Thursday, October 16, 2008

Defining Victory

In response to my last post, John asked a very relevant question, “If women are the enemy, then how do you define victory over the enemy?”

Simple answer, when men and women are treated equally under the law.

Although practically any given female will proclaim that equality is the goal of feminism, equality is plainly not our enemy’s goal. A female’s use of the term is nothing more than a shaming tactic to silence men. Have we not all heard the question, “don’t you believe in equal rights for women,” when attempting to debate with females?

No, the very core of feminism is women’s rights. It is not about equal rights or equal privileges, and certainly not about equal responsibilities and equal consequences.

As proof, I challenge each of my readers to peruse the National Organization of Women’s website and note how often the phrase “equal rights” is used compared to the phrase “women’s rights.” A Google search turns up 4700 occurrences of the phrase “women’s rights” but only 1540 instances of “equal rights,” of which most are concerned with the Equal Rights Amendment, lesbian and gay rights, disability rights, or equal pay “rights.”

NOW even uses the phrase “equal women’s rights” - as if equal rights are only for women. You see, in the eyes of females, we are all equal. It’s just that some are more equal than others.

Bottom line, I say we win when we have given females what they pretend to want – equality. Who can argue with such a strategy?


Anonymous said...

I hate the word equality as a political platitude. It's a term that refers to the effect, and ignores the cause. When will women earn as much as men? Well, they can make the argument that the cause is discrimination. By contrast, we can make the argument that the cause of their lower wages is their choices not to put in sufficient hours on the job compared to men, or take more dangerous or physically challenging positions, or their chances of taking the mommy track (which makes employers averse to advancing them up the ladder).

The bottom line is that we end up arguing over the initial conditions, i.e. the cause that precedes the alleged effect. As long as women's groups allege that women are or have been oppressed, they will always be able to portray female supremacy as an equality movement. That is why even using the term equality plays into their hands. Even the act of holding up equality as a positive ideal is tactically unsound, for our purposes.

We make the mistake of making a political argument, when in fact the way to defeat the female-supremacist movement is for men to effectively "go on strike." Victory, as I define it, will be achieved when women are no longer pampered by men -- when their only solace is government policy and programs. What's it going to be like when most of the professionals are women, and men have largely unplugged from the rat race? Perhaps women will be making more money, but they will learn the cold reality that their lives are now spent working each day under the harsh glare of fluorescent lights, perhaps in an office or cubicle somewhere, and they'll realize that it's no fun to become a workhorse, even if you get the higher wages for it.

They'll realize what men have known for ages. A man will become a workhorse if his reward at the end of the day is a well-kept home, a hot meal, a nurturing and soothing presence by his wife... These women who seek to become like men will soon realize the benefits that men have enjoyed in the workplace, but because no man is marrying them, they'll be denied the stable and soothing feminine influence that men have yearned for at the end of each work day.

Pretty soon, women will wake up one day with an epiphany -- this is not my beautiful life! Where are all the good men to support me while I nurture our (my) kids in our (my) home? Where's my rescuer? Where have all the cowboys gone?

Meanwhile, men will slowly wean themselves off of sole-provider status. If the culture and public policy oppress the male workhorse, then eventually he will stop being a workhorse. He will connect and bond with other men. He will spend his weekends on camping and fishing trips, kayaking expeditions, rock climbing, sight seeing, traveling, and playing the field of young eligible women. For each man who realizes this reality, liberating him from the need to live his days in support of a wife and family, THAT will be his victory.

And that revolution will be quiet and subtle; women will actually portray it as a rejection of men, when in fact it is men who are rejecting them. For who, in fact, was supporting who all these years prior to feminism? It was men supporting women. You will nevertheless see women heralding their career successes as a triumph over men, over patriarchy, over oppressive gender roles. Quietly, the liberated man will hear all this and laugh, as he adjusts the position of his fishing pole, and listens to the sound of a brook, as he tips his hat over his eyes and leans back in the shade -- content in the peace and serenity that he has found, no longer anyone's workhorse. That is how I would define victory.

Elusive Wapiti said...

An awesome comment, John Dias. And Paul you are exactly correct that equal rights isn't the goal of women's rights activists.

I don't see all women as the enemy. But I do see the system, the culture, and some women and some men as the enemy.

That said, men need to look after themselves first because not many other men will do so and darn sure women won't look out for men's interests.

I still advise Christian men to be very caution when considering marriage, for non-Christian men to shun marraige, and for men of all faiths to exercise sperm surety. The best way to win the divorce-child support game is not to play.

The only problem I can see with Dias's withdrawing man is that the system will net men anyways to support women, whether you are married or not. It'll do this through income transfers and taxes.

The only way to avoid this is just make enough money to support yourself and be in that bottom half of the income ladder.

Anonymous said...

"The only way to avoid this is just make enough money to support yourself and be in that bottom half of the income ladder."

I agree. There's no incentive to work harder in order to make more money if the government takes it out of your pocket.

So, if the government raises such a "man tax", it will fail, for men will simply retreat into their own selfishness and say to society: "Scr*w you!"

Anonymous said...

I don't believe women are the enemy but we are our own enemies lol...