‘Respect women’ shouts a giant hoarding sponsored by Victoria’s wastrel Labor government (the one that squandered $300 million on not building a road). Hello? Of course we should respect women. We should respect men too, we should respect everybody. That’s what used to be called good manners. We don’t need governments to tell us.
No sane civilised male would dream of not respecting women. But suppose the only women he ever encountered were the kind you see and hear in the leftist media or at pro-abortion rallies, shrieking, whinging, spitting profanities. Or suppose you were from outer space and were presented with Catherine Deveny or Yassmin Abdel-whatsername or Marieke Hardy as an example of the typical earthling female. Would you feel like respecting them?
I wonder how many women – nice normal women – realise that they are being undermined by a small but disproportionately prominent phalanx of their sex doing their best to forfeit the respect of everyone except man-hating lesbians and feminists. Do the women who aren’t like that at all, the pleasant intelligent women we engage with in everyday life, not see how the Western feminine image is tarnished by the kind of harpies who purport to speak for other women – and who in the absence of any disowning of the ‘not in my name’ type, are accepted as representative of their sex?
It is the existence of feminists that largely explains ‘disrespect’ for women. When men find the going a bit hard – in love, at work, in maintaining self-respect – they can be tempted to blame women, and the image they have of the women at fault is that of the shrill combative harridan. A man can’t get the promotion he’s after, or even get a job? Perhaps it’s illogical but it’s ‘women’ he sees as blocking him, because he knows there are many more women in the workplace than there used to be and that there’s a chorus of pushy feminists demanding that there be even more.
Thinking of getting married? Better not to, you’ll get taken to the cleaners when it comes unstuck, because courts and the social services favour women, don’t they? Go for the one-night stand instead, although even this option is now fraught with difficulty, because that coy ‘no’ that means ‘yes’ will be alleged subsequently to have meant ‘absolutely no way’, and you’ll be on a rap for rape.
Supposing the man does get married, to a devoted woman, and becomes a loving husband and father. Hardline feminists would deny that such a species exists. So you’re still a potential brute and tyrant, just waiting to slap the little woman around the kitchen. It has become an untruth generally acknowledged that all domestic violence is the fault of men, though statistically this is easily shown to be a lie.
When assessing any public campaign, look first for the leftist angle. The caricature of the eternally brutal male is a piece in the jigsaw of Marxist anti-marriage politics (anti-heterosexual marriage that is – the gay type is leftism’s greatest achievement). Marriage and the family must be destroyed to make way for a truly socialist society. One way to diminish marriage is to frighten young women off, and to this end feminists, whose DNA is leftist, have connived with the leftist media and public service to impose the ‘narrative’ that men are innately, irredeemably violent. Feminists like Jenna Price even, to what ought to be their eternal shame, used the murder of a young woman in Melbourne to spruik this view. Indeed, Victoria’s ‘respect’ ad is a consequence of this cynical distortion of the truth.
So is ‘Safe Schools’ with its unscientific aspiration to go against nature and teach little boys to be little girls. One gets the impression that the weirdos who run that mendacious venture would revive eunuchry if they could to curb male ‘aggressiveness’.
Indeed, ‘toxic’ maleness is present from the cradle upwards, according to an idiot mother who two weeks ago denounced the words ‘Boys will be boys’ on a brand of boys’ pyjama tops as giving the infant wearer ‘an excuse for inappropriate behaviour’ (the craven manufacturer, instead of telling her to get a life, withdrew the product).
It might be irrational for men to assume that feminists represent all women, but people take irrational attitudes when under stress, and lots of men are under stress – who wouldn’t be, working hard, usually with family responsibilities, while constantly being criticised by feminists, lots of whom are in easy taxpayer-funded pseudo jobs? Forever the object of the accusing finger, men get sick of being told that fundamentally they have to cease being men if they wish to earn the sisterhood’s favour – an impossibility anyway, because basically feminists don’t like men. The hatchet-faced American ‘women’s libbers’ of the 1960s – the ones who invented the marriage-downgrading ‘Ms’ in place of Mrs, Miss or Madam, thought up the ‘gender studies’ courses and wrote the books that first got gullible younger women burning their bras – stoked up the old tongue-in-cheek ‘battle of the sexes’, till then a harmless Hollywood romantic comedy staple, into a real live war. The result was the likes of Clementine Ford, silly and vulgar, but worse than her, the poisoning of public discourse and the destruction of the mutual trust on which relations between the sexes depended. Families have duly collapsed, often with the paradoxical consequence of loneliness for those middle-aged women persuaded by feminism to ditch their husbands in the name of ‘liberation’ from male ‘oppression’.
It is axiomatic that all leftist notions have internal contradictions. The Melbourne hoarding tells us to respect women, but actually, feminists don’t want this special treatment. Try and hold a door open for a feminist and you’ll get snarled at. Respect used to be called gallantry, but feminists threw that back in men’s faces years ago, because, they said, it is a sign of patriarchy. Besides, respect in the sense of care for, treat with kindness, has its origin in women being seen (because physically they generally are) as the ‘weaker’ sex. But feminist ‘equality in the workplace’ campaigns and vocational ‘quotas’ pretend that a woman can do any job a man can do, so it follows that they must be just as able.
If women can be soldiers, and our army says they can – picture a helmeted Van Badham in hand-to-hand combat on the battlefield – then the respect they deserve is, by feminism’s own logic, no more or less than is due to a man. But don’t expect that to be proclaimed by a government advert.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10