Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Some Utopia...

Feminism operates double standards to such an extreme degree that it cannot possibly be an accident. Here are just a few of the most obvious cases:

Rape is perfectly acceptable to feminists as long as it only happens to men. The USA has the largest prison population in the world, and rape is endemic in the American prison system. Reference When was the last time you heard Women Against Rape condemning homosexual rape? I don't hear Rape Crisis Feminists making a sound. Feminists are not at all concerned about rape. They are only concerned about the rape of women.

Domestic violence is only a problem if men do it to women. The evidence shows that women initiate domestic violence at least as often as men do, if not more often (Reference), but it is not politically correct to point this out. If women abuse their male partners, or if same-sex couples abuse each other, it must not be admitted. Feminists are not at all concerned about domestic violence; they are only concerned about domestic violence by men against women.

The oldest profession is perfectly acceptable as long as men are doing it, whether they are serving either the male homosexual or female heterosexual communities. Feminists are not opposed to prostitution; they are only opposed to female prostitution.

Similarly, male strip-tease is not a target for feminist condemnation. It is either ignored by them, or passed off as a bit of harmless fun. I would agree, but for the fact that they vociferously condemn female strip-tease as exploitative. I don't mind women using the sex industry; it's the hypocrisy I can't stand.

Male porn stars are never represented by feminists as exploited victims, even though they do the same job, and get paid significantly less than the women. Pornography aimed at women and gay men is liberating; pornography aimed at straight men is degrading and exploitative.

Feminists concern themselves with representations of women. Look at representations of men. How positive are these? Particularly look at the way many feminists represent men. They are concerned about the so-called ‘objectification’ of women, but look at how they objectify men. This must surely be one of the best examples of Feminist hypocrisy; their constant bleating about representations of women on the one hand, and their own scandalous representations of men on the other.

Let's consider military conflict. The Greenham Common-based women's peace movement argued that 'war is one of the bad things that men do to women'; it is an aspect of men's violent destructive nature and social irresponsibility. The solution is to 'take the toys away from the boys' (although Margaret Thatcher obviously didn't get the message). Yet at the same time, they demand that women be given access to all military jobs. In the US, DACOWITS lobbies the government to just this end.

What is the feminist analysis of war? Is war a good thing or a bad thing? Well, it seems to be a good thing when women do it, and a bad thing when men do it. How can this be explained?

The same argument applies to business. Corporate capitalism is a rapacious, exploitative practise which is destroying the world (Of course that doesn't mean you can't go shopping - support a woman's right to shoes!). But strangely enough, feminists ever bemoan the lack of women in top boardroom jobs. If capitalism is really destroying and exploiting, you would expect that feminists would want no part of it. Far from it, they demand more top-salaried corporate jobs for themselves. So is corporate capitalism a good thing or a bad thing? Well, just like war, it seems to be a bad thing when men do it, and a good thing when women do it.

Consider also:
  • The ritualised mutilation of children's genital organs is only bad if it happens to girls, not if it happens to boys.
  • It’s perfectly acceptable to blame the victim as long as the victim is male.
  • Wrongful imprisonment is only a problem when it happens to women, not when it happens to men.
  • Thankless, boring, dangerous, badly-paid, low-status work is perfectly all right as long as men are doing it.
  • The ‘pay gap’ is not a problem as long as women are being paid more than men.
  • There can only be negative representations of women, not men. No representation of a man can be too negative.
  • ‘The body image trap’ only matters where it affects women - fat is a feminist issue, but baldness and shortness are not.
  • Psychiatric eating disorders are of no concern whatsoever when men suffer from them.
  • Suicide is only a problem when women do it.
  • Male-dominated clubs or professions are a social problem, female-dominated ones are not.
  • Sexual swear words are not degrading as long as they refer to (and are applied to) men; only ‘cunt’ is offensive as a derogatory term, not ‘prick’, ‘bollocks’, ‘wanker’ or ‘dickhead’.
  • Your experience doesn’t carry any authority if you’re a man, or a woman who’s happy being a full-time mother, or even just heterosexual.
  • Masturbation is tawdry and embarrassing when men do it, but natural, erotic and liberating when women do it.

How can we explain these double-standards, this doggedly one-sided perspective, what Neil Lyndon called 'the monocular squint of feminism'?

Is it because the requirement for logical consistency is nothing but a sinister male language game designed to silence women's voices? Is this seemingly strange reasoning an aspect of 'connected knowing', that mystical women-only understanding of the universe so beloved of Women's Studies professors, something which as a mere man, I cannot hope to comprehend?

Or could it be that this one-sidedness is akin to a kind of cognitive neglect similar to that suffered by stroke victims, a psychological 'blindness' causing an inability to empathise with others, or see any point of view except one's own?

I don't believe so. The real intention of the feminist agenda is not to implement justice and equality at all. In its mildest form it is the opportunistic pursuit of self-interest from one minute to the next, regardless of the consequences. In its most extreme form, it is to demonise and exclude men, and to destroy marriage, the family, and heterosexual relations. That is certainly what it looks like.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yep ..'Children' can be very cruel and unfair...and love knocking down things for sheer fun- even if they get hurt in the process.
What happened to the 'parents'?
Seduced by materialism and harried by survival against the state maybe..and deluded by so called demo-crassy?
Wake-up people!! -and put this equality con back in the box.

Uncharted Thoughts said...

You are right on the mark.
Its interesting to note the majority of these equalists and feminists are Zionists.

Zionists hate Christians and Catholics with a passion and seek to punish them.

These racist basterds are using the media and political leverage to punish us. This is why when we hear these feminists talk you get that gut wrenching feeling of total hatred. Thats hatred towards you, me, the whole country. Its just disguised with PC good intention.

Just look at the illogical support these women have for male genital mutilation. Its a tradition for them, so of course they support it.

This is like the trojan horse.

Mike said...

Utter sophistry. Do you want to suggest that prison rape is an element of systematic violence against men as men? When a man is raped in prison, is it related to his position in society as a man, or is it related to the fact that he's lower on the food chain inside prison?

Do you have any pictures of men abused by their wives? Any bloody faces or smashed noses? Is the damage done by women to men comparable?

Are there comparable numbers of male to female prostitutes? Is it not true that the overwhelming numbers of prostitutes are destitute women? The same goes with the wider sex industry. In porn, how often do you see "sluts begging for it" and how often do you see "studs begging for it"? You see the former a lot more than the latter.

Circumscision of women involves removal of the clitoris. It permanantly destroys any real possibility of sexual pleasure for a women. While I would never circumcise my son, the comparison of the two practices is utterly ridiculous.

Yes, men suffer injustices, but playing this "men suffer it too!" game when in fact the male version of these problems are comparably trivial is pathetic.

Heretic said...

Uncharted thoughts,
I don’t have much to offer you as I’ve made it clear many times that I’m an atheist, I don’t have any more respect for the Right than I do for the Left, and I dislike conspiracy theories. However, I do sympathise with some of your emotional responses, particularly the feeling that these people hate you for who you are, rather than for anything that you have said or done. Thank you for reading my blog.