Tuesday, March 08, 2011

The new line on men still a whisper at The Age

Today is International Women's Day and The Age newspaper wasn't going to let us forget it. It ran an editorial and four columns supporting the feminist cause.

All of the columns made a similar claim: that women are still terribly oppressed by a male dominated world. That's in contrast to the spate of triumphalist feminist articles in recent months pointing to women outperfoming men in academia and the workplace and concluding that men had been made irretrievably obsolete and no longer had a useful place in society.

It will be interesting to see which feminist line prevails: the "I'm oppressed by the patriarchy" one or the "It's all over for men" one.

Clearly, The Age is holding to the older orthodoxy for now. Its editorial was titled "Gender equality? It's more dream than reality". But, stuck on the back page, the other view made a quiet debut. Singer Deborah Conway, scheduled to appear at an International Women's Day performance, told an Age reporter:

I think we're getting the upper hand, frankly. We almost need to reinstate a day for men, at least in Australia, so they don't feel so inadequate.

That's the new triumphalism, in which men made obsolete are to be pitied.

27 comments:

  1. The idea that men are obsolete usually goes hand in hand with, "I can't get one". So in that case triumphulism can be a mask for desperation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Today is International Women's Day"
    And, who really cares??... Truly..

    These feminists are deluded.

    How convenient that they forget that it was men who built civilizations whilst women stayed home had the kids, cooked meals and tended house.

    Women would be nothing without men..

    Really am sick and tired of these competitive feminists..

    Men and women were meant to complement one another.. Sheesh!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, quite interesting to see how femmarxists will attempt to resolve these two conflicting facts: their time-tested claims of oppression by the patriarchy, and their exultant "end of men" triumphalism.

    Also, here in the States, today it is "mardi gras". Fat Tuesday. An event celebrated by gluttony and breast-baring partying.

    Is the timing unfortunate or intentional? One may never know.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Isn't it really just the latest iteration of the having your cake and eating it, too, festival that feminism has been at least since the second wave?

    That is, men are evil oppressors except where women exceed male performance, in which case women are naturally superior - i.e., in all cases where women do NOT dominate and "clock" men (to use Hannah Rosin's term of endearment) the reason for that *must* be male domination/patriarchy/sexism. Because if it were not for sexism, women would just run rampant over the clearly inferior male sex.

    It's just female sexism, as feminism has always been (any movement for "equality" would never base itself around the values of only one sex, as the word "feminism" clearly does, after all). Having your cake and eating it, too, is a strategy for women to obtain complete and utter domination of the entire system -- because any other result is viewed as sexist and patriarchal (under the assumption that in a truly "free" system, women kick mens' collective asses from one end of the planet to the other).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark Richardson:
    It will be interesting to see which feminist line prevails: the "I'm oppressed by the patriarchy" one or the "It's all over for men" one.

    Oh, come now, you know full well that both will be trotted out when appropriate. On the one hand, "Grrrl Power Rules" whenever any discussion of women's behavior is involved. On the other hand, "Poor Wimmen, So Oppressed" is used to justify all the various institutionalized misandry that simply must be kept intact.

    In the US, for example, there is a serious debate over cutting government spending. But perish the thought that any of the offices at the Federal level that promote 'women's employment' via special set-asides for contracts, special rights in hiring, etc. be affected at all. It's "Grrl Power" in articles pointing out that women are over 50% of the working population, but "Poor, Oppressed Wimmens" at any suggestion they don't need all sorts of special governmental help.

    So the answer is obviously "both, depending on the situation".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Novaseeker:
    It's just female sexism, as feminism has always been (any movement for "equality" would never base itself around the values of only one sex, as the word "feminism" clearly does, after all).

    I no longer much care for the "ism" words; "racism", "sexism", "speciesism", "lookism", "laughism", and so forth. The Marxist roots of the words is an impediment to thought.

    I have an alternative: "Female supremeacist" or "gyno-centrist" perhaps. Because let's face it, feminism has always been about exalting women, and holding them up as superior to men. The first wave 19th and early 20th century feminists certainly insisted that women were morally superior, for example.

    Of course, some people who call themselves anti-feminist might not care for this term, because it is quite possible to be both anti-feminist, and yet still believe in female superiority...

    Having your cake and eating it, too, is a strategy for women to obtain complete and utter domination of the entire system -- because any other result is viewed as sexist and patriarchal (under the assumption that in a truly "free" system, women kick mens' collective asses from one end of the planet to the other).

    Exactly so, in the US the term is "disparate impact", basically an outcome-based notion that insists on equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity. And now the mask has truly slipped off of the face of feminism, with the triumphalist articles that flatly proclaim the supremacy of women.

    Therefore, returning to my point, feminism is all about female supremacy. It is gynocentric. It sees everything solely in terms of women, including the value of men.

    And yes, feminism is not the only form that female supremacism can take...

    ReplyDelete
  7. You should see what liberal/libertarian women are doing to journalism. Here is a piece on the ThinkingHousewife about how women are so independent, liberated, modern and career focused --- http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/03/the-news-according-to-tina/

    Somebody please stop them. Psychotic narcissists. Anybody happy that the West is facing economic collapse and enormous debt?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "It will be interesting to see which feminist line prevails: the "I'm oppressed by the patriarchy" one or the "It's all over for men" one."

    Both of them are important to the liberal cause so I'd wager both. Besides the unprincipled exception (a non-liberal cause to support a liberal cause or derail the bad effects of liberalism), liberal infiltration of conservatism (right-liberalism such as libertarianism and neoconservatism), projection of liberal failure to powerless traditionalist conservatives foes and the rewriting of history the principle of "double-think" (Orwell's 1984) is quite important to liberalism. You must see yourself as a victim and as victorious as well.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the oppression line will be the main public line but women will take the triumphulism line amongst themselves to support their egos.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Every day, in every way, more and more does The Age resemble the New Idea

    Serious journalism my arse!

    ReplyDelete
  11. ""It will be interesting to see which feminist line prevails: the "I'm oppressed by the patriarchy" one or the "It's all over for men" one. ""

    Depends what day it is.

    Feminists see no reason to remain consistent. That would be a surrender to the oppressive male system of logic and reason.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There were once two wallabies. One was tall and the other short. Over the years, they grazed and they hopped together and between them they made the bush into a welcoming and friendly place for all kinds of animals. However the short wallaby was resentful of the other and believed that it ate more and was loved more than was fair. In the end, the short wallaby came to believe that the tall wallaby was stronger and was using its strength to steal food and love for itself.

    When the tall wallaby learned this, it was upset and promised not to act in such a way that the short wallaby felt overwhelmed. In the event, however, this did not work. The short wallaby went to the tall one and said, "Things will only be fair if you forgo your strength by letting me chain your right leg to the ground. You will be unable to hop, and I will be able to get a decent share of the grass."

    The tall wallaby agreed, but still the short wallaby was unhappy. "Things will be only fair," it said, "if you let me chain both of your legs to the ground." The tall wallaby agreed, but still the short wallaby was unhappy.

    In the end, the tall wallaby agreed to let the short wallaby chain it flat to the ground with its mouth forced shut and its eyes blinded.

    As soon as this was done, the short wallaby punched the tall wallaby in the face and said, "Now who's the strong one. you bastard!"

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Now who's the strong one. you bastard!"

    And by peoples reaction to that joke shall ye know them.

    Those who sympathise with the shorter of the two wallabies are not to be trusted.

    A useful ad-hoc on the spot character analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "James said..."
    Irrelevant tall man syndrome comment. Yes james the little people are out to get you they are so jealous. Lets persecute short people because we are too much of a cowardly ***** to offend any other interest group.
    and back to talking about femnazis...

    ReplyDelete
  15. So sick of anonymous commenters.

    Great story, Homestead!

    ReplyDelete
  16. @louise
    "And by peoples reaction to that joke shall ye know them."

    Tell me what do these groups have in common in society. Shortpeople, Christians, redheads, blondes, (straight) White men. Answer they are all easily recoginisable groups that its perfectly ok to vilify as much as you like in todays society.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Lol its a short people anti-discrimination day. And you're accusing us of being feminists?

    ReplyDelete
  19. ""Lets persecute short people because we are too much of a cowardly ***** to offend any other interest group""

    Do you understand "Parable"?

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ Anonymous, I took the "short wallaby" to stand for women and the "tall wallaby" to stand for "men." (Women are typically shorter than men).

    The parable, as I understood it, was taking Feminism to task.

    Obviously, other interpretations are possible.

    And you left out fat people. I agree that certain groups are able to be vilified with impunity, while others are not, to the point of law.

    And can you get a handle? "Anonymous" is so common and consequently, difficult to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @louise
    Yes I understood the parable. Except it wasn't executed well as both wallabies appear to be male. Why would a female have any reason to be envious the other wallaby attracting more love. Women have never had trouble getting more love than a man with their virtues.

    I left out fat people because they continuely attempt, unsuccessfuly to be included in the line up of minority groups, women and homosexuals that demand anti-discrimination protection. Which is very humourous to me considering many fat people are of the opinion that they ARE protected completely by anti-discrimination when they aren't. Silly gluttons and their wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon,

    It was clearly meant to be referring to women given the context. Thanks for clarifying your name.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ""Except it wasn't executed well as both wallabies appear to be male. ""

    That's because it is supposed to be subtle.

    you get subtle right?

    ReplyDelete
  24. There is an International Men's Day it's in November. I got kept in school for an extra twenty minutes to freaking celebrate it, even though it was the day before.

    ReplyDelete
  25. There's an international men's day? I feel better already ;).

    ReplyDelete
  26. @james
    "you get subtle right?"
    Yes its a subtle rant at short people. One of those acceptable groups to vilify.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.