- Politics and Social Issues
Why The Struggles Of Men And Boys Are Invisible To Society
The Myth Of Male Privilege
What if I told you right now, that if we wanted to make men and women equal in every area of society and aspect of daily life, it would more or less mean a step down for women. Perhaps not in every way possible, but in most ways that we can measure and delineate. I am guessing the general reaction from the public would be one of disbelief. Yet the objective data is there to debunk the myth men are the more privileged gender and women are the more disadvantaged group in modern society. It is reasonable that people question me on that, we have all been told ad nauseam over the last five decades by feminist propaganda, that men are privileged and women are oppressed. In the absence of unrestricted and open criticism in a public forum (many critics have been silenced or simply ignored by the media), this had a profound effect on the public perception of gender issues.
Dr. Warren Farrell Explaining Why We Need To Address Men's Rights
Tom Golden On Why Real Equality Would Mean A Step Down For Women
The Men That Feminists Say Don't Exist-The Male Homeless
What I want people to do, is to watch two of the adjacent videos. One of them is from Dr. Warren Farrell attempting to explain to lay people unfamiliar with men's rights, how men face hardship in society and why men’s issues needs be taken seriously. The second video is by Tom Golden and goes through a wealth of statistics and facts on the ways in which men are disadvantaged in modern society. It is interesting to note that people automatically assume that the authority, power and wealth that the top 1% of the male population enjoy, can somehow then be extrapolated to the remaining 99% of men. Yet this is the message that mainstream feminist patriarchy theory attempts to convey (see my article on that linked here). Forget the far greater numbers of male homeless, unemployed or uneducated. According to feminists they don’t count. There is no mention either by feminists that the majority of disposable income per household is spent by women and not men, or that the majority of the voting electorate are women and not men. To acknowledge those facts, would be to acknowledge the reality that the top 1% of men that run our societies, are ultimately bound to make decisions based primarily on the voting and spending preferences of the female population. A small fraction of men may hold positions of overt power, but they are ultimately more accountable to women than to men. It is not really surprising then, that we literally have hundreds of organisations, programs and benefits devoted specifically to women’s needs and concerns and relatively little for men.
Women’s power in society is by proxy, it is indirect and it is through external influence on our politicians and corporate leaders. The beauty of this form of by proxy power, is you can enjoy all of the benefits and none of the accountability and responsibility of holding authoritarian power directly. Why bare the risk and obligations of leadership, when you can have the alpha male act as an agent on your behalf? Men can get their hands dirty and take the blame if things go awry. Female power is real and the myth of female powerless and victimhood is simply a means of pulling the strings of our leaders. Institutional feminism has our politicians and corporate leaders on their chessboard. When you have the clout that mainstream feminism has over the media, it is easy enough to paint a dissident leader that does not toe the feminist line, as a misogynist.
To put it quite simply, the notion that this society is run by men for men is absurd. Men make up the majority of our homeless, unemployed, workplace deaths and injuries and workers in low paid and hazardous jobs. Men are several times more likely to commit suicide than women, live 4-7 years less than women, suffer greater health problems, are falling behind academically in school, are considerably less educated than their young female counterparts and are a shrinking minority at our universities. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence in general and comprise roughly half of all domestic violence victims. Men are given longer prison sentences for the exact same crimes as women and face extreme bias in divorce and family court. We presume men are guilty on the basis of a woman’s word alone and yet women who falsely accuse men are not held accountable. We consider men around children to be potentially deviant and yet a substantial amount of child abuse is actually committed by women. Men have no reproductive rights to speak of and little recognition or legal support and protection of their parental rights as fathers. Then we have the shear numbers of fallen men from war. I could go on further if you like….
Feminist Victim Narrative Vs Reality
No, in this society the majority of men are treated as disposable utilities and not as some privileged upper class. Whilst feminists attempt to convince us that men are some privileged sex, we have bigots like Hanna Rosin (related article linked here) and Maureen Dowd (related article is linked here) going on international media circuit’s spruiking about, “The End Of Men” and why men are now “unnecessary”. This bigotry has been promoted on TED, The New York Times, The Atlantic, Time, Intelligence Squared, major TV networks and many other outlets over the last few years. I think the widespread support of works like these in the mainstream media, speaks volumes about just how marginalised men are in society. People are now bluntly and openly talking about men and boys like they are "utilities" that are obsolete in the mainstream media and not as if they are human beings. You could compare it to the KKK discussing whether or not blacks were obsolete. We celebrate men’s struggles and show no sympathy for their pain. This is sick, this is pathological and this is certainly not indicative of a society in which men are privileged. Have we learned nothing from our dark histories? Apparently not.
Yet despite all of this, the narrative women are perpetual victims and men are the invincible privileged gender remains. The disparity between the feminist fiction of patriarchy and this bigoted argument of male obsolescence has not gone unnoticed by some. It really prompts the question how stupid we are as a society that we still believe the feminist narrative that society is an oppressive patriarchy, whilst women freely talk about the male half of the human race being obsolete in public debates, TV and mainstream media publications etc. Well the answer to that question would seem to be that we are very stupid. But it is not just stupidity that is responsible for male disposability (see related article linked here) and the gynocentrism in our culture. It is mass apathy. The reality is people really don’t care about men. Men don’t care about men and women don’t care men. Not even young men and boys.
In what sense do I mean that? What I mean is that society collectively does not care about men or boys pain, suffering or struggles. "Man up" we are told, "Big boys don't cry", blah, blah, blah. Conversely we bend over backwards to look after women in trouble. Whether it is changing a tire on the road, attempting to address domestic violence or education, men are ignored and women are catered to. The reality is that men’s humanity is invisible and as such men are invisible. Men gain acceptance in society as human doings and not as human beings.
Why Men's Issues Are Ignored
The Double Standard On Domestic Violence
The Gender Empathy Gap And Our Lack Of Concern For Men And Boys
The Origins Of The Gender Empathy Gap Explained
The Huge Blindspot In The Human Perception Of Vulnerability
Where does this treatment of men as disposable utilities and walking ATM's come from? We have framed men as these invulnerable, inherent actors of society and women as vulnerable and to be acted upon (see adjacent video). Any social dynamic that challenges this perceptual paradigm, we subconsciously reject. When a man hits a woman everyone is ready to condemn him. When a women hits a man we dismiss it, or worse laugh about it (see adjacent video on domestic violence). We don’t take female influence, agency and violence seriously in this society. We don’t take male vulnerability, victimisation or suffering seriously either. The whole perceptual paradigm is based on long held cultural traditions that equated women with children and cast men as their protectors. Does the saying, "women and children first" ring a bell?
Our difficulty in perceiving male vulnerability and the ease with which we psychologically identify female vulnerability, is based at least partly on our evolutionary biology. Men are on average considerably physically stronger and fitter than women. Men have harder features and women have a more neotenous appearance. Our neurobiology is predisposed to viewing women as the more vulnerable party and in greater need of assistance. Back in our prehistoric savannah environment, the communities that flourished protected as many women as possible from predators, hostile tribes, physical hazard’s and physically demanding labour to maximise reproductive output. Men were the rate limiting factor of survival that protected and provided for women who were the rate limiting factor of reproduction.
So we have evolved a psychological tendency to perceive men as self-sufficient and invulnerable creatures that do not need assistance or help. Conversely, we have evolved a tendency to perceive women as more vulnerable and in greater need of support. All feminism has done is amplify the very neurobiological predisposition we have to perceiving women as the greater victim and men as stronger the party. Furthermore, by painting men as the oppressors of women, feminists provide all of the moral excuse needed to widen the empathy gap between the genders to it's maximum extent and take from men and give to the "poor" women. Hence the omission of female on female violence from feminist rhetoric. Female victimhood is central to all mainstream feminist dogma and theory for a very good reason. Whether we are talking about the Duluth model or Patriarchy Theory, playing on our psychological tendency to respond to female duress is the key manipulative tool of feminism and everyone rushes to their aid. Hence why feminists are so eager to frame all gender issues around female victimhood. They have us well trained and we respond like a dog to a bone with funding and programs once the feminists cry "misogyny".
“The weakness of men is the facade of strength; the strength of women is the facade of weakness.”
We treat men as invincible and ignore their pain and we treat women as fragile but ignore their power. In doing so we develop a very lopsided view of reality and respond to social problems in very imbalanced and dysfunctional ways. One such example would be ignoring the boy crisis in education and letting our economies inevitably plunge into a long protracted and deep recession. Oh and yes that will happen, it is simply cause and effect.
The perceptual paradigm I have discussed in this article and the tendency to focus exclusively on women's vulnerablities and ignore men's vulnerabilities, has a name. It is called gynocentrism. See this article for further discussion on gynocentrism.
The Envolutionary Hurdle Facing Humanity
Prof. Carl Sagan's Last Interview On The Mismatch Between Technology And Our Thinking
Our Systematic Failure To Manage Technological Change
What people need to understand is that technology has completely altered the requirements that must be met to sustain civilisation. If we don't start questioning the rules, norms and methods by which we structure and run society, it may very well collapse. The reality is that if technology advances, then so must our way of thinking. If there is a mismatch, at the very least we will have social problems and at the very worst will bring about our own extinction. The moment we harnessed the power of electromagnetism (think of the motor, the generator, the battery, transistors, electronics et cetera) and started releasing 500 million years of trapped solar energy in the form of fossil fuels from the Earth’s crust, the rules required to run civilisation changed. What we are faced with now, is social and cultural lag behind enormous technological growth. This is particularly acute with respect to gender issues. We need to do away with 19th century thinking in a world with 21st century technology. We have looming population, social, energy, food, water and general environmental crisises, which will come to a head in the later stages of this century or early next century. All of it is more or less the result of a systematic failure by our society to manage technological change and alter our mindset and institutions accordingly. This is why the systems approach I discussed in my article on "The Dangers Of Feminist Ideology And The Need For A Gender Transition Movement", is so important.
Gender issues is merely just one part of that puzzle, but it was a piece that I realised was central to many issues (many of which I am interested in given my scientific background). The core relationship between men and women impacts the relationship between our parents and in turn has a huge influence on shaping the minds of our children and future adults. Therefore when the relationship between men and women suffers, so does the health of future society and it’s capacity to manage many of the problem’s it will face. Furthermore, when we ignore men and boys issues and concerns, we ignore half the population, destabilise our social systems and undermine our own capacity to adapt as a species. For example, how exactly will we manage a world population of nine billion people by 2050, deal with peak oil or avert catastrophic climate change, if we fail to properly educate half the population? This is what the bigots and gender ideologues have not thought through because of their narrow boxed thinking. I am looking at gender issues from a systems perspective and from a much bigger frame of reference, which is the continued survival of civilisation itself. Consult the article linked here for further discussion on this subject.
So what is the solution to our outmoded perception of vulnerability? What is required is for our society to recognise that technology has changed the nature of what vulnerability is (as it has with so many other things). Physical vulnerability has been largely replaced by other forms of vulnerability, such as psychological vulnerability, social vulnerability, legal vulnerability, career vulnerability and financial vulnerability. It is a matter of training the human brain to recognise modern vulnerability through proper socialisation, acculturation and conditioning. Our brain tissue is able to quickly adapt through neuroplasticity and even our genome surprisingly, can rapidly adapt through epigenetic mechanisms (both are booming fields of research). It turns out that we are not restricted to the slow Darwinian model of adaptation.
We don’t have to cull our instinct to protect the more vulnerable, all we need to do is train our brains to recognise a different form of vulnerability and our nerve tissue and even our epigenome will adapt within a generation or two in response to the right conditioning, socialisation and acculturation. Frankly I don't even think it will require that much, simple learning and social reinforcement will probably be enough without any need for profound neurological or genetic changes. We are very psychologically plastic animals and that is one reason for why we have been able to move from a hunter-gatherer modality to modern civilisation so quickly. What we need to do, is convey a public awareness through media, education, politics and other cultural channels, that in modern industrialised society, men and women are equally vulnerable. Importantly, we will need to explain why and how. This will progressively change our culture, social norms and group behaviour.
We will also need to avoid creating conditions that lead to or promote a competition on who can be the bigger victim. We need to realise that we need to be focused on the vulnerability of the social system as a whole and a key part of that will be equilibrating the empathy we express toward men and women. Finally we need to make changes to our laws and courts to address the reality that men can be victims of physical and sexual abuse by women. The gender of the victim should be irrelevant before the law and our sentencing of perpetrators and treatment of victims should reflect that.
I will finish this article by sending a warning to feminists. No doubt you have heard of the boy that cried wolf. Well the girl that cried wolf is a similar sad tale. If feminism continues to keep pressing on the vulnerability button in people’s brains, then eventually the public will become desensitised to it. It is called Weber’s law and it is a real limitation of human perception. If women are constantly portrayed as victims and their vulnerability is consistently exaggerated, then eventually people will stop noticing when women are really in need of help. Indeed there are signs this is already happening with the police.
Recognising that aid and support should be given independently of gender, is an important and critical change we need to make to our social systems. Failing to recognise a need to adapt our mindset with our technology, will sooner or later lead to extinction.
The time for ideological thinking has come and gone.