Because sometimes bullshit requires a response.

Recently I wrote a post about sexism, calling for a need for greater respect and empathy in our personal and public life. You can check it out here. 

Now since this the internet, I got a comment (which I did not take very seriously) which was essentially a tirade about feminism. My post, though it made a passing reference to feminism was on the more specific issue of sexism. Did I view it from a feminist prism? Yes. But I was careful about not spreading misinformation. You can check this comment out in the comments section of my blog post. Given the condensing and angry tone of the comment (which included an attack on my intelligence ‘feminism is sexism without the intelligence to understand it’), I assumed it was trolling. It amused me, but I did not think it was worthy of a real response. However, I stand corrected. The commentator has sent a longer reply, backing up their claims about feminism, and assuring me that they are sincere about their vitriol. For this I owe them an apology. I note, they are not a troll, they just like peddling their half arsed information with a missionary zeal, and making personal attacks on people in the process. I have tried to avoid this sort of confrontational dialogue in my blog, because I have always maintained that this space is not for the fringe. It is for people who want  to arrive at a consensus through respectful dialogue.

So why am I devoting a whole blog post to this? Well because I have come to realize that with angry zealots, there is no such thing as dignified silence. The refusal to engage makes them believe that they are correct. This person’s arguments have also gained a lot of currency in the world of the ‘interwebz’, and I felt that I had an obligation to point out exactly where they are wrong.

I shall begin by reproducing the text of their second (more elaborate comment) and then proceed to examine the claims one by one. A closer examination will show you three problems 1) Massive stereotyping 2) A faulty understanding of history 3) A refusal to come out of a first world context. Amazing readers that you are, and uncharacteristic though this post is, I hope you will stay with me. (Also note the annoying abbreviations. What on earth is IOW, you will ask? I Googled it. Turns out it means ‘In other words’. Why would someone writing hopelessly huge comments on a blog want to shorten than phrase? Sigh.)

> Lady (or troll let us say).

Yes I know it’s annoying when other people bring facts and arguments which challenge (or outright refute) what we are saying. And trolls are also annoying. But that does not mean I am a troll because I actually stand by what I say, and I try to back up everything with reason and evidence. IOW I am not just saying contrary things to annoy you 🙂

> Women do fight wars.

1. What women (specifically) are you talking about here?
2. Were these women legally required to fight wars (draft) and were their men exempt from that requirement?
3. Were these women culturally expected to fight war, and did their male peers have less (or no) cultural expectations placed on them? Did men pressure these women into fighting wars while simultaneously claiming for themselves the right to stay at home in safety?
4. Were men able to vote for wars and then have the women forced to go off and fight them.. and if any women refused have them put in prison or (in the field) shot for desertion?

I agree that *some* women do fight wars. But usually this only happens when things get really desperate, or just when all the men have been slaughtered already.

> And before they were a part of the army, the things they did are in no way less important than fighting wars

Personally, I view caring for children as infinitely more important than running about on a battlefield shooting at people just because a bunch of politicians (on both ‘sides’) are telling you to do it. In the internet age (ability to bypass propaganda) there is no excuse for not knowing that war is a racket, and is completely immoral. Its primary purpose is to (a) make money for the banks who have always loaned money at interest to BOTH sides of every major war of the last century, (b) make money for their military industrial complex and (c) to demoralise the traumatise the masses so they will be easier to rule, and specifically get cull each generation of brave and strong young men (or turn them into PTSD’d alcoholic veterans) so they won’t care to defend their families and communities from the ruling class and their creeping socialist. fascist police state takeover of society. THAT is the purpose of wars. There is nothing ‘important’ or noble or moral about war. That’s just the cover story to convince young men to sign up to be slaughtered.

So when it comes to the issue of SEXISM throughout history, the issue is not ‘importance’, but whether the demands we placed on women were the same as those we placed on men. If those demands were equal then logically it would have been just as fair if women had been forced to go off to fight all the wars of the last century (or the last 2000 years or whatever) while the men had stayed at home looking after the children (which we agree is a very important task).

Somehow if 18 year old women had been the ones given a short back and sides and a scratchy uniform before being pushed ‘over the top’ into a hail of gunfire, I don’t think you would consider that equal treatment to men’s role of being expected to stay at home and look after the kids.

It’s always rather shocking to reverse the gender roles and replay history, isn’t it?

One reason (out of many) that I’m not a feminist and I don’t subscribe to feminism’s ‘patriarchy theory’ is that I’d much rather stay at home and do domestic chores than go off to get trench foot and then have my legs blown off in some stupid war, and I’d much rather stay at home than go and work 12 hours a day down a mine, or out at sea, or in a shipyard or doing any other job which was traditionally assigned to men in a patriarchal society…… especially in the past when the technology of the day was absolutely rubbish meaning there was no decent safety equipment, or machines or vehicles to do the bulk of the heavy lifting.

Instead I would say “Yes please, chain me to the kitchen sink and force me to do the washing up! …….. just as long as you don’t put me on a boat, down a mine or in the middle of a war zone!”

And I think the majority of women throughout history all felt the same way, as do most women today too. And that includes feminists (if they are honest). I don’t know of ANY feminists who have CHOSEN to do manual labour jobs, or ‘rugged’ jobs of any kind, and none who have joined the army. All the feminists I come across work in my life work in comfortable offices – or comparable environments – doing jobs that could (if one chose) be done in heels, with long nails, skirts and a high maintenance hair style. So whether they choose to wear trousers and sensible shoes or not is kind of irrelevant. And feminist seem to gravitate towards government funded jobs like teaching where they are almost unifiable.

Why do YOU think most women waited for centuries until the exact moment that new technology (electricity, cars, plastics, telephones etc) made paid work outside the home a safe, comfortable and largely indoor experience before deciding en masse that they wanted to take off their aprons and have a go at it? Might the answer be buried in the question somewhere?

Again, I’m not judging anybody, I’m just pointing out that there has never been a time when gender roles, and social demands on genders, has been equal (ie not sexist). Presumably this has something to do with the fact that men and women are different. And throughout history sexist attitudes and traditions have benefited AND disadvantaged BOTH sexes simultaneously. Swings and roundabouts. Feminism makes out that all modern and historical sexism only ever benefitted men and disadvantaged women. But that’s utter nonsense, and incredibly offensive to men, and belittling and disempowering to women (reducing all the women of history to mere objects with little to no agency or free will).

> You have provided no links to facts (gender pay being disproved)

Look up economists like Thomas Sowell. who exposed the myth of the wage gap back in the 70’s.

The myth has perpetuated because – like most feminist propaganda – it has elements of truth to it. Yes of course men occupy many of the high paid jobs in society, but they are almost certainly supporting women financially (wives, dates, girlfriends, lovers). These women benefit from ‘free money’ which someone else earned. Far more women are financially supported (in part or totally) by their husbands / bf’s than men are supported by their wives/ gf’s….. although there has been a small shift towards more equality in this area be fair.

But the point is that feminists judge privilege by how much people EARN, rather than how much UNEARNED income a person receives. Women receive far more UNEARNED income than men, and they get it from men directly (husbands, bf’s, dates etc) as well as from the state who in turn get it from those who earn the most (that would be men again). If men and women earned the same amount of money then men would come out worse because they SPEND far more of their money supporting women than women spend supporting men.

If feminists want to narrow the pay gap they need to start financially supporting the men in their lives more, and voting to have more state welfare and social schemes directed at helping men specifically….. then men will finally be in a similar position of women of being able to AFFORD to get themselves lower paying jobs…. typically jobs which pay in other ways like less stress, more flexible hours, more holidays, more job satisfaction, more skills transferability, less hours, less overtime, a more relaxed and non-competitive atmosphere, more job security, less performance related pay etc etc etc etc etc.

How many women consider a 25 year old man with little qualifications, no real career prospects and an inability to financially support a family or even himself) as suitable boyfriend / husband material?

Yet many men would happily go out with and even marry a 25 year old woman of similar status, and they would happily support her financially (and their future family) by working their asses off at work.

So you see – in general – women have the privilege of NOT ALWAYS HAVING TO WORK quite so hard to achieve the same standard of living as men. It’s not uncommon for women to go to college and get an education as ‘backup’ while all the time looking for a decent Alpha man who’s income will allow her to be a housewife, or at least allow her to pursue a more interesting and fulfilling (but less well paid) career…. like a therapist, or a teacher, or a children’s book illustrator or whatever.

Men don’t really have that option. If a man wants to put his own job satisfaction or personal interests ABOVE his earning potential (ie trying to make it as an actor or musician or run a home for rescued dogs) then he is going to have to accept that he won’t be able to attract a woman very easily because he simply won’t be earning enough.

Studies show that men who give up the whole business of trying to attract a gf/ wife (MGTOW and a lot of men in Japan) find they are suddenly able to have a decent quality of life for themselves without earning half as much as they would have to to achieve the same quality of life living with a woman.

Women are attracted to men with resources and social status, and so THAT is why so many men work their asses off to get decent careers and earn lots of money (before having a heart attack at 50 from all the stress and coffee) ….. meanwhile, men are attracted to women who are young and fertile and the best bet for providing them with healthy children and THATis why so many women work their asses off to look young and attractive (fertile) and to cling on to that youthful/ fertile image when they hit 35, 40, 50 etc.

To say men working their asses of to earn decent money to impress women is ‘male privilege’ is a bit like saying women working their asses off to look good to impress men is ‘female privilege’.

Do you think we need to have ‘affirmative action’ to get more men in make up departments, hair salons, fashion stores and cosmetic surgery clinics to address these ‘female dominated’ spaces?

Or should we treat everyone like grown ups and let them decide what to do with their lives, based on what their ambitions are?

And while men do occupy many of the most high paying jobs, it’s lso true that men also occupy a lot of the world’s most shitty jobs too (garbage collection, sewage maintenance, soldier etc). In general women tend to occupy the middle ground choosing careers that offer the best work/ life balance. I don’t see any feminists seeking ‘gender equality’ in those dirty, smell, dangerous but decidedly ‘male dominated’ jobs, do you? If you want true gender equality you can’t pick and chose!

Feminist view the world as if that men and women live in separate bubbles and are like opposing tribes facing off against each other across a muddy battlefield. This is silly. Successful, rich, high status men are nearly always benefiting one – of not several – women in their lives (and a bunch of women they never get to see, via their taxes).

When women feel the pressure to look good to keep their men happy this is oppression……. but when men feel the pressure to work overtime just to keep their wives wardrobes stocked up with shoes and the kids bedrooms full of ipads and gaming consoles this is viewed by feminists as ‘male privilege’. Such double standards.

The feminist wage gap propaganda and ‘double think’ is so strong that even feminists themselves cannot seem to convince other feminists that the wage gap (as it is typically defined by feminists) is a load of made up nonsense.

> Further, I have acknowledged that chivalry is wrong.

I never said (or meant to imply) that chivalry is ‘wrong’. If men and women want to play those traditional roles where he is the protector and provider and she is the princess who is treated a bit like a child, then that is fine by me. Chivalry is rather like a very mild form of submissive/ dominant relationships. And playing the submissive role is NOT the same as being actually oppressed. Being submissive FORCES the other party to be assume agency and responsibility for the both of you. A lot of women like to be submissive and have men take the lead, and a lot of men like to be the dominant provider, protector and decision maker.

It’s only a problem is when men are told by damselling, trembly voiced, rich, stuck up, my-boyfriend-is-a-rugby-payer women like Emma Watson that men have to be the protectors, providers for ALL women and that these women owe them nothing in return because in the wonderful world of feminism men serving women (he for she) is just ‘equality’ you see 😉

Here you go. Read this persons words carefully, because for a lot of people they do have a lot of appeal. Together, like all specious arguments, they make you pause, even though you are pretty sure there is something messed up in them. Then you examine then closely, and they fall apart.

 On the issue of whether women fight wars, and should they have been allowed to vote given that men did the actual fighting.

Before going into the question of whether women do actually fight wars, let us try to see what point you are trying to make. It seems to me that, the point is ‘men fought wars. women did not. hence, only men should have been given the right to vote, since the government takes the decision to fight wars’. or alternatively ‘women should not complain about not getting to vote, because they got to stay at home when the men fought’.  The obvious logical flaw here is that the decision to go to war is not the only decision that Governments took. Governments regulated a host of things at different points in history, including, regular crimes, marriage, inheritance, abortion. If you take this reasoning to its conclusion, one could very well argue that if there is any regulation of abortion, only people with a uterus should get to vote. That is absolute bullshit, probably because the logical conclusion of this idea is absurd. The idea of universal adult franchise works because different interests (sometimes competing sometimes harmonized) can cancel out inequalities by giving people a voice in how their Government is run.

But let us examine the alternative point you may be making ‘women should not complain about being denied the, because after all they sat at home when men fought’. Well, okay. Firstly, let us take this argument on its face value. If we agree with it, then it means by extension, no one else who could not fight (due to prevailing social norms) would have had the moral right to demand the vote. This means, effectively, 1) Disabled people, at least physically disabled persons, who could not fight would be disenfranchised. 2) Workers staying back in the country to produce things, (because no matter how ‘important’ their contribution, it is not the same as actually fighting). 3) Old men, because they are to weak to fight, 4) Pacifists and conscientious objectors. See the kind of society that is created based on this judgment of who should or should not get to vote? A society where only able bodied men willing to fight would get to vote? Now you are free to think that that is a just society, but the world has moved on from that idea.

As far as which women who fight wars, I am specifically referring to …Here’s a list of the countries that allow women in front-line combat positions. In Europe: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania and Sweden. Elsewhere: Australia, Canada and New Zealand in the Anglosphere; plus Eritrea, Israel, and North Korea. Here is a list of countries that allow women to fight as fighter pilots  Pakistan, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, the United Kingdom. Here is a feminist demand for the US to change its policy on allowing women in combat zones, which notes that the changing nature of warfare means that American women servicewomen do end up in combat zones (” U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that enemy combatants prefer to bring the battle to civilian-populated areas, targeting both civilians and combatants and men and women alike. Policies designed to keep servicewomen from the front-lines of battle cannot be enforced where front-lines do not exist.”)

Further there have been women in history who willingly took up arms or who dressed up as men and went to fight. One of these women later worked as ‘ church janitor, cemetery worker and street lamplighter’. Here is an article about UAE’s first female fighter pilot. Looks to be fighting very willingly, to me. Sure, these women were not the norm, but they were brave women who did not want to be tied up to their gender roles, and chose to fight.

Further, the feminist position on women in combat roles is complex, because feminism is complex. There are different varieties. So please stop stereotyping an entire movement based on what you think feminism means. And don’t give me the ‘well, most feminist I have seen say this’ crap. The internet age, which lets you bypass propaganda, also puts an obligation on you to go and find the right kind of information. This brings me to the second point.

Then this person says something even more interesting ” Yes please, chain me to the kitchen sink and force me to do the washing up! …….. just as long as you don’t put me on a boat, down a mine or in the middle of a war zone!”And I think the majority of women throughout history all felt the same way, as do most women today too. And that includes feminists (if they are honest). I don’t know of ANY feminists who have CHOSEN to do manual labour jobs, or ‘rugged’ jobs of any kind, and none who have joined the army.”

THIS IS NOT LOGIC, IT IS STEREOTYPING

Now this is absolutely brilliant. YOU would want to be tied up to the kitchen sink. Good for you. But you have absolutely no right to speak for most or all women throughout history, and you certainly have no right to speak for all feminists (or claim to read their minds). And neither do I. But I will tell you this, just as you don’t know any feminists doing rugged work, I personally know a lot of feminists who routinely do ‘rugged jobs’, personally met women’s activists who work in rural and semi-rural areas, creating awareness about domestic abuse, sexual violence, trafficking of women.. I know a feminist who has been taking on the human trafficking mafia that has made 3 attempts on her life so far.   Here is a women’s rights activist who got gang-raped while trying to prevent child marriages in India, and has been  fighting for justice ever since.  These women are not  “doing jobs that could (if one chose) be done in heels, with long nails, skirts and a high maintenance hair style” Your lack of awareness does not mean that there aren’t feminists roughing it right now.It just means you need to grow up and account for experiences other than yours. And also wearing make-up does not diminish the moral and logical weight of asking for equality.

You also don’t “see any feminists seeking ‘gender equality’ in those dirty, smell, dangerous but decidedly ‘male dominated’ jobs, do you? If you want true gender equality you can’t pick and chose!” BULLSHIT ALERT

Under this statement lies the factually incorrect claim that women don’t do the smelly, dirty dangerous jobs? Have you seen the job a nurse does? Seen a bedsore? Have you had to wipe shit of an adult human being? It is the dream job I tell you, not dangerous, but ah the smells and the dirt! Have you ever seen the work maids or housekeeping professionals do? Not easy stuff I tell you, especially in non-first world context without those vacuum cleaners and washing machines. Even with them, those jobs aren’t easy.

But I guess you meant the construction industry, or something? Look, with this blog post I have attached a picture of me with some women digging trenches in rural India. But I guess they are poor, so they must not be doing it out of choice (as opposed to all the men in construction, out of choice)? On a serious note, yes there is a lot of poverty there, and I doubt they have many alternatives. That calls in larger issues of poverty and development. But as a matter of pure fact, there are women doing some very hard jobs. Your next claim implies feminists don’t want women do be in certain kinds of jobs (dude, big movement, lots of variation). I bet there are no feminists asking women to join construction, are there?

Not 'unskilled' at all
Not ‘unskilled’ at all

Here, a Google search led me to a a feminist website asking for gender equality and more women in construction.  Just because you can’t see feminist voices calling for a real and meaningful kind of equality doesn’t mean its not there, eh?

Now, for our main course of bullshit “Why do YOU think most women waited for centuries until the exact moment that new technology (electricity, cars, plastics, telephones etc) made paid work outside the home a safe, comfortable and largely indoor experience before deciding en masse that they wanted to take off their aprons and have a go at it? Might the answer be buried in the question somewhere?”

Well, again, that may be true for the first world, but paid work outside home is not safe everywhere. Hey, there are little girls who get shot at for going to school. Girls who get kidnapped for attending school and sold to slavery. The ones who survived the attack, defied their attackers, accepted scholarships and went back to schools.  Of course men in conflict areas get killed and harmed too. No one is taking away from their suffering, but the narrative that women want fairness and opportunities because it is now convenient, is an insult to women everywhere fighting for fairness and justice.Also the reason women in the first world  ‘en masse’ decided to work was because there was a vacuum in the job market created by the first world war (something I am not sure women planned).

Okay, now here is my favorite lump of BS. “But the point is that feminists judge privilege by how much people EARN, rather than how much UNEARNED income a person receives. Women receive far more UNEARNED income than men, and they get it from men directly (husbands, bf’s, dates etc) as well as from the state who in turn get it from those who earn the most (that would be men again). If men and women earned the same amount of money then men would come out worse because they SPEND far more of their money supporting women than women spend supporting men.”

Yes, I can’t speak for all feminists but I judge privilege through institutional traceable structures, because they are more accountable. But if you talk about the privileges that are unearned, and speak of how men buy women stuff and pay for dates, well I have a question:

a) Assuming your argument makes even an iota of sense, What about women who don’t want stuff, and don’t want people paying for them? Sure, you may argue there are more women who let men pay for stuff and like men to take leadership positions (because we have deeply rooted gender roles). Okay, but there may well be more people on this planet who like Katie Perry better than Mozart (because people have shit taste). What does that have to do with the law, and institutions? When I demand to be paid the same as men, are you going to tell me I can’t because some other women like to have their coffee and cakes paid for on dates? Laws need to account for the (now significant) minority that does not want to conform to gender roles. NO woman I have known well, till date lets people pay for her on dates. Sure, there may be a selection bias here (i.e. I tend to make friends with women who don’t like submissive roles), but that may be true for what you claim (about how women behave on dates around you. that too might be a selection bias).

b) And while a dinner at a restaurant is the pinnacle of privilege, I would ask, what of the power men enjoy? Running companies, being a part of the judiciary, being in politics? Have some groups of men not enjoyed actual political and economic power historically? Is the make up of that power not uneven till date (with women being under-represented in the judiciary, in CEO positions).

But wait, you will now make the life choices argument. Sure, some women end up making different life choices (low paying jobs, less commitment to putting in longer hours). But here is a study that examined  “Women graduating from top MBA programs are usually in their late twenties or early thirties and have just sunk over $100,000 into a degree, presumably to raise their value to employers—just like their male counterparts. We limited this analysis to people who had full-time jobs lined up; so there was no gender difference in their commitment to working a full day. Even with those things being equal, the pattern held.” Even these women, right out of school, with the same degrees as their male friends, applying for jobs in the same sector, WERE PAID LESS.

Here is another nugget for you. “Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume” What did they find? “. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant.” But I guess Jennifer might have let Jon pay on dates, so she had it coming?

But I feel compelled to address a larger question here. When a woman chooses to be a homemaker, she isn’t freeloading. All the homemakers I have known lead extremely busy lives, trying to keep their children healthy. and support their husbands emotionally morally. On top this they do housework that I can only describe as backbreaking. I kid you not. There is no way of accounting for their labor, no payment, no benefits. Yes, their husbands support them, but people like you reduce it freeloading, It isn’t freeloading, it is accounting for labor at home. These men (and women) decide they want a home where children have full-time parental supervision, and someone has got to stay home. For several reasons that have a mix of the social conditioning, and the biological reality of women, the person who stays back at home is the mother. But who ever stays at home and takes care of children (be it a stay at home mom or a stay at home dad, they are putting in work. So really, this isn’t female privilege).  But let us get to something else you accuse me of doing.

To say men working their asses of to earn decent money to impress women is ‘male privilege’ is a bit like saying women working their asses off to look good to impress men is ‘female privilege’.

Do you think we need to have ‘affirmative action’ to get more men in make up departments, hair salons, fashion stores and cosmetic surgery clinics to address these ‘female dominated’ spaces?”

Interesting points. Here is a tiny (really tiny problem with this narrative). I never actually said any of those things written above But you aren’t arguing with me, you are actually.. shit. I have no clue why you are doing this. And I can’t believe I am spending my free time trying to bust your myths. I don’t think men trying to work hard to impress women is male privilege (I think its silly, but I don’t think its male privilege). But yes, male privilege is being able to walk down the street without being leered at, not being told (the first thing when you get to a new job) which boss to avoid being alone with, and it is also the fact that John gets better jobs than Jennifer even when the same effing resume has been submitted.

And I do not support affirmative action, because I doubt its effectiveness. Though I do support tackling institutional biases by creating awareness. I do support providing child care (like creches at the workplace, which benefits both moms and dads), and I support giving maternity and paternity leave to parents, so that we can have couples who can work AND be involved in raising their child. I also support creating safe streets and equal marriages. I support having mechanisms for combating sexual harassment. I am preoccupied with institutional structures and the law, because it gives freedom to those who want to make choices other than home-making (which can range from the law to construction work). And no there will be some jobs that most women will not be able to do, because generally they are not as strong as men. But that is no excuse for having laws and institutional structures that disadvantage women. Just don’t hire women who don’t make the cut, like you do with men who aren’t strong enough. And now that we have constitutions (in most working democracies), with equal protection clauses, I think we have a good shot of doing guaranteeing equality to women through structural and institutional reform, as opposed to quibbling over coffee and cake on dates statistics. (Ok, I am craving cake now)

Feminist view the world as if that men and women live in separate bubbles and are like opposing tribes facing off against each other across a muddy battlefield. This is silly.

No they don’t. Yes, there is one very specific school of feminism that does (it applies a whole class struggle perspective to gender relations), but that school is in the minority. I, that is the person on whose post you decided to have this singularly beautiful bit of verbal diarrhea, do not belong to that school.  If I had to say which school I belonged to, it would be the ‘anti-essentialist’ school, which is actually a strong critic of this ‘separate bubble, opposing each other framework’. Among other things, like accounting for the complex factors that make people who they are (race, age, nationality, class, and sexuality), this brand of feminism also calls for  “developing a vision of the relations among men and women, not just between them”. 

But that sums up the most frustrating part of this effort. I have to defend and incredibly complex movement that was stereotyped by one person, who has read very little about it. And why? Because this person does not like Emma Watson?

“It’s only a problem is when men are told by damselling, trembly voiced, rich, stuck up, my-boyfriend-is-a-rugby-payer women like Emma Watson that men have to be the protectors, providers for ALL women and that these women owe them nothing in return because in the wonderful world of feminism men serving women (he for she) is just ‘equality’ you see ;)”

But why evoke Emma Watson at all, while arguing with me? Why not evoke the image of Bhanwari Devi whose strong will and sheer courage, continue to inspire survivors of sexual assault? Emma Watson is not a part of my reality or the reason why I am a feminist. I don’t even know what she said. Everything you have said here is a huge non-sequitur.  This is exactly like me going an picking a random conservative, and yelling at him for something Rush Limbaugh said (though I doubt Watson has ever been that vicious or anything).

No ideology comes from a position of neutrality. Not feminism, not socialism, not free-market capitalism. They have their first principles, and are one of many ways in which we sort reality. Feminism is not the answer to all questions, neither should it be a rigid monolith. The fact is there are several feminists helping to evolve a better idea of it. The best we can do, is to ask ourselves if an ideology is coherent, and helps create the kind of society we want to live in. If it doesn’t, then don’t believe in it. So if you don’t want to be a feminist, DON’T BE ONE. I certainly don’t want you to be one. I doubt there are hoards of people out there trying to convert you to feminism. (If they are, then watch out. If a feminist bites you, you turn into one on a full moon night). If your life is made miserable by feminists asking you to join the cause, do to them what I do to super religious people who want me to find God. I ignore them. But understand that the thing you consider to be cast iron logic (stuff I just refuted above), is full of holes.

I don’t think anything I said is going to convince you, even though I put in a lot of work and effort  into doing this. Because I don’t think the sort of dialogue you want to have has anything to do with learning from other people. It has to do with diminishing them, stereotyping them and ridiculing them. But I put in this effort anyway because you need to know that when people don’t engage with your specious logic, it is because they are amused.  But sometimes, bullshit needs an answer.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Because sometimes bullshit requires a response.”

  1. First thanks for replying (and with a special blog post). Having written so much already I’ll try to respond as concisely as possible for everybody’s sake! We all have lives to lead after all, but this is a broad subject and a fascinating debate – as gender issues always are – so I expect this will be another long comment…

    Your original post was titled ‘on the meaning of sexism’. So to start off we should clarify what ‘sexism’ actually means. ‘Sexism’ means any attitude or behaviour which treats men and women differently based on their sex alone.

    Sexism does NOT automatically mean ‘the oppression of women by men’, yet that is how you framed the issue of sexism in your post. For example you wrote (emphasis added):

    > However, sexism is still alive. If you don’t believe me, go ask any WOMAN who has been groped on public transportation, sexually harassed at work, or is payed less than men for doing the same work. While you are at it, ask persons of the transgendered community what their lived reality is like.

    At no point to you specifically mention men or boys suffering sexist attitudes. And by focusing on the female victims of sexism you are automatically implying that (a) men are responsible for the majority of sexist attitudes and behaviours in society and (b) that men’s sexism is always negative (rather than benevolent). This is like writing a blog post about the ‘meaning of crime’ and then ONLY talking about how awful it is that white people have to suffer crimes committed by black people….. with no mention that white people can (and often do) commit crimes too, and that black people can (and often are) the victims of crime themselves, many of which are committed by whites.

    Your framing of men as the default sexist oppressors and women as the default innocent victims is itself a classic example of a sexist attitude and mindset, and writing in this way is an example of ‘sexist propaganda’ …. and to do so in a blog post about ‘the meaning of sexism’ makes it all the more profound. That was what prompted me to reply initially.

    > Now since this the internet, I got a comment (which I did not take very seriously) which was essentially a tirade about feminism.

    Here you ADMIT that you didn’t take seriously my comment which was trying to bring balance to the debate by highlighting some of the sexist attitudes shown towards men and boys throughout history.

    I can only think of two reasons why sexism against males shouldn’t be taken seriously by you or anybody else (1) because men and boys are somehow superior to women and girls and therefore more able to cope with sexism or (2) because men and boys are not as important as women and girls and therefore it doesn’t matter when they are victims of sexism.

    Both reasons are themselves examples of sexism. And both attitudes are often displayed by feminists and social justice warriors. But if you have *another* reason for not wanting to take the subject seriously, I would love to know what it is.

    > given the condensing and angry tone of the comment (which included an attack on my intelligence ‘feminism is sexism without the intelligence to understand it’).

    ‘Angry’ implies my points are ruled by a kind of irrational negative emotional reflex….. rather than by reason, evidence, empathy, sympathy and a sense of fairness. Given the emotive subject matter (ie gender issues) I always make a point of being especially calm and level headed and I don’t just say “That’s so unfair!” or ‘You’re so wrong!” or “That’s such a nasty thing to say!”. Instead I make proper arguments with facts and stuff. It certainly looks like you are trying to dismiss my comments by simply labelling them ‘angry’. That’s a cop out.

    As you can see from the quote of me which you used (‘feminism is sexism without the intelligence to understand it’) my criticisms are of the feminist IDEOLOGY and in particular its ‘PATRIARCHY THEORY’ and are not a PERSONAL attack on your intelligence. It was therefore NOT an ad hominem attack. I pointed out WHY I think feminist theory is over simplistic at best, and divisive and dishonest at worst. That is not the same as me attacking your intelligence on a personal level.

    But of course if I say feminist theory is flawed and you happen to support feminist theory then, yes, I am obviously implying a lack of intelligence and/ or honesty on our part. But that is *always* the implication whenever anybody argues against what another person is claiming! Every debate always attacks the intelligence of the other side (ie the validity of their claims and intellectual arguments) – that is what ‘a debate’ means.

    By labelling me ‘angry’ you are misrepresenting my objective, rational debate as some kind of ‘personal attack’. Feminists and social justice warriors are often criticised for using this tactic in debates.

    But to be crystal clear, let me illustrate exactly what I mean when I say ‘feminism is sexism without the intelligence to understand it’.

    Your recent post about the feminist protest against a male stand up comic is a perfect example. I assume they were feminists, if not they certainly acted exactly like feminists do (ie disrupting a peaceful event and trying to shut it down because they didn’t like it).

    > He made certain jokes about Malayali men beating their wives, the appearance of a female politician and women’s ability to drive (or so the news says).

    A ‘joke’ and a ‘comedy act’ is the same as a ‘play’ or a ‘movie’. All of them involve the person taking on a persona, and saying things which are not to be taken literally… or even seriously. The WHOLE POINT of humour – especially in stand up comedy – is to say things which are THE OPPOSITE of social conventions and accepted morality, in order to generate a frisson (cognitive dissonance) in the audience which the audience experiences as humour and resolves it by laughing. Things are funny because they are outlandish, ridiculous, absurd, unexpected, and backwards. A man riding a horse is not funny. But a horse riding a man is funny. As a general rule, we find the *opposite* of the norm to be funny.

    And so a joke which makes light about men beating their wives is only funny BECAUSE it obviously goes against standard morality and social conventions. If men beating their wives was judged as normal, acceptable and moral then it would NOT WORK as a joke. It would just be a man on stage reporting facts. It would be like the news.

    Here is a joke: “One night a woman was walking home and she was assaulted by a man and raped. The man was later arrested and put in jail. At the trial people in the gallery shouted “You despicable bastard!” at him and some of them threw rotten fruit. The woman was traumatised by the experience but received therapy and is now feeling much better, although she still has nightmares about the terrible experience and suffers panic attacks”

    Is this joke funny (or offensive)? No it is not. And this is because it CONFORMS to all our social conventions and moral values. Nothing about the joke breaks a taboo and so there is no humour.

    So you see, these feminist protestors DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT COMEDY/ HUMOUR IS. Or maybe they DO understand, but they are pretending they don’t so they can attack this poor man, ruin everybody else’s evening and get away with it (and claim that THEY are the victims too!)

    I’m sure we all agree that falling (or being pushed) off a cliff is a horrid, traumatic and painful experience in real life. But does that mean a joke or a cartoon about a man falling off a cliff and bouncing all the way down to the bottom yelling ‘Ow…Ow…Ow!” (like Homer Simpson) is offensive to people who fell off cliffs in real life? Of course not! Do you see how stupid it would be to say that? It is a JOKE. The joke only works because we all AGREE that in real life falling off a cliff would be horrific and probably lethal, and that is WHY it is funny to see Homer Simpson bouncing down a cliff yelling “Ow!” all the way down.

    Jokes of this kind flip reality on its head, including our moral values.

    > Now some students were offended by his humor, and walked out of the venue.

    Fine. This is no different to walking out of a movie theatre because you don’t like the movie.

    > Subsequently, they returned holding a placard that said ‘Get out, sexist pig’ and showed their middle finger to the comedian.

    And this is like coming back into the movie theatre holding a placard and shouting to “Stop the movie because it’s got a character in it that I don’t like!” It is self- entitled, bratty, obnoxious, selfish, rude, anti social behaviour. And it is SEXIST too, because these women would never behave this way if the stand up comic was a woman and she was making jokes about male genital mutilation, male rape, or women beating up men – all jokes which have been made by famous female stand up comics without ANY complaints from feminists.

    > They continued to heckle the comedian till he decided to cut his act shot.

    So they shut down the comedian’s gig. Was he a professional? This might be his income. What a horrible thing to do.

    > After this the irate audience turned on the women, pushing them and commenting on their clothes.

    Hardly surprising. If you tried to shut down a movie half way through by shouting and waving placards, don’t you think the movie theatre audience are going to turn on you? Why should a stand up gig be any different?

    > Is Sexist humor okay?

    It is not ‘sexist humour’, it is humour ABOUT sexist attitudes and behaviour. A play about a sexist man is not a ‘sexist play’, it is a play ABOUT a sexist man. If the sexist man is portrayed in a way that makes the audience laugh at him (because he is behaving so outrageously) then that is the same as a comedian telling a joke about a sexism man … or taking on that persona himself – for comic effect.

    To not understand this simple concept is to COMPLETELY fail to understand what comedy, acting, art, culture and entertainment is. What happens on a ‘stage’ is not the same as real life. THAT IS WHY WE CALL IT ‘A STAGE’.

    Those feminist protestors are really just hooligans looking for ANY excuse to attack men, start a fight, ruin everybody’s fun, make spectacles of themselves and generally be anti social. Pretending to take offence, or pretending to be ‘slighted’ in some way is a common excuse used by hooligans (male or female) who are looking to start a fight. If we treat them the same as men (gender equality) we have to admit they are just thugs ruining everybody else’s fun.

    Excusing their obnoxious, toxic behaviour just because they are women would be sexist and insulting to women (treating women like small children who can’t always control their own behaviour).

    Not only do they lack the intelligence to understand what comedy, art, entertainment is, they were also demanding special treatment as women. They clearly want comedians to be banned from telling jokes about women being harmed, or ridiculed. And by shouting and holding their placards they are asserting their special authority (as women / feminists) to be able to shut down comedy events without any backlash from the audience…. just because they don’t like the comedian’s act.

    Basically they are demanding – and asserting – special privileges, special treatment in public spaces JUST FOR BEING WOMEN. That is literally them demanding to have sexist attitudes and sexist rules in society, all under the banner of ‘feminism’.

    That is WHY I call feminism sexism without the intelligence to understand that it is sexism. These feminists probably think they are protesting for gender equality, but what they are actually doing is protesting for special privileges and rights just because they are women AKA chivalry AKA He for She. They are asserting their right to shut down a male comedian’s act (which he might rely on to earn a living) just because they (as women) don’t like it.

    That is an unbelievably sexist thing to do! Yet they are so stupid they don’t even realise it.

    The same is true of those feminists who attacked that man who landed a spaceship on a comet for wearing a shirt with half naked ladies on it. They were asserting their authority to tell this man what he could and couldn’t wear in public….. and once again their obnoxious, self entitled, mean spirited behaviour was ‘justified’ on the basis that the shirt was ‘sexist’. But that claim doesn’t even make any sense because (a) the shirt was designed, made and given to him as a gift by a FEMALE friend who makes clothes like that for a living and (b) if the shirt had said ‘Beyonce Tour 2012’ on it they would not have said it was demeaning to women, they would have said it was empowering to women.

    Beyonce is a feminist icon and she often appears on stage or in pictures wearing little more than a bikini, and she stands in similar ‘Bikini clad warrior’ poses as the women on Matt Taylor’s shirt. Feminists LOVE Beyonce when she poses like this. The ONLY reason why they hated on Matt Taylor’s shirt is because Matt Taylor is A MAN.

    Once again feminists were being completely sexist, and once again they lacked the intelligence to even realise it.

    I hope that clears up why I made that comment, and why it was not a personal attack on you. So anyway, on with your post……

    > I assumed it was trolling. It amused me, but I did not think it was worthy of a real response.

    Right. And this was presumably because I was not being sexist against men and boys and running them into the dirt (like society tells me I am supposed to). Instead I was actually defending men and boys and pointing out how they can be *victims* of sexism too, just like women can. You found my empathy for men and boys so unbelievable that you thought I must be trolling.

    > The commentator has sent a longer reply, backing up their claims about feminism, and assuring me that they are sincere about their vitriol.

    Here is the definition of ‘vitriol’.

    vitriol
    noun archaic or poetic/literary
    sulfuric acid.
    – figurative cruel and bitter criticism

    Again, you have mischaracterised my reasoned criticism as ‘vitriol’ when there is no vitriol anywhere in my comment. The message you are conveying to your readers is that defending females from sexism is justified and worthy, but defending males from sexism is probably just the result of anger, bitterness and done out of cruelty (AKA vitriol).

    This double standard is yet another example of a sexist attitude (in a blog post about sexist attitudes).

    If you wrote a blog post on the migration habits of turtles and I criticised it with a set of contrary data would you label me ‘angry’ or ‘vitriolic’?

    > I note, they are not a troll, they just like peddling their half arsed information with a missionary zeal,

    Now you are drawing a comparison between me pointing out examples of sexism against men and imposing a religion onto another culture by force, as if men’s issues and men’s rights with a superstitious belief system. I don’t think you would have made that comparison if I had been pointing out examples of sexism against women. So once again, you are being sexist (in a blog post about sexism).

    > and making personal attacks on people in the process.

    I have not made any personal attacks, nor have you given any examples of me making any personal attacks. You are mischaracterising me criticising feminist ideology and me pointing out examples of sexism against men throughout history as me ‘making personal attacks’. Such mischaracterisation in a debate or discussion is called ‘sophistry’.

    > I have tried to avoid this sort of confrontational dialogue in my blog, because I have always maintained that this space is not for the fringe.

    Here you are claiming that (a) criticising feminist ideology and (b) pointing out examples of how sexism also harms men and boys is a ‘fringe’ activity. *I completely agree* We live in a society where men’s and boy’s rights aren’t really allowed to be discussed in public, mostly because feminists and social justice warriors make sure they always dominate the social discourse on ‘gender’ and ‘sexism’. One way they get to dominate the discourse is by portraying anyone (male or female) who dares to speak up for men and boys as being ‘angry’, ‘vitriolic’, ‘a troll’ and ‘making personal attacks’ so that everyone else will ignore what they have to say, or even attack them.

    This is why only the brave or reckless dare to raise awareness of issues that affect men and boys, and stick up for their rights. They will almost always be attacked, as if the idea that men and boys can be victims is some sort of blasphemy. And yes I AM equating feminism to a religion or a cult because there is no RATIONAL reason to not support equal rights for rights of men and boys, and to acknowledge their vulnerabilities in the same way we do with women and girls.

    So yes, I agree, speaking up for men and boys is EXTREMELY unpopular (a fringe activity) in this post-feminist society we live in, which according to feminists is exclusively male-centric and male-dominated.

    If society really was male-centric and male-dominated we would expect to see men’s rights and men’s issues taking top priority in social discourse, and being discussed everywhere all the time on daytime TV, tumblr, youtube, political debates, the UN etc …. but what we *actually* see in society is women’s issues being given top priority and being given a platform, funding, support and media coverage on daytime TV, tumblr, youtube, political debates, the UN etc.

    Meanwhile men’s and boy’s issues are almost completely ignored and sidelined – so that they only exist on the ‘fringe’ like you say.

    > Well because I have come to realize that with angry zealots…

    Again, this is sophistry.

    >…. there is no such thing as dignified silence. The refusal to engage makes them believe that they are correct.

    Well, that is actually a pretty rational deduction. If Steve makes an argument and then Susan presents a counter-argument and then Steve goes silent and refuses to engage any more, this is a sign that the counter-argument has won the debate and Steve doesn’t want to admit he has lost the debate.

    Feminists and social justice warriors are notorious for blocking an open debate by shutting down comments, disabling ratings and refusing to participate (even when invited) in any debate where opposing arguments and viewpoints might challenge theirs (which is what a ‘debate’ means). The typical feminist/ social justice gathering is a stage filled entirely with feminists/ social justice warriors sitting in a semi circle all nodding in agreement with each other’s claims and arguments to an audience of like minded people. This is known as an ‘echo chamber’, and is why feminism is likened to a cult or a religion (because churches are places where people gather to agree on the religious doctrine, and not to have debates on the validity of that religion).

    > On the issue of whether women fight wars, and should they have been allowed to vote given that men did the actual fighting.

    That was NOT the issue. The issue was whether or not the history of voting and war constitutes sexism in society. Obviously it DOES. I think we both agree on that. At no point did I say women ‘should’ or ‘should not’ have gotten the vote. That is a separate issue to the issue of how the sexist attitudes and laws of the time AFFECTED men AND women both positively AND negatively.

    The second issue which naturally follows on from the first is HOW this sexism impacted the lives of men and women throughout history. I showed how it served women’s interests just as much as it restricted or even oppressed women. Likewise it gave men certain extra rights by law, but at the same time took rights AWAY from men (which is oppressive) ….. such as the right to opt out of military service because you oppose the war, you are only 18 and you really don’t not want to die a horrific death on a muddy battlefield screaming in agony.

    It’s important to remember that ‘sexism’ just means men or women being treated differently based on their sex. It does NOT automatically mean ‘the oppression of women by men’. And sexist attitudes, social conventions and laws can often BENEFIT women (benevolent sexism), just as they can benefit men too.

    In all of your writings you are trying to make the term ‘sexism’ synonymous with ‘the systematic oppression of women by men’ (as per feminist ‘patriarchy theory’). Not acknowledging the numerous examples of how sexist laws and attitudes have benefited women / oppressed men throughout the ages is dishonest and divisive and an example of sexism.

    Personally I would choose to give up the right to vote in return for NOT being forced to go and be blown up on the battle field. And many women thought this way at the time which is why they wrote in to newspapers to OPPOSE women’s suffrage.

    I asked if it would have been more acceptable (either less sexist, or less oppressive to women) if the sexist attitudes and laws of the day had been reversed.

    *** What if men had been allowed to vote for women to be forced to go to war, while being legally exempt from war themselves? ***

    Would that have been fairer in your opinion? Anyone care to chime in on that question?

    If you don’t think flipping the gender roles makes history more fair to women then you cannot, by definition, complain that women were being specifically oppressed by men. Sexism? Yes (for men AND women)…… Systematic oppression of women by men? Clearly not.

    > But let us examine the alternative point you may be making ‘women should not complain about being denied the, because after all they sat at home when men fought’.

    I am not saying anyone shouldn’t complain. I am just pointing out when that complaint is *hypocritical*. Complaining that you don’t have the vote is one complaint, and that is fine …. but complaining that you are being systematically oppressed as a woman by men/ the patriarchy is a totally different complaint and it does not stand up to scrutiny as I just explained.

    Also, remember that the suffragettes weren’t fighting for ‘gender equality’ (equal freedoms AND obligations to men) they were fighting for GENDER PRIVILEGE (the right to vote but NOT the obligation to fight wars like men). And they got what they wanted from an all male government, in an act of chivalry (which is a form of benevolent sexism).

    The idea that women’s suffrage was somehow a triumph of gender equality is a cornerstone of feminist ideology – and it is generally taught as such in schools. But it obviously wasn’t. It was an example of female privilege, chivalry…. an example of ‘He for She’ a full century before the term was even coined.

    > See the kind of society that is created based on this judgment of who should or should not get to vote? A society where only able bodied men willing to fight would get to vote? Now you are free to think that that is a just society, but the world has moved on from that idea.

    The issue of who should or should’t get the vote is separate to the issue of whether or not it was sexist, and who benefited or was penalised by that sexism. The correct answer is that both men AND women benefited AND were penalised from the bi-directional sexism inherent in voting law over the last few centuries. Feminists, the media, the education system etc only focus on the sexism that specifically benefited men and/ or disadvantaged women …… while IGNORING the sexism that specifically benefited women and/ or disadvantaged men.

    That warped view of history is in itself an example of sexism against men. Because it makes men out to be privileged and oppressive, while it makes women out to be poor innocent, oppressed victims.

    It’s very simple.

    1. Women who DIDN’T want to go to war benefitted from the sexist laws
    2. Women who DID want to go to war were restricted by those sexist laws.
    3. Men who DIDN’T want to go to war were FORCED to go anyway, and probably be killed or injured or traumatised for life.
    4. Men who DID want to go to war were permitted to do so.

    In order to prove the laws were generally oppressive to women as a whole you would have to be able to prove that the MAJORITY of women WANTED to go to war throughout the last century. Do you have any evidence this was the case?

    And remember the further back in time you go the more brutal and harsh it was to serve in the military (even away from combat situations). Today soldiers enjoy varied meals, recreation rooms with widescreen TVs, skype chats with their families, state of the art equipment and machines to keep them comfortable and safe etc etc…

    In the past soldiers lived in brutal conditions even BEFORE they got deployed to a war zone. I wonder if the massive rise in living standards, comfort, pay and other perks in the last few decades has anything to do with why more women are joining the military these days? What do you think?

    In other words, what if the military reverted back to the equipment and clothing they used circa 1910 – do you think we might see a drop in the number of female (and male) applicants?

    > Well, again, that may be true for the first world, but paid work outside home is not safe everywhere.

    Feminism is primarily a movement by and for western middle class women. I think it WOULD BE A VERY GOOD IDEA if feminists to split their feminism into first, second and third world feminism. But it would mean western, middle class feminists (the majority of the feminist movement) could no longer be able to pull the old “Yeah but….. it’s still really bad in the third world” routine when they can’t think of any examples of how women are specifically oppressed in the west.

    Middle class feminists in ‘western’ (ie developed) nations using the plight of less privileged women in second and third world nations to push their own middle class feminist agendas and gain support for their feminist movement in the west is an example of EXPLOITATION.

    Western women are among the most privileged human being ever to have existed on planet earth. It is sickening (but perhaps inevitable) that they feel the need to complain massively about a male scientist wearing a shirt with half naked ladies on it, as if this was some sort of genuine oppression or ‘patriarchal’ attack on all women, when there are men and women, boys and girls all over the world with ACTUAL problems which feminists could be devoting their time and energy to helping instead.

    Complaining about ‘first world problems’ (comedians, shirts, men spreading their legs on public transport, being called ‘bossy’ etc) is a sign that you enjoy PRIVILEGE. The problems faced by MOST women (and men) in the world are things like getting fresh, clean water, and decent healthcare and food.

    > Further, the feminist position on women in combat roles is complex, because feminism is complex. There are different varieties

    Yes. And this is one of the many criticisms of feminism. It does not adhere to any actual principles that anyone can nail down … instead it promotes a vague and over simplistic narrative about ‘historical oppression of women by men’ and then simply starts making demands for special treatment and free stuff.

    Feminists CLAIM to want gender equality because that sounds good…… and yet many feminists OPPOSE gender equality. Example: women fighting alongside men in the military is (by definition) an example of ‘gender equality’ and we both agree that as many feminists oppose this as support it.

    In modern society just ‘saying’ you are a feminist is good enough. You don’t have to actually DO anything or hold any specific views. This is like vegetarians defining ‘vegetarianism’ as both for AND against the consumption of meat. You can just declare yourself a ‘vegetarian’ and join the movement whether you eat meat or not!

    The rest of your arguments were already covered in my original comments. And this comment is getting rather long now! 😉

    I’ll end on this.

    > People may be genuinely confused and think that to not be sexist requires them to treat women the same way as men

    No. That is PRECISELY what not being sexist means! Not being sexist means treating women and men the same. That is totally what it means!

    As I already explained, in the past (and in many less developed areas of the world today) life was extremely brutal and harsh because we had not yet invented labour saving machines and tractors and other comforts and conveniences like central heating and phones and electric lighting etc.

    This meant that basic chores as well as all the work necessary to survive as individuals and as a society required a lot of MANUAL LABOUR, much of it dirty, dangerous, back breaking and unpleasant work. And men are generally stronger and more resilient than women physically (sexual dimorphism). So – on average – men can perform the same manual labour task more easily and with less risk of injury than women.

    So in those circumstances (ie most of human history) to treat men and women literally the same (ie gender equality) would actually be more unfair on women, because it is harder for women to, say, mine coal with pick axes or plough fields with horses or harvest crops with scythes than it is for men to perform those manual tasks.

    And THAT is why every society on the planet developed traditional male/ female roles which we casually refer to as ‘the patriarchy’. In a ‘patriarchy’ women (and by association children too) are placed at the centre of society and providing resources and protection to them is top priority…. and it is the men’s role to do the bulk of the manual labour and to ensure women and children’s protection, wellbeing, comfort and safety – even at expense to themselves. Sure, women will often perform many manual labour tasks too, but not as much as men (and never MORE than men). And as soon as technology improves the first people to be let off doing manual labour tasks is women and children……. and then once tractors are available animals (horses, donkeys etc) are let off too …… and then finally when we have reached the post industrial/ post technological stage most men are also able to work in non-manual labour jobs (in offices etc)….. but the remaining manual labour jobs left in society (garbage collection, construction, fishing, etc) are still left to a small bunch of mostly working class men.

    So in a modern city environment where most jobs are office type jobs ‘gender equality’ = fairness…… but in a more rural or primitive environment where manual labour jobs are still the norm ‘gender equality’ is actually rather unfair to women.

    This is another reason why feminism’s historical narrative is over simplistic and lacking intelligence (or honesty). Feminists assume that just because gender equality in their modern, middle class, urban, western, post industrial, post technological environment is ‘fair’ that the patriarchy in the past must have ben ‘unfair’ or even ‘oppression of women’.

    Well, it was certainly sexist and ‘unfair’ in that literal sense. But the sexism inherent in the traditional gender roles for men and women SERVED WOMEN’S INTERESTS AT THE TIME, in numerous ways as I have explained at length. Not in every way, but in many very significant ways, such as allowing women to opt out of the majority of dirty, dangerous manual labour jobs and wars and stuff.

    Sexism is NOT a black and white subject. The ‘patriarchy’ is not a black and white subject. Gender roles and social conventions are not a black and white subject. As with ALL human/ social interactions there are many complex layers going on. The feminist narrative of ‘systematic oppression of women by men’ is offensive to men, and demeaning to women. It is also at odds with basic facts, reason and logic.

    Feminists cannot defend their ‘patriarchy theory’ in a fair debate using facts, reason and logic.

    And that is why feminists must always resort to playing the victim card, and claiming they are being *personally* attacked by an angry, vitriolic troll or a misogynist (or whatever), whenever someone openly challenges their warped feminist narrative in a public forum, such as this. And this is why feminists try to maintain a monopoly on an INCORRECT and totally LOADED definition of ‘sexism’ to mean ‘the specific oppression of women by men’. You see, if you can define ‘sexism’ as the oppression of women only’ then you effectively block any discussion or debate that would challenge feminist theory.

    Subverting language in this way is completely Orwellian.

    Your posts are the equivalent of someone trying to re-define ‘crime’ specifically in terms of ‘black crimes against whites’…… and then claiming someone offering a more accurate (and less loaded) definition of crime is personally attacking you.

    I assure you, I am not. I am just being fair 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s