Feminism.

WordPress shows me that somebody visited one of my older posts, which worries me. So…

A definition of Feminism; the advancement of women. To me, it is part of the Battle of the Sexes. The good it does, pivots on the value of Equality. I hope this perspective is useful in understanding ‘Meninsists’ or persuading the perverse sub-Reddit, “The Red Pill”.

Historically, there has been a lot of suffering endured by women. This does not validate an exclusive advancement for them. For instance, the Kensington System was definitely child abuse yet not a damn thing should be done to advance Queen Elizabeth. (If it was a contest of monarchs, she wins, the Saudi king still kills people for being witches, just saying I would know who to spit on.) An abusive system should be reformed, that specific generation given special allowance, once they have shuffled off this mortal coil different rules apply no more.

The good Feminism has done, is good because of the value of Equality. Now let us note that the French Revolution, a critical point in the development of modern society, called for, “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”. Those three words are still the motto of France & Haiti. Fraternity being the brotherhood of man, inherent sexism will always linger. But I digress, the good Feminism has done pivots on the value of Equality.

Women can vote as well as men.
Rape is a crime, no matter if it occurs to a drunken skank or between marriage partners or someone doped with Viagra.

The Gender Pay Gap is more complex than voting or sex crimes. Allow me to note in the spirit of Equality,  International Pay Gaps rank higher in loose hierarchy of inequality. Women are much less likely to work in professions with injury & death. Danger Pay accounts for some of the imbalance. Women are much more likely to perform unpaid domestic labour; stress relief, laundry, the miscellaneous duties of life. Everyday an essay or an article is written on this subject matter.

However what has at times frustrated me, angered me, is the exclusive focus on national women’s problems. Hence my mention of the International Pay Gap. When I see a police station with a poster, “Zero Tolerance for Violence Against Women” I wonder how many arrests police could make if they held that as a strict value for men as well. Posters should be taken with, speaking metaphorically, a grain of salt.
Nevertheless, when the factoid “2 women a week are murdered in domestic violence.” circulates, I become angry. What good does it do to know this? If it does good, why isn’t the complementary factiod, “3 men a week are murdered” circulating?
Domestic Violence specifically, & Women’s Rights more broadly, became a political football. Politicians have a go at a negative attack on it and never say a damn thing about a loose hierarchy of domestic social problems (suicide is at the top and kills 3:1 men : women), never argue if zero violence is possible and so on so forth.

This brings me to another attitude which may be useful in understanding MRA’s. A lot of people who have not done research would agree to these points;
– crimes used to be reported in terms of the villain (Blacks Attack Couple!),
– crimes are now reported in terms of the victim (Blacks Attacked 25% More!).
Wouldn’t many people agree that the hierarchy of Victimhood is an inversion of a hierarchy of Criminality?
Is there a 3rd way?
My nation has between 5-7 suicides a day (most of a young & healthy men not Euthanasia), yet the suicide of a refugee supersedes in newspaper columns. A sense of persecution is seeded when the Stanford Rapist is globally infamous, & contrasted with about 2 years earlier a black US New Yorker commits a rape then is set free immediately.

To thoroughly persuade the sub-category of MRA’s who are morons, I recommend first acknowledging the thirst for revenge. Such a thirst is always within us, and is responsible for constant demands to be harsh on crime. It is an ploy which comes from the left-field when Satyagraha pacifism & Christian forgiveness looms ascendant.
(My own philosophy is that there is a line in the sand, which if crossed brings the death penalty. 2+ cold-blooded murders, active paedophilia, torture. If the criminal has not crossed such a line, then redemption through reformation of personality is the primary objective of the law. Please, if you believe the victim has precedence over either or both, make a comment. Should a victim be able to pardon the villain? Must the victim approve before the death penalty is applied?)

Feminism has yet to satisfy my curiosity about the potentiality of innate psychological differences between the sexes.

The international state of affairs surpasses domestic affairs. There is crime against women here in Australia, but so far it has happened historically or to people I don’t know & haven’t met. In the former case I try to be good, yet my actions have been limited to listening not lecturing.
It still shocks me that there are bad men & bad women.
In the case of crime against women I don’t know & haven’t met, I fail to see how their passport increases their importance. Surely the Islam of Saudi Arabia (Sunni), of Iran (Shia), is an easy & CORRECT target. Women inherit less than men, on Quranic instruction. Women are dogmatically assumed to lie twice as much men, on the authority of the Koran. Arabic countries make rape being a bigger crime for the victim than the villain, which is contemptible. Turkey may slide into the cesspool if Mr. Erdoğan panders to the passions of Faith.

This has grown into a ramble, which I immensely prefer to a rant, although the latter is more invigorating…

Advertisements

A Minister for Men.

This is specific to Australia.

There is a Minister for Women. She is not chosen democratically, the duty is loosely described as “to ensure that women’s issues and gender equality are taken into consideration in policy and program development and implementation”. The Minister for Women has been a consistent role since 1983. I do not believe the role should be temporary, and should be permanent for the next 50 or 100 years, perhaps further. Rather this is an attempt to persuade you the reader, that the obvious complementary role, that of a Minister for Men, is a meaningful suggestion to develop our society.

If the role of Minister is justified as a better method to act on problems which disproportionately affect women (as opposed to a focus from relevant ministers i.e. domestic violence being adequately addressed by the Minister of Police), then it is or will become worthy to extend a similar role to address disproportionately male problems. There are problems (i.e. overtime-overworked, suicide, victims of most non-sexual violent crime, inconsistent university entry & graduation, shorter life expectancy, employment-divorce) which disproportionately affect men.

Male hegemony dominated most historic Australian societies, but it is greatly reduced in Australia after the turn of the millennium. Issues of focus for feminism remain, for example there is not an approximate balance of genders in parliament. To cut to the chase, the stereotypical straight, white male who dominates peak positions in media, business, society and politics is under no obligation to represent men. Feminism, as virtue, or its counterpart misogyny, as vice, is a tool of female politicians, and masculinity, or misandry (this issue was sometimes in jest, yet anecdotally, a university sociologist told me sincerely, speedos delivered a sexist advantage to his government), do not follow the same dynamic. Mens rights are often treated as an attempt to restore society to a Victorian era status quo, and simply blaming masculinity is acceptable to mainstream media.
I must personally & briefly reject the definition of feminism as someone who holds gender equality as a community value, this is an underpinning value but this definition does not even mention the focus on womens rights & issues which is essential to feminism.

The Australian of the Year made an appearance on Q&A earlier this year. David Morrison, as a manifestation of the above mentioned stereotype of the elite, straight, white male, spoke of domestic violence as Australias no. 1 social problem. It was pertinent to the question, but it was false, I’m certain by ignorance and not intent. I understand the role of AotY is under no obligation to develop & maintain a deep awareness of Australian society. Mr. Morrison’s comments follow a politically correct hierarchy of victimhood. To briefly demonstrate the falseness of a claim that domestic violence is the number one social issue (approximate numbers, links here or elsewhere in article);
– domestic violence kills slightly more than once a week mostly women,
– suicide kills roughly 38 per week an approximate gender ratio of 3 men : 1 woman,
– murder kills about 5 per week an approximate gender ratio of 3 men : 2 women,
– drug abuse kills 14 per week an approximate gender ratio of 9 men : 5 women*.
In raw terms of lives lost, domestic violence does not compare to other issues. Breaking down the discussion on murder into specific terms is useful in discussion and in pursuing a better tomorrow. Nevertheless, the male hegemony does not pursue the suffering of men, particularly premature death, a Minister for Men can fulfill that duty.
To briefly focus on the above mentioned politically correct hierarchy of victimhood. This is an extension of political correctness beyond it’s most practical realm. This practical realm is the need for a certain politeness for those who have a massive audience. Presidential nominees as well as Batman films can, inadvertently, trigger the mad &/ sad to do bad things and  I am suspicious of more insidious effects. Political correctness can transgress this practical boundary, for example the suffering of Justine Sacco for using sarcasm on the internet.

To return to the title, a Minister for Men could work on solving or reducing the problems which disproportionately affect men. Our community continues to offer less support for men, than for women. Examples abound, Royal Women & Children’s Hospitals are a signal of care which has no equal for men, of  course hospitals do not forcibly expel men seeking medical assistance. News articles about domestic violence always come with a phone number to call for immediate human contact, a form of social support. This support is not found in most articles with male victims.

To be positive, modern lifestyles are mostly better than historic lifestyles. This post is intended to be critical of some effects of feminism and political correctness, however it hopefully is not destructive to worthy objectives and is constructive towards a better tomorrow. If it has been persuasive, please sign the petition and join me in calling for a Minister for Men.
Let me leave you with a question, what should be required from a could-be father in relation to an abortion?

Male Supremacy. x3

Immediately written out from watching Cornell West.

Male Supremacy.
Partially produced by passive consistency with the past. For example, speakers of gendered languages may always associate two disparate entities due to the arbitrarily assigned gender pronoun. So this consistency may lay apart from months of choices, only to reveal itself before or after a choice. To continue the example, the speaker of a gendered language makes jokes about women having the same qualities as the feminine pronoun word. Having chosen immoral action, subsequent cognitive dissonance, in a word, doubt, will arise about the conflict between the ideal self and reality. Heed it if it ever actually happens like this, although the act would already be receding into the past, consideration and conversation will develop and maintain the ideal moral image.

Male Supremacy.
Also a piece of sexuality. Individuals may become, in a word, ‘invigorated’, by playing upon the concept. For some, the clearer and more spoken the conceptual paradigm becomes, ‘invigoration’ may zero. No one mentions the Emperors New Clothes. However, if it is agreement between individuals, then I refuse it can zero ‘invigoration’. Deliberation, upon when it is not in agreement between people, reveals situations when spoken intents could reveal future crime.

Male Supremacy.
A dynamic of groups, and not only of male groups. Conversations and social occasions will demonstrate an impact. Gender consistency is a fundamental way to phrase this, an example is most people are more comfortable meeting strangers of their own gender. Due to history infinitesimal passage away, our present and immediate future show continuation of male supremacy. It could be expressed by discussion of male body language, of gender equality or something else. However the game must begin somewhere, let me leave you with this, “Men are blessed.”.

*Do visit that site, it’s art*