Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
September 13th 2018 print

Dave Pellowe

Nagging as a Feminist Discipline

More women are being charged with domestic violence, a development those who have long argued that equality of outcome matters more than equal opportunity might have been expected to applaud. But no, none of that from the champions of perpetual female victimhood

rolling pin IIThe discrimination industry seems to dwell in a fantasy world we could simply refer to as “Alt Reality”. In this realm of fantasy and victimhood equal positive outcomes for females or blacks is a sign of progress, but equal negative outcomes signifies sexism or racism. Facts are entirely irrelevant to the narrative that white men are always powerful and privileged and, therefore, always the oppressors of those who are not white or male.

The myth of “the patriarchy” is easily evidenced – in their minds – by the fact that more men choose higher-paying careers, are more likely to assertively negotiate promotions and pay rises, and less likely to take several years off in their 20s and 30s for family reasons. They call it the “gender pay gap” and completely fail to account for the possibility that empowered and independent women may actually prefer and freely choose careers that aren’t as financially profitable, such as the human services sector or home-making. Women voluntarily often have several less years industry-specific experience by age 30 due to the womb-and-breastfeeding gender differences.

The reality of the differences between men and women is entirely lost on the discrimination industry, and therefore they are free to misrepresent this reality as the deliberately malicious construct of a white-male dominated society allegedly determined to subjugate the perpetual victims of every minority group.

Also lost on these unicorn-chasers is the complete failure of “the patriarchy” to remedy the fact that men account for 99.9% of combat deaths, 94% of workplace deaths, 76% of homicide victims, 75% of successful suicides, 71% of homelessness and 93% of prison populations. If they were inclined to logical consistency they would call this evidence of the “feminarchy”. But they don’t because equality of outcome is not a sincere pursuit, just a slogan useful for emotional manipulation of people unwilling to think for themselves.

Take for example today’s Daily Telegraph report that “a Sydney law lecturer and a feminist lawyer have blamed sexist cops and judicial officers for the rise in women” being arrested for violent crimes:

“The pair said that the number of women being arrested for domestic violence offences was increasing five times faster than male figures, blaming the increase on “pervasive systemic gender bias”.

I’d like to posit a different theory of why there’s a rise in women being arrested for violent crimes. I think it’s less to do with “sexist cops and judicial officers” and could possibly be because women are committing violent crimes. I know the feminists and Sydney Uni’ academics may find this incredibly hard to comprehend, but there’s a historical correlation between violent crimes and arrests for violent crimes that does suggest at least a some causation.

My next premise may also cause all kinds of cognitive dissonance for the esteemed professionals at the Feminist Legal Clinic, but I suspect there may even be – finally – an increasing rate of equal outcomes in investigations of domestic violence offences. Either that, or there’s an increase in the rate of those offences by women. To conclude that the increases cannot be the responsibility of the women involved but is, rather, solely attributable to “pervasive systemic gender bias” is manifestly misandristic in itself.

The only arguments offered in defence of the legal ladies’ improbable conclusion are the usual lyrics from the discrimination industry songbook, stereotyping men as chronic abusers and women their powerless victims. They even whined about the equality of a system not discriminating between men and women!

“This approach [not discriminating] fails to acknowledge the distinct characteristics of female defendants and the inherent dynamics of domestic violence — including women’s lower re-offending rates, their histories of trauma, increased suffering in custody and greater caregiving responsibilities.”

Ms Kerr told the Telegraph the police and judiciary lacked understanding of power imbalances in domestic violence cases.

“The significant disparities in physical strength and resources between parties are not being taken into account.”

Hang on, wasn’t equality (and by “equality”, they always mean equal outcomes) precisely what feminists have been demanding for decades? If they really believe all discrimination is always bad, then isn’t it a tad hypocritical and insincere to now point out the obviously universal differences in addition to the contextually subjective ones?

Yes, women have distinct characteristics. including greater caregiving responsibilities and less physical strength. So do these feminists and academics finally agree the gender wage gap is a myth easily explained by obviously universal differences? No, because they dwell in “Alt Reality” where only men are chronic abusers and empowered women never choose to be full-time mothers.

I’m all for equality under the law. So if toxic feminism really wants equality of outcome, let’s hear them advocating for equality in combat and workplace deaths, homicides and successful suicides, homelessness and, yes, prison populations too.

If not, they’re just nagging and should simply be ignored.

Comments [9]

  1. LBLoveday says:

    “(S)uccessful suicides” is used twice in the article, and the use of the qualifier must indicate there is a purported difference between “suicide” and “successful suicide”, viz there is a type of suicide that is not successful, but I can’t imagine what that could be, and the book “How to Commit a Successful Suicide” does not help out.

    • Eeyore says:

      Male feminists are both unsuccessful and suicidal.

    • Mohsen says:

      I think “successful suicide” alludes to the usual collocational occurrences of “suicide” with “commit” and with “attempt”; the former indicating a “successful suicide” and the latter being “unsuccessful”. I think the writer had intended to make sure it is clear what he means to exclude the attempted suicides, since he’s providing statistics for them as well.

      Even though one sense of “succeed” according to M-W Unabridged is “to attain a desired object or end :  accomplish what is attempted or intended”, perhaps “successful suicide” is unidiomatic or hardly idiomatic , though probably correct!

      • LBLoveday says:

        Just in case I missed it when reading, I used a search facility, but that could not find “attempt”, let alone “attempted suicides”, so I don’t see how “he’s providing statistics for them as well”. It’s hard enough determining what is a suicide (I knew 2 people who died in motor accidents that I am confident were suicides but were recorded as due to drunken driving and riding), let alone how many attempt suicide.

        In any case, it is often claimed, and I have no reason to doubt it, that many “attempted suicides” are attention seeking rather than serious attempt to die, and that men are far more likely to “successfully attempt suicide”, which I think is the correct wording if one must use other than the clear-cut single word “suicide”.

        • Mohsen says:

          You couldn’t find “attempt” because it wasn’t there! I said the term successful suicide “alludes” to, and that it alludes to “collocational occurrences”. . . .

          He’s providing statistics for what is clear he means, i.e. “successful suicides ”. (I do admit, though, I should and could have used a comma before “to exclude the attempted suicides” to make it more clear; sorry for that!)

    • Lo says:

      I know, I like what you say but the definition does include one who attempts or has a tendency to suicide. As a student therapist I saw a couple of unsuccessful suicides. You don’t want to know.

  2. Mohsen says:

    All societies are patriarchies, and feminists are right to call the society and the system patriarchal.
    Isn’t it the case that women going to schools, universities, work, have been decided by men? That having the right to vote was in men’s hands and was given to women. It seems that anything that women do and have are allowed or given to them by men. That feminists nag and whine is because they know they can play on the fact that men are the protectors and providers for women by naturally being created men (and having no escaping being men; they love their women and will look after them) and by the arrangements made by the men of the previous generation making sure the future generation of men will look after the future generation of women (their daughters, whom they knew and know would have no chance if left to their devices to compete with men, for resources or anything else, hence making laws and creating environment that will forcefully protect and provide for women).

    If men account for 99.9% of combat deaths, 94% of workplace deaths, 76% of homicide victims, 75% of successful suicides, 71% of homelessness and 93% of prison populations is because men have decided it. Whatever feminists want and demand and nag and whine for is in someone else’s hands, i.e. men. Societies are patriarchies, controlled and run by men; even when the monarchs, presidents, and prime ministers are women, it is because the men have decided so.

    • PT says:

      Indeed. And Feminism therefore must be decided by men too. Greer, and the lesser, and more shrill, women who came after her, are clearly not only tools of the “patriarchy” but help keep it operating! I mean why else would their. Gender Studies courses get accreditation at the patriarchies’ Universities?

    • Eeyore says:

      I somehow doubt if the meaning applied to the word patriarchies when you have used it is the same when the word is used by a feminist.

      a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line.

      Feminist interpretation. Raping oppressive destroyers of the world.

      Men have decided to take the roles that lead to 94% of workplace deaths etc to protect women, not oppress them. Feminists would claim they don’t need that protection right up until the sewer bursts.