer career ambitions. A subsidiary of Dentsu, Japan’s largest advertising agency, estimates that 60 per cent of men in their 20s consider themselves grass-eaters.” [1]

A facile reading of this phenomenon might conclude that these are feminized men, but this would be to entirely miss the point. Japan’s grass eaters have evaluated the traditionally allowed male role of worker drone, and disposable human, and rejected it entirely to pursue their own quality of life.

The grass eaters are effectively tanking Japan’s economy, which, like all nation states, runs on the burned out corpses of “real men”.

For the practitioners of Zeta masculinity, as wider adoption of a MGTOW ethic produces a similar national derailment, and no regret or apology will be forthcoming. There might even be some derisive laughter. Men die in coal mines, logging, fishing in the Atlantic, and other dangerous jobs because their socially accepted male identity is tied to human disposability as well as a requirement of economic provision for others. The refusal to self-dispose is only half the result of non-disposable male identity through Zeta or MGTOW actualization. The second element is that those previously benefiting from men’s willingness to sacrifice and generate income will have to do without the financial and material products of the humanized remaining half of humanity.

This discussion began with social fallout of activist retooling of the concepts of justice and law in matters of sexual violence, and this merits further consideration. The phenomenon of escalating false rape accusation, and its lack of consequence for false accusers is only a fraction of the distortion of what’s still called the justice system. Direct violence by women against men is increasingly excused with little to no consequence by both the courts and the public. Public denial of this operates just as mainstream reporting accumulates stories like that of Sheona Keith, who slashed a man’s face with a glass because he smiled at her.

The dailymail.co.uk headline read: “Judge refuses to jail woman plumber who glassed nightclubber who smiled at her ‘because she had been sexually harassed [by somebody else] during training.’” [2]

This is simultaneously preposterous, and sadly typical of a public willingness to suspend both social and legal accountability for criminal violence committed by members of “the innocent sexTM”.

Women’s violence, up to and including the infliction of grievous bodily harm, is increasingly excused, and treated as if such violence and injury is funny. The sexual dismemberment inflicted by Katherine Becker providing another example. A studio audience who laughed at crippling injury inflicted for no reason except the expressed desire by the victim that he wanted a divorce.

A legal system and a public which excuses violent assault for one demographic when inflicted on the other denotes a deeply sick public zeitgeist. Rather than correcting such a debased public ethic, this fashion is escalating. For men and boys it is increasingly obvious that a legal system prohibiting assault, sexual assault, and even murder operates selectively based on the sex of the offender and the victim. We are rapidly moving towards a society where for women’s violence against men, there are no limits, no rules and no consequences.

Based on the apparent hilarity of the Katherine Becker case, where “the talk” host Sharon Osborne couldn’t stop giggling long enough to make it through a false one minute apology – there seems to be not even a perception that grievous injury done to men counts as harm at all.

All human societies have laws, whether formally encoded or informally observed through traditions. One of the principal functions of those laws is to provide a mechanism for redress of grievance between individuals in a publicly agreed-on framework. This convention allows disputes ranging from disagreement over property to personal offence, injury and death – without recourse to direct application of violence. Laws applied more-or-less evenly are a social mechanism which prevent resolution of disputes through retributive force, or vendetta. The current and increasing climate of one-sided accountability is untenable, and will likely produce a societal adjustment. If that adjustment occurs before the rising tide one one-sided non-accountability is corrected, the results may be far reaching and brutal.

In this event, it will likely not be individuals from the emerging Zeta demographic who manifest violent societal pathology, but sociologically unaware members of the public. Mass protests such as the Occupy Wall-Street movement are likely places for informal applications of retributive violence to occur; even as such violence will, by the ignorance of the mob, be directed at targets of convenience and circumstance.

As the phenomena of female violence being given a pass by a feminist driven legal system permeates the public understanding and subconscious, then retributive violence, even mob violence, against women is likely to become common. Our current feminist narrative maintains that it is common already, but a visit to any law enforcement statistics website shows this feminist lie for the fabricated falsehood it is. National and international campaigns to end violence against women, operating under the pretence that male-targeting violence is not more common, serve to demonize and de-legitimize the actual majority of the targets of violence: men and boys. These campaigns, by focusing on protection of the demographic already least victimized, also serve to escalate victimization of the demographic already most subject to violence, again, men and boys.

Men following a path of Zeta masculinity or MGTOW will have no part in this unfortunate outcome, of female targeted mob violence, although further legal marginalization of men is likely to follow that outcome. This further male legal marginalization will have no positive impact, and will likely lead to a still more brutal and violent society.

This returns us to the question mentioned near the opening of this discussion.

Does a man, allowing a woman, or women into his presence – tacitly agree to be falsely accused of sexual violence?

Yes, and it’s going to get worse.

[1] http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/09/the-grass-eating-boys-of-japan/

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087404/Judge-refuses-jail-woman-plumber-glassed-nightclubber-smiled-sexually-harassed-training.html