If The Genders Be Reversed:

by Davd on February 15, 2012

… a Test for Equal Treatment

Even when we know intuitively or from reading that something “is so” or “isn’t so”, it helps to have a measure, or at least an indicator of the fact. When arguing over gender [in]equality, a good indicator is all-the-more needed, because one side’s intuitions aren’t likely to be honoured by the opposition. Here’s a test, an indicator if you prefer that word, for Gender Equality: If the genders were reversed, would the outcome be the same? Methinks it will unmask most Feminist claims that “gender equality” means giving more to women; and become a valuable tool for men seeking fair (equal-opportunity) treatment. A few examples may help readers see how to apply this “Gender-Reversal test”; using double standards of violence, accusation, sexual consent, and child custody that should all be familiar to most men.


Gerry and Leslie are names given to both boys and girls. Suppose there is a domestic fight involving the heterosexual couple Gerry and Leslie. Each is being equally violent. The police want to break up the fight, and the power they have available to use, is arrest. Who will the police arrest and take away to jail?

I’d be willing to bet—if i could be assured of a true answer—that as you read this, most of you who answered, thought or said “him”. I might lose a few bets, but i’d win many more—and there would probably be many who wouldn’t answer, just because you didn’t know which one of them was the male…

.. and “him” is the correct answer.

When i talked with people involved with law-enforcement, from criminal lawyers to pastors who counsel inmates and Salvation Army officers, in 2010 and 2011; they agreed that with equal violence on both sides, the male will be arrested 90% or more of the time anyone is arrested. (I live in Canada and arrests are not mandatory, or weren’t until very recently.)

This is especially unfair if—as seems more likely than not—equal violence on both sides, means the man is restraining himself more than the woman is restraining herself! The poor man is fighting back just enough to defend himself—and he’s the one that gets hauled off to jail?

If instead of male and female, the categories involved were “Native” and “white” and both combatants were of the same gender, such systematic favouritism would be called “racism” and would be forbidden by law.

This stereotypical example is almost comical, but it is no joke. I begin with it because it is an obvious, extreme negative answer to the “Gender-Reversal1 test” question: If the genders were reversed, would the outcome be the same? If they would not be the same, there is inequality. Think about that: If there were gender-equality in the legal treatment of domestic fights, as many women as men would be hauled off to jail, when police responded to he-she battles with equal violence on both sides. Obviously, that’s not true: Women are privileged—privileged to do violence to men they live with.

To stay with violence as subject-matter for two more examples, let’s consider pre-pubertal children and opposite-sex pairs of adults who do not “have a sexual relationship.”

About 60 years ago, my boyhood playmates and i would occasionally get kicked-in-the-shins, hard, by a girl who then danced away chanting “Can’t hit a gir-rul, can’t hit a gir-rul”. Many parents discouraged their daughters from this kind of aggression (some mothers seemed to believe that such aggression was a legitimate way for girls to respond to merely verbal insults); but boys who fought-back after being attacked were generally punished more harshly than girls who attacked. I have not seen this happen lately; but then, old men hanging around playgrounds are sometimes treated as potential “perverts”, so i am “prudently intimidated” from going to observe where i might most likely see it.

Can you even imagine a boy aged 8-10 kicking a girl of the same age in-the-shins, hard, and dancing away chanting “Can’t hit a bow-ee, can’t hit a bow-ee”?

The double standard of childhood verbal insulting was less clear, but again, favoured girls.

That small-child double standard i experienced, existed at a time when most girls expected to grow up to be housewives and mothers. Those were the Diefenbaker-Eisenhower years; and the girls who kicked me in the shins represented the first “Baby Boomers” and their older sisters. Many of their mothers had waited through World War II to be able to marry and have children. (In the 1950s, having children outside marriage was shameful.) The daughters saw mothers and housewives as positive examples partly because most of those older mothers2 were very glad to be stay-home mothers rather than Depression girls or spinsters, and wartime workers, such as they had been before marriage.

“The protection of the home” was then the normal milieuof women and girls; adventure and violence were male business to which only a small fraction of women aspired. Most homes were protected, not only by the law and the Police, but first and foremost by a husband-father. If the home protected a few female privileges, they were plausibly “balanced” by men’s greater access to the wider world, and by the practice, then common, of brides vowing to obey their husbands.

Today, girls and women still have their privileges, including the privilege of violence without the violent response that same-sex violence often provokes—but men’s privileges are gone.

For a third example of violence between the sexes, let’s be conventionally old-fashioned, and recall a “standard movie scene”, which can happen in ordinary life, of a woman slapping a man’s face, hard, for using “naughty words”, impugning her virtue [sexual or otherwise], or showing affection in a way she finds offensive. Men were and are expected to take such violence without complaint, much less even think of hitting back… though few if any men would dare slap another man in like manner unless he were inviting a fight3. If a man who a woman slapped were to call the Police, and if they both told the exact truth about the incident, she would be vanishingly unlikely to be arrested, far less punished as a criminal. Few if any men would be fool enough to try dialling 9-1-1 because a woman slapped their faces, even several times, no matter how hard.

Now imagine that a man slaps a woman’s face, only half-hard, for using “naughty words”, impugning his virtue, or showing affection in a way he finds offensive. She can call the Police, and if they both tell the exact truth about the incident, he is rather likely to be arrested and punished as a criminal.

There is a Double Standard of violence displayed in these three examples: Women’s acts of violence against men are tolerated when, if the genders were reversed, the same acts would be punished with vigor and severity.

The obvious, logical test for gender equality, to repeat, is: If the genders were reversed, would the outcome be the same? For violence, the answer is often, perhaps always, no. The sexes are not equal; women and girls are privileged. To achieve gender equality, either girls’ and women’s violence against men and boys must be punished more severely, and condemned more, morally; and-or boys’ and men’s violence against women and girls must be punished less severely, and condemned less, morally.

Men have the moral right to demand that, in the name of “Gender equality”.

Now on to a very non-violent kind of Double Standard: Accusation.

Over 20 years ago now, i criticized something a woman had done and she responded with “Why do you hate us?” It wasn’t logical, it wasn’t true, it wasn’t fair—but because she was a she and i was a he, she got away with it. If she had criticized me the same way—complained, for instance, that i had made her wait two hours after saying i’d show up at a particular time—and i had replied, “Why do you hate us?”—do you think i would have got away with it? If the genders were reversed, would the outcome be the same?

For accusing the opposite-sex of hate, the answer between 1980 and 2010, was almost alwaysno. The sexes were not equal; women and girls were [and apparently still are] privileged. To achieve gender equality, either girls’ and women’s [untrue] accusations against men and boys must be punished more severely, and condemned more, morally; or boys’ and men’s accusations against women and girls must be punished less severely, and condemned less, morally.

“Sexual Freedom”:

If women’s privileges to do violence to men without suffering consequences, are hold-overs from when women were usually sheltered in the home, their present-day sexual privileges constitute reversals of the restrictions that sheltered women were supposed to accept “back then.” In the 1950s, there was said to be a double standard of sexual freedom: Men were considered to have more license to “screw around” than women. Since 19-sixty-somewhen, the “conventional wisdom” says, women have had about the same license as men—but is there perhaps a different double standard emerging?

Suppose a different Gerry and a different Leslie meet at a party. Alcohol is freely available. They get quite intoxicated and “have sex” by mutual agreement. Next morning both regret their mutual decision to “do it”. Who is guilty of what?

Again, as in the violence examples, “he” is deemed guilty in legal systems influenced by Feminism. Specifically, by a crime-reporting re-definition recently promulgated by the famous United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, he is guilty of raping her (though as yet, most US State laws differ from this recent redefinition.) This is not a logical attribution of guilt; it is ideological.4 It blames men for consensual sexual relations between intoxicated partners—and in so doing, nearly reverses the Double Standard of the mid-20th Century. If the genders were reversed, obviously, the outcome would not be the same: Women are privileged. To achieve gender equality, women must reach equal probability of being found guilty of rape [and other sexual misconduct] in such non-violent encounters, either by reducing the number of men deemed guilty or increasing the number of women.

Someone from another intelligent species, free of the influences of Feminism (and of other earthly ideologies), would probably say that Gerry and Leslie are both and equally guilty of lack of discipline with respect to alcoholic beverages. The event wasn’t a rape at all—and the regrets should be directed at the face in the mirror, not the sex-partner.


For the final example of this little essay, let me refer to the subject that is most painful for many men: Child custody and fatherhood. If in the case of conflict involving equal violence, the poltically correct answer to “who will be punished” is he; in the case of conflict in court over custody of children, involving equal merit, the politically correct answer to “who will be given the children” is she. If the genders were reversed, would the outcome be the same? Obviously not. The sexes are not equal; women are privileged. To achieve gender equality, men must reach equal probability of winning custody.

One way to effect gender equality in child custody, would be to give each parent custody of same-sex children. There is much to be said for such a rule: Children do grow up; and boys become men while girls become women. Much of our social learning involves imitation. Boys, therefore, have more need of men than women as “role models”; while girls have more need of women than men.

Such a simple rule can also be attacked as “too crude”. A wise judge, whether in a courtroom, a family circle, a tribal circle, or the gates of Paradise, might well take into consideration the moral conduct of both parents and what kind of precepts each would offer for guidance, and what examples for imitation. A good father might raise even a girl, better than a bad mother. An athletic father might raise a child with athletic talent, even a girl, better than a “couch potato” mother.

The test remains the same: If the genders [of the parents] were reversed, would the outcome be the same? When child custody decisions reach equality by that standard, children as well as fathers will benefit.

All the above examples, turn out to show women and girls to be privileged over men and boys. If we were to consider publicly funded education, women and girls would be seen to be privileged there as well. It is difficult in the second decade of the 21st Century, to find an aspect of social life in Europe and North America, that exhibits male privilege5—but banally easy to find examples of female privilege. The “Gender-Reversal test” looks to be a powerful way to bring that excess of female privilege to wide public attention.

My purpose in writing is not to “say the last word” on the subject. (These days, as two generations ago, women usually claim the last word.) My purpose is to invite and encourage men, and women who truly value gender-equality, to take up the Gender-Reversal test, and apply it often.

If the genders were reversed, would the outcome be the same? If not, how shall we fix the situation so that male and female humans have the equality of opportunities that led many men to support “women’s liberation” fifty years ago? I recall my own first reaction to that phrase, “women’s liberation”, was “Why not? I value liberation for people, and women are people.”

Of couse, my intention was that both sexes would benefit—that liberating women would further liberate men, rather than alter men’s condition in the direction of confinement and slavery. The “Gender-Reversal test” may yet imaginably move things toward mutual liberation and equal opportunity.

If not, then “society”, in failing such an important test, may be on the way to flunking out completely.

1Some readers may be inclined to “quibble”, that the word gender should read sex. However, “sex reversal” can have a connotation of “sex-change”; so idiomatically, “gender-reversal” seems preferable.

2(relative to the age of their daughters)

3One formulation of “Chivalry” states that a man who slaps another, often with an empty glove, is challenging the man slapped to a duel to the death.

4The re-definition specifies that rape constitutes “penetration without consent”, and that one who is intoxicated cannot lawfully consent. The male genital organ “sticks out” while the female genital organ is inside the body outline, and thus the word “penetration” specifies that females who initiate intercourse, do not commit rape however drunk or unwilling the man with whom they copulate—indeed, a man on whom a drunken woman forces intercourse, could be defined to have raped her. (A woman could, by this tendentious “definition”, commit rape by “goosing” a man (or another woman) with her thumb, a trowel handle, etc..)

5Two examples did occur to me: Senior executive office in business and politics, and competitive spectator sports. Elite leaders and elite “commercial athletes” are mostly male. (The easiest explanation of this, is the “flatter distribution curve” of male than of female ability.) Top leadership and big-league sports are both elite-only “areas of work”, to which ordinary men and women cannot realistically aspire—and if male predominance there reflects a larger number of men of extremely high [and extremely low] capability, then it may well derive from fair competition for the top spots, and not from any gender inequality of opportunity.

I do not regard military service as a privilege—it is more nearly a burdensome obligation, and obviously carries a far higher risk of death and maiming, than any work voluntarily taken up or sought by a majority of women.

{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }

Anonymous Reader February 15, 2012 at 13:27

Here’s another one, murder. When a woman murders a man who lives with her and claims abuse, she will be believed. A man who murders a woman who lives with him won’t be believed unless he has very solid evidence.

To be specific, if Matt Winkler had shot his wife in the back with a shotgun, and unplugged the phone on his way out the door so she could not call for help as she bled to death, he’d have wound up in prison. Maybe on death row.

But where is Mary Winkler today, eh? Not in prison, that’s for sure…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader February 15, 2012 at 13:30

That’s quite a type font, but I have no idea how I wound up with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
rorschach February 15, 2012 at 13:31

I wonder how many girls take advantage of the double standard allowing them to hit boys without any punishment or even criticism. There were two girls at my primary school who would run up to a boy, hit him as hard as they could and then run and hide behind the nearest playground supervisor – all women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 0
Dicipres February 15, 2012 at 13:47

See even got custody


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
GS Jockey February 15, 2012 at 14:29


Well done; great talking point here. “If the genders were reversed….”

We should all be prepared to toss that one out in conversation anytime we see misandry in action whether it be coming from a loudmouth at a party or some inane commercial on TV.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Jim February 15, 2012 at 14:29

mary winkler also got full custody of her kids!

The new rape definition is just invented because rape is on the steep decline and this really depresses a lot of people in government.

So lets jack up the rape numbers by skewing the definition to include a ton of stuff that is not rape.

Also they word it so a female is almost never guilty of rape.

I look at it like this.

Under the new definition if you stick your hand down the front of a woman’s pants even for a second you are a rapist.

But if a woman forces a 5 year old boy to have full intercourse with her 800 times she is not guilty of rape…not even once.

I wish I was kidding but read the definition and you will see what I mean.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
bruno February 15, 2012 at 15:58

A quick shortlist of female privileges, but I’m sure there are many more, because female privileges are so ingrained in society, that we are almost blind for it:

- privilege to, when pregnant, decide to keep the child or to abort it, without regard to the will of the biological father
- privilege to recieve and control child support money from government, and use it at their own will.
- privilege to recieve child support from the father, and use it at their own will, even if she decided to have the child against the will of the man, all enforced and supported by the state
- privilege of financially living off a man in relationship or marriage, and not having to repay that when the relationship is finished, and afterwards continue extorting more money from the man, (spousal support) sometimes endlessly, without giving anything back, all supported by law and government.
- privilege not to be forcably sent to war
- privilege to feel no obligation to work full time and support the family, but to see this as a voluntary personal choice.
- privilege to do only the easy and comfortable jobs, or no job at all: almost all the heavy, dangerous, or dirty jobs are done by men.
- privilege of “women and children first” in emergency situations
- privilege of affirmative action, positive discrimination, quota in the good and easy jobs, but not in bad jobs.
- privilege to get much more than men from retirement, (women live longer) while men contribute much more into it
- privilege to get much more from health care (because they claim more), while men contribute much more into it
- privilege of getting much more gender specific health care
- privilege of special laws in favour of women concerning domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and rape
- privilege of getting much lower sentence than men in similar criminal cases
- privilege of depicting men in the media as evil, and depicting violence against men as good and funny
- privilege of outlawing prostitution, while marriage is enforced by government. Prostitution and marriage are basicly the same: an agreement between a man and a woman to exchange sex for money. The power banlance in prostitution is neutral and fair, because the price and services are determined by the free agreement between individuals. This is outlawed. In marriage, the state enforces by violence and force a power balance strongly favourable to woman, and the man is forced to pay an enormous price, for getting very little, if anything, in return.


If in any of these case, the genders were reversed, women would be screaming about discrimination immediately.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 1
Lovekraft February 15, 2012 at 18:09

Just wanted to signal here that the new season of Survivor started tonight with the tribes divided between the men and the wimminz.

Ripe for analysis and commentary, especially when the women play the victim card to get their own way but most other times act like rhinos.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
buggeroff11 February 15, 2012 at 18:11

In my area ‘health & fitness’ clubs abound, one franchise makes a big noise promoting ‘ladies only’ area & that’s great gets some of the fembots out of the way (but they can join in & annoy males working anywhere) while screaming for more men to join…omg, talk about an oxymoran. But….when I enquire from the young fembot behind the counter in the interest of equality, non discrimination & fairness, where is the ‘Mens Only Area’ I get this blank look & the mumbles start about allowing females (remember so strong & empowered) to feel ‘comfortable’ when exercising, then I follow with “don’t you understand that for every female that feels uncomfortable their is a GUY who feels the same about you but you only cater for the feelings of females & bugger the guys!” ….the shocked look on her face is priceless. I then turn around & walk away. The thing is these feminist & mangina shits know their business is sexist & discrimintory & even a form of hidden male hate but they are allowed to get away with it….pisses me off.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1
Rebel February 15, 2012 at 19:11

I don’t know exactly how to put this in a clear manner, but I shall try nevertheless. Sorry if my French prints through.

The double standard that exists at the present time is so obvious, and becoming more obvious every day goes way beyond mere coincidence or bigotry.

In other words, there is a lot more than meets the eyes here. Much , much more than simple unfairness is involved.

A huge wedge has been put into place between men and women: the blatant injustices that men are subjected to everyday serve ONE purpose: to destroy the family. See no other reason. The real agenda is to destroy the “nuclear” family.

This is not conspiracy theory: these are FACTS.

I know that most people will think I am crazy, but consider this for a second: how come most victims of this social injustice are men, heterosexuals, married and fathers?

How come gay men are not subjected to the same abject treatment?
How come a “gamer” will go through live untouched by this system, while an honest father will always be crucified?
How many more questions can be asked and unanswered if one does not consider all of this as an attempt at destroying the relations that exist between men and women and especially between fathers and their children?

Most men on this board know too well that the only way to escape this totalitarian regime is to go their own way: in other words, to shun women and family, to live alone and to die alone.

Gentlemen there is an agenda and we (men) have been selected to be the sacrificial lambs. No wonder we call ourselves sheeple!

We are being led, as a society, to the slaughterhouse.
The wedge is there. It is for real. There is no future for men in America.

No future.
None other than slavery.
God have mercy on us.

Abandon ship.

Or die.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Z February 15, 2012 at 20:05


We die alone either way. I don’t see what the big deal is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Anonymous age 69 February 15, 2012 at 20:07

I worked for some years with a tough guy, a true alpha, the type of man if you are walking down the street and see him coming, without any visible action on his part, you start edging toward the curb when he is 100 feet away. I liked him, he was clever and witty and extremely intelligent.

He said when he was around 8, living in a small rural town in the Midwest, a girl his same age started beating him up. He simply wasn’t big enough to defend himself. He begged for help or protection, and everyone laughed at him, told him to stop being a wuss.

One day, he rubber hosed the s**t out of her.

The general consensus in that town was he should be shot, for rubber-hosing a poor, sweet, little girl. Or, maybe just castrated, or something.

But, he noticed she didn’t beat him up again. Mission accomplished.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 0
ConShawnery February 15, 2012 at 20:55

Anonymous Age 69,

Women and girls know of only one way to get a man’s attention — through mistreatment (harassment, annoyance, physical/verbal abuse, taunting, getting him beat up by her male friends, and so on). The simple idea that to get a man’s attention and affection, you just need to be nice to him, never occurs to them. “Women civilize men,” indeed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Rebel February 15, 2012 at 21:11

@ Z
” I don’t see what the big deal is.”

Then all is fine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
rudy February 15, 2012 at 23:37

Selective service/the draft should be among the first things that MRAs should fight against. Nowhere else does it become so clear that there are two different sorts of life – the disposable ones and those deserving to be protected by the expense of others.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Oddsock February 16, 2012 at 04:36

Under age models now allowed on catwalk show


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Art Vandelay February 16, 2012 at 04:50

I know that most people will think I am crazy, but consider this for a second: how come most victims of this social injustice are men, heterosexuals, married and fathers?

Because these are the people that cause the least trouble. If people don’t cause trouble you can’t justify the police state that is currently erected everywhere in the west. So they are sowing the seeds of disfunction, single motherhood being at the forefront and they even go as far as to make the state the primary caregiver. It’s large scale social engineering the purpose of which is to make people less dependent on individuals (family) and more dependent on the state.

Saw this one on twitter, thought it was funny: “Last 7 games: Jeremy Lin 150 pts, 70 asts, $68,000. Carmelo Anthony 0 pts, 0 asts, $1.6 million. Vanessa Bryant 0 pts, 0 asts, $2.5 million.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 16, 2012 at 05:14

rudy February 15, 2012 at 23:37

Selective service/the draft should be among the first things that MRAs should fight against. Nowhere else does it become so clear that there are two different sorts of life – the disposable ones and those deserving to be protected by the expense of others.
This may sound crazy but perhaps the I the main reason that the government is trying to get women on the front lines is that they know that men cannot be relied upon to defend the country anymore. As a side point has anyone noticed the relentless attacks on law enforcement by anonymous, antisec and other hacker groups?
its going to be an interesting decade and not in a good way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Wilson February 16, 2012 at 12:13

Seems more likely that it’s about reducing male opportunity. Women aren’t planning on actually fighting but they love those government benefits, and the new positions open a career-path to replacing the men in the top brass, since they confuse their desire to fuck them with becoming them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Bizzman662 February 16, 2012 at 14:34

So I was watching cops the other night……..

Dude gets the CRAP beat out of him by his wife……has scratch marks on his neck…..he left the house to sleep in his car to get away from her….

Cops show up……..open his car door……arrest him and then proceed to pepper spray his face when he keeps asking why he is being arrested after leaving HER abuse….

Needless to say he got his ride downtown and a free pass to the domestic violence industry for the rest of his life…

Speaking of survivor…….”Men vs. Women”…..

Anyone notice the team of MEN consists of a midget, and retarded fella and a guy who is so old he might not make it a week on the island.

A Midget, a Retard and Old Balls on the Man team……..(Needless to say….the women are mostly all hot, fit and already plotting to use the VAGINA to “woo” the men into an alliance……

A Midget, A Retard and Droopy Balls on the man team. That’s equality at it’s finest…….(or could just be a form of “compensation equality” to ensure the women don’t get destroyed).

Could you imagine the uproar if the Man Survivor Team was a bunch of ripped, intelligent and young?

Way to make it “Fair” for the women Survivor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
bruno February 16, 2012 at 16:17

Forcing women into combat duty, just like men, would maybe be the biggest step towards world peace.

If large numbers of women would be dying on the battlefield, suddenly the support for war would get much smaller.

For example: if bullfighting would be done with cows, instead of with bulls, it would be outlawed already longtime ago, and not be hailed as a “beautiful tradition”
Another case of reversing the genders, and suddenly people would feel very different about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Anon5x February 16, 2012 at 17:09

Off topic but relevant:


Column got some solid talk radio coverage, hitting several major MRA topics such as feminist ideology in family court, “80% of abuse allegations are false”, walking wallets, and “Men have no rights, they have responsibilities”. Podcast available here (Feb. 15, part 2):


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Davd February 16, 2012 at 18:41

If we go our own way, Rebel et al, it’s most natural to do so in groups. Me-thinks there is a future other than slavery, in co-operation. Mondragon after World War II was in rough shape, and they made it work… starting with an old priest and five young men.

Let’s have another look at evolutionary history: Men hunted in teams [packs, ethologically]. Not every male in the society got to hunt; competence was required. To some extent different men had different best-competences and the hunting pack organized to put each where he did best.

Our natural way of living and working is with a team of capable friends. Bureaucracy does not qualify. Real “rugged individualism” is for a very few–even the 195x TV cowboy heroes had a “sidekick” or two: Chester and Doc, Pancho, Tonto.

Going our own way in groups is more efficient: There’s a post of mine on everyman.ca about house and vehicle sharing*, and i’m working on future posts on co-op farming and “worker owned small scale manufacturing”. A man can support himself with a day or two of work per week, especially if he shares house and wheels. With the free time, some might be visual artists, writers or musicians, some might save up to buy machinery or more land.

I moved from where land was expensive to where it is relatively cheap, to restore a forest as a retirement project. I’m talking to local men about a possible co-op farm and there may be room for 1-3 men “from away”. There are possibilities for small manufacturing, maybe a smokehouse. We might even set up a writer’s household and publish our own work as a co-operative press. A book detailing women’s privileges is one possibility among many. Maybe some research and a book on fatherhood, and even one on how to revive lifelong fidelity.

The last sentence of my post reads, “If not, then ‘society’, in failing such an important test, may be on the way to flunking out completely.” A co-operative of men who are friends would be a good “lifeboat” if the titanic bureaucracy does go down. And men forming up into such “lifeboat crews” might warn whoever is trying to “skipper the society”, to ease speed and change course.

Unlike the Titanic analogy, we can make our own lifeboats, we can make them fit to do useful work as well as keep us afloat, each group can make its lifeboat to suit what it wants to do, and if the ladies want to make lifeboats for themselves and learn to row, we’re not preventing them.

* http://www.everyman.ca/2012/01/11/co-operative-frugality-the-good-life-on-a-minimum-of-money/

[btw, i'm connected to the Web only an hour or at most two per day.]

bruno February 17, 2012 at 06:32

Another female privilege: only the things men do get criminalized, while the things women do go unpunished.
It’s a privilege to do harm in a female way unpunished, while the way men do harm is criminalized.
There is an enormous unbalance of the male-female prison population because of this.
If the female equivalent of male criminal behaviour would be punished just the same as the male counterpart, then the number of men and women in the prison would be more balanced.

For example: rape is considered a very serious crime, and punished by draconian sentences, just for forcing sex onto a woman, even is there is no other bodily harm.

The female equivalent of rape is a more subtle and emotional way of forcing a man into intimacy against his will: it is by emotional pressure, manipulation and by threat of leaving, forcing a man to agree with marriage or parenthood.
Just as a woman can, after the deed, accuse a man of having had sex with her against her will (rape), and have him thrown into prison, a man should be able to accuse a woman, after marriage or childbirth, that she emotionally forced him into it, and that deep inside, he did not really want to be married or have a child.
Then the woman should recieve a 10 years, 20 years, or lifetime sentence in prison, just like a man gets for rape.

That would be true equality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Common Monster February 17, 2012 at 08:15

but then, old men hanging around playgrounds are sometimes treated as potential “perverts”, so i am “prudently intimidated” from going to observe where i might most likely see it.

Who knew then the playground would turn into a hostile environment simply upon maturation? (but only for men, of course)

There is much to be said for such a rule [same-sex custody]: Children do grow up; and boys become men while girls become women. Much of our social learning involves imitation. Boys, therefore, have more need of men than women as “role models”; while girls have more need of women than men.

There’s also much to be said against it. According to one theory of psychological development (life script theory) which I think has quite a lot going for it, the most significant parent is the opposite sex parent. Their opposite sex parent is their model for what someone of your sex should be.

So, for men, maternal grandfathers are the template; for girls it’s paternal grandmothers. This theory, which was developed in the 1950′s and early 60′s (i.e., before the divorce tsunami hit), predicts that breaking up homes creates havoc for both sexes, leaving them without life scripts. Sound anything like many of the Millennials, so many of whom are aimless and all confused about their purpose and what to do in life, regardless of which sex they are?

A better way is to keep all the kids together in the home, and timeshare the parents by swapping them in and out equally at intervals — without any new partners/spouses they may have acquired subsequently, unless all agree it’s okay. This does have the drawback of tying both parents to the same location, and still working together to keep the joint household a going concern, while requiring they support their own external living quarters, but maybe all this will conspire to teach them how to work together while keeping them apart so they don’t continually get on each others nerves too much.

Great piece, btw. I’d like to see a similar treatment on the epidemic of female-on-male statutory rape occurring in our schools. A local 14-15 y.o. boy committed suicide over such an incident. Zero-tolerancing this heinous crime should be at the top of the MRM plank.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Anonymous February 17, 2012 at 15:41

I look forward to the day when true equality is achived and I can blast a woman in the face for crossing a line I would blast a man in the face for crossing without social repercustions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Lincoln February 19, 2012 at 05:31

On Misogyny and Misandry

Both misogyny and misandry exist. If a person turned up to a hospital with a 3rd- degree burnt left arm and a seriously bleeding right arm, the hospital staff wouldn’t say, “Yeah, we’ll wait until one arm is healed before we look at taking care of the other.”. Unfortunately, many self-described feminists assert that misandry doesn’t exist, or if it does, until misogyny is erased it’s not important to fix. Many self-described men’s-rights advocates assert that misogyny doesn’t exist, or if it does, until misandry is erased it’s not important to fix. So . . . which arm do you not need any more?

The problem is when each side gets represented by its least sane proponents- such that feminism is now defined as man-hating, because the ones that most loudly shriek “I REPRESENT FEMINISM!!!!” actually do not; and MRAs are often defined as woman-hating, because the ones that most loudly holler “I REPRESENT MEN’S RIGHTS!!!!” actually do not.

At its core, TRUE MRAs and TRUE FEMINISTS have the same goal; that each gender is separate, but equal; and that men and woman have equal rights, along with equal responsibilities. My mother was this type of feminist- as was my father. They saw the potetial for humanism devolve into victim mentality . . . on both sides.

There will always be scum of both genders crying Total Victim while playing the Bully. Let’s not be that. And let’s not let others be that either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: