Feminists like to frame men being in positions of authority as the empowerment of men as a group. As a counter-argument, many people offer women being the majority of the electorate, women winning as often when they run for positions as men or the glass cellar.
All of these counter-arguments are, once again, allowing feminism to control the frame by accepting the unproven premise that being in authority is actually a benefit.
Earlier this year, the Daily Beast published some female supremacist triumphalism: an article about the rebuilding of Rwanda after the genocide that bragged about how women not only had rebuilt but did it better than the men who had so-called oppressed them before.
Omitted from mention was the tremendous violence women had inflicted during the genocide and their relative immunity from being victims of said violence.
Also omitted was the reason why women experienced a greater survival rate because of the very patriarchal society feminists spew venom for. If it had been a truly egalitarian society, equal numbers of men and women would have been slaughtered. And if Rwanda had been a real matriarchy, the people being hacked apart would have mostly been women.
Let’s imagine for a moment a formerly matriarchal Rwanda and the newly liberated male survivors dancing on the mass graves of their former protectors as they rebuild a better society without those matriarchal shit-ladies.
Yep. The only reason women were spared was due to “patriarchal” norms that make men the appropriate victims of violence. And then we turn around and blame men for the very norms that protected women in the first place.
Men are expected to assume positions of authority. If they don’t compete successfully for positions of authority, they are socially ostracized or even killed. And when you set a group of people to compete with each other, by definition they lose sympathy for each other. Each man gains power and prestige at the expense of other men and also at the expense of a shared identity that would form the basis of caring about and benefiting other men.
Therefore, saying men as a whole benefit from a tiny minority of men being in charge is an ugly lie. Those men have earned their authority at the expense of other men and to the detriment of all men as recipients of compassion when they are in need.
In simple terms, we prefer people with perceived agency to suffer over people without perceived agency.
Thus, the expectation that men compete to assume positions of authority—upon pain of death or banishment—is actually disenfranchisement of men as a group, relative to women as a group who are empowered to retain their social dominance as the expected recipients of provision and protection.
In fact, we might say the Rwandan genocide proves that “patriarchy hurts men too”; to be more specific, “patriarchy hacks men apart with machetes and restricts women from taking part in those activities that would make hacking women apart with machetes more socially acceptable.”
Therefore, when a feminist says, “But men are 99% of the people in power,” as a men’s issues advocate you respond with, “Exactly! Being forced to assume a position of authority means being disempowered when it comes to commanding sympathy and that’s a men’s rights issue, not a feminist issue.”
Congrats. You have now successfully challenged the feminist frame.
Latest posts by Alison Tieman (see all)
- How men’s issues show men’s strength | Negative Sum Game 2 - May 19, 2018
- Youtube’s first sandboxed video; white women get out! – Polecat News 124 - August 29, 2017
- Youtube Censoring Wrongthink – Rant 88 - August 2, 2017