The War On Men

Let me say right up front, this post isn't about being a victim.  In fact it's the exact opposite. 

It's a cold bucket of water to the face of men (and the women who love and support them) to wake the hell up and to start pushing back - on a regular, consistent basis - when ideology like that which follows, is published or broadcast.

It's the slippery slope, the camel nose under the tent,  or the thin edge of the wedge.  Do not let this stand unchallenged.

It's crap like this that I'm talking about (from an article titled, "The New York City Subway Is Taking a Stand Against Ridiculous Male Privilege") - 

The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) announced on Monday that a new campaign addressing courtesy on public transportation will come into effect by January. One of the targeted behaviors is "man-spreading" — the act of spreading one's legs so far apart that other passengers are forced to squish their own together.

Or, if you prefer a more nuanced description, one of the most infuriating and outright ridiculous display of male privilege and machismo in existence today. As Mic's Derrick Clifton succinctly put it, "Hey, bro, you're not that well-endowed."

Wow, where to begin?  From the city that gave us laws against feeding the homeless, large sodas and the liberal/progressive approach to policing that involves deeming the color of your skin as probable cause for a search, we now have this.

Squish your nuts or go to jail.  Or better said, "If you can't sit like a woman, we'll make you one."

Notice the technique used in the last sentence up there in the article?  Get one of the privileged men to agree with the law, and toss in a pinch of humiliation for good measure.

Straight out of Alinsky's,  Rules For Radicals -

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Get a couple of guys fighting over the size of their junk, and the man-haters shriek with glee.

The real issue - the government actually dictating how you may now sit - becomes an afterthought, and the law stands.

I guess in NYC, if you're a black guy that works at an ad hoc soup kitchen who's on a bus holding a Big Gulp between your legs, you can be tazered on the spot.  Hey, connect the dots.


---

Here's the headline:

Male TV presenter wears same suit for a year – does anyone notice?  

And the sub-head:

Australian TV anchor Karl Stefanovic has been wearing the same blue suit to make a point about the ways in which his female colleagues are judged. What we learned hardly came as a surprise – but it can’t be said enough

When you read the headline and sub-head, who is the victim and who is the sexist?  The female host is the victim, because she's apparently being unfairly "judged".  And since a man got away with Fashion Murder, men and the whole "male privalege" gig were the aggressors, the judges and the sexists.

When I was in banking - for the entire period I was in management (27 of my 31 years) - I wore 3 suits to work.  A black one, a gray one and a blue one.  In dim lighting, they all looked the same color. 

I think back in the 1980's I had a brown one. 

Each day I'd rotate between the suits, so two days a week, I'd wear the same colored suit (on Monday and Thursday, and on Tuesday and Friday).

I wore a white shirt every day, and owned perhaps a dozen ties.  I'd mix and match the ties with the suits.

I never - not once - got a visit from the Fashion Police for my violation of the dressing laws.

The women, though, were another story.  If a woman dared to wear the same thing within a 2 or 3 week period, she got derided.  A snicker here, a disapproving glance there.  And the occasional backhanded compliment.

"I absolutely loved the shoes you wore with that same outfit last week!"

The derision was always, without exception, by other women.

I swear on all that is Holy to me, I NEVER thought more or less of the capabilities of a woman because of what she was wearing.  I can say with high confidence that other men felt the same way.

Why?  Because I didn't give a shit.  As long as you were wearing "business attire" I could not have cared less if it was from Nordstom's or Walmart, if you wore it yesterday or the day before that, or if the shoes clashed or not.


Apparently, just as blacks can't be racist, women can't be sexist.  Everyone knows that all racism is only directed towards blacks by non-blacks, and all sexism is only directed towards women by non-women, right?

So, who does that leave - by default - as the sexists?  Men.

I had to look hard to find a single online article that suggested that the Fashion Police and their heavy-handed approach is made up overwhelmingly by women.

In the article linked above, the last half of the very last paragraph of the article touches on this -

According to Wilkinson, most of the emails commenting on her on-air sartorial decisions have come from women. “I don’t know how we’ve got into that space,” she said on Today. 

Most of the emails?  I'd guess ALL of the emails.  Seriously, can you see a man taking the time to write an email that says, "Girl, those shoes just DID NOT work with that pantsuit you wore on Thursday!"

It’s not too hard to figure out: in a toxic climate, where a woman’s appearance is often deemed the only noteworthy thing about her, it is inevitable that the harshest critics may also be women. 

What "toxic climate" would that be?  That women trash other women's appearance?  Why is it "inevitable" that the worst critics would be women?  If that's true, then why isn't THAT the focus of your article?

Because it doesn't further the male-privilege, women-victim ideology.

Unlearning sexist behaviour is a job for us all, men and women alike.

There ya go - save the last sentence in a victimhood-promoting article to throw men into the mix of a clearly women-only issue.

If the author really, truly wanted to focus the article where the problem lies, her headline would have read -

Listen Up, Ladies - Stop This Fashion Police Assault On Other Women

The sub-head would have read -

Seriously.  It makes us look weak and stupid and shallow, instead of strong and capable.  Stop it now.

Sure, that'll happen right away.  I just checked with the weather station in Hades, and the forecast for the foreseeable future is hot 'n toasty...

---

And then there are the boys.  You know, "little men" that must be neutered and groomed to be nice little girls.

Boys point their finger like a gun, and say, "bang bang".  The school administration goes into an uproar, killer-drones are put on high alert, the boys are labeled a terrorist wannabes, and promptly medicated for the rest of their lives.

Just as disgusting is the treatment they receive from the largely female teaching corps of the government schools.

We extend the analysis of early-emerging gender differences in academic achievement to include both (objective) test scores and (subjective) teacher assessments…we show that the grades awarded by teachers are not aligned with test scores, with the disparities in grading exceeding those in testing outcomes and uniformly favoring girls, and that the misalignment of grades and test scores can be linked to gender differences in non-cognitive development.

…Boys in all racial categories across all subject areas are not represented in grade distributions where their test scores would predict. Even those boys who perform equally as well as girls on reading, math and science tests are nevertheless graded less favorably by their teachers.

Why is that?  Why would boys who get the same scores as a girl get a lower grade?

Despite having higher scores on standardized tests, boys get lower grades than girls. Why? Because teachers are basing grades at least partly on classroom behavior, and the standards are very much geared to female norms.

Translation?  The little boys are acting like little boys, and NOT like little girls.  And that's just not acceptable.

Another interesting finding was that boys who adhere to female norms on non-cognitive skills were not penalized. Effectively, the more female behavior was rewarded with a grade “bonus” for males.

The implications of this are obvious. Masculinity, even normal maleness, is being punished in schools from a very young age. Only the most female-acting boys are rewarded with a fair assessment. Cornwell notes that this practice may permanently affect a boy’s educational prospects.

Of course it will affect their educational prospects.  That's the plan.  Fewer mean, nasty, gross, aggressive boys will be able to obtain advanced degrees and training, so there are fewer similarly-disgusting eligible men to compete with women for advanced paying jobs.

Victimhood pays well.
---

So what to do?

Ignoring this - not addressing the unfair and unequal treatment - has got to stop.  This is just like the "mission creep" we saw with building a welfare state.  Don't pay attention, and you now have half the nation getting money from The State.

The difference between us and the male-haters is that we don't want special treatment for boys and men.  We don't have hate and loathing for someone based upon their gender. That would be stupid.

We don't want a "helping hand" or a "leg up" or a "special dispensation".  That would be admitting we don't have the ability to compete on a truly level playing field.

What we need to do is to fight the good fight when we see it.  If we see a story of a boy or man being blamed for being a boy or a man, write a letter or make a phone call.  Do it now.

If we see a local story in a government school where a boy has been mistreated for being a boy, go to the school board meeting and make a stink.  And bring some friends.

If we see a story where the local supervisors or council members are considering a man-bashing law such as the seating requirement on buses, go to the next meeting and make a stink.  And bring some friends.

Use technology to reach larger groups.  Forward links to articles showing the abuses to your friends.  This is one of the easiest ways to "spread the word".  If the subject comes up, your friends are now "armed" to deflect the "we're just victims" assault that will follow. 

The bottom line is, we must become active about this.  Don't be brow-beaten and guilt-tripped for being male. 

If we've learned one thing, it's that once a law becomes enacted, it's rarely reversed.  The statists and their minions just keep coming back for more.

Look at Obamacare.  They've now admit they lied, hid facts, and fudged numbers.  It doesn't matter now, because nothing will change.  The key is to not allow a bad law, practice or regulation to become enacted.

Understand their tactics.  They will paint themselves as victims in one way or another.  Who can hate a victim, right?  Point out that they're not victims, they're in stations of authority, and are abusing their power.  Flip the conversation around to THEM being the aggressor and bully.

Use their own tactics ON THEM.  Again, from Alinsky -

“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

Never let up.

---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com