A false ideology: Why identity politics doesn’t add up.

We now inhabit a world where influential people in academia and increasingly the government decide who is privileged and who is not, purely by which group we belong to. These are not organised by who’s rich or poor, educational attainment, health levels, class status or even the environment we may live in, sadly nothing quite so objective. Individuals are crudely grouped by what cannot be changed (generally), this being genitalia and melanin levels. This grossly unscientific method, purposely ignores many parameters as outlined above and boils what is termed “oppression” down to race and sex.

To get to grips with how this occurred, our journey starts in France, with some very smart but terribly misguided philosophers. This bunch were largely responsible for a type of philosophy called postmodernism. Postmodernism is at the root of identity politics and underpins social justice activism. The movement, primarily artistic and philosophical began in 1960’s France. It claimed that life was viewed through a male, middle class perspective and sought to rally against this. Additionally, postmodernism outright rejected philosophy that valued ethics, reason and clarity.

This brand of philosophy dismissed overarching movements such as structuralism, which was an attempt to analyse human culture and psychology. While Marxism, endeavouring to make sense of society through class and economic structures was considered simplistic. Furthermore, the movement deeply criticised science, in particular, the idea of objective information. Postmodernists postulated that knowledge without human perception was just another example of arrogant western assumptions. Historically, the term “postmodern” was first used by Jean-Francois Lyotard in 1979, in his book The Postmodern Condition. Above all this was a rejection of meta-narratives, used to explain large phenomena such as religion and science.

In their place Lyotard offered that mini-narratives should be used, with the aim of getting smaller, more personal truths. This thought process led to epistemic relativism, or a belief in personal or culturally specific ‘truths or facts’ and also towards the advocacy of privileging. In summary Lyotard simply ranked “lived experience” above empirical evidence. In addition, postmodernism regularly promotes a type of pluralism, privileging the opinions of minority groups over views of a consensus, such as science or even a liberal democracy.

Another one of the French postmodernists was Michel Foucault. Foucault suggested that people were culturally constructed and a “product of the relation of power exercised over bodies, multiplicities, movements, desires, forces”. In Foucault’s world, cultural relativity is expressed through structures of power, while shared humanity and individualism are practically ignored. Using this theory, people are constructed entirely by their position in relation to the dominant culture and labelled as oppressed or oppressor.

The third musketeer, in our postmodern yarn is Jacques Derrida. Derrida focused heavily on language, rejecting that words referred to anything in a straight forward way, suggesting that there were only contexts without any absolute anchoring. He implied that the author of a text is not the sole authority and that the listener provides their own equally valid meaning. Derrida’s main contribution to postmodernism was a literary critical method called ‘deconstruction’. This was utilised in an attempt to overturn what he perceived as biases in language.

derrida
Jacques Derrida

Deconstruction arose from the belief that all concepts appear in opposing binaries and that language privileges one concept over another. For example “male” and “female” or “good” and “evil”, the first term usually having dominance over the other. Derrida suggested that this showed great inequality in western/modernist thinking. Derrida’s second idea, was to offer that the identity or meaning of words could not be understood except in relation to what they are not. He suggested that the only way to overcome these inequalities was by deconstructing text and thereby the language which was thought as the inherent power within the binary structure.

Derrida achieved this by equalising the opposing “inferior” and “superior” terms, then placing the “superior” term merely as an expression of the “inferior” term. Using this train of thought, we could say “good” is just an expression of “evil”. Derrida suggested at this point that the terms were meaningless and subjectively imposed by violence as the identity of words are overturned by différanceDerrida used this term to point out that the meaning is not final, rather it is constructed by differences specifically by opposites.

By now, if all this postmodern speak has “baked your noodle”, to borrow an expression from the Matrix, well that is kind of the point. Even the brilliant academic Noam Chomsky failed to see the relevance of postmodernism, stating; “Seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn’t already obvious, etc? These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can’t be met, then I’d suggest recourse to Hume’s advice in similar circumstances: to the flames”. The underlying problem now is, conclusions drawn by postmodernists were used as the foundations by future sociologists, gender and race studies academics to build an even more misguided, subjective, divisive and flawed theory.

One of the main theories that underpins social justice activism is intersectional feminism. This was introduced to the world in the late 80’s by UCLA law Professor Kimberleé Crenshaw. Crenshaw rejected “classical liberalism”, which looked past categories such as; race, gender and sexuality, while it focused on levelling the playing field and enabling all people to succeed on their own abilities. Incidentally, this is also known as “Enlightened liberalism” and promoted not only universal human rights, but the freedom of individuals to pursue their own path. Despite this, it was opined by critics such as Crenshaw, that this type of liberalism built structures of power which needed to be addressed. In contrast to liberalism, Crenshaw’s theory suggested that areas of race, gender and sexuality, were essential as it added levels of complexity to the problem.

kimberlee crenshaw
Kimberlee Crenshaw

In general it is postulated that as a society we work primarily on 3 levels:

  1. As a member of the human race with common needs and drives.
  2. As a member of one of the numerous categories, such as; race, nationality, culture or religion.
  3. As a individual, with our own particular interests and abilities.

It could be surmised that while universal liberalism concentrates on 1 & 3, intersectionality gravitates almost exclusively towards the second group. Meaning that this ‘theory’ fundamentally views all issues through the lens of race, gender and sexual identity. Hence the rallying cries of, “listen to women, listen to people of colour”.

But this theory possesses some glaring errors. Firstly, women of colour and LGTB people are to be found all across the political and moral spectrum. Intersectionality, however, is firmly embeded in the leftist identarian camp, complete with a distinct ideology. That said, intersectionality claims to support all of the aforementioned groups, but requires all members of these groups to subscribe to the identarian left. Judging by the stats available, this is just not obtainable. In the US 24% identify as liberals and 38% as conservative. In the UK the left and right are split roughly 50/50. Women are more likely to be left leaning than men. In the US 47% of African Americans identify as liberal and 45% conservative. The Conservative party (UK) claim 33% of Black and Middle Eastern voters, while 52% of Black Britons vote Labour. In Britain LGTB voters are as likely to be on the left as the right, but in the US LGTB voters are likely to be left wing. These nuances go on and on and do not fit the intersectional rallying cry.

As far as ideology is concerned, intersectionality alienates even more people. To be intersectional you are expected to focus on many categories at once, believing that they are all marginalised and worthy of your concern. Therefore, a woman describing herself as wholly a white, feminist would not be considered nearly committed enough to the cause. It would be assumed that the believer should also automatically subscribe to queer theory, critical race theory, trans-equality and anti-ableism discourses. However, as highlighted with politics, all of these varying groups do not have a single way of thinking. For a start in the US, only 20% of woman call themselves a feminist, while in the UK it’s as low as 9%. Using this information alone intersectionalists would have alienated over three quarters of their target population, that being women. Overall, the vast opinions expressed by the varying groups makes this theory totally unworkable.

Effectively what transpires, is the emergence of a small faction, with a minority ideological viewpoint, dominated by people from economically privileged backgrounds. This group generally has a university education, they have studied the social sciences, or have had enough leisure time to have grasped the varying ideas encompassed by intersectional theory. Activists of this cult readily pronounce that the only way is intersectionality, as all other groups are dismissed as fake. Crucially, intersectionality undervalues shared human experiences and universal rights. It ignores personal autonomy, individuality and distinctiveness, concentrating intently on group identity and intersectional ideology. This in turn places the individual in an extremely restrictive “collectivist” position, which was often considered the domain of severe conservative cultures, such as the religious right.

Looking at postmodernism and then intersectionalism, we can see the erroneous foundations being laid for the modern social justice movement. When this is combined with other factors that are peculiar to the millennial generation and now i-gen (generation Z), it starts to makes sense why we are witnessing behaviour punctuated by a lack of tolerance for any differing views. Safe spaces, trigger warnings and microaggressions are all common parlance on university campuses. This development like previous politically correct movements aims to stifle free speech. But according to Jonathan Haidt social psychologist, the motivation this time around, turns out to be more concerned with emotional wellbeing.

Haidt suggests that childhood has changed dramatically over the last couple of generations and that unsupervised play is much rarer than in previous decades. Children, therefore, have less chance to develop skills, such as, how to negotiate in a difficult situation or how to critically think. Meanwhile, a change in perception during the 80’s and 90’s regarding crime, suggested that there was a marked increase of kids being abducted or murdered. One of the main reasons for this view, was that we started to hear more about incidents through a increasingly pervasive media. Following this, a common message millenials received from adults was, life is dangerous but we will protect you from harm. This has contributed to millenials and i-gen being less resilient and more hostile towards political or moral opposition.

jon haidt
Jonathan Haidt

To add another layer to this, professor of psychology Jean Twenge wrote the book ‘the narcissism epidemic‘, in 2009. In this, the professor looked at the changes in individuals and in culture, discovering that narcissistic traits were rising twice as fast than in previous studies. More disconcerting, was that the severe form, Narcissistic Personality Disorder was experienced 3 times more in people in there 20’s than individuals over 65. Other markers that Twenge used, showed plastic surgery was up by a factor of 6 in a decade. Furthermore, materialistic attitudes had increased, as people were more likely to go into debt to get what they wanted. Meanwhile the reading of gossip magazines increased and the interest in newspapers decreased.

When we start to stitch all this together, it’s not surprising that we have a group largely of millenials, who actively attempt to curtail free speech. They also vigorously take part in historical revisionism, for example trying to get certain statues removed, which are deemed offensive. While the poem ‘If’ by Rudyard Kipling was unceremoniously removed at Manchester University, following allegations of racism, with no historical context, just a veil of ignorance, as proudly worn by SJW’s. These puritans are offended by the slightest utterance that may come into conflict with their pristine, logic free utopia. While they brazenly display no conscience either, as they repeatedly attempt to remove university professors for ‘wrong think‘.

Many followers of the ‘social justice activism’ have been exposed to a postmodern philosophy, that twists language to square with their pre-conceived conclusions. It is proposed that certain groups are oppressed, such as women and people of colour. This is supposedly a fixed position, bound by the illogical ramblings of postmodernism and now intersectional feminism. These adherents are perpetual victims, regardless of any personal factors that may not tie up with this label, such as; being a middle class, privileged student, as witnessed in many cases. Their assigned victim status enables the SJW to be absolved of any personal responsibility. With this cloak of victimhood, they are able to call out all men or white people, purely because they are oppressed and by virtue of this, are unable to be a misandrist or indeed a racist.

It is by no means a revelation that people who are less developed in terms of diplomacy, resilience and people skills gravitate towards such a movement. It carries little risk, you can gang up on a single speaker, shower them with nasty tweets, retreat to your safe space after a trigger warning and declare an incoming microaggression to your dean. If you are narcissistic this is also perfect, you can metaphorically sniper your political opposition, all in the safety of your morally pristine ivory tower, thus not receiving a narcissistic injury in return. Outstanding! All this would be relatively bearable if it was limited to academia, but alas, we are not so lucky.

There are many examples of the cult of identity politics seeping into everyday life. We can start with the former Director of Public Prosecutions of the Crown Prosecution Service, Alison Sanders. It could be argued that Sanders utilised the CPS as a crusading tool, redirecting limited resources to focus on violence against women and hate speech. The former DPP was responsible for many victim-focused reforms, including the definition of a hate crime, which states; “any crime experienced by the complainant as motivated by hate”. Interestingly, during the last couple of years of her tenure, a series of rape cases collapsed. It had transpired that police and prosecutors had failed to pass key information to lawyers defending the men. This lack of ‘due process’ is what can occur when an ideological quest overrides the search for justice.

In Nottinghamshire, UK, unwanted sexual advances and unwanted verbal contact with a woman can now be recorded as a hate crime. The problem with the term “hate crime” is, it is purely subjective and, therefore, open to abuse. Across the Atlantic in Canada in 2017, bill C-16 was passed, meaning someone could be prosecuted for not using the correct gender pronoun for a person’s subjectively determined “gender identity”. In Brighton, UK, kids are now being taught that both boys and girls can have periods. The whole area around gender and sex is highly contentious and effectively pits science, based on rigour, peer review, evidence and objectivity against emotion, feelings, subjectivity and the idea ‘I feel, therefore, I am’.

Gender and sex are key areas where the Enlightenment collides with postmodernism and judging by the government orthodoxy in many domains Foucault et al. are winning. The primary concern with regards to basing society on subjectivity, is that it is potentially ever changeable, this makes it exceptionally difficult to create and enforce laws, such as hate crime. For example; An ugly guy walks up to a girl and starts talking to her, she might find him detestable and feels threatened. Under these rules, this conceivably could be called a hate crime and for the bloke no matter how well intentioned, he could find himself in trouble. However, a good looking guy could approach the same woman and say exactly the same words but this time, it could be well received. Neither guy has been offensive or violent, but one of them (lets call him Elephant Man) could end up being questioned by the police. Does that feel like a fair use of the law and resources to you?

It is this uneven handed use of the law, as demonstrated by many college Title IX  proceedings in the US during the Obama presidency, that is a major cause for concern. Another campaign doing the rounds currently is “believe women” following sexual harassment or rape allegations. Their is an obvious danger behind this. It instantly biases any following investigation in favour of the accuser. Surely police departments all over the world can provide an environment that allows the person to share their perception of events without siding with them. For “believe women” to be effective, it must demand that women never lie and furthermore, never commit crimes, otherwise it’s a flawed premise. By promoting this we are asserting that women are morally superior to men at all times. Judging by the likes of Myra Hindley, Rose West or Joanna Dennehy this is patently untrue. Moreover, high profile false rape allegations such as the Duke Lacrosse team or Biurny Peguero also severely question this moral superiority theory. Just like men, women lie too, for a variety of reasons.

joanna dennehy
Joanna Dennehy

It makes absolutely no sense to enforce laws and rules that govern society based on a certain perception of a group as a whole. This is especially true, if the group in question is not 100% consistent. We hear from people on a daily basis, talking about white privilege or male privilege. Just an idea, but how about we look at what is occurring at an individual level, rather than writing off masses of the population via gross stereotyping. Identarians can get quite irate if they feel an individual for instance is stereotyping someone regarding gender identification. Yet, they are quite happy to put people in sociological boxes merely for traits that cannot be altered. Crucially, group stereotyping is what this whole identarian ‘belief’ system is built upon, it is the very core of their ideology, but makes no positive practical sense.

To point out how ludicrous this is; a black, middle class, well educated, relatively rich, woman, who has had no direct oppression, from a happy home, can be viewed as oppressed. In contrast; a white, ex-military, homeless man, with PTSD, with no formal qualifications and no support system, can seen as privileged. If this does not strike you as some sort of a scam, you are either benefitting from this in some way, or you are so blind with identarian doctrine that you have lost the ability to critically think. Which of course is the whole point of postmodernism, to appeal to emotion and subjectivity. It’s this loyalty to ones team, providing the power over government, media and society that allows, individuals like Professor Suzanna Danuta Walters to have an article published in the Washington Post enquiring, “why can’t we hate men”? A couple of weeks ago the American Psychological Association, published guidelines outlining the dangers of masculinity. This was nothing short of an overtly ideological exercise, using one social justice buzzword after another (see the link for original document).

Last week Gillette felt the need to jump on the bandwagon, releasing an advert imploring men and boys to sort their masculinity out. This has generally been lauded by the mainstream media, desperate not to stray from the feminist narrative. It’s worth noting, this is not in isolation, anti-male rhetoric is the social norm and is excepted in so called polite society. For instance, the Melbourne café who charged men 18% more, because of the supposed ‘gender wage gap’. Men are repeatedly told how to behave, when to speak (mansplaining), how to sit (manspreading), when it’s OK to talk to a woman, what to say and so on. The overwhelming percentage of men are not violent, do not rape, do treat people with respect, do act against bullying and the list continues. But if you’re trying to neutralise the very masculine traits that helped to build the physical world, that make up the majority of individuals who keep us safe, who love competition and do many of the dangerous jobs that keeps life ticking along, guess again.

For those who still buy into identity politics and in particular feminism, you need to have a serious chat with yourself. At this moment, the Social Justice movement currently feels emboldened, it has governments, media and much of society eating out it’s hand. Now feeling buoyant after #metoo, there is a huge offensive against masculinity, of course, not the bad men in society who it will never have any affect on, but ordinary men like many reading this. Right now, this is not a gender war, as only one side has turned up. It’s more like a massacre!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Standing up for masculinity.

Purely by broaching this subject, I will possibly be named as a member of the alt-right, called a fascist, a misogynist and will have effigies burned in safe spaces on liberal college campuses across the world. For what? Standing up for men? But, just in case you didn’t know, I am fiercely on the left, surely you remember, the place that used to mean fighting for economic inequality, workers rights and looking out for everyone regardless of; ethnicity, religion or gender. This was a time when we looked out at the world and challenged the injustices we found, rather than channelling our self interest and narcissism, based on melanin levels and genitalia.

Maybe I’m nuts, which there is a pretty good chance of, but I am starting to worry about this increasing attack on gender, more precisely masculinity. This gender agenda (see what I did there) is driven by a comparatively small but powerful group, usually found in ‘grievance studies‘ classes along with their guru’s pretending to be bone-fide academic professors, setting the narrative for puritanical social policy and morality. These groups are hugely ideological and their main goal is to smash the patriarchy. Which if you follow their logic, is perpetuated by all men, which therefore…….yep, you’ve guessed it, leads to smashing all men.

These very people who proport to be for equality, really want to emasculate the world. This goal has been addressed in a manner of ways. Firstly, there has been a total rejection of all values of the ‘enlightenment’ among this cult. This in effect is the denial of science, reason and objectivity, which has been replaced by a postmodernism, this by and large can be summarised as cultural relativity. It allows the group to deny biological gender differences of any sort, whilst supporting the idea that gender is a social construct. In my mind, this puts them firmly in the same bracket as ‘flat earthers’, as we’ll see later.

Lots of our physiological, psychological and anatomical traits are admittedly on a continuum of sorts. However, taking an average there is no doubt men and women are different, contrary to the views of blue haired identarians. Just in case any science deniers are reading this, I’ll pick just three points and I’ll throw in some scientific papers to back them up. For anyone who knows anything about anatomy, physiology or psychology, I’m sure you will concur that the notion of having to justify that we are indeed different would be hilarious, if only it wasn’t so outlandish.

weight lifter

So, without engaging in too deep of an academic search, this first paper looks at the differences of power production and energy capacities of elite level cross country skiers, from the European journal of applied physiology. This paper shows that the men displayed 87, 97 and 103% higher output of power production and 51, 65 and 71% of greater peak VO2 max than women.

In a nutshell, power output and endurance is greater in male athlete’s. Next! The second paper, and yes there is a slight sports theme, from the journal of sport health science; explains why men see differently to that of women. What this paper suggests is that men outperform women in spatial mental rotation and navigation tasks. While women tend to excel with object location or recognition, as well as verbal memory tasks. What do you know, we are different!

The last paper published in frontiers in neuroendocrinology called ‘The Genetics of Sex Differences in Brain and Behaviour‘, stated that it was hoped that the understanding of biological sex differences could help to improve healthcare for both men and women. This paper opined that although the brains of men and women are highly similar, they also have unique differences that affect biochemical processes, which may lead to the susceptibility of a particular diseases and contribute to specific behaviours.

So to round this off here is a quick summary of other differences; men see differently to women, they have good depth perception and distance vision, while women have better night and visual memory. Men are larger, stronger and boys mature later than girls, so on and so forth. So, now that I’ve wasted two paragraphs confirming the obvious, that men and women indeed differ in countless ways, let us discuss what is being done to subvert masculinity and why.

Currently it appears en vogue to bring kids up as gender neutral? Many of the ideas are based on the ‘blank slate theory‘ inferring that gender is socially constructed. A theory that seems to struggle to gain credence when it bumps into pesky old science, as identified in previous paragraphs. To confirm the ‘difference theory’ further, there is a raft of research concluding that toy preference is innate. That on the whole girls are inclined to gravitate towards toys such as dolls, while boys are attracted to mechanically interesting toys like cars and trucks. Moreover, these preferences are shown as early as 9 months old, considerably earlier than the emergence of gender awareness at about 18 months. Sadly despite some overwhelming robust science, the ‘choose your own gender’ brigade have blindly marched on, claiming mens and womens brains are the same.

This fable has persistently been comprehensively refuted. In a meta analysis of 126 studies it was found that men have larger total brain volumes. Primarily displaying more white matter from the anterior to posterior aspects of the brain, while women have more connections running between the left and right hemispheres. My suspicion is, the ‘gender neutral brigade’ is split into two groups; one group which is probably well meaning, but horribly misguided. Meanwhile, the other I will offer is completely ideological and is exceptionally conscious as to what it’s supporting.

By taking the second reason as motivation, it can be suggested that this is some sort of eugenics type of belief system, only this time they’re using social conditioning as the scapegoat. The overall premise behind all this is to bring kids up with no gender labels, culminating in the child being able to choose which gender they would prefer. This window of enlightenment (cue sarcasm) is thought to be at approximately four or five. Why stop there? How about we go the whole way and not tell them what species they are either, let them choose that too. That would be exciting, with so many animals to choose from!

So where does this anti-science, hullabaloo come from. For that information we need to delve back into postmodernism. Here we enter a parallel universe where practically all that we think we know is deemed socially constructed. In the modern era, we can look at the likes of Judith Butler and feminism, as an example of how this has been utilised. To clarify, Butler is an advocate for Gender Feminism. This is a group that strongly believes all gender is a social construct and all distinctions between men and women are socially and culturally developed, therefore, biology plays no role.

Using this thought process, it opens the door to such beliefs that gender equality can be achieved by quotas, or by teaching men to be less dominating of women. This apparently will solve all our problems. It basically boils the discussion down to ‘nature vs nurture’, and for feminists everything is nurture. Scientist will concede that cultural conditioning has a role, but biologically we are a dimorphic species. All in all, as this attack on masculinity persists, the feminist open admission is to dismantle the patriarchy. So what better way to achieve this than to socially condition any trace of masculinity out of boys.

Leaving this aside for now, another way that boys have been marginalised whether intentionally or not, is education. I suspect the majority of people in whatever roles in education they hold, have pretty good intentions. But it seems that until recently, certainly in the NZ, that they are just picking up on the failings of boys at school.

Currently 60% of university students are female, and rising. In UK primary schools, only 15% of teachers are men. While boys in the US are four times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and 80% of high school dropouts are also boys. It was known as far back as 1997 in the US that girls were outperforming boys in every subject. Despite this, most current education systems still primarily cater for girls, even though it is undeniable that boys learn differently to girls;

  • Boys show more areas dedicated in the brain to spatial mechanical strengths, girls focus on verbal emotive-processing.
  • Girls are generally hard wired to be less impulsive, allowing them to sit still and focus, therefore, reading and writing at an earlier age than boys.
  • Boys brains are hardwired to be single task focused, where girls tend to be hardwired for multitasking. These transitions are generally difficult due to lateralisation of boys brains, compared to a typical female cross-communication of brain hemispheres.
  • Less oxytocin in boys brains leads to more aggression and playful rough-housing, while girls have an easier time with impulse control.
  • Boys also learn better through movement, therefore, they find it much harder to sit and listen to a story.

Despite a plethora of evidence, many schools around the anglosphere still educate kids in a classroom centric and test based learning environment, that is contrary to the way boys thrive.

nepali kids

Switching subjects, another of the many tactics used in an effort to control men, is the use of the term ‘rape culture’. In reality, the people who commit these heinous crimes are a tiny minority of all men. Society doesn’t normalise these criminals and celebrate them, we rightly lock them up. Feminism has this nasty habit of accusing all men for; rape, domestic abuse, the gender pay gap and for the perpetuation of the patriarchy. This is achieved by using theories such as ‘structural violence’, which asserts that if one woman is abused, in some way, all members of the group, in this case women are by association. Using this logic, therefore, the entire male population are the oppressors and all women are the oppressed.

It’s this kind of lunacy, that leads to ‘Good Lad‘ workshops, which teaches boys about the perceived scale of sexual harassment and violence aimed at female students, and how they must stand up for women’s rights. This is an ideology that has been implemented into across schools in the ‘anglosphere’. Taking this thought process to its logical conclusion, the implications are that all young men are potential perpetrators and abusers.

Doggedly sticking to this ideology overlooks the physical and sexual abuse boys and young men also encounter. In actuality men are almost twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime than women. Although, it appears that because the attackers are often men, it doesn’t even register with feminists, as we are all apparently identical. In their scary world ‘toxic masculinity‘ lurks around every corner. As a reaction to this, traits such as rough and tumble play, competition and stoicism are now treated with extreme suspicion and often discouraged.

Further attacks on masculinity have arose over the years, one of these revolves around International Men’s Day. Incidentally this year it’s on November 19th 2018. In 2015 a UK Labour MP Jess Philips laughed at the suggestion that MP’s should be allowed to debate a range of men’s issues such as; domestic violence, suicide and premature mortality rates. She even had the audacity to suggest that “every day was International Men’s Day”, despite the obvious seriousness regarding these matters.

Father’s Day has also been subject to attack in recent times. Last year in Australia Dr Red Ruby Scarlet (that truly is her real name), put forward that Father’s Day should be renamed “Special Person’s Day”. She defended her position, suggesting that there was much Australian research that informs international research to substantiate her proposal (none of which was forthcoming). An interesting article in 2015 (from the US) challenged the feminist view of dads and men in general. Here’s a few points;

  1. The myth of “Deadbeat Dads”, most Dads support their kids financially. The vast majority of fathers support their children, while most of the ones who don’t, fall under the poverty line. In 2011, 25% of custodial mother’s did not receive any child support payments, whereas, 32% of custodial father’s did not receive payments from mothers.
  2. Dads are more likely to refuse child support payments from the other parent and are less likely to alienate the other parent. 27.5% of dads and 22.9% of mums had no legal child support by choice. Just 12.7% of dads didn’t want their children to have contact with the other parent, as opposed to 21% of mothers.
  3. Dads would rather spend more time with their kids than receive gifts from them. When parents were asked what they really wanted for mother/father’s day, only 35% of dads chose a gift, as opposed to 52% of mother’s.
  4. Dad’s do their fair share of housework. Women generally work less hours of paid labour. With this in mind a fair division of labour would be an equal amount of time in all forms of work combined; paid work, housework and childcare. When this is calculated men spend on average 54.2 hours per week working, with women working 52.7 hours a week.

What is also blatantly obvious is, that children lose out without a father around.

  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes – 5 times the average.
  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
  • 85% of children who show behavioural problems come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.
  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes – 14 times the average.
  • 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average.

What seems abundantly clear is children need their fathers. Now, I’ll state my case as to why society needs men. In my home country New Zealand, women now make up 17% of builders, which has doubled over 15 years, great I hope with sincerity that they enjoy their trade. But pretty much throughout the rest of history, it has been men that have made most of the physical world.

Moreover, it is men that do and have done the vast majority of the dangerous and dirty jobs throughout the existence of human kind. Miners, oil rig workers, loggers, refuse collectors, sewage workers, power line installers among many others are predominantly staffed by men. Jobs that are performed regularly by men allow us to enjoy the life we are accustomed to, while keeping society ticking along.

In contrast, feminists often bemoan the lack of female CEO’s in the world, blaming all men for this perceived travesty, as if we are one homogenous tribe. The people who call the shots at the upper end of society, have as little in common with normal men, than an upper/middle class feminist such as Meryl Streep has with working class women. Feminist’s can deride men all they wish, but millions upon millions have given their lives in wars and conflicts all over world.

I’m sure some identarians will claim that they don’t believe in war, as if in some way this negates the millions who have sacrificed their lives. Nobody likes war, but for example, if the UK/US and the USSR had allowed Hitler his wishes, life would have been very brutal across much of the globe. Yes, I am acutely aware, regrettably many woman have died in wars too, but men are often drafted and have perished in their millions in varying corners of the Earth. So if there is a patriarchy tell me, why is society set up so men die in their droves?

quote-women-have-always-been-the-primary-victims-of-war-women-lose-their-husbands-their-fathers-hillary-clinton-47-10-70

Even men dying in war and conflict has been overshadowed at times, most notably by Hillary Clinton in 1998. It’s a fascinating comment considering she has barely encountered a war she hasn’t favoured. One of the sure fire ways to get abuse from identarians and certainly feminists is by merely mentioning ‘men’s issues’. But it is not a zero sum game, that is assuming feminists really are after equality. Both should be able  to co-exist, but they can’t, because for feminists it’s often about control and power. I’m certainly not about to apologise for being a bloke or for voicing pressing issues that are particular to men, so here goes;

Despite obvious issues that men report, any moves to highlight these disparities are quickly pounced upon, forcing men into silence. The screening of the film the ‘Red Pill‘ which follows a former feminist’s gradual questioning of her movement and a look into the ‘men’s rights’ movement, was treated like a Nazi propaganda movie. Equally disturbing all over the western world, particularly in places such as Canada and Australia men’s rights gatherings routinely receive feminist and SJW protests.

Critics of men’s rights groups describe supporters as misogynists, fascists and alt-right. In truth the people who attend these meetings are scattered from all over the political spectrum, but each one worries about the future of men and boys. The problem these groups face is, most of the mainstream media are on the side of the identarian feminists.

Feminists claim to be the underdogs and activists, but they control many aspects of life, while most social laws are distinctly two tiered in favour of women, such as ‘child custody’ laws. This juggernaut ensures that many of the very serious issues as mentioned previously get lost under a barrage of slurs and ad hominem attacks.

It is often surmised that feminism holds the key to men’s problems. This is disingenuous, dark and dangerous, on the part of feminism. We do not need feminism to fix problems men and boys face. Also I’m pretty sure we would wildly disagree regarding what these problems are. Throughout this article, I hope you’ve noticed the distinction I’ve made, I have never implicated women as a whole and I’m under no illusion that good mums are essential to the wellbeing of boys. But they need awesome dads and all men should strive to be brilliant role models and be there to help each other out.

I’ve already witnessed the death of two good male friends to suicide. I do not want to hear any more of my friends passing in this way again during my lifetime. What is needed is help in the areas where it is desperately required, primarily in health and education, so my half of the population can also flourish. If the males in society are healthy as a whole, all will reap the benefits.