As previously noted, feminists universally compare the female average to the male elite. So, they look at the wealthy CEOs of giant companies, and compare themselves to those very privileged men.
Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that while those elites have privileges over women, they also have privileges over the vast majority of men.
These crazy women seem to think that male working class men such as manual labourers and lead lives of enormous privilege, when in fact their lives are hard, demanding and often short.
Most men lead lives of quiet desperation. That is a fact.
I don't call the femists crazy lightly, but it's true. These deluded imbeciles get to enjoy lives of immense comfort provided by men in civilisations built almost entirely by men, while complaining about the evils of those same men. They are crazy.
Excellent take. Really nice deconstruction of the paradox that is the longer the life expectancy, the greater the focus is on you. It should certainly be inverse from this.
Feminism is so fascinating because of its duplicity. It has now just become a kind of ideology to validate any woman’s impulses and affirm her decisions at any time… even when those validations completely contradict one another.
The Norway statistics vis-a-vis Lesotho are a classic failure of benchmarking, similar to problems with the metric “IQ”. Normally you would have a metric of general longevity, among humans, then look at above or below a set point as well as range of variability.
The main reason for such metrics is to prioritize funding decisions (strategy) for lifting sub-performers to parity with the best. This was the case with IQ which was designed to address sub-performance, not to judge above-parity levels.
The metrics are harmful, and antithetical to remediating sup-performing groups, including women.
The only reason they are manipulated they way they are is to attempt to hide the outperformance by women globally on many measures (education: attainment and PISA testing women are better; health: longevity, risky behavior, communicable disease; civic engagement; work-life balance). I would counter the junk statistics with globally available OECD data stratified by sex.
Until they normalize all data and use percentiles it’s all junk math.
men were stronger than women, thereby subjugated them. men created a world that made women more comfortable (thereby less dependent on them). women immediately rebelled against men (while continuing to take full advantage of what men built and continue provide which they cannot or do not want to). the end.
There seem to be as many definitions of feminism as there are proponents and opponents of it. I consider myself a sort of feminist, but I agree with your view that the situations you point out are not in any way “equality” and aren’t desirable.
What SHOULD gender equality look like?
Mostly what you said - we should all be equal under the law. Women shouldn’t be legally controlled by men, required to get permission from their father or husband in order to manage their own finances, establish their own home, get an education or a job. Employers can have reasonable requirements for jobs, as long as those requirements relate to the ability to do the job, and should not discriminate against anyone who can meet the requirements, regardless of sex. (And if this means that only 10% of women meet the requirements while 70% of men do, so be it, as long as the requirements truly reflect what’s required and aren’t artificially constructed to exclude women.)
Where it gets a little tricky is the fact that men and women aren’t exactly the same, so some situations may require special circumstances so that people are still treated fairly, if not exactly equally. For example, women go through pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding, and often take the larger role in caring for young children. Because of this, many families traditionally prioritize the man’s career. This does leave women somewhat more likely to be financially vulnerable in case the marriage ends. How should the law account for that? Women may also require more parental leave after a birth. They may also require more physical protection in some situations, or different equipment due to different physical circumstances (such as being much smaller on average). It seems it should be possible to accommodate these situations without veering off into the discrimination against men that you described.
Ok, yes, that’s what I thought you were saying. I’ve also heard of the opposite situation, where a man who had moral objections to abortion and wanted to raise the child was trying to take legal action because he didn’t have a say over whether the woman had an abortion. That situation is a little harder to justify giving the man any remedy, though, since the remedy would necessarily involve giving authority over a woman’s body to someone else. In that case, yes, it’s unfair, but take it up with God or Mother Nature or evolution, whichever you prefer. (I actually kind of feel it was unfair that I had to deal with pregnancy and nausea and labor and stretch marks and weight gain and leaky breasts, while my husband who also wanted kids got none of that, but…same answer 🙂)
I think the situation you are talking about, where a man can be forced to financially support a child he didn’t want, and possibly was tricked into believing would not be conceived, is one of those where imperfect compromise is the best that’s possible. I think it’s reasonable to discuss whether a man can opt out, especially if it’s early enough that the woman can still choose what to do and especially if deceit is involved (although that’s hard to prove). On the other hand, it isn’t the child’s fault, and the man still had a choice whether to have sex and accept the risk, no matter how low he believes it is, of pregnancy. His window of choice ended earlier than the woman’s, but then, so does his physical commitment. No real clear answers here. No matter what we do, it’s inherently unfair.
I didn’t know that Israel’s military requirements were different for males and females. That’s interesting. Having military service requirements for both sexes does raise some issues to work through, though. It wouldn’t make sense to draft both parents in a family where there are kids. Drafting pregnant or immediately postpartum or breastfeeding women would be extremely unpopular and probably not useful. But making some allowances for biological reality, I agree it would be possible to create a fairer policy than what we have today.
Male reproductive health rights would include things such as erectile dysfunction, sperm quality, testosterone/hormonal levels, cancers, etc.. in the mutual interest of all parties.
On your point above, about the man having a choice to have sex or not and accepting the risk of pregnancy, applies equally to women. It can apply equally to women who don’t want the child but the man does.
The two most glaring forms of discrimination against men are male-only military draft registration and conscription, and female-only reproductive rights. Then there is the statement by the Democratic party, on the "who we serve" page of their website, that they serve women, but not men.
I agree, a male-only draft is discriminatory and should be revisited. It probably made sense when our society had strict gender roles, and women were always the parent caring for children when men were at war, and when nearly all roles in war required more physical strength. But other countries, like Israel, require military service for both males and females. And in today’s world, where we mostly fight wars with technology instead of broadswords on a battlefield, there are many roles where physical size and strength are less important.
Reproductive rights are tricky. Biology inherently doesn’t care about fairness. Trying to make it fair will always be imperfect and require compromise. I assume you’re talking about the fact that once a pregnancy occurs a woman can choose whether to continue it, but for a man that choice ends before conception. Or was there something else you had in mind?
As far as the Democratic Party, IMO they don’t actually serve anyone but themselves.
Men not having reproductive rights mean that women can trick or trap men into paternity. In the Frank Serpico case, his girlfriend at the time stopped taking birth control pills without telling him. His lawyer, Karen deCrow argued in court that being that women are legally able to refuse parenthood, men should have the equivalent right. (This has been called the “paper abortion”. Serpico won initially but lost on appeal, and was ordered to pay 85% of his disability pension in child support to the mother that deceived him into paternity. Other methods of trapping a man into paternity are poking holes in condoms, a woman lying about taking the pill, or falsely accused a man she never met of paternity.
There was also a case where a gay physicist went to the DMV to renew his driver license, but was told his renewal was blocked due to unpaid child support. Imagine a man that has never slept with a woman being told he owes child support. It turned out that a welfare queen had slept with an impoverished Tyrone, then looked for a high-income man to name as the father. She picked his name from Facebook.
Israel’s military requirements are still not equal. The men must serve 3 years, the women only 2 years. Last I heard, women were exempted from the one-month-per-year reserve service that men are required to do, until age 54
I also believe that Israeli women, while in uniform, aren’t engaged actively in ‘frontline’ combat units. Ie commando unit crossing border… they are engaged in other areas. Although those other areas could be conceptually frontline-ish given the situation there.
Thank you. I have heard that Isreali women serve 2 years compared to 3 years for the men, when they turn 18, and are exempted from the one-month-per-year reserve requirement that men are required to serve, until age 54
One great and obvious inequality is that women continue to be exempt from military draft registration and conscription.
Another obvious inequality is that women have the right to refuse parenthood and men do not. Men could be given "financial abortions" - which is what Karen deCrow argued for in her courtroom defense of Frank Serpico.
If there was patriarchy there, then giving it to men exclusively would more likely have “trickled down”. The men would have expressly have supplied to their families.
But just as there would be an issue for men who had lost their families when it was given to women, there would be a similar issue for women who had no men to rely on. The support organisation should have a more equitable system. It’s not like this is their first disaster….
The ABC article is truly disturbing. The "men had it good for decades" argument is so weak. Today's men apparently should suffer for the sins of men from 60+ years ago. 🤷
This "men had it good for decades" argument also seems to be comparing the top 10% of men to the entirety of women. I wonder who had it better between the coal miner and the housewife?
Correct. That is the argument used to promote the concept of getting more women into STEM. They are comparing the average woman with the very few men able to compete in that field.
Correct. They look at the men in the corporate board room, but ignore the fact that there are 10,000 men driving trucks for every man in the corporate boardroom.
Righteous stuff!
As previously noted, feminists universally compare the female average to the male elite. So, they look at the wealthy CEOs of giant companies, and compare themselves to those very privileged men.
Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that while those elites have privileges over women, they also have privileges over the vast majority of men.
These crazy women seem to think that male working class men such as manual labourers and lead lives of enormous privilege, when in fact their lives are hard, demanding and often short.
Most men lead lives of quiet desperation. That is a fact.
I don't call the femists crazy lightly, but it's true. These deluded imbeciles get to enjoy lives of immense comfort provided by men in civilisations built almost entirely by men, while complaining about the evils of those same men. They are crazy.
Excellent take. Really nice deconstruction of the paradox that is the longer the life expectancy, the greater the focus is on you. It should certainly be inverse from this.
What’s great is that now everyone is equally miserable, as women generally don’t really enjoy watching sports.
Another quote supporting you. From Germaine Greer:
"We have gone about as far as we can go with this equality nonsense. It was always a fraud."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7b59mFyREY&t=243s
Nice work here. Thanks very much!
Well done! Checking this out.
Feminism is so fascinating because of its duplicity. It has now just become a kind of ideology to validate any woman’s impulses and affirm her decisions at any time… even when those validations completely contradict one another.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/feminism-as-entitlement-pt-1
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/feminism-as-entitlement-pt-2
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/feminism-as-entitlement-pt-31
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/feminism-as-entitlement-pt-32
Good piece, I wasn’t aware of execrable math.
The Norway statistics vis-a-vis Lesotho are a classic failure of benchmarking, similar to problems with the metric “IQ”. Normally you would have a metric of general longevity, among humans, then look at above or below a set point as well as range of variability.
The main reason for such metrics is to prioritize funding decisions (strategy) for lifting sub-performers to parity with the best. This was the case with IQ which was designed to address sub-performance, not to judge above-parity levels.
The metrics are harmful, and antithetical to remediating sup-performing groups, including women.
The only reason they are manipulated they way they are is to attempt to hide the outperformance by women globally on many measures (education: attainment and PISA testing women are better; health: longevity, risky behavior, communicable disease; civic engagement; work-life balance). I would counter the junk statistics with globally available OECD data stratified by sex.
Until they normalize all data and use percentiles it’s all junk math.
men were stronger than women, thereby subjugated them. men created a world that made women more comfortable (thereby less dependent on them). women immediately rebelled against men (while continuing to take full advantage of what men built and continue provide which they cannot or do not want to). the end.
There seem to be as many definitions of feminism as there are proponents and opponents of it. I consider myself a sort of feminist, but I agree with your view that the situations you point out are not in any way “equality” and aren’t desirable.
What SHOULD gender equality look like?
Mostly what you said - we should all be equal under the law. Women shouldn’t be legally controlled by men, required to get permission from their father or husband in order to manage their own finances, establish their own home, get an education or a job. Employers can have reasonable requirements for jobs, as long as those requirements relate to the ability to do the job, and should not discriminate against anyone who can meet the requirements, regardless of sex. (And if this means that only 10% of women meet the requirements while 70% of men do, so be it, as long as the requirements truly reflect what’s required and aren’t artificially constructed to exclude women.)
Where it gets a little tricky is the fact that men and women aren’t exactly the same, so some situations may require special circumstances so that people are still treated fairly, if not exactly equally. For example, women go through pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding, and often take the larger role in caring for young children. Because of this, many families traditionally prioritize the man’s career. This does leave women somewhat more likely to be financially vulnerable in case the marriage ends. How should the law account for that? Women may also require more parental leave after a birth. They may also require more physical protection in some situations, or different equipment due to different physical circumstances (such as being much smaller on average). It seems it should be possible to accommodate these situations without veering off into the discrimination against men that you described.
Ok, yes, that’s what I thought you were saying. I’ve also heard of the opposite situation, where a man who had moral objections to abortion and wanted to raise the child was trying to take legal action because he didn’t have a say over whether the woman had an abortion. That situation is a little harder to justify giving the man any remedy, though, since the remedy would necessarily involve giving authority over a woman’s body to someone else. In that case, yes, it’s unfair, but take it up with God or Mother Nature or evolution, whichever you prefer. (I actually kind of feel it was unfair that I had to deal with pregnancy and nausea and labor and stretch marks and weight gain and leaky breasts, while my husband who also wanted kids got none of that, but…same answer 🙂)
I think the situation you are talking about, where a man can be forced to financially support a child he didn’t want, and possibly was tricked into believing would not be conceived, is one of those where imperfect compromise is the best that’s possible. I think it’s reasonable to discuss whether a man can opt out, especially if it’s early enough that the woman can still choose what to do and especially if deceit is involved (although that’s hard to prove). On the other hand, it isn’t the child’s fault, and the man still had a choice whether to have sex and accept the risk, no matter how low he believes it is, of pregnancy. His window of choice ended earlier than the woman’s, but then, so does his physical commitment. No real clear answers here. No matter what we do, it’s inherently unfair.
I didn’t know that Israel’s military requirements were different for males and females. That’s interesting. Having military service requirements for both sexes does raise some issues to work through, though. It wouldn’t make sense to draft both parents in a family where there are kids. Drafting pregnant or immediately postpartum or breastfeeding women would be extremely unpopular and probably not useful. But making some allowances for biological reality, I agree it would be possible to create a fairer policy than what we have today.
Male reproductive health rights would include things such as erectile dysfunction, sperm quality, testosterone/hormonal levels, cancers, etc.. in the mutual interest of all parties.
On your point above, about the man having a choice to have sex or not and accepting the risk of pregnancy, applies equally to women. It can apply equally to women who don’t want the child but the man does.
The two most glaring forms of discrimination against men are male-only military draft registration and conscription, and female-only reproductive rights. Then there is the statement by the Democratic party, on the "who we serve" page of their website, that they serve women, but not men.
I agree, a male-only draft is discriminatory and should be revisited. It probably made sense when our society had strict gender roles, and women were always the parent caring for children when men were at war, and when nearly all roles in war required more physical strength. But other countries, like Israel, require military service for both males and females. And in today’s world, where we mostly fight wars with technology instead of broadswords on a battlefield, there are many roles where physical size and strength are less important.
Reproductive rights are tricky. Biology inherently doesn’t care about fairness. Trying to make it fair will always be imperfect and require compromise. I assume you’re talking about the fact that once a pregnancy occurs a woman can choose whether to continue it, but for a man that choice ends before conception. Or was there something else you had in mind?
As far as the Democratic Party, IMO they don’t actually serve anyone but themselves.
Men not having reproductive rights mean that women can trick or trap men into paternity. In the Frank Serpico case, his girlfriend at the time stopped taking birth control pills without telling him. His lawyer, Karen deCrow argued in court that being that women are legally able to refuse parenthood, men should have the equivalent right. (This has been called the “paper abortion”. Serpico won initially but lost on appeal, and was ordered to pay 85% of his disability pension in child support to the mother that deceived him into paternity. Other methods of trapping a man into paternity are poking holes in condoms, a woman lying about taking the pill, or falsely accused a man she never met of paternity.
There was also a case where a gay physicist went to the DMV to renew his driver license, but was told his renewal was blocked due to unpaid child support. Imagine a man that has never slept with a woman being told he owes child support. It turned out that a welfare queen had slept with an impoverished Tyrone, then looked for a high-income man to name as the father. She picked his name from Facebook.
Israel’s military requirements are still not equal. The men must serve 3 years, the women only 2 years. Last I heard, women were exempted from the one-month-per-year reserve service that men are required to do, until age 54
I also believe that Israeli women, while in uniform, aren’t engaged actively in ‘frontline’ combat units. Ie commando unit crossing border… they are engaged in other areas. Although those other areas could be conceptually frontline-ish given the situation there.
Thank you. I have heard that Isreali women serve 2 years compared to 3 years for the men, when they turn 18, and are exempted from the one-month-per-year reserve requirement that men are required to serve, until age 54
The greatest inequality is to take two things that are not equal and make them equal.
One great and obvious inequality is that women continue to be exempt from military draft registration and conscription.
Another obvious inequality is that women have the right to refuse parenthood and men do not. Men could be given "financial abortions" - which is what Karen deCrow argued for in her courtroom defense of Frank Serpico.
What kind of credible emergency food program gives food to one group exclusively and hopes it trickles down? What kind of people that's a good excuse?
If there was patriarchy there, then giving it to men exclusively would more likely have “trickled down”. The men would have expressly have supplied to their families.
But just as there would be an issue for men who had lost their families when it was given to women, there would be a similar issue for women who had no men to rely on. The support organisation should have a more equitable system. It’s not like this is their first disaster….
Except women are nowhere near equal to men, hence why they seek to repress us.
Stealing that graphic. Nice work!
It really communicates well doesn't it?
It was created by a supporter, Fraser. He did a great job didn't he?
Cheers
It’s a sabotage of humanity. Absolutely mind boggling.
The ABC article is truly disturbing. The "men had it good for decades" argument is so weak. Today's men apparently should suffer for the sins of men from 60+ years ago. 🤷
This "men had it good for decades" argument also seems to be comparing the top 10% of men to the entirety of women. I wonder who had it better between the coal miner and the housewife?
Correct. That is the argument used to promote the concept of getting more women into STEM. They are comparing the average woman with the very few men able to compete in that field.
Correct. They look at the men in the corporate board room, but ignore the fact that there are 10,000 men driving trucks for every man in the corporate boardroom.
Totally agree. In fact, the issue you raise will feature in my next essay...