On

Feminism and Patriarchy

 "Is the Earth Party feminist?"   

To answer that question, we first have to define what feminism means.  Not everyone agrees on the definition.  There are many different versions, depending on who you're asking.

To the extent that it means recognition of the equal worth of both sexes, then feminism is correct, and everyone should embrace it.  Obviously.

 

But things get more complicated when examining what it means in actual practice.  The "reality on the ground."

Not everyone is referring to this noble goal when they say "feminism."  Other ideologies have crept in, and taken over.  For a lot of folks, feminism means a whole host of other things besides the original equal rights and worth.

 

Don't mistake philosophical differences for misogyny.  They are not the same.  Virtually everyone agrees that men and women have equal value, but not everyone agrees on how to manifest this equality into social practice.

 

Is misogyny real?  Of course it is.  But most perceived misogyny is really philosophical dissent, misinterpreted.  True misogyny is rare.

 

You can always find a few men who are true misogynists — men who think that women are "inferior" and "don't have value" — but you can also find women who think the same about men.  It goes both ways.  You can always find extremists in any group. 

But 99.9% of people, of both sexes, understand that men and women are equally worthy beings, and support the enshrining of such equality in both law and social convention.

However, disagreements arise when discussing the details.  The nitty-gritty.  Such topics as:

-What equality actually looks like

-Whether "equal in value" is the same thing as "identical in characteristics"

-The ratio of impact between the roles of biology and social construction in the shaping of behavioral differences between sexes

-The relative levels of validity between objective and subjective definitions of gender

-How oppressed the female sex has actually been, at least in comparison to the male (i.e. the vast majority of men who don't wield wealth or power)

-The proper solutions for the oppression that does exist

Equal in Value

vs.

Identical in Characteristics

One of the first major confusions that arises, when feminists and non-feminists are debating, is the mistaking of the idea of not being identical in characteristics as the idea of not being equal in value.

A.  We believe in equality.  We believe that both sexes are equal in worth, and are deserving of equal respect, dignity, and rights.

B.  Equal, however, does not mean identical.  Females and males are different in characteristics.  Each sex has strengths where the other has weaknesses, and weaknesses where the other has strengths. 

Equal in worth; distinct in traits.

C.  And this is not by accident, because the sexes are more than just sexes.  They are representations of the two metaphysical halves of Reality.

 

Every magnet has two poles, and every particle has an anti-particle.  The Universe is designed as a fractal pattern, with the macro resembling the micro.  Electromagnetism consists of yang (+) and yin (-), and so does social relationship.  The total amount of each type is equal, if you zoom out to a large enough scale.  It's a basic law of reality that neither pole in any polarity can dominate the other - not for long, anyway.

This is a basic property of physics:  the law of polarity. And the sexes - male and female - represent the metaphysical polarities of masculine and feminine. 

This does not mean that all men must be masculine or all women must be feminine.  There is no requirement for any person to have any particular energy.  Feminine men and masculine women are fine.  If that's how Nature made you, there's no problem there.  Neutrons exist, and are part of physics.  (For more details on this topic, visit our page on LGBT Issues and Philosophies).

But speaking in terms of statistics, and of the overall aggregate properties of the respective collective consciousness of both sexes, each sex does naturally gravitate towards embodying one of the polarities:  masculinity for men, and femininity for women.

D.  The two polarities are the primordial co-creators of Reality.  As such, our natural condition is friendship, partnership, and cooperation. We are supposed to be working together - playing together- dancing together - to co-create this world.

When we're in loving cooperation together, the world is stable, and we can face any challenge, solve any problem, and fix any issue, hand in hand.

E.  But when we quarrel, everything goes out of whack, and society deteriorates very quickly. 

The current situation of humanity largely results from a long-running fight between masculine and feminine.  All other issues stem from this.  Racism, imperialism, colonialism, consumerism, carnism, religious fanaticism, terrorism, mass-shootings, environmental destruction, economic inequality, poverty... all of it can be traced to origins in the disharmony between men and women, and between the forces of masculine and feminine.  This will be explained in further detail below.

F.  Over the years, each sex (or each polarity, if that's the way you prefer to look at it) has developed weapons to fight the other, and regain the upper hand.

Patriarchy is a weapon by the male/masculine to gain power over the female/feminine. 

Feminism is a weapon by the female/feminine to gain power over the male/masculine.

G.  Neither gender (or polarity) is the "good guy" or the "bad guy."  It's not about one oppressing the other - the oppression is not unilateral.

It's simply a war.  An ancient war, between two metaphysical forces that are intrinsically equal, and supposed to be friends.

H.  The way to solve the problem of war is not to make one side win and dominate the other - it's simply to stop the fighting.  To lay down the weapons on both sides, and not use those weapons anymore.

Feminism is a weapon.  So is patriarchy.  When there is Peace Between the Sexes, neither weapon will be in use.  That means feminism will have to be let go of (along with patriarchy) in order to have lasting peace.

The Exploitation of the Gender War

by Elites

to Divide and Conquer Humanity

These potentials for disagreement have been exploited by ruling classes in order to serve as another form of division - to keep humanity divided so that we can't work together to take our freedom back. 

 

Just like racism.  Just like other forms of division, like religious identitarianism, nationalist identitarianism, civilizational identitarianism ("The West" or "The East"), sports team rivalries, and of course political tribes (Democrats vs. Republicans, liberals vs. conservatives, left-wing vs. right-wing).

 

These are all proven methods of dividing humanity.  And the gender conflict is another one of those ways.

 

Just like with these other divisions, the ruling classes have devised ways of widening these gaps and pouring salt in those wounds, in order to inflame people against each other on the basis of gender versus gender.  They have engineered a war between the sexes. 

 

 

 

 

 

To be even from from those latent potentials and and feminism in in a political sense. Is part of what's driving that war

 

When it came along women were more equal than it may seem to the naked eye. 

 

If you take those things into account, there wasn't as much of a need for a political movement of Woman's identity there wasn't as much of a need to create an identity around Woman as a political class. 

 

We never needed to create political classes out of gender. Just like we never needed to create political classes out of race.

 

And and and to the extent that feminism is a political class creating a group egoic identity class out of a gender, it's part of the problem.  It's part of Mind Control. It's part of Oppression.  It's part of the technocratic suppression of the human spirit.  It doesn't belong in an enlightened society.

 

An enlightened Society doesn't divide people up into classes based on demographic characteristics.

 

So if we want to move into a more enlightened society, then we have to let go of demography-based identitarian political classes.

 

And feminism is one of those.

The Gender War is a primary example of the "divide and conquer" strategy that keeps the unhealthy, dangerous status-quo intact.  Instead of focusing on evolving to a better world, we're busy fighting each other.

It's similar to how racism is used.  Racism is a way to prevent poor, downtrodden people from rising up and changing the social structures that oppress them, by distracting them.  Racism tells poor people that their problems are coming from another race - one which is just as poor as (or poorer than) they are.  Rich white people used this tactic to control poor white people throughout the 20th century, by convincing them to blame all their problems on black people.

The Gender War is the same thing.  Our status-quo system is teaching women to blame their oppression on men, and to view their struggle as a struggle against men.  And thus, instead of teaming up with men, their natural partners, to fight against corrupt power structures, women are doing the precise opposite: teaming up with those corrupt power structures to fight against men.

 

This keeps men distracted (because they're defending themselves from women, or self-shaming to win approval from women), and women distracted (because they're focused on fighting men and not the corrupt power structures, which they're instead placing an ever-increasing amount of faith into). 

Men and women are supposed to be natural partners and allies in the protection of our planet, but instead, we've been turned into adversaries.  And while we squabble with each other, the corrupt system is burning our biosphere to the ground, committing unspeakable horrors against humans and animals, and building a totalitarian tyranny to enslave us all. 

The Earth Party stands against identity-politics.  We believe that it's time for everyone to work together to solve the dire problems that face us as a species, and as a planet. 

In order to heal our world, we need to cooperate.  To do that, we must let go of artificial divisions.

"Who is doing the dividing and conquering?  Who is it that wants men and women to fight one another?  Who is this big oppressor who's oppressing both sexes?"

That would be the technocratic cabal, a movement seeking to replace biological Life with computers and artificial intelligence.  In order to accomplish that, they need to keep humanity brainwashed by their ideology of technocracy - and for that, they need to sabotage healthy sexuality.

 

Sexuality is the main raw source of personal power and creativity.  Healthy sexual relationships are one of the biggest threats to technocracy's control apparatus.  Sexual intercourse is the purest expression of the Spirit of Biological Life, and since biology is what technocracy aims to eliminate and replace, technocracy needs to attack and undermine biology's spirit, in order to gain a foothold in the human psyche.  

Yes, this can sound far-fetched if it's your first time hearing it, but it makes sense if you think about it logically, and with an open mind.  To learn more about this subject, visit our page on Conspiracy Theories and the Cabal. 

"So feminism is a weapon that needs to be discarded completely?  What about patriarchy?  Should we just let patriarchy run rampant?"

No, it's not that simple.  Both sides need to lay down their weapons at the same time.  You're right:  if feminists give up feminism, but patriarchy continues, then the dynamic will snap towards the opposite, male-dominated extreme.  That's why wars are ended with peace treaties, wherein both sides pledge to disarm together, simultaneously.

Our position is that we should drop the war, and come together to cooperate to heal our world.

"But women didn't create feminism just from manipulation by elites, or a desire to hurt men.  Women created feminism to equalize the power balance - because, before feminism, men had more power, and women were dis-empowered.  We needed feminism, to level the playing field.  And we still need it, because the field is still not yet level."

 

The Reality of the Power Balance

"But men are oppressing women!  Men started this war, it's men's fault, and the only way to fix it is to liberate women from men!"

    
Feminist philosophy is founded on the premise that men have had control over women for centuries, or, in more metaphysical terms, that the male/masculine polarity has been dominant over the female/feminine polarity.  Either way, it states that the former has been controlling all aspects of society, while the latter just sat there, mostly passive and helpless.

 

But we don't accept this premise, because it fails to acknowledge the power that women (and the feminine polarity) have.  Men have had control economically and politically, in the "official" realm, but women have always wielded power in the realm of emotion and sexuality.  These realms may be more subtle, and less immediately visible to the naked eye than the types of power that men wield, but they are not less powerful.  Men may be the visible actors, but women have enormous influence through subtler channels that can be overlooked if you're only looking at the surface of things.

The reason why it doesn't seem like that's true is because the power of women and the feminine is harder to see.  It's more subtle, and less immediately visible to the naked eye.  But it's no less potent. 

Men's power is easy to see because it's out in the open.  Men have controlled the official power structures.  They hold the political offices and run the companies, and their names are on the title deeds.  So at first glance, yes, it seems like they're in control. 

But women have enormous power. 

The world of feeling and emotion (particularly sexuality) is far more powerful than feminism gives it credit for.  In fact, some (not all, but some) schools of feminism consider it useless and inconsequential - which is why they believe that their empowerment is to be achieved by becoming more like men - by making women into men.  They equate power with masculinity.  To them, masculinity and power are the same thing, and that's why they want women to become masculinized.  In a feat of supreme irony, some major schools of feminism denigrate femininity.

But femininity is powerful.  It's just as powerful as masculinity - just in a different way.  It's the ruler of the realm of emotion and sexuality, and this realm is the driver of everything that happens in the human world - second only to food and survival. 

All the wars that are being fought, all the money that's being made, all the corporations that are plundering - it can all be traced back to "someone needs something."  And if that something isn't food, then it's something emotional.  A good general umbrella term to describe these types of needs would be Love.

And women, being naturally more attuned to the subtleties of this realm, are at an intrinsic advantage over men.  Women are better at navigating it, and women hold the keys to it. 

The prize for which men work so hard, for which men (allegedly) created the pay gap to take more money, for which men wage wars and ravage the biosphere - women are the ones holding from the very start.  Whatever advantages men have acquired, they did so to impress and win the affections of women.  Women begin the game already holding the very reason for which men play the game in the first place. 

That's a position of enormous privilege, and it's not an act of misogyny to acknowledge this.

That's how powerful women are. 
 

Feminist philosophy portrays women as helpless objects being acted upon, but never as subjects doing the acting - like billiard balls getting bounced around a pool table.  This is not a healthy way to view women.  Women have been the co-creators of human events since the dawn of humanity.  Whenever a man has acted, his choices were influenced by the women around him, and by the need to impress those women to obtain love from them.  Soldiers, generals, CEO's, presidents, kings, and emperors all acted as part of a socio-emotional ecosystem in which women were not only participants, but major powers in the shaping of the dynamic.  Women shaped the landscape and set the rules of the game in which the men faced the choices they were faced with. 

This is not to absolve men of all responsibility, or to blame everything on women.  (That's the kind of thing feminism does).  Feminism blames the entire problem on men, and patriarchy blames the entire problem on women.  Both systems are wrong.

The Earth Party transcends both of those limited worldviews.  We view both genders as equally responsible.  We view history is a co-creation of both sexes, with both acting in unconsciousness, and both contributing to the mess we're in.

This is a healthier narrative, because it places us - men and women - both in the same boat, giving us a sense of solidarity with each other.  With solidarity, there's no blame game.  And the blame game has got to stop, because we have a lot of serious problems to fix on this planet, and we need to cooperate, not fight one another.  Women and men are the natural partners and allies of one another, and we shouldn't be fighting one another.  We should be teaming up to fight our common enemy, which is ignorance, which knows no race or gender.

"But women have actually been oppressed!  How could men have gotten away with so much abuse, for all this time, if women have just as much power as them?  Obviously, women have NOT had as much power!"

Women have indeed been oppressed and dis-empowered, but so have men. 

 

Feminism is founded NOT on the premise merely that women have been oppressed, but that they've been oppressed MORE.

In order for feminism to make sense, women's oppression must have been greater than men's oppression.  If women were indeed oppressed (which they were), but their oppression is not greater than that of men, then the rationale for feminism collapses.

We fully acknowledge the oppression that women have faced, and continue to face.  We do not deny it at all.  There is an entire list - a very long list - of ways in which women are oppressed and disadvantaged, relative to men.

There is a long list of ways in which human beings have suffered, and continue to suffer, from corrupt and oppressive social systems.  But the list has two columns - not just one.  There is a column for women - for ways in which women have been disadvantaged - but there is also a corresponding column for men, of ways in which men have also been oppressed and disadvantaged, relative to women.  And it's substantial.
 

pic of two columns

The Men's Oppression Column

In university gender studies courses, students will be shown the column for women (the ways in which women have been disadvantaged), but they will not be shown the corresponding column for men.  In fact, the latter column's very existence will be denied.  In fact, the mere mention of such a column is treated as a serious transgression - an act of bigotry against women.  It is literally not permitted to be spoken of, and anyone who speaks of it will be punished - academically, socially, and economically.

When a person suggests the existence of the Men's Disadvantage Column, the proper repercussions are, according to standard feminist protocol:

---To be cast out of their social group by their peers, and isolated from all social contact with the rest of humanity

---To be denied access to all public platforms of expression (de-platforming)

---To be shouted down if they attempt to speak

---To be labelled with pejoratives such as "sexist", "misogynist", "bigot", "fascist", and other epithets, up to and including "Nazi"

---To be dehumanized by the press

---To be fired from their current job and blacklisted from all future employment

---To be legally prosecuted if at all possible

---To be walked up to on the sidewalk and punched in the face

Due to this intimidation, it's very easy for a student to make it through 4 (or more) years of university without ever encountering the idea of the Men's Disadvantage Column. 

Not being familiar with what's in the second column, and only acknowledging the first, how can someone make an informed judgment about which column is weightier, and more substantive?  How can they judge if they've never even compared?  They can't.

This is why the basic premise of feminism - that "men have more power than women" - is such an automatic assumption in today's society.  It's treated as a basic property of the universe - like the fact that gravity pulls things down, or that the Sun rises in the east. 

But assumptions can be false, no matter how widely accepted they are.

"What's in the column?"

"So how did all these false assumptions develop in the first place?  Why would one sex or gender feel it's being oppressed by the other, if it's not actually?  How did these beliefs become prominent?"

It's simple:  it's been a war.  Each side tries to hurt the other.  That's what people do in a war. 

And just like in war, each side levies propaganda against the other, to garner sympathy for itself, and gain allies in its fight against the other. 

Now that we've established an ability to communicate (see Part 1) with each other and have a dialogue, we can begin to address the grievances that have powered our animosities. 

We've prepared a list here, which may serve as a template for launching the discussion.

First are the simple grievances - physical, tangible, concrete, measurable, verifiable.  Then come the meta-grievances - overarching patterns that summarize how the simple ones affect life.

"I don't agree with this idea.  I dont even agree thta there should BE a list with two columns.  It's ONE WAY.  It's MEN oppressing WOMEN, and that's the ONLY way it goes, end of story!"

Why?

"Because look at all the ways that women are oppressed.  Look at all the ways men are privileged!  There's a whole long list of ways!"

That's true - there is a list. 

But there's also a list of the opposite:  The ways in which men are disadvantaged, and women are privileged.

There are two columns - not just one. 

 

"That's preposterous!  Even if this so-called "men's oppression / women's privilege" column exists, it's obviously tiny and insignificant compared to the standard women's oppression column."

 

And how would you know that?  Have you ever compiled a list for the second column?

 

"Well, no..."

 

So if you've never even seen the second column, how can you compare the two?  How can you be sure that one is heavier than the other?

 

If you spend your whole life only looking at one column, and ignoring the other, then of course, the first will seem more significant than the second.

"How about you give some examples?"

Example:

The male privilege of Presumption of Competence.  In most situations when a man speaks, people just assume that he's competent, even if he's not, whereas, when a woman speaks, people assume she's not competent, even if she is.  Men are presumed to have more competence than a women.  That is indeed a male privilege, and it is a legitimate grievance of women.

But in the other column, women have the privilege of Presumption of Innocence.  Whenever a man and a woman are in dispute, people naturally believe that the woman is the victim, and the man is the villain.  They side with her over the man.

 

Plus, women are more likely to be "let off the hook" in relation to law enforcement.  Women receive fewer traffic citations than men - even for the same violation.  Men are more likely to be convicted in court.  And even if a woman is convicted of a crime, judges are more likely to believe that she made an "innocent mistake", and give her a lenient punishment.  Men receive longer sentences than women for the same crimes - the same way POC receive longer sentences than white people.  If there's an outcry over that disparity (as there should be), why is there no comparable outcry on behalf of men?

Another example:  jobs.

Women used to be barred from holding jobs.  This is true, and it's a legitimate grievance.

But at the same time, men also suffered.  They suffered from being barred from not holding jobs.

Ask yourself, would you rather be:

 

A)  not allowed to work in a coal mine...

or...

B)  not allowed not to work in a coal mine?

"I would choose B!"

So you'd rather be forced to go underground, in hot, smelly, noxious fumes, doing backbreaking work, for 16 hours a day, and get black lung disease... than be forced to cook and clean your house and watch your kids?

"Ummm... yes!"

Intellectual honesty is a prerequisite to being a peacemaker.  If you can't even be honest, then you're not going to contribute to peace.

"Fine... I'll admit it... men had it worse in this regard.  But! - Women weren't allowed to fight in wars!"

Again, would you rather be:

A)  Forced into grueling training, marched off for weeks and months at a time, carrying heavy loads of weapons, wearing armor, sleeping in your armor, night after night, without bathing, woken up at dawn after only a few hours sleep and then marched again, through the cold, through snow, sleeping in snow, sleeping in your armor in snow, eating rationed food, bland, stale, rationed food, while marching all day and barely sleeping (in your armor)... knowing, the entire time, that reaching your destination means facing a thousand heavily armed maniacs who want to murder you, and then getting knocked, beaten, bludgeoned, sliced open, and left to marinate in pain and a pool of your own blood, surrounded by the moaning, screaming, crying, and wailing of hundreds of other people dying in pain in pools of THEIR blood, knowing that you will either leave the world like this, or, if you're saved, you'll probably have to get limbs amputated, without anesthesia...

or...

B)  Not allowed to do all that.

Be honest this time.

"But at least men had the freedom to choose!"

No they didn't.  Conscription has always been forced.

"But who started all those wars?  Men!  Men were making the decisions to start the wars and march off all the soldiers!"

What difference does that make to the actual soldiers marching?  Why does it mater if it's a woman starting the war, or a man starting it?  Do you think the poor soldier getting his leg amputated without anesthesia, biting down on the leather strap to avoid fainting from the pain, is thinking, "Well, at least this whole mess was started by someone of the same gender as me.."?

What difference does it make?

"Fine, you win again.  But what about voting?  Women have been denied the vote for 99% of human history!"

And men were denied the vote for 98% of human history.  How old is democracy again?

"Hmmm... fair point.  But... 99% is still greater than 98%!"

So that's a point for women, in the women's grievance column.  A small point, but a point nonetheless. 

How does it compare to war and coal mines?

"OK, but what about sexual slavery?"

That's a legitimate grievance.  And how about non-sexual slavery?

"Fair point again.  But what about sultans with harems of hundreds of concubines?"

What about the hundreds of eunuchs who went along with them?  For every concubine, there was a eunuch.  Do they matter?

"But what about the gender pay gap?  That's still going on today."

And what are men spending the extra money on?

Pursuing women.  Buying gifts for women.  Trying to win women's affections.

 

Women begin the game holding the prize for which men play it, and you're complaining that men have a leg up in the competition to win the very thing that you don't even need to win because you began the game already holding it?

"But legislatures are still composed primarily of men.  Most presidents, prime ministers, governors, judges, and other leaders, are still men."

What matters is not who is in office - what matters is what kinds of decisions they make.  The decisions are what actually impact people - not the identities of the ones making them.

And what kinds of decisions are these mostly male legislatures making?  Pro-woman ones, apparently.

From RealSexism.com:

 

Men are 97% of combat fatalities.

Men pay 97% of Alimony.

Men make 94% of work suicides.

Men make up 93% of work fatalities.

Men make up 81% of all war deaths.

Men lose custody in 84% of divorces.

80% of all suicides are men.

77% of homicide victims are men.

89% of men will be the victim of at least one violent crime.

Men are over twice as victimized by strangers as women.

Men are 165% more likely to be convicted than women.

Men get 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime.

Court bias against men is at least 6 times bigger than racial bias.

Boys face vastly more corporal punishment than girls.

60-80% of the homeless are men.

Women's Cancers receive 15 times more funding than men's.

At least 10% of fathers are victims of paternity fraud.

One third of all fathers in the USA have lost custody of children. Most are expected to pay for this.

40-70% of domestic violence is against men - however less than 1% of domestic violence shelter spaces are for men.

There are departments for women's issues in the White House and the UN, but none for men. The UN promotes genital mutilation of male children but condemns female genital mutilation.

Men earn 61.5% of all income but only account for 25% of domestic spending.

Men only spend 40% of what they earn after tax. In contrast women make up 38.5% of all income but control 75% of domestic spending.  Women on average spend 90% more money than they earn.  This can even be observed in the floor space allocated to women's products in most shopping centers.

TAX & HEALTHCARE DISCRIMINATION

Men pay over 70% of income tax but the vast majority of public spending is on services for women. There is more money spent on breast cancer than lung cancer and prostate cancer combined, despite the fact that lung cancer alone has 3-4 times more fatalities than breast cancer.

A man's chance of getting cancer is 44% and 23% of men will die from cancer, 38% of women get cancer and 19% die. Yet there is vastly more money spent on cancer for women.  Women pay 60% less tax despite spending 300% more in domestic spending than men. Women also consume two third of public spending, there are 3 times the amount of gender specific health services for women than men despite the fact that for equal increases in health spending a man's life expectancy rate increases nearly twice as much as a woman's

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

There are hundreds of surveys which shows women are as violent if not more violent than men in domestic violence cases. Men get arrested in 85% of all arrests but its estimated that Women are the perpetrators in most Domestic Violence cases. Most reciprocal violence is started by women and 70% of non reciprocal violence is perpetrated by women. Women however only get arrested in 15% of all DV arrests. This example of 572 different studies covering 371,600 people demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

More men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence and over 40% of severe physical violence was directed at men.

Despite this, 99.3% of DV shelter spaces are for women and even men who report violence against them by women are arrested far more often than the woman who is attacking them.

"Where are the scientific sources for these claims?"

You can see the sources at www.realsexism.com

"So you're just gonna say that women have everything perfect, and men are oppressed by women?  Is that what you're getting at?"

No, that's not what was said.

"Oh, so you're saying the oppression is "equal"?  Is that it?"

It's impossible for anyone to truly, objectively assess the balance of oppression, and determine which sex truly has more of it, because neither sex has a full comprehension of the experiences and struggles of the other.

 

If you're a man, you don't fully understand what it's like to be a woman, so you can't properly compare the two sets of experiences.  And the same goes for women, too:  You don't know what it's like to be a man, and you can't weigh the two either. 

"And...?"

So what we suggest is for both sexes to give the benefit of the doubt to the other. 

Men should give women the benefit of the doubt that women's struggles and grievances are more serious than it may seem, from a man's perspective.

And conversely, women should do the same:  admit that men's struggles may be harder than you think, from your female vantage point.

The end result will be both sexes treating each other's struggles as equally serious and important to deal with. 

When both sexes do this, we can stop pursuing the endless litigation of "who has it worse", and, instead, focus on solving the problems - for everyone.

Both sexes feel they're not being taken seriously enough.  The answer is not to take one less seriously - it's to take both seriously.  And if there's one you're currently not taking seriously yet, START.

And this is why we don't support the use of the term "feminism."  Because the word itself implies that we want to bring more power to women from men, implying of course that one column is weightier than the other. 

"Are you saying women an feminists should stop saying that women are the oppressed sex?"

Yes.  There is no oppressed sex.  We're all oppressed.  As you can see from the columns above, and from even a cursory glance at history.

And the sooner we recognize our commonalities, we can stand in solidarity with each other, and begin cooperating to truly fix things.

"Alright, I guess there's a lot I didn't know, about men and their struggles.  I kinda feel sorry for men now.  I'd like to make peace.

However, there's a little problem.  There are lots of men out there who don't seem to want peace.  They're full of anger and hate.

I think, if you showed this list to the average feminist, you would stimulate some genuine discussion and reflection.  Feminists do want to make the world better - for everyone.  Perhaps we should be nicer to men, and include more men's issues in our movement.  I'm fine with that.  Feminism is for everyone!

But the men out there... sheesh.  It's like they're at war with us.  Look at what's happened in the past few years:  The Alt-Right, Donald Trump, incels, all sorts of misogyny on the internet...

Even if I choose peace, what about those dudes?  Somehow I don't think equalizing jail sentences and cancer-research expenditures is going to satisfy them.  Even if we fixed everything on that list, I don't think it would matter to these men.  I think there's something deeper going on." 

You're right about that.  There is a deeper grievance in the male psyche, which goes beyond statistics.

The Alt-Right is basically a backlash against feminism.  And the men who are likely to join this backlash are the ones who feel disenfranchised by feminism.

Join group of other sex activism.  For instance, if you identify with men's rights activism or red pill philosophy, join a feminist forum.  And if you identify as a feminist, join a men's rights or red pill forum.

Join, and then read and listen to what people have to say.

Men admit that toxic masculinity exists, and that a portion of ones own masculinity (or ones beliefs about masculinity) might be toxic.  Agree to fix those behaviors when made aware of them.

Agree to be open to feedback from others, and listen to others (especially women) when they try to point out those behaviors and explain why they feel the behaviors are toxic.
Agree to take initiative in ones own learning process by engaging in somewhat regular acts of self reflection and self examination to spot those aspects of toxicity on ones own.

Women admit that toxic masculinity arises from fear, and that men who suffer from it need compassion, not more pain.
Admit that dehumanizing and otherizing them does nothing to help or fix the situation.


Admit that the two sexes are not causally isolated from one another, but interrelated, like all aspects of nature, and that, therefore, women might have played some part in cocreating the situation, and that a portion of one's own behavior may be continuing to contribute to it.
Agree to pay more attention in one's interactions, to keep watch for any action that might be doing so.



Agree to listen to their stories, to learn about the experience they've been going through.


1.  Sexuality is a central, fundamental aspect of being human.

2.  If someone is unable to participate in one of Life's core aspects, then it can reasonably be expected that they'd be suffering, deeply.

3.  If someone is suffering, and they cry out for help, a civilized society is one that takes them seriously, stands in solidarity with them, and does what it can to help them.


How you can help them:

1.  Stop hurting them.  No more namecalling, bullying, attacking.

2.  Allow them to communicate.    If they want to talk, talk to them.



 

"How can anyone be anti-feminist?  What reservations could any (decent, thinking) man POSSIBLY have against women achieving equal rights?"

It's a good thing that women are attaining more freedom.  We want women to have full rights and freedom.  That's all good.  

But the way it's been done, the course that feminism has taken - especially in recent years - it's neglected men.  It does pay attention to men who are not straight, but it neglects heterosexual men.  The world that feminism is building is leaving heterosexual men out.  And nobody likes to be left out.  


"How is feminism leaving heterosexual men out?"

It's building a world in which hetero men are increasingly unable to meet their needs. 

 

"Which needs?"

 

The need specific to hetero men is the need to form an intimate relationship with a woman.  That is a need.

 

"Oh please.  It's not a need.  It's not like food or water.  You don't die if you don't get it."

 

"Not gonna die if you don't get it" is not exactly a fair standard for determining what's a need.  It's not a survival need, but it's pretty close.  The need for intimacy is just above survival on the Maslow Pyramid.  One step removed from it.  

"I don't agree.  Sex is absolutely not a need in any way, shape or form.  Men who think they need sex are just regurgitating the age-old ideology of patriarchal entitlement to ownership of women's bodies.  Their "bros" and other male "authority figures" told them that they need sex in order to be "real men", and all they're REALLY doing when they seek sex, is seeking approval and validation from their MALE friends and role models.  But it's all a lie, and they don't really need sex, or intimacy."

 

This argument usually tends to come from people who are currently in sexual relationships.  If sex really doesn't matter, then why do you have it?  How about quitting? 

 

"That's preposterous.  There's no good that would come from that."

 

Not true!  If you quit, you can show all of these entitled dudes that it's not necessary.  They'll feel like you're in solidarity with them, and it'll give them strength to better themselves..  You'll demonstrate how they can live perfectly happy lives without sex or intimacy, and totally destroy their arguments about its necessity.

 

How about it? 

 

"Ummm... I get what you mean, but... no thanks.  I like having sex."

 

Or how about this argument:  If a gay person is living in a country with laws against gay sex, why don't they just... you know... not have sex?

 

If sex is not a need... and having sex risks severe punishment... then isn't the solution simple?  Just don't have sex, and nobody will get hurt.

 

"Anti-gay legislation is about more than just sex - it's about identity.  Their identities are criminalized.  It's illegal to BE who they ARE."

No, the anti-gay legislation in places like Uganda and Saudi Arabia doesn't criminalize anyone's "identity."  BEING gay is not illegal - not anywhere.

 

What they criminalize is behavior.  Specifically, sexual intercourse.  And if a gay person refrains from having sexual intercourse, they're not violating any legislation - not even in the most homophobic countries.

So all they have to do is not have sex.  They can continue being who they are, as long as they don't get intimate with any partners of the same sex.

"That argument is insulting!  It denies the deep need for intimacy that gay people have."

 

And do straight people not have the same need?

 

You see, the argument that "sex and intimacy don't matter, and no one should care if they're not able to have it" is a disingenuous argument that reeks of hypocrisy.

Intimacy is a need.

 

And it's a need that societies, from time immemorial, have structured themselves to meet.

Any society you look at, from anywhere in the world, has these things in common:

 

1.  It's structured to make sure as many people as possible can eat, keep warm, and survive

2.  It's structured to make sure as many people as possible can find intimate partners, marry, and start families.

 

This is a major component of social design in all societies, whether they were designed intentionally, or evolved over time. 

 

And feminism ignores #2 completely, at least in regard to heterosexual men.  Feminism has no plan for this, no means of addressing it, and, in fact, refuses to address it on principle.  The very idea of addressing this need is a no-go topic among feminists.  We're not even allowed to talk about it.  When it comes to heterosexual men, feminism is not even trying. 

Feminism is not addressing them.  

It would be one thing if things weren't perfect, but feminism was still talking to us and giving us the sense that it cares about us, and wants to take our concerns into consideration.  But it's not even doing that.  It treats the mere mention that heterosexual men matter and have needs, as a form of blasphemy.  


"But that's because hetero men still have power!  You ran the world!  You still have so much power leftover, and we're still not done dismantling patriarchy!"

That may be so, but the power that we have comes from the leftover system - the legacy system - or as you all it, patriarchy.  That's where our power comes form, and whatever power we retain, we retain because there's still that amount of patriarchy left in our culture.  We only retain power to the extent that our culture retains patriarchy.  And since patriarchy hasn't been completely dismantled, it still grants us some power.

But the whole point of feminism is to get rid of patriarchy, and by extension, to get rid of all of our power.  

So if feminism's goals are achieved, we won't have any power anymore.  We'll be helpless.  We'll have no means of leverage with which to meet our needs.  Feminism is barreling towards this world at top speed. 


So that's why we're reluctant to fully get on board the feminism train.  Most of us want some degree of feminism, because we want women to have power and choice.  But we don't want to be completely powerless ourselves.  We want to maintain a balance between male and female power.  And if feminism gets its way, men will have no power, and women will have all the power.  And that's not balanced.  
 

"Why are you so concerned about power?  Why does women's power make you feel so threatened?  Why do powerful women make you so uncomfortable?  What are you afraid of?  What are you afraid will happen if women have power and you don't?"

 

We won't be able to meet our needs.  Power - specifically, the kinds provided by patriarchal systems - gives us leverage with which to meet our needs - to attract female partners.  Without that power, many men will have no way to do that anymore.

There are two ways that we can get our needs met.

 

One is to revert to patriarchy, and that's what some men are trying to do.  This effort has crystallized around a movement called the manosphere, which is the intellectual source of the Alt-Right.  But not all of us what to go back to that system, because, hey, patriarchy was unbalanced too.  We don't want to erase the gains in freedom attained by women.  We want women to remain free, and become more and more free.  But we want the same for men too, for men to be free as well.

 

The other way is to help empower men, emotionally and sexually. 

Under patriarchy, men held economic and political power, while women held emotional and sexual power.  Feminism has (mostly) evened out the field in economics and politics, but has not done so in emotion and sexuality at all.  Men are still just as helpless, emotionally and sexually, as women used to be, economically and politically. 

So the answer, if you want equality, but don't want to do it by un-freeing people, but rather by continuing to free people - is to help men gain proficiency in the sexual realm.

"And how should we do that?  By walking up to random creepy men on the street, and sleeping with them?"

No, that's extreme and absurd. 

 

There's a much easier, safer, cleaner way to help us:  Treat us like people.

 

If feminism wants to win our support, there's a really simple way to do that:

 

Step 1:  Acknowledged the everybody matters, including men, including hetero men.   We matter.  Look us in the eyes and say it.

Step 2:  Open up to the possibility that life is not perfect for us - far from it - and that we may have concerns, grievances, and unmet needs.  

Step 3:  The next time one of us tries to explain those concerns, needs, or grievances to you in a respectful manner, LISTEN, and allow us to explain.  Listen with an open mind and be genuinely curious to find out what it's like for us.  Use your empathy.  Everyone needs empathy, even if they're from a historically powerful demographic.  They're still alive, and they still have needs, and sometimes those needs are unmet.  Would it really hurt for you to listen to us?  


"OK, I'm listening.  What are your grievances and unmet needs?  What could possibly be wrong in the world of a straight man?"

The need of hetero men is the ability to form intimate relationship with a woman.

"And why do you believe that feminism - i.e. women's freedom - is responsible for taking away this ability?"

Because patriarchal systems are the way in which many of us have been able to meet this need, historically.  In prior generations, it was how we were able to partner, to find intimacy, to marry - whatever term you want to use.

Patriarchy assists us in making that happen.  By smashing patriarchy, you're also smashing our ability to find partnership.  


"And how does patriarchy help you in that regard?"

In two ways. 

 

The first is through division of roles.  In the old days, men provided food, shelter, and physical nourishment, while women provided emotional nourishment, as well as home-making and child-rearing. 

 

Feminism has created a world in which women are now their own breadwinners, and no longer need men for this purpose.  Thus, men have no more "use" to women.  We have nothing to bargain with.

 

"So you're saying that the only way men could find partners was to BRIBE women?  And that most of you would be WORTHLESS as partners without the ability to bribe us?  That's such a sad way to look at things - to look at yourselves.  Maybe you need some more self-esteem, or self-confidence or... something."

This is not a "confidence" issue - it's just how things are.  A woman's attraction mechanism turns itself on for men who can provide an economic and social upgrade for her.  This is hard-wired into our species by nature and evolution.

"Um, no, I'm a woman, and I have a male partner who I love so much, and whom I'm attracted to, and he's not providing me with an "economic or social upgrade."  In fact, I've got more money and status than him!"

On a personal level, things vary from individual to individual.  But when you zoom out to the scale of a whole society, the trends are true.  It's like predicting the position of an electron in an electron-cloud.  You can't predict which electrons will be in which layers at any given time, but you can predict how many electrons each layer will have.

No one can predict how any individual person will act, or to whom they will be attracted.  But you can predict the overall trend. 

Sociologists estimate that about 10% of any given population is LGBT.  You can't look at an individual person and predict that he or she will be LGBT or not - but you can still say that 10% of the population will be.  When we zoom out to societal scales, we can make these kinds of observations. 

"But that's still an awful deal for women.  You're saying that, in some hugely significant portion of the population, partnerships only occur out of necessity, and that the people aren't even attracted to one another?  Or, the woman isn't even attracted to the man she's marrying, and is only marrying him to get bread and a roof?  That's so... icky."

 

Actually, no, that's not how it works.  In most cases, it's not a calculated decision - the woman is not overriding her feelings to settle for a provider-man.  On the contrary, the man's provider status triggers the woman's attraction mechanism.  In most patriarchal systems, wives do feel attraction for their husbands - Nature turns the attraction on, precisely because the man is providing. 

 

"That's nonsense.  MY "attraction mechanism" doesn't get turned on just because a guy has a job."

 

That's because you have a job.  You win your own bread, and you don't need him, and so this mechanism does not occur.  It only occurs if the man is of high enough status to provide you with an upgrade to your current status. 

What about rich men?  Famous rich men?  Celebrities?  Do you feel attraction for them? 

"OK, I get what you're saying.  Feminism sabotaged this mechanism.  You said there were two ways, though - two ways in which patriarchy helps men attain female partners.  What's the other way?"

The other way is through culturally-encouraged monogamy.  

"Is that like "forced monogamy?"  I LOL'ed when that Alt-Right professor guy said that!"

Jordan Peterson got in hot water because he didn't explain it well.

 

In social systems without patriarchy, when women are free to make whatever sexual choices they want, with no consequences or social pressure of any kind,they tend to congregate around a small percentage of men, leaving the rest of the men without partners.  

 

Patriarchy designed the concept of stigmatizing polygamy/polyamory in order to prevent "alpha males" from monopolizing multiple females at the expense of other men. 

In fact, this was the driving force behind why patriarchy was started in the first place.

 

"Oh really?  The original cause of patriarchy, eh?"

 

Is that something of interest to you?

 

If you spent your whole life fighting it, aren't you curious about what caused it in the first place?  

We have to go back in time, way back - to the roots of human culture, thousands of years ago.  


 

Are you saying sex?  Is "love" just a euphemism?

That's one level, but multiple levels

if woman assault, serious.  if man , not serious.  actually socially acceptable to laugh about it.  No tjust hta tpeople some trolls on some page somwehre, its everyone, mainstream, socially accepta ble to joke about men getting raped.    in in circles that are woke, progressive, feminist, so call defenders of equality liberation and justice and compassion, still accept jokes about men getting raped.  go to comments section about some man sent to jail, petty, corporate, whatever ,any man, make a joke about him getting forcibly sodomized by fellow inmates, and see if you get banned ffro the group, or even warned or censured or called out at all .

Domestic violence statistices of women on fmen.  Try going to a feminist group on social media, supposed to be about equality, ending oppressiong and all that, share those statistics an see if you're sitll in tehg roup  24 hours late.r  custody battle,s infnaicl extortionk paternity, all that stuff

Not socially acceptalb eot care abou tmen.  The moment you say care bou tmen, the ruling faciton will come after you.  Shoiut you down, drown you out, ush shove, horrible names, verbally abuse, and try to sabotage your ability to speak.  Pressure othes to deplatfor you. 

Shirts that say i bathe in male tears

It is socially acceptable to only abuse the entire sex gender of man, in public.  And unacceptable to publicly voice concern for mens issues na dmens needs. 

As Voltaire said...

Given that thi si s happening, can oyou realy claim that the male sex gender is in conrol of society? 

 

htey didn't create patriachy from a place of power - but from a place of non-poewr, and an attempt (the wrong kind, but nonethess) to even out the power balance.  so that they could become equal to YOU.  Patrarichy was luanched asn attempt (a failed on, but nonetheness) by men to attain equal power with women.

And the people today whom you blieve are anti woman, it's the same way for them - they don't feel that htey have power and control over yo and they're about to lose it and afraid of being equal - they don't feel that way.  They feel thattheyre NEVER had power ATALL . And the sytems that hey have in place are feeble attempts to gain back a few crunmbs.  They don't believe its' equal yet for them, and when you try to take it away, they see it as a person at a freast, trying to take away what little crumbs they still have.  Thats the way they see it.

 

No one takes seriously.  If a man says he's suffering, nobody cares.

If you're a woman and you're oppressed, you at least support for you.  If you're a man, there is no support group.  No socially sacntioned one.  All support for men is underground - it's not allowed in polite circles.  And the censorship police are after it.  Women have speaces, men are not allowed to, men are not allowed to have discussion groups.  If they do, people will call for their censorshipo and deplatforming.   In fact, to even claim to hHAVE a grievance is a forbidden offense.  Men are not even allowed to GRIEVE for theor own suffeing.  That would make them a bad feminist. 

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
Subscribe to the Earth Party weekly newsletter!

To donate,

visit our Patreon Page.

 

Questions?  Comments?

Email: TheEarthParty@outlook.com

This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now