The Earth Party
Societal Peacemaking Series
4. Peace Between the Sexes
Part 2: Grievances
4. Peace Between the Sexes: Part 2: Grievances
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!"
"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?
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?"
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...
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?
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...
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
Continue to the next page:
Link to main narrativeLink to technocracy, explaining how gender conflict and unmet needs drives technocracy because men invent stuff to control women with, whether phys tech or social tech, it drives technocratic mind, empowers, juices up technocraic mind leading to further technocratic invention. If we're going to fight technocracy, we have to heal the relationshio between the sexes. On mental programming page of tech, war between sexes.
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.