Ice Cream, the sane alternative to feminism.

 

 

Sometimes you come across a image you just have to alter slightly and write about, this is one such case. Full disclosure, the only changes I have made the image of the girl with the message is put a line through the word “feminism” and add the words “ice cream”, in much the same way as a teacher would when a student has used the wrong word. I found the image in Google Images and there is nothing to suggest the person did not write the sentence herself. You may be asking why I felt the need to do this, put simply I have seen enough of these things posted on line that I decided to look at the issue with a bit of clarity. Here is my take on this phenomenon of people posting irrational reasons for “needing” feminism.

 

I do not believe people saying “Dayumm” instead of “hello” is a real problem. When someone is saying “fix bayonets”, or the lift to get out of a mine shaft is broken, or “we’re in for a bad storm” when on a Alaskan Crab Fishing Boat, that is a real problem.

I will state I have never head anyone use the term “Dayumm”, however all that means is it is not a term used in Belfast. What I hear a lot of is “bout ya” “what about you” “how are you keeping” had I lived  in Australia it would probably be “Gidday” and other places will have there own unique greetings. I fully understand that some people may not like these terms, however none of them seem to be offensive.

 

This is not a problem society needs to fix, merely the pet peeve of the writer if this message. Petty irritations become more pronounced when we are in a bad mood. Feminism is not equipped to improve your mood and therefore make the use of the word “Dayumm” less irritating. On the other hand there is sound scientific research that proves that Ice Cream is the “good mood food” of choice for both genders and people of all ages. It therefore stands to reason that a bowl of Ice Cream has a much better chance of putting some perspective on someone saying “Dayumm” thus removing what you class as a “problem”. I fully realise some will find this peace ridiculous. My retort is “well, she started it”.

 

So what of the other reasons people declare for needing Feminism ?  Such gems as “I need feminism because some people still think I don’t”. That is what we call freedom of thought, and expression. Both are protected by the Human Rights Act. “I need feminism because of the pay gap”. I have researched the Situations Vacant sections in my local press and some job sites on line. The list of companies advertising different pay grades by gender for the same position is here   1:

Please feel free to add to this empty list. “I need feminism because I don’t feel safe going out on my own at night”. Consider this, 99.9% of people who go out at night come home safe. If the streets were really as unsafe as you think the head of your local police would be sacked, the Government would be holding crisis talks and it would be the headline of every paper every day. All of this leads to some uncomfortable facts.

 

The Feminist movement started this campaign to highlight why everyone needs Feminism. They never once thought that peoples reasons would uncover a major flaw in there thinking, however that is exactly what has happened. Let us look at the word “need” and ask would “want” not be a more accurate description ?

need |niːd|

verb [ with obj. ]

1 require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable:

 

It is a fact that billions of people live a fulfilled life without feminism. You do not “need” feminism, you desire it. Next we look at the theme running through every one of this statements, it can be paraphrased as

 

“my life would be much better if only society was changed to help me”

 

This is a major difference to any other form of empowerment. Wether it be Religion, yoga, meditation, life coaches, therapists ect, they all teach a subject to be strong enough to face the world, their fears and succeed in their goals. By teaching that the world needs to change for the subject to attain success, Feminism is teaching weakness, not strength. The correct meaning for these placards is

 

1. The rest of the world needs to embrace feminism to make my life better. That would mean removing the rights of freedom of speech, thought, expression of the rest of the general population. In short a complete dictatorship. Is that really what you want ?
2.  The reliance on women being portrayed as victims and the leaders of the movement being there saviour means any real      empowerment of women removes the need for the leaders. In short the movement has a vested interest in keeping women dependent on them.

 

These people do not “need” Feminism. They need a proper perspective of the world at large. They need a proper understanding of the equality laws that exist. They need the ability to independently research and understand the data. They need the ability to question the leadership of the movement. When they do this they will find it is not women that need Feminism, but Feminism that needs the women. That would explain the requirement for education in Gender Studies, a qualification that leads not to success in the workplace but to slavery to a illogical ideology. That my friends is why I promote Ice Cream as the sane alternative to Feminism. It has the same positive affect on your life but Ice Cream does not demand complete obedience.

 

The Unquestioned Conspiracy Theory

Conspiracy theories, there are thousands of them. Take your pick, Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon, Fluoride in the water, Area 51, The titanic was swopped with the Olympic and sunk for insurance fraud ect.  Which ever one you choose to look at there are common elements. The people that research and believe them have a unshakable belief in their truth. Someone, normally a large organasation or Government is hiding the truth to farther there own ends. There are one or two “provable facts” supporting a lot of conjecture. The reason they can not be proved is because of the level of power wheedled by the people behind the deception, and finally the ownis is on those proposing the theory to “prove” there case, which is systematically looked at by “experts” who insure the general populous believe the widely held views of society.   Then there is the exception, the notion that Women have been  always been oppressed by Men and violence towards women and girls is ingrained in the society and socially acceptable has the same level of proof as any other conspiracy theory and yet it is not only believed but this conspiracy is used to form the backbone of Government Policy. This is the point at which the Conspiracy moves fro a harmless hobby to a major problem.   I discovered this when I was looking at the Northern Ireland Domestic Abuse Consultation Document. I found it was based on the Carol Haggman-White model for preventing violence towards Woman and Girls. I also found this document had been used to create policy at a European Level. When I looked at the document I was shocked something this far removed from the truth could be used in this way. I also discovered this is probably the source of the sexist Real man/man up/don’t be that guy campaigns that suggest the majority of men don’t understand violence is wrong.  The following is the business end of Hagmann White’s document and my Appendix on that model for preventing violence and the reasoning why it should not be used by people creating policy.

Apologies for the quality of the picture, click on it and magnify and it becomes clear, the poor quality (unintentionally)  reflects the efforts made to hide this level of bullshit

 

 

I believe this document to be flawed from conception to completion. At its heart the document produced by the feminist Carol Hagemann White is a Cultural Marxist document that works on the premiss that Women have always been oppressed by Men and violence towards women and girls is ingrained in the society and socially acceptable. It states that this is the reason why men abuse and implies that we can solve the problems of Domestic Abuse by changing the behavior of men. I note that the consultation document states that “the principles of this high level model can be adapted to use not just as a templet for action planing for women and children but also for violence and abuse against men” I state this is not possible.   In a model where one group have been designated victims and another group designated oppressors it is not possible to reverse the gender as the message you give society will contradict its self. A obvious example is found when one of the factors leading to abuse is “normal heterosexual masculinity”. That states it is normal for a man to be violent to women and girls. Quite apart from being untrue, to use this model to prevent violence against men we would need to teach women they had a “normal heterosexual femininity” that causes women to manipulate and control men by various means and that women’s behavior needs to change. This aspect is missing from the document and therein lyes the problem. I will also state there is no evidence to support the premiss of oppression found in this document. I will now counter this document using the facts Carol Hagemann White chose to ignore.   The first hostel for abused women in the United Kingdom was opened by Erin Pizzey in Chiswick, England in 1971. This could be classed as a study as it was the first of its kind. When Erin Pizzey began working with these women she found 60 of the first 100 women were more violent than the husbands they had left. This early discovery that the overwhelming majority of violence is reciprocal has been ignored by Hagmann White. When Erin Pizzey found this insight she attempted to open refuges for men. She found it was impossible to get funding from the government and the wealthy people that had donated to the woman’s shelters were unwilling to donate to a shelter for men. Erin states it is at this early stage of the woman’s movement (and Carol Hagmann White is part of that movement)  that women took control of the domestic abuse sector that has now became a multi billion industry and totally concentrated on protecting women and girls.   I would draw your attention to the work of Martin S Filebert and his Bibliography, SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. Source

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Erin is not a lone voice and a conspiracy theory. When the Hagmann White Model is measured against the results every detailed study it becomes illogical. A quick look at the costs of domestic Violence in northern Ireland show around a third of the money for court and policing was spent on male victims. Something omitted from this model as in Carol Hagmann White’s world men are always aggressors.   Overall Structures in the Social Order   Hagamann White states a cause of abuse is : Devaluing Women, gender inequality, unequal power in relationships, between men and women, the subornation of women.   When we look at the measures for a general gender inequality we find men die younger, work longer hours, for more years, are more likely to die from 12 of the most fatal 13 diseases. Men will without doubt be the people who die in wars to protect the freedom of all citizens. 80% of suicides are male as are 90% of all workplace fatalities. This is a very strange form of privilege.   As for unequal power in relationships, men will attempt to win the favor of a woman. Men will pay for outings during courtship and buy the woman gifts. On proposal men are expected to get down on one knee and offer gold and diamonds. A man (the brides father) will pay for the wedding. Yet we talk of it being “her” wedding. A man is then expected to provide a home and furnishings, keep that home in good repair and is responsible for insuring all the needs of the family are met. Typically the woman will “run the house” deciding what meals are served at what time, choose the decor and furnishings. On the dissolution of the relationship the man will leave the home, continue to meet the bills for the house. The woman will retain custody of the children and have choice of when, or indeed if the father will have access to the children. All of the above points not equate to the subornation of women but of men.   The model talks about imbalance in the media, glorification of violence, the concept of male entitlement to sex or services from women and enforcement of “Honor and Shame” around violence against women and girls. I can only presume Carol Hagmann White has been watching/reading different media to the rest of us.   What the rest of us have learnt from the media is little girls are made from sugar and spice and all things nice while little boys are made from rats and snails and puppy dog tails. We know the gallant knight will protect the lady. Indeed we know it would be fit and proper for a man to lay a coat over a puddle to allow a lady to walk over it. We know who the bad guy is in any film or show because he is unkind to ladies. We know from countless disaster movies women and children have first seats in the life boats and it is heroic to save a lady, even more so when a man dies in the process.   We know from every cowboy film ever made a man should tip his hat to a woman, be respectful, call her mam, watch his mouth around a lady. We know it is appropriate to open doors, carry heavy objects and fix punctures for women we see in the street. We know it is acceptable for a man to get beaten up protecting a woman. In music we know from Percy Sledge’s song When a Man Loves a Woman he should “give up all his comforts, not notice when she is bad, turn his back on his friends, sleep out in the rain, give her all he has” and most of all think about nothing but her. All this to “keep the good thing he has found”. Contrast that with the Spice Girls “you boys better know know know, we girls gonna run the show” Areatha Franklin demanding “Respect” and there is also Lilly Allen who’s song Smile and accompanying video depict serious abuse to her ex partner. From the film A officer and a Gentleman we know it is acceptable to pretend you are pregnant to get a person with a certain job to marry you and when he leaves that job to take care you you it is fine to dump him and tell him he was tricked causing him to commit suicide. We also know that no sanctions whatsoever will be placed upon a woman for this. I could  write pages about this but I believe I have given enough examples along with the separate sheet of social media memes ect to have made my point, which is where exactly are women treated unfairly in the media.   As for “male entitlement” I have already written about the man’s need to impress a woman to win her heart.  I will add to that there is a clear understanding within society that when a woman says no, it means no. Every time. No if’s, no buts, simple, no means no.   I question strongly if the preconception Hagmann White talks about exists. She also states there is a need to reverse discrimination in the workplace and schools. While there may be a slight disparity if gender in the top 5% of jobs, the remaining 95% of us live in a world that is more than fair to women. 90% of workplace fatalities are Men, 95% of life limiting industrial illnesses such as work related upper limb disorder, white finger, ect, Men. It is men on the whole who do the jobs that are labour intensive and destroy the body. There has been removal of sex discrimination at work orders since around 1920, the equal pay act arrived in the early 70’s and when you speak to someone from human resources/personnel, it will normally be a woman.   As for schools, 60% of collage/university graduates world wide are female. I suggest the institutionalised discrimination exists in Carol’s head alone. Hagemann White also talks about the need to teach males how to be a “Real Man” That term has no place in any government document let alone one aimed at dealing with domestic abuse. This is a term used daily by women to abuse men. The phrases “You are not even a real man”, “I got it done by a real man” and other versions are abusive and condescending in the extreme. Could you imagine saying to a young girl who was wearing makeup “real girls don’t wear makeup” ? That would be wrong, just as the term “Real Man” is wrong.   I would also state that this model that provides only one way to be manly, and that is by protecting Women and Girls, is self serving for women. The campaigns that state a “real man” never hits a woman under any circumstances and defends a woman in all situations are also destructive. We know that traditionally boys compete to win the favor of a girl. We know that this did at times become violent between boys and indeed men. This brings back images of knights joisting to win fair lady. Worse still dueling pistols at dawn when someone “offended” a lady. The pain and suffering caused by this is irrelevant to this honor code as men are disposable under this system. This actively put boys in danger of by competing in unfair fights against bigger opponents for a girls amusement. It also removes the good work done by men to move that competition  onto a sports field providing a healthy release.   With this document forming the backbone of the consultation document and the ease with which it can be dismantled should tell the department how carefully it must review there strategy, and services in order to come up with a policy that will work for all. I am sure you will point to the comment modifying this model to be applicable to men also. I would point out this has not happened as men were removed from the victim groups on Page 6 of the Strategy Document and I believe the Hagmann White Model is responsible for this happening.