Global Gender Gap Report IV: Let Us Tell You How To Live
November 8th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.There was a time when liberal sages pretended to be sensitive to what the late Edward Said called "Cultural Imperialism." Said, being Palestinian, informed us that European countries and their progeny like the United States, have for 500 years or so, done more than simply assert military and economic power over nations and continents occupied by darker-skinned, non-Christian peoples.
They've also asserted cultural power over them as part of the usual military and economic hegemony. Often this took the form of pronouncing as "heathens" those who worshipped gods deemed false by Christian traditions, but it took many other forms as well. Clothing, language, schooling, laws, architecture and countless other things were considered fair game by agents of imperial domination.
The fine movie "The Last Emperor" catches the cultural imperialism of the West very neatly in one brief scene. Peter O'Toole plays an English tutor who has been hired to instruct the youthful emperor. To that end, the Englishman seeks to give him an examination to find out what he knows. But the very concept of a commoner's questioning the emperor is anathema to Chinese tradition. So the emperor says archly "You cannot examine an emperor." To which the Englishman replies "Well, that'll have to change." A couple of thousand years of Chinese tradition is waved away like a house fly.
Said's point is not only that cultural imperialism exists, but that it is perhaps more deeply resented by subject peoples than even military and economic domination. Defeat our armies, exploit our resources, and our lives will go on, so the thinking goes. But take away our traditions, our gods, our languages, our way of life and you take away our very being.
Even as I write this, a modern myth persists among the peasantry of southern Mexico and Guatemala. It holds that American doctors kidnap indigenous children, eviscerate them and use their internal organs in transplant opertions in the United States. The myth is completely false, but it powerfully reflects the deeply-felt resentment of the injuries done by El Norte to the indian cultures of Meso-America. We rip the guts out of them for out own benefit. Edward Said would understand completely.
As I said, sometimes liberals pretend to understand and care about the deep resentments western imperialism engengers in peoples whose cultures are vastly different from ours. And sometimes they don't. A U.S. invasion of a country like Iraq or Afghanistan is always accompanied by much (to my mind justified) liberal hand wringing about our inability to understand the culture.
So it's interesting that the same liberals who bewail U.S. military interventions cheerfully spearhead attacks on cultures that, in their opinion, insufficiently conform to our notion of women's rights. The Global Gender Gap Report is properly viewed as a small front in that attack, and various people around the world are certain to see it just that way (WE Forum, 2009). It's message is unmistakable - our newly-acquired respect for women's equality is just our most recent tool to reveal your moral inferiority. Five-hundred years ago it was the Bible; now it's The Feminine Mystique. We call this progress.
So, if not enough of a country's girls go to school, if not enough women are elected to office, if not enough are lawyers or doctors, we will assign a grade to that country that reflects its moral debasement in our eyes. While we're at it, we'll conveniently forget the fact that we just got this religion of gender equality 40 years ago or so.
And we have decreed that those nations must change, sometimes at the point of a gun. It was only a few months ago that our "paper of record," The New York Times, editorialized that one reason for the U.S. Army's presence in Afghanistan was to ensure that girls there can attend school. The imperialist implications of that opinion may be lost on liberals here, but in Afghanistan, they understand it just fine.
Me? I'm all for women's equality, but then I would be. The cultural and educational tradition I've lived with all my life would hardly permit anything else. I think it's outrageous that, in many parts of the world, girls can't go to school and that women can't vote or hold certain jobs or have a genuine existence outside that of their husbands, fathers, brothers, etc. That's my heritage, but it's certainly not that of, for example, the people of remote tribal areas of Afghanistan.
I also don't mind opening a magazine and seeing a nearly-naked woman in an advertisement; I rather like it actually. But many Muslims, male and female alike, don't like it one little bit. It offends them deeply, and when we demand that their cultures treat women the way we do, they understandably balk. If women in Saudi Arabia want equality, they need to stand up and fight for it. If they do, it will be appropriate for the West to support those movements. Until they do, it won't be.
So Western cultural sorties like the Global Gender Gap Report are not only radically anti-male; they're yet another attack on the cultures of other countries. We're fervent in our beliefs, but of course we always have been. The people of those countries have seen this before, time and again, and know it for what it is - the liberal face of European imperialism.
If he were alive, Edward Said could tell us.
"));
19 queries. 0.413 seconds.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I agree that cultural imperialism is undesirable and likely to be resented, but go too far down the alternative route and you arrive at the attitude that accepts forced marriages and FGM, because they are traditional. As good as starting point as any is the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which nearly all countries in the world have signed up to. Basic education etc should be a right for all, but the problem comes in interpretating phrases such as 'economic particpation', which can be spun any way you want.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I agree Malcome.
And why isn't the Declaration of Human Rights being applied to the sex-based military conscription all around the world, or other anti-male discrimination? Neither liberals NOR conservatives are interested in that. And BOTH liberals and conservatives talk about changing the cultures, such as making them into a democracy or making them respect women's equal rights etc. So why did Robert's post only focuses on "liberals"? As though they're the only hypocritical ones on this issue and somehow the man-loving conservatives are guilt-free of this.
That makes me think about about how, In Robert's post about the Connecticut ruling, he omitted that it was the ACLU who defended the rights of the falsely accused to see their kids. I thought maybe that omission was just oversight until I saw this post. Now I wonder if that omission was intentional. Would it have been omitted if it were the Pacific Legal Foundation or, the Republican or Libertarian Party that stood up for the falsely accused's rights to see their kids?
November 8th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Marc A - I left out the ACLU because I didn't think it worth mentioning. As I'm sure you understand, I can't include everything, nor would anyone want me to.
As to the changing the cultures of other countries to fit our western notion of appropriate gender roles, I can't recall seeing a conservative publication espouse that. Maybe they have and I just haven't seen it. Perhaps you could direct me to one. But take it from me, I criticize liberals because I am one and find their hypocrisies, especially those relating to gender issues, particularly offensive. I mean, liberals are the ones who advanced the idea of gender equality in the first place, but can't manage to understand what that actually means.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I was going to say pretty much exactly what you said, Robert.
I, too, would like to freely consider myself a liberal, but because that would associate me with so many people who are against the issue most important to me, Men's Rights, it's almost a dirty word. It's definitely true that conservatives aren't much better when it comes to being friendly towards men's and fathers' issues, but when liberals do it, it has the added hypocracy of them promoting inequality in the name of equality.
At least your stereotypical conservative is honest about why they're opposed to certain ideas of ours, but generally, when liberals oppose us, their doctrine is so Orwellian and double-think heavy ("we support changing traditional gender roles...and yet we're going to oppose shared parenting and continue to have mothers be primary parents!" "We believe all individuals have the right to be respected for who they are and the content of their character...and yet punishing boys and men by ignoring educational and health care disadvantages is justified 'historical justice!'" "Prejudice is wrong...but it's perfectly understandable to think that all men are potential rapists!") that it's ridiculous, maddening, and sometimes just downright scary.
Personally, I'd argue that Men's Rights is the newest form of liberalism, being that it follows the trend of previous liberal movements in upholding civil rights for a group to whom they have been denied. In the meantime, until more of society's liberals start acting...well...LIBERAL, I won't be in a hurry to accociate myself with them.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I criticize them too for their hypocrisy, but conservatives as well, and I find it hypocritical to only criticize one.
You haven't seen conservatives argue for spreading democracy in other cultures?
Robert said: "As to the changing the cultures of other countries to fit our western notion of appropriate gender roles, I can't recall seeing a conservative publication espouse that. "
Really? You haven't seen Bush denounce woman's rights violations in the Middle East?
How about this which I found in 2 seconds: "The advance of women's rights and the advance of liberty are ultimately inseparable," President Bush told a group of 250 women from around the world who gathered at the White House March 12 to celebrate International Women's Day, marked four days earlier."
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040312_bush_women.html
It continues:
"First lady Laura Bush, who co-hosted the event with the president, said "the women of Afghanistan are writing a new chapter in their history. Afghan women who were once virtual prisoners in their homes, unable to go to school or to work, are helping rebuild their country. Several women helped draft and review the country's new constitution, which reserves seats in parliament for women. In more than 2,000 villages, women lead local councils. And this year, all Afghan women will have the opportunity to vote in the presidential election."
So tell me again why you're only attacking the liberals on this one?
November 8th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
*associate, that is.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
"but when liberals do it, it has the added hypocracy of them promoting inequality in the name of equality."
No, as I showed above, conservatives claim it's in the name of equality as well. They're hypocritical as well and it's hypocritical to not criticize BOTH.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
"In the meantime, until more of society's liberals start acting...well...LIBERAL, I won't be in a hurry to accociate myself with them."
I agree and that's whey I try to avoid labels, but to only attack liberals for their hypocrisy, and not conservatives, is hypocrisy itself.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
"I left out the ACLU because I didn't think it worth mentioning"
Just like you didn't think it worth mentioning that conservatives are hypocritical too. Ok. Well I think that hypocrisy is worth mentioning so I'm going to mention it.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I criticize them too for their hypocrisy, but conservatives as well, and I find it hypocritical to only criticize one.
You haven't seen conservatives argue for spreading democracy in other cultures?
Robert said: "As to the changing the cultures of other countries to fit our western notion of appropriate gender roles, I can't recall seeing a conservative publication espouse that. "
Really? You haven't seen Bush denounce woman's rights violations in the Middle East?
How about this which I found in 2 seconds: "The advance of women's rights and the advance of liberty are ultimately inseparable," President Bush told a group of 250 women from around the world who gathered at the White House March 12 to celebrate International Women's Day, marked four days earlier."
http : //www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040312_bush_women.html
(had to put a space after http in order to try to get it to post)
It continues:
"First lady Laura Bush, who co-hosted the event with the president, said "the women of Afghanistan are writing a new chapter in their history. Afghan women who were once virtual prisoners in their homes, unable to go to school or to work, are helping rebuild their country. Several women helped draft and review the country's new constitution, which reserves seats in parliament for women. In more than 2,000 villages, women lead local councils. And this year, all Afghan women will have the opportunity to vote in the presidential election."
So tell me again why you're only attacking the liberals on this one?
November 8th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
"("we support changing traditional gender roles...and yet we're going to oppose shared parenting and continue to have mothers be primary parents!" "We believe all individuals have the right to be respected for who they are and the content of their character...and yet punishing boys and men by ignoring educational and health care disadvantages is justified 'historical justice!'" "Prejudice is wrong...but it's perfectly understandable to think that all men are potential rapists!")"
Correct. Just like "We believe in freedome but we don't think men should be able to pay for sex and should be thrown in jail on 3 strikes for nonviolent offenses or for smoking pot"
Or "We believe in the equal protection clause but we think it's ok to only force men into combat"
Or "We believe in the equal protection clause but we think it's ok that inmate dads should not allowed to participate in the programs for inmate mothers."
Or "we believe in freedom but we join with feminists to stop pornography."
No, no hypocrisy there.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I criticize liberals for that too, but ALSO conservatives, and I find it hypocritical to only criticize one but not the other.
Robert said: "As to the changing the cultures of other countries to fit our western notion of appropriate gender roles, I can't recall seeing a conservative publication espouse that. "
Really? You haven't seen Bush denounce woman's rights violations in the Middle East?
How about this which I found in 2 seconds: "The advance of women's rights and the advance of liberty are ultimately inseparable," President Bush told a group of 250 women from around the world who gathered at the White House March 12 to celebrate International Women's Day, marked four days earlier."
It's not letting me post with the link, so search "Bush Calls Women's Rights and Liberty "Inseparable"
It continues:
"First lady Laura Bush, who co-hosted the event with the president, said "the women of Afghanistan are writing a new chapter in their history. Afghan women who were once virtual prisoners in their homes, unable to go to school or to work, are helping rebuild their country. Several women helped draft and review the country's new constitution, which reserves seats in parliament for women. In more than 2,000 villages, women lead local councils. And this year, all Afghan women will have the opportunity to vote in the presidential election."
So tell me again why you're only attacking the liberals on this one?
November 8th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I criticize liberals for that too, but ALSO conservatives, and I find it hypocritical to only criticize one but not the other.
So you haven't seen Bush denounce woman's rights violations in the Middle East?
How about this which I found in 2 seconds: "The advance of women's rights and the advance of liberty are ultimately inseparable," President Bush told a group of 250 women from around the world who gathered at the White House March 12 to celebrate International Women's Day, marked four days earlier."
It's not letting me post the link. Search "Bush Calls Women's Rights and Liberty "Inseparable"
It continues:
"First lady Laura Bush, who co-hosted the event with the president, said "the women of Afghanistan are writing a new chapter in their history. Afghan women who were once virtual prisoners in their homes, unable to go to school or to work, are helping rebuild their country. Several women helped draft and review the country's new constitution, which reserves seats in parliament for women. In more than 2,000 villages, women lead local councils. And this year, all Afghan women will have the opportunity to vote in the presidential election."
So tell me again why you're only attacking the liberals on this one?
November 8th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Continues:
"The president [BUSH] described support of liberty and human rights as the cornerstone of American foreign policy: "The policy of the American government is to stand for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity -- the rule of law, the limits on the power of the state, free speech, freedom of worship, equal justice, respect for women, religious and ethnic tolerance, and protections for private property," he said. The advance of freedom in the greater Middle East has given new rights and new hopes to women there, he said, and the women leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq have displayed "incredible courage."
And:
http : / / www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100409.html
First lady Laura Bush Saturday challenged a region dominated by men and strong tradition to allow women into the political process and workplace, saying equal rights are essential for democratic progress in the Middle East.
The first lady, making a high-profile speech at the World Economic Forum, said new freedoms granted to the women of Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and Morocco prove equal rights are compatible with Islam and Arab culture.
"Women who have not yet won these rights are watching," Bush said at the King Hussein Bin Talal Convention Center on the banks of the Dead Sea. "Freedom, especially freedom for women, is more than the absence of oppression. It's the right to speak and vote and worship freely. Human rights require the rights of women. And human rights are empty promises without human liberty."
November 8th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Continues:
"The president [BUSH] described support of liberty and human rights as the cornerstone of American foreign policy: "The policy of the American government is to stand for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity -- the rule of law, the limits on the power of the state, free speech, freedom of worship, equal justice, respect for women, religious and ethnic tolerance, and protections for private property," he said. The advance of freedom in the greater Middle East has given new rights and new hopes to women there, he said, and the women leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq have displayed "incredible courage."
November 8th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
"First lady Laura Bush Saturday challenged a region dominated by men and strong tradition to allow women into the political process and workplace, saying equal rights are essential for democratic progress in the Middle East.
The first lady, making a high-profile speech at the World Economic Forum, said new freedoms granted to the women of Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and Morocco prove equal rights are compatible with Islam and Arab culture.
"Women who have not yet won these rights are watching," Bush said at the King Hussein Bin Talal Convention Center on the banks of the Dead Sea. "Freedom, especially freedom for women, is more than the absence of oppression. It's the right to speak and vote and worship freely. Human rights require the rights of women. And human rights are empty promises without human liberty."
Washington Post, "First Lady Speaks on Women's Rights in the Middle East"
November 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Continues:
"The president [BUSH] described support of liberty and human rights as the cornerstone of American foreign policy: "The policy of the American government is to stand for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity -- the rule of law, the limits on the power of the state, free speech, freedom of worship, equal justice, respect for WOMEN, religious and ethnic tolerance, and protections for private property," he said. The advance of freedom in the greater Middle East has given new rights and new hopes to WOMEN there, he said, and the WOMEN leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq have displayed "incredible courage."
But that's ok because he's a conservative. They can say those things. Liberals can't.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Not the most timely choice of an example, Robert:
Even as I write this, a modern myth persists among the peasantry of southern Mexico and Guatemala. It holds that American doctors kidnap indigenous children,
Baby selling does exist:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/11/06/mexico.stolen.babies/index.html
It's corruption on behalf of the system of wealth and class privilege. That outrageous story is within mexico but this kind of thing has often been connected to wealthy foreigners.
So it's interesting that the same liberals who bewail U.S. military interventions cheerfully spearhead attacks on cultures that, in their opinion, insufficiently conform to our notion of women's rights. The Global Gender Gap Report is properly viewed as a small front in that attack
-After your first post on the Global Gender Gap Report, I commented that the guy in charge of developing the skewed measurement methodology is a powerful neoliberal. Ie, in favor of privatizing everything on behalf of corporations, not a political liberal.
I sure wouldn't shed a tear about western culture imperialistically outlawing cultural customs like, say, female genital mutilation.
Your conclusion faults "the liberal face of European imperialism." I agree that this report hides a cynical excuse to justify power. I disagree that it's in favor of liberals and suggest it's for corporate neoliberalism, something that they heavily criticise.
Take another look at the powerful neoliberal who developed the report's methodology, "a well known opponent of hugo chavez". http://www.ricardohausmann.com/index.php
November 8th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
"something that they heavily criticise"- well- the farther left you go. As a guy I worked with once remarked, "I liked bill clinton before I saw him being stealth republican with NAFTA."
November 8th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I concede to your point, Marc, don't get me wrong. To modify my point:
Conservative hypocracy and liberal hypocracy are both equally dangerous in terms of their overall effects. But the natures of the two forms of hypocracy are substantially different (not more or less harmful, but different), in terms of two related things: 1) the extent to which it contradicts their most basic core principles and 2) the degree to which their policies are hostile to men's rights directly, or harmful to men in a more peripheral manner. These two factors are what I think account for why liberal opposition to Men's Rights received the most attention and criticism.
First, to address those examples just listed, these kinds of conservatives have always been opposed to things like pornography, prostitution, or drugs, and have always upheld traditional gender roles in terms of things like military combat or sentencing disparities. Things like religious morals and traditional societal makeups have always trumped "freedom." It's always been realized without being said that conservatives are in favor of freedom...so long as it's within the boundaries of traditional values. At the end of the day, they've always been pretty apparent about advocating a tempered freedom. So the things they do which harm men are still very dangerous, and still wrong, but with the small consolation that they're at least predictable and unsurprising.
Liberals, on the other hand, have no such excuse to fall back on. They tout the values of things that are considerably more specific than an abstract buzzword like "freedom." (being for "tolerance," "gender equality," and "open-mindedness," and against "prejudice"). You can argue all day about the meaning of what it means for a functional society to be "free," such as what responsibilities would fall on the citizens (i.e. what it means to practice freedom without infringing on the freedom of others or hurting society overall; QED justifying criminalization of drugs or prostitution in the name of "the general good") and to what extent people's personal or religious values, even potentially racist or sexist ones, should be taken into account. But it's harder to misunderstand what the other terms mean. You're against prejudice? That means you see people as individuals and don't let their race, gender, etc. dictate how you perceive and treat them. You want people to be open-minded? That means you judge ideas on the merit of its content, not on who is saying it or how different it is from your current paradigm.
When you think about it, it's hard to screw up carrying out those kinds of principles due to the greater specificity of their meanings, which in turn means that the failure to effectively carry them out can be attributed much more to a flaw in the person rather than a flaw in the idea. Furthermore, because many of the mainstream liberal principles tend to be less guided by things like religion or personal values, they can't fall back on the excuse of one central value being superceded by another central value (i.e. conservatives whose religious beliefs or traditional social norms supercede the abstract of "freedom"). In summary, liberal values are considerably more straightforward and easy to define, so when the people who claim to support them also go against them, it's harder to excuse in a way that can't be traced to a personal flaw or cognitive dissonance within the person in question. Unless, of course, you argue that things like feminism or postmodernism are current mainstream liberalism's "religions" which supercede their stated values.
To be continued...
November 8th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Oxfam currently is running a radio and TV ad in Canada that claims "80 million kids, mostly girls, do not get an education". I went to their web-site, but could find nothing on how they determined most of the 80 million kids denied an education are girls.
They did have another interesting headline...."Women's Rights and Climate Change.........Climate Change is more than an environmental issue. It is about poverty and women's rights. Climate change is blocking the way to end poverty and advance gender equality."
Ummm - ok?
Also, I like this article Robert. Having spent some time in parts of the arab middle east, I feel the women there are very mis-understood by the west. For the most part they adibe by their religion because they beleive in it, not because they are forced too. For the most part they like wearing the hijabs and head-scarfs, and take great pride in wearing beautiful ones, they are highly educated. The men are super respectful of the women in their lives, and just because they have more "traditional" roles, does not mean the women are necessarily unhappy. I sensed alot of them were happier than the modern women over here. Of course this is only my observations and doesn't apply everywhere. But applying our standards to judge them is simply wrong.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Which brings me to the second related issue: the degree to which their policies are harmful or offensive to men either overtly or peripherally. This is pretty straightforward; who tend to be the ones who explicitly blame men as a whole for the world's problems, liberals or conservatives? Who are the ones who explicitly name the Men's Rights Movement as their enemies, liberals or conservatives? From whose ranks do the most overtly anti-male messages come from, liberals or conservatives? Yeah, there you go.
Policies like drug laws and prostitution laws are inane, illogical, and do more harm than good. And they do hurt men in particular. But the people who set out to make them weren't thinking of it in terms of men or gender overall. "Drugs and prostitution are bad," was pretty much the guiding thought, not "I'm going to make a law with the express purpose of targeting and jailing men!" Arguing against promiscuous sex or pornography tends to be more in terms of the supposedly harmful traits of the actions themselves, not the gender of the person who does them (I mean heck, a conservative would likely be more sexist towards women than men in that regard!). In those regards, at least, conservative principles hurt men peripherally, not deliberately.
"But wait!" You may say. "Conservatives also tend not to support shared parenting, women serving in the military, pornography, and all those other things you guys rag on liberals and feminists for opposing!" And you'd be right, they do. But it goes back to what I said before: it's harmful, but unsurprising. They do it out of the traditional gender roles and values that have always guided their principles. They've got a superceding set of beliefs that you'd easily expect to come into conflict with what the MRM is trying to carry out. It's traditional conservatives being their usual traditional, fundamentalist selves.
But, like I indicated before, the question is: what's liberals' excuse for being against our goals? Which of their guiding principles, carried out in their most literal and ideal forms, are the ones that make them act so threatened by shared parenting, or military service for females? Those are things that could easily be compatible with ideas like gender equality or not restricting people according to tradition...so what's the problem?
That's why criticism of liberal opposition gets the most attention. Conservative opposition against Men's Rights or anti-male policies? Troublesome and hurtful, but at least it makes sense along idea lines. But there is absolutely no logical excuse for liberalism and Men's Rights to not be perfectly compatible, and yet they're made to be opposed to each other, and it's frustrating. People who count themselves among the ranks of liberalism are the most direct and vocal opponents of the MRM, while AT THE SAME TIME having much less of a legitimate, rational reason for being so. It's totally bogus, and points to a huge discrepency between mainstream liberalism's most unambiguously core guiding principles and their actual everyday worldviews and actions. This enormous gap is what makes that brand of hypocracy vis a vis Men's Issues especially shocking, mystifying, and frustrating, and explains why it gets a lot of attention.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
"First, to address those examples just listed, these kinds of conservatives have always been opposed to things like pornography, prostitution, or drugs, and have always upheld traditional gender roles in terms of things like military combat or sentencing disparities.
The exact same can be said about liberals and their position on liberals always upholding their position on DV etc. So the conservatives have always upheld male disposability in military combat and liberals have always upheld their male disposability in DV. I don't see the major difference. They're both hypocrits for claiming they support equal protection.
""who tend to be the ones who explicitly blame men as a whole for the world's problems, liberals or conservatives? Who are the ones who explicitly name the Men's Rights Movement as their enemies, liberals or conservatives? From whose ranks do the most overtly anti-male messages come from, liberals or conservatives? Yeah, there you go."
Yeah, Bill O'Reilly never made fun of battered men and downplayed their singificance, and Bush didn't make a Violence Against Women speech, while Holland didn't create funds for battered men and a liberal didn't create a battered men's shelter in Lancaster, CA and Tyra banks didn't did a show on battered men. Republican Caspar Weinberger didn't specifically state that "women are too precious to be in combat" (translation: "Men are less precious than women").
And somehow it slips through the cracks how man liberals in other parts of the world have supported things like shared parenting.
"Belgium on the initiative of its Socialist Party now has implemented presumptive 50/50 joint physical custody legislation (effective bi-location of the children) after parental separation . . . ." http://fkce.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/13/
"Canadians claiming to be Liberal and Bloc supporters, expressed the strongest endorsement for equal shared parenting, at 80.6% among Liberals and 82.9% among Bloc Quebecois supporters. http://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/canada-equal-parenting-bill-c-422-introduced-this-morning-in-parliament-by-mp-maurice-vellacott/
No we don't like to talk about that.
Just like we don't want to talk about all the times liberals stood up for men (like the ACLU on falsey accused of DV, improsonment for child support without hearings, police taking men's cars for soliticing prostitutes, or the Innocence Project, or Stop Prisoner Rape, etc.) while no conservative group was to be found.
"But there is absolutely no logical excuse for liberalism and Men's Rights to not be perfectly compatible, and yet they're made to be opposed to each other, and it's frustrating."
Well you have my agreement there.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
"The exact same can be said about liberals and their position on liberals always upholding their position on DV etc. So the conservatives have always upheld male disposability in military combat and liberals have always upheld their male disposability in DV. I don't see the major difference. They're both hypocrits for claiming they support equal protection."
The difference is that you can at least trace the conservative form of hypocracy back to some tangible and well-known set of beliefs: the traditional gender norms that such conservativves would hold. Not having women serve in combat or having them receive lenient sentences is in line with the "benevolent sexism" characteristic of old-fashioned patriarchal ideas. So while it's still hypocracy, you can at least kinda, sorta grasp its source and understand why it's arising.
Liberal hypocracy towards domestic violence, on the other hand, can be traced back to...what, exactly? I don't know. It doesn't make sense. It's not like liberalism cares much for upholding traditional gender roles that hold that women can't be violent. So where's it coming from? Nowhere good or logical, I would imagine. Let me emphasize: this does not mean that it's more harmful. But it accounts for why it's considered more outrageous, because it is. It's a total enigma why that form of hypocracy exists, and can only be explained by a heck of a lot of double-think and misperceptions on the part of the people who hold them. And this gets attention because it's something that needs a lot of effort to untangle and overcome, and the urgency to untangle that inconsistency before it causes further damage is considerable.
You are correct that liberal initiatives that help men do deserve proper recognition. I would suggest, though, that a possible reason they tend to fall by the wayside is because such things shouldn't be surprising or novel; it's liberals actually fulfilling their principles and being liberals. (although, considering the state of thought in today's world, maybe we have reached a point where people need to be rewarded for exhibiting common sense and intellectual consistency)
Both of them are hypocracy, and both of them are highly dangerous. But while the source of conservative hypocracy is identifiable, liberal hypocracy is positively baffling, which makes it scary and in urgent need of change. Hence, the attention it gets.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
"The difference is that you can at least trace the conservative form of hypocracy back to some tangible and well-known set of beliefs: the traditional gender norms that such conservativves would hold.
Yes, male disposability - isn't that what traditional roles say? That males are disposable? And somehow it's less hypocritical because they have "always" held to male disposability? IMO, the hypocrisy is not that they changed positions over time but that they claim to support equal protection when they in fact do not. Liberal hypocrisy on DV can be traced back to the same thing - male disposability - i.e. men don't matter as much, male lives and aren't as important, men's feelings don't count.
"But while the source of conservative hypocracy is identifiable, liberal hypocracy is positively baffling, which makes it scary and in urgent need of change. Hence, the attention it gets."
Yes, very urgent, I agree. But I think that's true for both. Both claim to uphold equal protection, and yet both do NOT. That hypocrisy is a serious problem.
I know there arent' as many conservative actors/celebs as libaral ones, so this is not an attack on either side, but I'd like to see some conservative celebs, perhaps Ted Nugent, speak out for fathers' rights the way liberals Bob Geldof and Alec Baldwin have. That could help make a difference too. Or maybe if a known conservative joined Gorbi's promotion of an International Men's Day.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
If women in Saudi Arabia want equality, they need to stand up and fight for it. If they do, it will be appropriate for the West to support those movements. Until they do, it won't be.
More to the point those women are entitled to do it on their own terms. NOT according to the pre/proscriptions of a world view they don't adhere to.
@Robert...make sure you keep this one for your Greatest Hits.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Where did my long post go from November 8, 6:00 pm? It disagreed with Robert Franklin's conclusion about "liberals" and pointed out the guy who developed the report's methodology is actually a pro-corporate neoliberal (not politically liberal at all).
November 8th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
i won't vote democrat because the liberal democrats pander to feminists way too much....i just think if men didn't vote democrat it might send a message the the democratic party to stop taking men for granted
November 8th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
liberal democrats and feminists are pretty much the same thing...lol
November 9th, 2009 at 1:32 am
I remain a member of the Australian equivalent.
Can't change it from the outside.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Marc A. - It is and has for years been my observation that liberals, far, far more than conservatives (a) on the one hand embrace Said's views on cultural imperialism, but (b) when it comes to feminist orthodoxy, turn around and do the opposite - happily berate foreign countries for not conforming to our political/social philosophy of gender. I'm far from alone in that observation. The point of my observation is the hypocrisy of liberalism on that topic. Being a liberal myself, I'm acutely aware of the matter.
You claim that conservatives do the same things, but your only evidence for the proposition is a speech by George W. Bush and another by Laura Bush to the effect that they support women's rights in Muslim countries. You have to do better than that. Again, cite me the conservative publications that both criticize cultural imperialism and then embrace the opposite when it comes to women's rights.
I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm wrong. Frankly whether liberals alone or liberals and conservatives both engage in this hypocrisy is not very important to me. But to convince me you need to give me more than George and Laura.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:25 am
It's Pat - My example of the long-standing myth about American doctors kidnapping Mexican and Guatemalan peasant children, eviscerating them and using their organs in transplant surgeries plainly has nothing to do with baby selling which is done mostly for adoption purposes. Surely you understand that.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
This was a disappointing piece. Liberal bashing comes to Glenn Sacks dot com. Sigh.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Hi Robert,
That wasn't the point of my previous comments. It would be wonderful to get a follow up response from you:
1- I agree and disagree that the myth of americans stealing baby organs is unrelated to baby selling. There's a real black market for babies. Whether it's real adoption or mythical organs, it's a black market. It comes from local corruption and benefits wealthy foreign interests. That's something uniquely opposed by liberals promoting global human rights issues. Therefore I think it's incorrect to use the myth as an example of indigenous resentment against cultural imperialism, dismiss my details as "unrelated", and make this post about the flaws of liberalism.
If you said "chinese peasants hold a myth that americans kidnap chinese to harvest their organs", I would point out the real market for organs that exploits prisoners, facilitated by the chinese government, benefiting wealthy foreigners, and uniquely opposed by liberals.
2. We're talking about globalism. I'm disppointed that you haven't yet addressed the issue I brought up in several previous comments, that the developer of the Global Gender Gap's flawed methodology (Ricardo Hausmann) is a prominent neoliberal. Not a political liberal, but a member of the movement that (to my understanding) came to prominence with Reagan and Thatcher.
I believe you're right in finding fault with the Gender Gap report but wrong with focusing on liberalism. I believe you're right in saying that a skewed view of "equality" can make cultural imperialism, but wrong for neglecting to mention the anti-imperialist bent of many issues promoted by liberals.
Think of corporate "greenwashing" and emphasize "corporate." I see similarities here.
Do you have a response about Hausman?
November 9th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Robert I see that you do make a few superficial mentions, then jump over them to flawed conclusions:
As I said, sometimes liberals pretend to understand and care about the deep resentments western imperialism engengers in peoples whose cultures are vastly different from ours. And sometimes they don't. A U.S. invasion of a country like Iraq or Afghanistan is always accompanied by much (to my mind justified) liberal hand wringing about our inability to understand the culture.
So it's interesting that the same liberals who bewail U.S. military interventions cheerfully spearhead attacks on cultures that, in their opinion, insufficiently conform to our notion of women's rights. The Global Gender Gap Report is properly viewed as a small front in that attack
(...)
It was only a few months ago that our "paper of record," The New York Times, editorialized that one reason for the U.S. Army's presence in Afghanistan was to ensure that girls there can attend school. The imperialist implications of that opinion may be lost on liberals here"
Cheerfully spearheaded by liberals? Ricardo Hausmann is hardly one.
The New York Times is hardly the source of that explanation for invading Afghanistan. You can probably look to the military for that. Yes, it may have imperialist implications but they're not lost here. I also remember when we invaded Iraq and said it was all about protecting Kuwait, not oil.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
It's Pat - I don't much care what Hausman's politics are. I couldn't tell you much about Laura D'Andrea Tyson's either other than that she was a Clinton Administration Official. There are certainly many people who worked on the GGG Report whose politics I don't know either. Their personal politics, though, are irrelevant to what I'm saying.
My point is really simple. Over the years, liberals have consistently agreed with Said's criticism of Western imperialism as in part a cultural phenomenon; it therefore strikes me as hypocritical of liberals to, when it comes to feminist issues, abandon their opposition to cultural imperialism and in fact embrace exactly that.
Whatever may be the politics of the people involved in the GGG Report, their document does exactly what liberal feminists have been doing for a good number of years which looks suspiciously like cultural imperialism to me, i.e. dictate gender relations to countries that don't share our values.
Now, as I've asked of another commenter, if you want to show me (a) a consistent record of Western conservative discourse to the effect that Western powers shouldn't be in the business of dictating cultural principles to non-Western, non-white, non-Christian peoples and (b) that conservatives then punted that notion when it comes to feminism, I'm open to the concept. I'll be more than happy to criticize them too.
I'm a liberal. I read a lot of liberal writing. I criticize liberals because I am one and I would appreciate it if they would be consistent. Indeed, when it comes to feminism, I can think of few liberal principles liberals haven't cheerfully abandoned.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Hi Robert. OK, so, you don't care about the personal politics of the individuals. It's about a movement. So it falls to a broad brush condemnation using a label, with the actors being un-named. You said your point is really simple. Isn't life more complicated than this?
It sounds like your main point means that for supporting cultural imperialism, conservatives have demonstrated consistency in being wrong... liberals have just been inconsistent.
I appreciate that you responded at all. I named one of the main actors who doesn't fit the label, and I think it contradicts or at least highly complicates your simple point. I do agree that a lot of liberal politicians wrongly caved in to bush's aggressive policies and have been as inconsistent as you say. I'm not deeply studied in globalism politics, just a casual reader, so I will let it go at that.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
By the way, you guys know what kind of propaganda scam this whole Report is?
In short, their scoring formula EXPLICITLY discards information about women's advantages over men!
A country might have 1% less women in the assembly than in overall population and that will affect the score negatively, but then in the same country women could outlive men by 12 years and that will NOT affect the score at all! They admit it openly in preface, but what gets quoted by the media is the score, not the details of how it is calculated - and those manipulateurs _rely_ on this.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
liberals and feminists are really the same thing.they are both democrats....the democratic party panders to women.....my belief is that if men want to heard in the democratic party...vote republican and let them try to win you back...men are ignored in the democratic party
November 10th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
....that being said i don't understand how men could vote democrat...especially men on here interested in mens rights
November 10th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
yes john we know you are a broken record.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
lol...well pat its work you know..getting the message out...i mean after decades of liberal media and govt pandering to women ..and not to mention NOW...throwing men under the bus...
November 12th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Be sure and let all of us know how we can keep bill clinton from getting elected again. Now run along and play.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
lol...you just elected obama...same thing...maybe worse....play nice pat
November 12th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I take it you found out yesterday.
Why don't you start a blog to "get the word out". With your writing talent and scintillating intellect, it'll be more popular than glenn's.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:09 am
why do you feel the need to insult?...are you a sensitive to comments about liberals?..you shouldn't be...most of the media is liberal...the point here is that under liberal democrats/feminists men get the short end of the stick!..
November 13th, 2009 at 2:00 am
i thought you wanted to "get the word out" john. Don't stop sharing your amazing discoveries with us. You have so many new and thoughtful points to make all the time.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
well keep voting and working with the feminists...let me know how its working out ..if anything changed for the better for men...oh and how is obama's "change" working for you?..if bush were in office right now with all this going on...they would be slamming him everyday
November 13th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
whats the difference between a feminist and a liberal democrat?....
November 14th, 2009 at 3:49 am
lol...why can't you answer the question?.....