Fixing the gender gap
There’s more than one way of looking at the problems between the sexes. You can take the extreme point of view – misandry or misogyny – or you can try and heal the wounds and sort out the various problems between us.
Let’s quickly look at the choices. Feminism is divided into a whole bunch of subgroups. Some of them are women who basically don’t hate men, don’t want privileged status but reckon girls get a raw deal overall, especially in some countries. Some want privileged status but don’t hate men; some are outright misandrists. Some are female supremacists and want men to be their slaves.
Gender equality advocates want both sexes to have equal opportunity, get treated the same and to have the chance to be whatever they want to be. Men’s rights advocates aren’t all that different but there’s maybe a slight skewing in favour of men rather than women, probably to correct the sort of imbalance in favour of women we’ve got right now in the West.
Now we come to the masculists. Like feminism, masculism has different strains. The moderate masculists are not much more demanding than men’s rights advocates, though in certain areas, especially childcare, alimony, access, divorce and so on, many of them want men to be favoured over women. The traditionalists want women to stop working, go back to being a housewife and mother, be respectful and obedient towards her husband and see the man as the head of the household with more or less absolute authority over it. The radical masculists want to turn back all the pro-feminist laws in place, to make radical changes in the economic and social system so that women and essentially to turn women into their slaves.
Like so often, I’m a bit on the middle on this issue. I can see more than one side to the argument and I don’t think we need to have a totally “one size fits all” approach to the problem.
Let’s talk specifics. I’m on record as favouring the legalisation of rape (except in the case of stranger rape which in any case will be reclassified as theft rather than sexual assault) and of recognising that so-called “domestic violence” is actually a legitimate “domestic discipline” and shouldn’t be a crime any more than rape should (a “victimless crime” if ever there was one!) Some people might think that makes me extreme; maybe it does, I dunno.
I don’t hate men or women; I think men overall are superior to us but I don’t think that gives them the right to treat us like dirt. I think men – if we’re in some kind of relationship with them - DO have the right to fuck us even if we don’t want them to and to discipline us if we get out of line. Does that mean they’ve got the right to kill us just because they happen to be feeling that way? I don’t reckon it does. Does that mean they’ve got the right to beat the shit out of us for no reason? That’s not how I see domestic discipline.
Sure, like always in life there are grey areas. Wouldn’t be life if there weren’t! Even so, the basic feel I have is that domestic violence laws need to be rewritten drastically to distinguish between legitimate domestic discipline and psychopathic behaviour. Same with rape – I think stranger rape should still be a crime but no other kind of “rape.”
What effect would it have on society in general, and especially on relations between the sexes, if men and girls knew what the “rules” of “gender etiquette” were and knew that if either of them went against them they’d have to accept the consequences? So, if a girl goes out on a date, she knows beforehand that she IS going to be fucked and that she’s got NO business crying “rape” if the guy fucks her even if she changes her mind. To be honest, if she’s willing to go on a date with a bloke she’s already – in the eyes of any sensible person and in the eyes of any just laws – given her consent to being fucked.
That would make girls think long and hard about slutting it about town and then having the nerve to expect to be able to hold out on the poor blokes. Instead of them being able to act like bullies and prick-teasers, they’d know that any date meant agreeing to sex and we’d all know exactly where we stood. Of course blokes wouldn’t HAVE to fuck the girl just because she was on a date with them but SHE’D have to fuck him whether or not she wanted to!
Fair enough, isn’t it?
Like with marriage; no more crap about having a headache or not feeling up to it. If her hubby wants to fuck her it’s the wife’s duty to let him have what he wants. Her own selfish whims in the matter don’t matter a flying fuck! So, conjugal rights would be established in the law of the land as a clear duty for the girl and an absolute right for the man.
Same with partners or even boyfriends; the bloke has an absolute right to fuck the girl and she’s got NO say in the matter at all.
Fair enough, right?
Same with domestic discipline; the bloke does have an obvious right to put his uppity wife or girlfriend or whatever in her place if she steps out of line. On the other hand, IMO he doesn’t have the right to kill her, permanently cripple or mutilate her or to beat the living shit out of her just because he happens to feel like it. Basically the girl has to have done something WRONG to deserve being disciplined.
I think we need to draw up a code of conduct that has to be followed and if it was violated that would be a reason for domestic discipline to kick in.
Domestic violence would still exist as a crime but it would be rare because allowing men to use reasonable chastisement and discipline on partners or girlfriends behaving badly would mean that only a tiny handful of blokes would cross the line.
I think these two measures – along with various economic ones that I’ll write about in my next post – would do more than anything else to get rid of the gender problems in our society!