Three Reasons Why You Can’t Find a Guy
Ask Anna: Why can’t I find a man?
It Really Is You & Not Him: 10 Reasons You Can’t Find a Good Man
20 Reasons You Don’t Have a Boyfriend
Why You Can’t Find A Boyfriend Even When You’re Trying Really Hard

One of the main contributors was the loud feminist mantra, “I don’t need a man” that left some women with a fist held high in one hand and a smoldering bra in the other, while other women just threw up their hands in the frustration of self-inflicted sabotage.

We can only imagine the conversations that were had between parents and their young male sons who just left the nest for a college campus. How many responsible parents warned those sons to be VERY careful with any female student they would come in contact with, all the precautions that would need to be considered before having any contact with one that could possibly be a love interest, and the possible negative ramifications of such an interest that could follow them for the rest of their lives.

Suppose a woman wakes up in the morning after a sexual encounter and then labels it sexual assault, to the surprise of her sexual partner. Did this woman regret having sex and then say she was a victim so she doesn’t have to come to terms with her actions? Is she lying about being sexually assaulted so people don’t think she is a slut?
— UNC Healthy Heels, 11/7/13

If you have to pose this as a defensive scenario, there’s an inconvenient element of truth that needed to be initially acknowledged.

But we’re told we must #BelieveWomen….

After the stigma placed on men with the implementation of Title IX on campus and more recently the #MeToo movement, how long before women (again) start whining because fewer men are giving them the time of day, let alone a date or assistance in a workplace. Men are now rightfully being very careful.

Women, as portrayed by Democrats, their media and activists, are not looking very attractive and we don’t just mean physically. They’re coming off as unhinged and few men find that kind of potential drama as a positive draw. A lot of these women also appear to be on a revenge mission which leaves any man in contact with them in potential jeopardy, which also translates to the workplace or any space that men and women cohabitate.

Prior to #MeToo, cautious male supervisors would always leave an office door open when talking to a female, equal or subordinate. How many employers have had to absorb the expense of creating really cool offices with glass walls; not because of the attractive aesthetics but to protect themselves from potential accusations of what may or may not have been said or done behind an opaque wall or closed door?

As in most movements that are not well-thought through, there are serious ramifications for impulsive action. Sure, some of these women will find solace within the sisterhood, declare themselves bisexual so they can achieve immediate gratification, but for those who don’t swing that way, the isolation will grow and the frustration will again become a vocal rallying cry.

This time, it’s a different world.

During the Gloria Steinem days of feminist empowerment, it was all about recognition and independence. She and others also claimed to be speaking for all women. Today, #MeToo is all about payback and they claim to be speaking for all women. The problem this time is that some of these women have husbands, brothers, sons and others who are potential targets of those who have agendas and personal issues, mixed with that nasty lack of conscience. They’ll punish any man who rejects them, didn’t reward them as they saw fit, and in the case of a potential Supreme Court justice who could potentially hamper their ability to do what they want with their bodies (and babies within).

Again, things involving the human condition tend to be cyclical. #MeToo women are using their movement to punish men who they claim abused them. They’ve also cast a wide net and have indicted all men as potential sexual abusers. Democrats are using the Kavanaugh confirmation as midterm election topic, many in the electorate are being justifiably repulsed, and fewer men will hold a door open for a woman, let alone vote for one and her offending political party.

The “Why can’t I find a man?” public whining will begin again. This time, there will be a response because of everything #MeToo.

“No, thanks.”

UPDATE

It took exactly two months.

An infrastructure-investing manager says he won’t meet with a female employee in rooms that don’t have windows; in addition, he “keeps his distance in elevators.” Another man, in private equity, has a new, self-imposed rule that says he’s not allowed to have a business dinner with any women who are 35 or younger. (Apparently, after 35, there’s no risk of doing anything appropriate, as women turn into old hags.)

I think Bess Levin meant “doing anything inappropriate” but correcting a woman’s grammar is probably a bad thing.

The horror stories continue. An investment adviser who oversees roughly 100 employees said he started to reconsider having one-on-ones with junior females. Others are refusing to sit next to female colleagues on flights and booking hotel rooms on different floors during work trips. #MeToo, according to David Bahnsen, a former managing director at Morgan Stanley, is “creating a sense of walking on eggshells.” Men, employment attorney Stephen Zweig told Bloomberg, are concerned about “a false accusation,” and “fear what they cannot control.”

Remember how many times we were all told false accusations are “rare”?

Well, it looks like men have been listening and are now responding accordingly.

Avoiding women at all costs doesn’t just make the men of Wall Street look like weird Mike Pences who apparently can’t control themselves in the presence of the devil sex. It also has a damaging effect on the careers of the women they’re shunning for fear of being accused of sexual harassment.
— Vanity Fair, 12/3/18

Women celebrated sticking it to the men and now men are looking to avoid them like the plague.

Happy now?

Here’s an unpopular opinion: I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.
— Emily Linden, Teen Vogue columnist

Emily’s time will come and she’ll initially be horrified that something so unfair and damaging could ever happen to HER. Karma always creates that ironic opportunity for honest introspection.

Despite many men spending years in prison because women either sought personal attention or needed to provide their cheatin’ selves an alibi, the topic of false accusations has received scant, selective attention because too many of the accused men are deemed insignificant.

In Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird, an all-white jury convicts an innocent black man of raping a white woman in a small 1930s southern town, despite the efforts his lawyer who defies the town’s lynch-mob mentality and proves the victim’s story to be false. It’s a new century, a sequel has just come out – and we still have men being falsely convicted of rape despite the evidence. This time with leftist’s staffing the lynch mobs.
— False rape accusations are common

That is, until it happened to a judge.

I am raising $1,000,000.00 reward for anyone of Dr. Fords Beach Friends to come forward and expose her FRAUD and lies about Judge Kavanaugh.
— John Stafford Facebook post, 9/29/18

Unfortunately, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t have the benefit of social media “likes” during his 1991 confirmation hearings so we’ll never know if anyone would have started a GoFundMe campaign on his behalf, but false accusations were lucrative and icon status-creating for Anita Hill and they sure will be for Christine Blasey Ford as long as we’re told to #BelieveWomen and they know it.

Too many men have lost reputations and some are still languishing in prison cells because women lied about being sexually assaulted for a variety of narcissistic reasons, and aided by #BelieveSurvivors activist public attorneys who callously disregarded exculpatory evidence, amp up charges with possible lengthy sentences so lesser plea bargains are accepted. The more people put away, powerful high-paying judgeships are the shiny-thing lure.

Massachusetts prosecutors have violated defendants’ rights to a fair trial regularly and without punishment, even as wrongfully convicted victims of tainted prosecutions have spent years in prison before being freed, decades of court rulings show. Some prosecutors failed to turn over important evidence to defense attorneys or didn’t disclose information bearing negatively on witness credibility, judges said. Others misrepresented evidence in their closing statements to the court.

At least seven prosecutors whose behavior prompted courts to reverse convictions went on to higher posts. Some became judges and district attorneys.
— WGBH, 4/3/16

Must be nice to be liberal and devoid of conscience.

It’s again sad to note how many innocent “ordinary people” have to suffer devastating injustice until someone of “importance” suffers the same plight. All of a sudden, it’s an emergency worthy of attention and immediate action.

Chalk this up to yet another example of liberal shortsightedness. Judge Brett Kavanaugh may have been a nonpartisan before the Supreme Court confirmation process but thanks to Democrats and this experience, he’s understandably a far right-winger now.

Christine Blasey Ford said that during a high-school party Judge Kavanaugh and another boy, Mark Judge, who were both extremely drunk locked her in a bedroom. In her telling of events, Judge Kavanaugh climbed on top of her, covered her mouth, and was trying to remove her clothes. She told The Post that she though he would “inadvertently kill me.”

“On Friday, Judge Kavanaugh ‘categorically and unequivocally’ denied this allegation. This has not changed. Judge Kavanaugh and the White House both stand by that statement,” White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement. Mr. Kavanaugh also confirmed Monday he would return to Congress in order to talk about the allegations.

“I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago and defend my integrity,” he said in a statement. Mr. Kavanaugh also noted that “because this never happened” he had no idea Ms. Ford was the one to accuse him until she revealed herself in The Washington Post.
— Washington Times, 9/17/18

There are things, those who have something to hide, do with regularity.

Christine Blasey Ford has deleted her social media pages.

Ford signed a letter with other health professionals demanding that President Donald Trump stop his controversial policy on family separations at the border. She signed the letter as Christine Blasey, and it was used as an exhibit in an ACLU lawsuit against the Trump administration.

The Washington Post reports that she is a “registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations.”
— Heavy, 9/17/18

And of course, there are certain things you WON’T see or hear on CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, the New York Times….

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case ruled on by Kavanaugh’s mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case.
— Pacific Pundit, 9/16/18

With that, we applaud the Democrat Party for seeking the truth when it comes to seating someone who’ll have as much influence as a Supreme Court judge.

It’s too bad they’re not consistent.

I swear that I will most zealously and valiantly shield and preserve by any and all justifiable means and methods… white supremacy.
— Hugo Black, pledge to the Klan, 9/11/23

Hugo Lafayette Black, a lawyer and politician from Alabama, was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1937. Not long after, a reporter exposed his affiliation with notorious racist organization the Ku Klux Klan.

“Justice Black Revealed as Ku Klux Klansman,” reads the headline on the front page of the September 13, 1937 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Reporter Ray Sprigle’s investigation of Black’s links to the Klan revealed that he joined the organization in September 1923 and resigned almost two years later, in July 1925.

“His resignation, scrawled in longhand on a sheet of the stationery of the Grand Dragon of the Alabama Klan, was the first move of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Alabama,” Sprigle wrote. But the reporter had also discovered that in September 1926, while he was still running for the Senate, Black was welcomed back into the Klan and given a life membership.

“They brought out no new facts that have not been thoroughly brought out in campaigns in Alabama,” Black wrote in a letter to an acquaintance in late October 1937. “With their practically united press, however (which is chiefly against the President Franklin D. Roosevelt), they had no difficulty in making the public believe that they had broken a startling piece of news.” At a press conference, though, FDR maintained he and the public hadn’t been aware of Black’s links to the Klan.

Some historical records indicate that Roosevelt did know about Black’s association with the KKK, Ball writes. But in terms of the public record, the matter rested there until Black’s death, a week after he retired from the Supreme Court after 34 years. In the course of that career, he made his mark “as a champion of civil rights and liberties,” the New York Times wrote in his obituary.
— Smithsonian Magazine, 2/27/17

Democrats continue to cover for the racists in their midst with the help of academia, the entertainment industry and the media, labeling their own racists as “civil rights” champions to blacks and impressionable young people. When liberal Democrats opt to discuss their racism, there’s almost consistently a justifiable excuse.

That a man like Black should have come to join the Klan is one of those facts monstrously hard to grasp until you approach it not as a moral problem but simply as a piece of political behavior. We may regard such a judgment as an error, but it was understandable.
— The Nation, 7/22/09

Democrats will do anything to preserve the right of the irresponsible to discard the inconvenient results of the promiscuous. Abortion is not about “women’s health” as they’ve been claiming for decades. Their icon, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, has proudly declared as much and black people continue to be their most targeted and coveted demographic.

Democrats are only thorough in vetting when it suits them and they’re also very good at hiding the backgrounds of their own, no matter how damaging and justifiably disqualifying.