Further,
The feminists had a lot of help from men who, when faced with the prospect of losing a chance at some action, caved in to their agenda. When the feminists remodeled the school system so that girls could hit or kick boys for any or no reason and didn't protect the boys or allow them to protect themselves, how did the boys' fathers respond? [...] Yet many of those same fathers will complain about the openly rigged system when they get dragged into family court. [...] The problem is that men don't care until it happens to them.
Sadly, these men (fathers) were simply deceived - see the "Boiling Frog" / "Camel's Nose in the Tent" paradigms.
The first, few, modest demands didn't seem all that unreasonable - and/or those men didn't realize how drastically they'd be implemented.
The phenomenon of "Unintended Consequences" was at play here.
Yes, some men "caved" in order to get "action." In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, in the early days of the Hippie Movement, young American men enjoyed a temporary demographic advantage: The "Baby Boom" had already crescendoed, meaning that your typical randy young man found a roughly equal no. of eligible females in his age-cohort - But an even greater no. of slightly younger females. This temporarily disrupted assortative mating: The young men had an abundance of potential mates; since women still tended to prefer somewhat older (2-5 years) men, those men (in their early / mid-20s) had tremendous leverage (in game theory, even slight advantages favoring one side can have a major impact on negotiations; this applies also to Sexual Marketplace dynamics).
My personal theory is that the "Free Love" movement in all its variations can be attributed, ultimately, to that, and that "The Pill," alone, couldn't have otherwise done it (i.e., totally disrupted traditional assortative mating).
"The Pill" was a necessary-but-not-sufficient precondition for the melt-down of morals and the concomitant collapse of traditional courtship patterns. The demographic effect likewise wouldn't have been enough on its own; it may have been merely "contributory" or "amplifying." But together...
Regards,
Fine, then show me where the other men have done anything about this.
Sadly, these men (fathers) were simply deceived - see the "Boiling Frog" / "Camel's Nose in the Tent" paradigms.
I understand, but the issue you're replying to has been going on for over five decades. That's far too long for men to fail to do something about it.
What's worse, it's a simple demand to make. If you don't allow boys to do it to girls, then don't allow girls to do it to boys. No one could argue with that, and the teachers who take it upon themselves to decide that one group of students must take whatever abuse (and that's what it is) the other group dishes out could be fired on legal grounds alone. Yet men can't even make a stand on that.
And I said men. If you want to reword it as some men, then show me where any group of fathers have done anything to change this.
Apart from that, a lot of what you posted makes sense. So here we are.