It’s simple: a quiet, but massive, victory for feminism was the propaganda victory. That triumph has served to poison relations between men and women for decades now. How to defeat it? Point it out, recognize its stupidity, don’t act as if it were true, and constantly disseminate the counter-message.
The feminist propaganda victory consists of four parts: For men, the Private part — the part in the mind — and the Public part, the part that people express to each other in society. And for women, the same two things.
Here it is:
Part I — the Private Part for Men: The general state of mind of men as it pertains to women in America is this: mild reverence, with overtones of mystery and a bit of exasperation that we generally consider our own fault, due to our own lack of understanding of women. We love, respect, admire and are a little bit in awe of women. We consider them to be actually better people than men.(1) Not all of us, but generally. Part Ia — The Public Part for Men: Men openly gush over how magnificent, strong, powerful, intelligent and insightful women are. Or else.
Part II — the Private Part for Women: Women’s general state of mind as it pertains to men is: vague contempt. They consider us stupider, more brutish, obsessed with sex, generally incompetent, and kind of dumb. They love us, but only because they know they need us. Otherwise, they believe that the world would be much better off if the men were to stay completely in the shadows, coming out only when some extra muscle is needed. All while women run things and put right all the stuff the men have broken or mucked up. Women generally consider men to be actually worse people than they are. Part IIa — the Public Part for Women: Approximately the same as the Private Part.
Men’s general opinion of women: general private reverence, open worshipful admiration. Women’s general opinion of men: general contempt in public and private.
That’s it. That’s the big victory of feminism. Instilling, then requiring worshipful admiration in men toward women — or else — then instilling general contempt in women for men. That’s all that was necessary to make the two sexes regard each other with wariness at best, and open hostility at worst, rather than with the correct state of mind: mutual respect and admiration.
This counter-natural state of mind has been in place in America now for at least three generations. Amplified far beyond its already toxic level in society-at-large, it’s the default state of mind on college campuses — the places where our country’s next leaders are being “educated.”
Of course, here’s the real truth: Neither sex is “better” than the other. Such a determination would be absolutely impossible to make. First: because any positive characteristics that could be used to try to arrive at such a conclusion all have a “masculine” and a “feminine” aspect. Intelligence, for example, is itself such a complex thing that there’s no possible way one could arrive at a determination as to which sex is “smarter.”
“Feminine intelligence” might center on those things that promote organization, and the preservation of order and stability, while “masculine intelligence” would focus on improving things by introducing new variables and circumstances — the “pushing of boundaries.” Both types of intelligence are equally vital, but neither makes the bearer “smarter” than the other. And those are only two aspects of intelligence. There are so many hundreds of other aspects of “intelligence” that it’s not even remotely possible to arrive at any kind of determination as to which sex is “smarter.”
How about stronger? Again, it’s the same thing. First of all, there’s physical strength. Then there are all the hundreds of aspects of mental/intellectual strength. How about the ability to learn new languages, to learn math and sciences, to memorize things, then to retrieve those memories at a moment’s notice. Yes, yes, you’ll say to me, “But x, you’re just talking about intelligence again!” Precisely. The definitions of all good and bad characteristics have so much overlap that there’s no way to arrive at a meaningful comparison of the relative strength of the two sexes either. Just as it’s fruitless to try to determine which is “smarter.” To the point that one might as well jettison the words “strength” and “intelligence” altogether!
Anecdotally, a while back I watched an interesting war movie, called Hacksaw Ridge. It was the true story of Desmond Doss who was the only Conscientious Objector to be awarded the Medal of Honor for his feats of valor in World War II. On one fateful night, Doss carried to safety some 75 wounded men from occupied Japanese territory on the island of Okinawa. Time and again, Doss went out into the body-bestrewn field, slung wounded men’s bodies over his shoulders, and lowered them, one-by-one, down a huge cliff using only a rope harness of his own devising. I realized in watching the film that I didn’t know a single woman in my life — and in my private and public functions, I’ve known many thousands pretty well — who could have saved even one of those men, not to mention seventy-five of them. That was some strength! But that’s not the only kind of strength there is. I’ve known women with strength of purpose and character that would be hard to equal. Men likewise.
How about wisdom? Well, examine that word for a moment, and you realize that you have to toss it out altogether also. It’s entirely too subjective. You can tell that immediately simply by asking a leftist and a rightist for a definition of the word. Depending on where you come down on the ideological spectrum, it’s plain that one of those definitions of “wisdom” will seem to you like actual folly.
And so on for things like character, kindness, generosity, humility and any other characteristics that you and I might deem positive, but which will defy measurement for either sex, and for any number of different reasons.
But, but, but, I hear you say, there are things like crime statistics and the like. Yes, there are. Men commit crimes way more frequently than women. Doesn’t that mean they’re simply worse people than women?
Well, men also accomplish, at great risk to their own lives, vastly more heroic, life-saving deeds than do women. Sometimes there are deeds of incomprehensible courage and heroism. example: the above-mentioned true story about Desmond Doss. Read the stories sometime of Audie Murphy, or Sergeant York. Read of Dakota Meyer more recently. Read the story of the hundreds of firemen who gave their lives in the 9/11 terrorist attacks rescuing thousands of others.
Then consider this: Did you know that women commit domestic violence at a rate more than triple that of men? This particular statistic uses a watered-down version of the definition of domestic violence that feminism has demanded that we use. If we were to use the definition that feminists demand that we use, then the real rate of woman-on-man domestic violence would be more than five times greater than that of man-on-woman.
Three simple anecdotes might serve to illustrate this: Ancedote #1: Before I was married, I had a girlfriend who told me of her two previous marriages. Her last marriage, she said, was punctuated by domestic violence. Her own. During arguments, she used to kick, punch, scratch and throw things at her then husband, who, she laughingly insisted, “… could take it. After all, he was a big guy.” Then one night they were having an alcohol-fueled argument and she punched him. Well, he punched back, and she went down. She divorced him forthwith, and was awarded sole custody of their children, as well as generous alimony and child-support payments. He was, after all, a “wife-beater” now, and there was little he could do in our legal system to tell the whole story. His one slip-up — that was the only time he ever lifted a finger against her — resulted in the destruction of his family, vast outpourings of his money to her, as well as opprobrium from society directed at him. Her hundreds and hundreds of episodes of domestic violence against her ex-husband — to which she freely and unselfconsciously admitted! — were, and remain, completely invisible.
Anecdote #2: Before our divorce, and as our marriage was going downhill, my own ex-wife used to punch, kick, slap and throw things at me. The projectiles included shoes, books, bricks and anything that came readily to her hand. Why did she do it? Well, two reasons: Reason #1: she told me later that she was hoping to provoke me to hit her back, and that would do it for the divorce she hoped to bring about soon. I never even remotely came close to hitting her, and she told me in a rare moment of candor that my refusal to hit her really made her mad. Reason #2: She knew she could hit me and get away with it.
That brings us to Anecdote #3: One evening I called the police on my now ex-wife, because she was hitting and kicking me and screaming at the top of her lungs. I knew that if the neighbors called the police, I’d be in trouble. That’s the rule: Neutralize the man first, because he generally represents the greatest danger. I told the police that my wife was beating me, which she was. When the police arrived they arrested her, because she was still drunk, and belligerent. As they were hauling my then-wife away, they gave me a card for the local “Victim’s Advocate” for the town. I called the number the next morning, and the Victim’s Advocate office informed me that “there are no services for men.” The whole incident caused me to do some research, which uncovered the fact that women-on-men violence is vastly more common than the other way ’round, but that society simply hasn’t deemed it to be a problem. Yet, if Anecdote #1 is at all illustrative, and research appears to indicate that it is, then it would seem that if you were to reduce the incidence of women-on-men violence, then you’d dramatically reduce the incidence of men-on-women violence as well.
In other words, if you’re truly interested in reducing the incidence of domestic violence, then tell women to stop beating on men.
However, again, the great feminist propaganda victory says that the vaguely brutish man is always guilty of domestic violence, and it can never be the other way around.
Now, how about one more example to illustrate our point?
Think to your professional life. When was the last time you heard a joke about how stupid, or inept, or awkward, or dumb, or moronic, idiotic and the rest … women are? Now, when was the last time you heard such a joke about men? Easy: yesterday. It’ll be today too. Occasionally, I’ll find myself watching some sitcom or other, and you can be sure that you’ll observe men acting stupidly, or ineptly, or incompetently, or unethically, while the women roll their eyes and prepare to clean up the mess they leave. It’s so prevalent that no one questions it anymore, and it’s made its way into what we could call society’s store of “Received Wisdom;” its general state of mind regarding men and women. And, like “The World is Flat,” it’s a steaming, runny, stinking load of codswallop.
So there you have it: the main driver behind Men-Women Relations is … a steaming, runny, stinking load of codswallop. No wonder things are tense.
(1) I’ve actually often heard this said. It’s always some variation on: “They’re (women) better than we are.” Either smarter, stronger, longer-lasting, harder-working, wiser, more intuitive or something else. The point it that I never hear it in reverse. It’s an interesting assertion too. If you were even able to map on an X-Y axis either sex’s measurement of intelligence, or wisdom, or any other characteristic, it requires only a moment of thought to realize that both sex’s bell curves would overlap so much, and yet would still be so different, that it would be impossible to find a meaningful way to conclude which sex has more or less of the characteristic.