Amidst the cooing (the poor refugees!) and the shrieking (the poor refugees!) emanating from the Australian media, one could be forgiven for thinking that popular opinion is the product of feminine suggestibility and sentimentality. Men bow and scrape for the chance to deliver boilerplate feminist apologia on national television, and greedily lick up whatever crumbs of temporary approval are thrown at their feet.

*Latham injects some testosterone into the conversation*

David Marr gives his best performance yet. The lowered eyes. The pregnant pauses. The effete, overwrought, hand-wringing indignation!

I've left the best to last. Behold, Australia's pet Muslim, Waleed Ali,
telling the people of Australia, in true taqquiya style, that to oppose Islamic terror, is to grant it victory.

The men in these appearances are following the female script of argumentation: appeals to emotion, moral outrage (faux or real), cherry-picked facts and incredulity. To be certain, these performances are designed to appeal to women. What makes them especially potent is that the average male has been feminised so thoroughly that rather than laugh or drift away out of boredom, that he decides that he too will join the signalling arms-race in a pathetic attempt to be noticed.

The highly-prized female currency is not beauty but rather attention. Attention-seeking and demagoguery can be expected from less fortunate looking women, has a devastating effect on the attractiveness of a handsome woman, but is shameful and priestly in a man.

As much as the weak man, camp man or the brown man tries, he cannot hold a candle to the female in this display of histrionics.

Summoning the release of meltdown levels of estrogen, the childless *bernout* of liberalism really feels the pain of every tear that rolls down her cheek for her little 'girl' 'whose name is Snow'. Without her intervention, 'Snow' would be figuratively or actually eaten by the diners she has bravely confronted. One wing at a time.

But are women really to blame for the current state of affairs? Did this begin with women's suffrage? Were they not granted suffrage by men opportunistically looking for new voting blocs? (in fact, conservative ones). As any feminist worth her shrivelled ovaries will tell you, men are the actors and agents in all of history. Men have only ever allowed them to achieve.

The haranguing for the 'rights' of refugees you would have likely already heard from a female in your own life reveals more than just progressive brainwashing. The female reproductive strategy, a mostly subconscious process, welcomes the most virile and aggressive outsiders, as these woman can still reasonably expect to maintain their usefulness if outsiders take over. Men are threatened on a conscious level that extremely foreign outsiders can only represent a diminishing of their material and biological capital.

Rather than a sign of freedom and independence won from oppressive social structures, the female tendency to rigorously enforce the very latest moral consensus is nothing other than a form of feminine submission. As patriarchal and religious authority waned, (((journalists))), (((social commentators))), celebrities and (((Hollywood))) film studio directors have filled the void.

The temporary alliance between feminism, the gay lobby and Islam is seemingly contradictory and fragile. But both ideologies share commonalities that unsurprisingly lead to the same solutions. If men can't be trusted not to abuse women, even after years and years of being 'educated' not to, what other solution is there but segregation ('pink carriages')?

Have you ever noticed that just having just one girl at a social setting completely changes the dynamic and behaviour of all participants? Greater separation between men's and women's spaces can only be a good thing if we want to 're-wild' men and get out of the signalling spiral. Defending the 'victories' of women's suffrage to invade male spaces and masculinise themselves, whilst feminising men, is a classic cuckservative move.

When seen through the lens of female reproductive self interest, female patterns of behaviour make much more sense, even if they are socially disastrous. The solution is not to grow your neckbeard and get an account on Reddit to whine about 'inequality', 'men's rights' and 'double standards' in the style of a tumblrite. Women are collectively looking for the answer to their programming, and are finding it in the worst of places. If men are able to step up and provide a real alternative, in spite the degenerate culture that surrounds us, then women will respond positively.

*But let these ones through to the keeper. Big Red doesn't need saving*

The Carrie Bradshaw generation (Generation X, plus many casualties on either side) has been a shocking fertility experiment. Despite what you may read on Rooting Kings, its lessons have not been lost on many young women today, who are aware of the fertility window that they have available. If men can present a strong enough alternative to the Islamic Rainbow Future then women should follow. It will take time to undo what the Baby Boomers have left us with. But the payoff will be so sweet. Just imagine the schadenfreude of witnessing a young fraulein, emerging from her wheatfield, sneering at the grotesque, wrinkled and bewildered hippies staggering back from a music festival. Glorious!