Category Archives: Sexual Equality / Gender Equality

Looking at “The Battle of the Sexes” in context.

caprizchka left a long comment in reply to my post  What Are Boys Good For?

A long comment lead to a long response, best served as an article and not buried in a comment thread.


Caprizchka, You’ve packed a lot into that comment, I’ll do my best to reply.

I wonder whether attitudes fostered in children of this nature are part of the logical progression from “The Tender Years Doctrine”, child labor laws and other advocacy of children with the apparent aim of extending childhood (perhaps indefinitely). A lot of these socially-engineered gender wars seems to me to be anti-sex or otherwise attempting to delay it until marriage as well as glorification of virginity–particularly in girls in furtherance of increasing her marriage market value.

I honestly don’t know. I interpret this question as meaning “Can the cause be that children are primarily raised by (potentially) single mothers in the case of divorce, that children can no longer be forced to work in a factory, and general advocacy for children’s well-being.” I’m not sure that there was a direct intent to extend childhood, but acknowledge that it might be a by-product.

As far as the social engineering, again, I think that’s an emergent property more than a deliberate goal, or at least that the current phenomena of social engineering by Feminist parties are a by-product of historical conditions.

Mary Wollstonecraft certainly made the same observations that you have.

Politics is the management of power and resources via relationship. Gender roles have always been about managing the resources of labour and wealth–of both men and women–to ensure a better survival. My grandparents successfully demonstrated how this was effective and fulfilling for both. We seem to have adopted a rule of thumb, in the Western world whereby women select and are given the lighter physical tasks, and a focus on child-rearing in the early years. Note that in medieval China, Japan, Korea, etc. that women were considered hard, physical workers as much as men. I’ve asked someone I know that is familiar with current Japanese culture to see if this holds true to this day, in some form. I look forward to his reply, should he offer me one.

It would seem to me that extended childhood is ultimately utilitarian to various adults and does dubious service if any to the child him or herself. Reading of the tremendous feats performed by “children” of our past tells me that human beings have a history of being far more independently driven and self reliant than the norm today.

I would agree that this would be so. I recall John Taylor Gatto writing about The Prussian School, a form of education that we follow today, that essentially served to educate people enough so that they may successfully perform a given set of tasks, but not enough so that they might think beyond and question the foundations of their society. I also agree regarding how much more capacity we seemed to demonstrate in the past. Even in my grandparent’s time, children learned about the real world, because the very survival of the family and it’s members depended on it. Out of curiosity, which children that have done great feats are you thinking of?

Meanwhile, given that both sexuality and character are apparently determined in childhood, setting up genders into opposite camps–including sex-segregated schools or prisons for that matter–sets up a conflict from the start.

The thing is, that gender has not been set up in opposing camps until the second wave of Feminism in the Western world. We’ve always acknowledged the difference, but there was no class warfare that I’m aware of predated that. I will acknowledge that there have, across history in various parts of the world been a distinction between who does what, but the actual “battle of the sexes” is a recent and unfortunate novelty.

What seems to be missing however is the notion of productive work, apprenticeship, and self-directed education–features of the lives of children of our collective history.

Yes, I agree. Have you been reading Gatto? :)

An issue that is plaguing today’s society is a discontinuity between generations. I hold the strong opinion that we can benefit from some past and faded institutions: a focus on craftsmanship, production of real goods, the apprenticeship system and mentoring–for boys and girls. Consider the relationship between Anne Sullivan and Helen Keller as an extreme example or of Henry David Thoreau, mentored by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

This brings me back to a larger issue. I believe that a big part of what ails us as a society is our over-ease. We text each other from mere steps away, we have anonymous friendships over the internet, we rarely grow, raise, harvest or kill our own food. Most of us have never been forced to sleep without shelter, and few of us have ever, unwillingly, gone without food for more that a few days. We are disconnected from the reality of the physical world. Our hyper-availability of cheap and nearly invisible energy shields us from understanding the heavy toil of building a life from the raw elements of the earth. We buy products made in China, though the internet and have it delivered next-day by UPS. Do you know that it takes an average of 50k square feet of land to feed one adult a vegetarian diet for one year? This is one of my goals, to grow 90%+ of my food. I heat my house with wood that I cut or collect. Thank god for gas and chainsaws, I don’t have my forbears’ stamina! If it weren’t for electricity, petroleum, insta-goods, it’d be a full-time job. And I don’t have to stave off raiders and starving thieves.

Tangent: I also think that our long-livedness has a part of play. We no longer seem to have a sense of urgency. We Westerners don’t see death up-close, regularly. We don’t starve. We don’t die in mass-plagues. Our long, comfortable lives, combined with a general disconnection and anonymity in a population of 7 billion plus humans makes it difficult for the average suburbanite to connect to reality. Back to our topic.

This “gender war” that was constructed can only exist in the land of cheap and plenty. It wasn’t until the world was built to a certain degree of pervasive wealth that the spoiled-children movement started by aristocratic women could exist. Frankly, when a woman is pulling a plow and a man is having to hold it upright, and that the task takes days for a single field, there’s no time to worry about “microagressions.”

Working together toward a common productive goal–with material benefit–would seem to me to be a way of building bridges between diverse demographics of all sorts: adults, children, family, friends, hired help, etc., of both sexes. Ironically, however, such a thing generally occurs in Third World countries free of the child labor, child protection, and compulsory schooling laws of the West, until Western bodies set forth to interfere “for the children!”

We agree.

Meanwhile, in co-ed production ventures, far more productivity results when women and girls are appropriately attired. Meanwhile Western do-gooders decry opportunity for fashionable expression in Third World women, exalting slut-wear, while “rescuing” sex workers from the means to survive.

Productivity in co-ed situations: I don’t know much about this. Point me to something specific?

“while “rescuing” sex workers from the means to survive.”

/me chuckles. Cute and clever turn of phrase.

Given that most of the above-described social engineering efforts have been spearheaded by women’s groups I sadly conclude that we might all be better off as a species if such women’s groups were cloistered and effectively muzzled. Since supposedly in our politically-correct obsessed world, “hate speech” is prohibited, such a thing would be only decried by hypocrites–or extended adolescents which may be the same thing. However, rather than advocating such a regressive policy it would seem to me that noise-cancelling ear plugs ought to be the new fashion statement.

Given that most of the above-described social engineering efforts have been spearheaded by women’s groups

I’ll take issue with this. Note that my point of view spans the globe and human history, rather than modern Western history. Much of this was in play long before modern women’s groups started. Modern women’s groups, Feminism, didn’t sprout from nothingness, certain conditions were necessary to permit this virus to flourish. I stand by my claim that Feminism is a by-product of gynocentrism, that is, our attitudes of protecting women and of sacrificing men predate all of this. Feminism is the by-product of unconscious attitudes which, thanks to leisure time, security and a world of plenty. The real liberation of men and women came in the form of plenty. Without the pre-existing full, warm, dry and safe, Feminism could not exist.

I sadly conclude that we might all be better off as a species if such women’s groups were cloistered and effectively muzzled.

I’ll disagree again. Let them speak, yap and bark like a pack of spoiled chihuahuas on acid. Let us amplify that mad yapping. What we should be doing is to remove the mental muzzle that the rest of us have worn. I find value in the extremist nut-cases. They like to paint hyperbolic black-and-white scenarios. Let us hold a mirror to them, and place the camera on them. And let us adults simply voice our thoughts to provide contrast.

However, rather than advocating such a regressive policy it would seem to me that noise-cancelling ear plugs ought to be the new fashion statement.

I hear you… wait, what? :) Again, a very cute turn of phrase, I like it.

Here’s the good news. The tide is turning. I’ve often likened the internet to a global subconscious mind. If we can accept the metaphor that each of us is a neuron connecting with others in a global brain, perhaps we can see how it takes time for us to work this stuff out. And even when we get that Ah-hah! moment, that brief epiphany, it still takes us some time to integrate it emotionally and behaviourally. We’re starting to open our eyes, the idea is taking shape. It’ll take some time for us to work it out until such time as the end of this generation starts to consciously change it’s way of looking at things. If we don’t wipe ourselves out as a species, I have hope that within three generations that our great-great grandchildren will look back at these times and shake their heads as we do at the notion of racism and slavery.

Tagged , , ,

Christina Hoff-Sommers: Why do you call yourself a Feminist?

I can appreciate Christina Hoff-Sommer’s sentimental attachment to a movement of her youth. There are still Elvis fans, but Elvis is dead, and so is her Glory Days movement. At what point does a bunch become a heap? At what point does the number of angry, man-hating paranoid and surly law-making, influence-wielding, self-proclaimed Feminists become the majority so that the term takes on a new meaning?

I’ve gone so far as to give up the title “Egalitarian” as a position, and simply refer to myself as impartial, the true antonym to the terms “sexist” and “racist.” While many women are getting their faces burned with acid, so are men. While many women are homeless, so are men. While many women are subject to domestic violence, so are men.

Are we in fact striving for an impartial and mutually respectful society? Are we truly willing to let go of long-held cultural and even instinctual prejudices? If so we must choose the vehicle best suited to ourselves and for a collective of individuals that firmly believe that character and a sense of duty must be the fundamental tool for change, rather than some long-gone ideology.

Tagged ,

#ViolenceIsViolence, and double standards are no excuse

Pay close attention to people’s reactions. ’nuff said.

From the YouTube description

40% of domestic violence is against men in the UK. Violence is violence, no matter who it’s aimed at.

Our helpline costs just £35,000 per year to run, by donating you will help us to support men suffering in this way get the support they need. Please donate here:

Find out more about the ManKind Invitiative, Support for Male Victims of Domestic Abuse and Domestic Violence :

From The ManKind Initiative’s page:

Our confidential helpline is available for all men across the UK suffering from domestic violence or domestic abuse by their current or former wife or partner (including same-sex partner).

This can range from actual violence or object throwing to mental abuse such as constant bullying or constant insults.

We provide both emotional support and practical information.

We receive calls from male victims across all age ranges and professions:

•    From dustmen and doctors to bankers and builders,
•    From men in their 20s to men in their 80s,
•    From men across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

We welcome calls from mothers, sisters and friends of male victims seeking information.

We also receive calls from support organisations, charities and statutory agencies such as local authorities and police forces.

Tagged , , ,

On the notion of gender.

When we’re born, a doctor instantly deems us to be one of two things: Male or female. But gender isn’t just between our legs. It’s also between our ears. So, what happens when how we look on the outside clashes with how we feel on the inside? Do we settle? Do we change? And at the end of the day should gender really be as big a deal as society wants us think it is? In this talk Decker Moss explores these issues and more, as he struggled through not only one but two major gender-related transitions in his life.

I’m going speak very politically incorrectly. I will violate a taboo, and risk the false appearance of insensitivity. I am going to speak contrary to the notion of “gender.”

Here Decker Moss gives an earnest, heartfelt, sincere–and silly–talk.

The speaker in this video errs in conflating the words “gender” and “sex”. Gender is a description on one’s sense of sexuality. Sex is a description of our chromosomes and the resultant physical traits that the body exhibits.

It is true that sex isn’t purely a binary. Some are born with XY chromosomes, looking and sounding like females in every aspect–except that they have undecended testicles. There are some who are born with two vaginas, or with one testicle and no penis, or with both vaginas and penises, simultaneously. Just as we vary in height, size, quantity of limbs or sexual apparatus, we are all different. None of this is an argument for changing how government or commerce operates. It might certainly be a reminder that we are all born of various configurations, and that we all deserve a baseline of moral respect, but that is as far as practicality can allow.

The speaker says “Our world is set up to keep us in these two boxes [male or female].” No, it isn’t. It simply follows the path of least resistance. It exists as a means of identifying the particular animal in a herd. These identifications also includes height, weight, skin colour, eye colour and hair colour.

“Gender” is an internal state, not a physical one, no more applicable to official documents than would be phobias or sexual preferences or religious beliefs. Even the vague notion of Nationality carries more weight; it points to records of an individual’s history, one, should they engage in criminal activity, or suffer some physical emergency has a greater chance of being useful than “gender.”

The question of “gender” is to me the equivalent of “marital status”, in short, not all that relevant–yet, even for bureaucratic purposes, this again points to relationships with specific individuals. Personally, I’ve always thought that my “marital status” should be answered with a four letter acronym: MYOB, but even so, I acknowledge that for some purposes it seems to be important.

It tells us something about the individual, but how important is that something to the bulk of society after all? Either the person you are dealing with is someone you want in your life for their functionality (cop, store clerk, chef) or for their personal or social value (lover, friend, bar buddy). Let us imagine that I asked others to refer to me as “she”, or “her”. What has that changed in practice? Nothing, other than a indicator of respect by the individual to whom I would be speaking, should they accept to do so.

Should you tell me that you prefer to be addressed as “he” or “she”, I’m fine with that, but do not mistake the momentum of countless thousands of years of biology and the functional tools that have helped us forge a working civilization as an insufficiency when it is not.

In short, do not mistake that your one personal distinction makes you a victim, any more than being in a wheel-chair, having a body-type that grows you to far above or below the average, or being born without fully functioning senses, body parts or bodily capacities that are different than the average.

I am colour blind. This prevents me from a variety of jobs. When I was younger, I wanted to be a helicopter pilot. Can’t do it. I’ve been hired for jobs, then fired from them because I could not see colour. I have been turned down for jobs because I cannot see colour. Was I the victim of colour-blind discrimination? No. The job required X, and I am physiologically incapable of performing certain tasks such as discriminating amongst certain hues of colour. I do not rage at the world for a lost dream. I acknowledge that when picking clothes that I must ask strangers to help me. I have to be particularly attentive when I drive. I ask for colour help 5-6 times a week. I get weird looks and am the butt of jokes often enough.

Are there challenges associated when your sense of self does not match your outward appearance? Most assuredly. Should we view this as society working against you? No.

“Gender” is a personal thing, a social thing. Even the triviality of colour-blindness has more of a real-world impact. If you think of yourself as a woman, but look like a man, does this prevent you from driving a car? Calculating numbers? Preparing food? Opening doors?

The speaker asks “Is all of this gendering necessary?”

My response: you certainly seem to think so, and have yet to make a case for things to change, other than using an appeal to sympathy. You haven’t made any good arguments. Can anyone make a solid and cogent argument as to why “gender” should be any considering in any situation other than a social one? I can think of none.

One can make, I’m sure, a number of excellent arguments for treating people as they wish to be treated on the social and interpersonal levels, many of which I would probably agree with. This speaker, in conflating sex with a sense of sexuality has failed to make the case.

There are those amongst my respected interlocutors on this blog, particularly, that I’d love to hear from.

Tagged , ,

Feminism’s Theft of Moral Authority.

The Theft of Moral Authority

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Dear Feminist,

There are those of your kind that commonly try to sell me the notion that Feminism is a force for good. They would claim to continue in the tradition of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony all while raising funds for campaigns that imply that all men are rapists and that you aren’t a real feminist unless you believe in Patriarchy Theory, Rape Culture and Free Bleeding. “But not all feminists are like that,” you exclaim, “Those Feminists aren’t True Scotsmen.”

My experience of feminists is that if not ALL like that, you are, in fact, the greatest majority numerically, the most powerful, the most influential, and the most harmful faction.

There is a crime known as Stolen Valour. The crime is one of falsely claiming to have earned medals of distinctions, to have engaged in certain battles or actions or of having committed great deeds create impression of valour–it is a claim to unearned valour.

For a Modern Feminist, this is a common sort of behaviour, that of leaning on the credit of others for a moral authority that you do not possess. And you do it casually, and even innocently.

When I hear “Let me tell you what Feminism really is about” I can correctly predict that over 99% of the time, the eager feminist will attempt to paint a noble and grandiose vision that rest the ideas of their Second and Third wave Feminist apologetic on the moral authority of the First Wave Feminists. It’s like clockwork. It is the primary go-to response, the primary article of faith.

And why do you do this? For two reasons. The first is that once there was a time where women were institutionally treated as lesser than men. These were genuine grievances and they have been rightfully addressed and resolved.

The second reason is that without this moral authority, the Patriarchy Hypothesis, “Women’s Ways of Knowing”, Rape Culture and the like would be seen for what it is: addle-minded, post-modern bigotry and wishcraft. If it were not for the works of a number of fair-minded people many years ago on whose name and cause you can draw on for a semblance of moral authority, your present ideas would be regarded much as we do The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

So, when you call yourself a “Feminist” and try to tell me what “Feminism” means, unless you are specifying your exact beliefs and act according to purely Egalitarian principles and do so in a consistent manner, your apologetics will remain as bereft of morality as they are of logic.

Your bigotry was never their goal.

Tagged ,

MANstream Media: What do you mean “men’s” issues?

A question to women. One of the issues discussed is what is know in MRA circles as “The Empathy Gap”, that is, humans a pre-programmed to attend to women’s needs, but to ignore men’s needs. A woman weeping evokes sympathy and is seen as a call to action to help her; a man crying is seen as someone who should shunned and avoided. Men’s pain is only ignored as a means to avoid personal discomfort.

Tell me, from your point of view, what techniques would be most effective in eliciting the response of empathy, compassion and fundamental human caring to the woman who may not have a son’s well being to appeal to?

I look forward to your thoughtful responses.

Tagged , , , ,

Men must stand together against vile viral violence in our society


Screen grabs from a video

Screen grabs from a video of the aftermath of the recent assault on a Melbourne train. Roger Stableford was assaulted by two teenage girls after they refused to remove their feet off from a seat an allow him to sit down. Source: News Limited

WHY don’t decent blokes do anything? Have we lost our collective cojones?

In today’s viral video of feral females monstering an innocent train passenger, the most depressing aspect is the sea of faces studiously looking down at their phones, tablets, papers – anywhere but at the aggressors and their victim.

Nobody got up to help, to shield the man, tell the girls to pull their heads in or even to show silent support … not until the teenagers had left the carriage.

I’m sure everyone had a reason to not get involved – as a daily train traveller who has seen plenty of vile incidents, I get the dilemma – but in the cold light of day it adds up to a shocking show of apathy, especially from the men.

What has happened to us? And it’s specifically the blokes I’m talking to.

Why, in such a situation, do ordinary guys sitting nearby not exchange glances, give each other a nod and take collective action?

When young oiks of either sex rampage up and down train carriages, distressing mums and kids with vile language, why do the big guys in suits or fluoro vests – the regular real men who would not wish their families subjected to this – not stand up together, exercise their natural authority and bring calm to the situation?

It works; and even if it does not stop the idiots, it gives the traumatised victim a much-needed shield and comfort.

“But I don’t know what’s going on, it’s not my business,” I hear you think. “How do I know who’s in the right?”

Even if it’s not obvious, you don’t need to know – just stopping the situation escalating is enough, then leave matters of right/wrong/crime to the proper authorities.

I’m no hero: I’ve asked gangs of swearing teens to stop and had great results, possibly because I spoke with respect; I’ve also chosen not to tackle big, hairy Neanderthals in the same situation because they looked way too dangerous. A considered decision, but for a time I still hated that I bottled.

I’ve tackled a bag-snatcher and chased him away from his victim and his loot, but backed off when he turned on me in case he had a weapon. Another considered decision – one that I was much happier with.

I don’t suggest people put themselves in danger, but I’d argue that a few calm adult men acting as a group would be enough to dissipate the danger in these situations.

Humans are capable of heroic altruism – witness those ordinary citizens who confront serious maniacs like terrorists – but can be shockingly slow to act.

Who stepped in when Nigella Lawson was being choked in a restaurant by her husband? Nobody. Not a single one of their genteel, cashed-up fellow diners.

In the recent string of racist attacks on Australian buses, a few brave souls have intervened for the victims – but far too few.

It’s time to stand up and be counted, fellas. Be the role models and leaders our society needs, but don’t leave each other hanging when someone gets the ball rolling.

When ordinary good guys act together, it can be an enormously powerful force.

See the video here.

Tagged , , ,

Men’s Rights Activism: Women in STEM?

Men’s Rights Activism: Women in STEM? We’re all for it! Your life. Your responsibility. Now do it.

Men’s Rights Activism: Women in STEM? We’re all for it! Your life. Your Responsibility. Now do it.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Tagged , ,

Another interesting exchange between the Skeptical Heretic and Justicar

This, to me, is what good conversation sounds like. One doesn’t necessarily have to agree with either position to appreciate the thinking behind it.

Tagged ,