Scorched Earth: Five Ways Men Benefit from Empowered Women
Well, buckle up guys. Today we dive into the mind of a mangina to find out how empowered women benefit men.
This weeks article was painful for me to read. If you want to join in my misery the article can be found over at The Huffington Post.
1. Women are better at dealing with certain problems
The article opens with the sweeping claim that women are better with dealing with widespread societal problems than men. The clearest example of this, according to the author, is the problem of overpopulation.
The author acts as if empowering women, and not industrialization, has reduced the average amount of births that a woman has. The reality is that it is not the fact that women are empowered, but rather the onset of modern medicine that has reduced the need to have many children. When you bring modern medicine to a country people don’t need to have 10 kids because 8 are likely to die before they reach adolescence.
There has been a 93% reduction in infant mortality rate in the United States since 1915. If you look at the graph at the bottom of that article you can see that most of the gains were achieved before 1965, when the feminist movement was reaching it’s peak in the United States.
The second paragraph is nonsensical. Of course having more minds applied to problems will solve them faster. However, he did not establish that it was women who solved ‘overpopulation’ in his first paragraph. If anything, it was men who solved the infant mortality problem through medical advances.
2. There are some situations that can be improved just by the presence of women
This section is full of assertions on the part of the author. If it were female officers that beat Rodney King, how would that have prevented the riots in LA? Is it because the atrocities committed by women are not scrutinized by society? To say that having women in the squad would have stopped the outburst of violence is also an assertion as we can see in recent high profile cases of police killing citizens where women were part of the squad.
What I really hate about this section is the underlying narrative that women are good and men are bad. Men are naturally predisposed to violence and women are the ones who can prevent violence. This is absolute horseshit. Let’s take a look at some statistics:
- Women initiate domestic violence at a greater rate than men. A second source here.
- 40% of mothers acting alone abuse children opposed to 17% of fathers
- Boys are more likely to be spanked than girls
We cannot ignore the fact that women play a crucial role in the cycle of violence. They are the leading abusers of children worldwide. No one excuses a wife beater by saying “Oh, he spends a lot of time around his wife. It makes sense that she would annoy him and he would hit her”. So why do we make that excuse for women hitting their children? To pretend that women are not as prone to violence as men is to deny them the full range of human emotion.
Additionally, to not subject 50% of the human species to scrutiny means that we will never find answers to complex societal issues. If we only inspect the violence men commit against women, and not the violence that women enact against both men and children, we will never resolve deeply rooted societal issues.
3. Protecting women’s rights is key to everyone’s rights
The claim in this section is that oppressing women’s rights is what keeps fundamentalist regimes going. The author even goes so far as to wonder if authoritarian regimes are created to keep women in their place or if their oppression of women is part of them being authoritarian.
Let’s look at how authoritarian regimes treat women.
- The Nazis had an award for German mothers which celebrated women who raised large families well. Sounds incredibly oppressive
- The Soviets made National Women’s Day a national holiday in 1917 to celebrate the working woman. In fact, socialists have promoted the liberation of women as a way to dismantle the nuclear family and inculcate obedience to the state
While I agree with the fundamental premise in this section, that in order to protect my own rights I must stand up for the rights of others, the reasoning of the author is so asinine that it deserved dismantling.
4. Women’s empowerment is good for the economy and the environment
Again, assertion after assertion. Are women choosing jobs with a low environmental impact on purpose? Or, is it because, as the statistics show, women are much more likely to go into fields which are flexible, like teaching, rather than fields like petroleum engineering? So, I guess this is true in the most rudimentary sense possible. Women go into jobs with low environmental impact. However, it is not because they have chosen those professions due to their impact on the environment. They have chosen them, in general, to have more flexible hours to achieve more of a work-life balance than men.
I can hardly comprehend the absolute idiocy of saying that if women ran Lehman Brothers that we wouldn’t have had a financial meltdown. Like it was those financial institutions that were responsible for the collapse and not governmental policy and Federal Reserve tinkering. This has to be the most idiotic bit of pandering to your audience I have ever seen. How can you even say something like that with a straight face?
The author then moves on to talk about how a study found that companies with more women preformed better financially. Regarding the study: correlation does not equal causation. Just because a company has more women does not mean that those women directly led to that company’s financial success. Jesus.
5. Women can provide insight at important moments
I just don’t even know how to respond to this. WWI was a crisis of masculinity? It wasn’t a crisis of governments and treaties. There could be no other motivation for starting a war, especially not the desire for governments to spread their power and influence. Nope. It was caused because old, white men couldn’t let go of their macho personalities.
But let us look the history of women in foreign policy. How have women led when they were in power? Well, Margaret Thatcher went to war over two rocks in the south Atlantic when she initiated the Falklands war. Where was her womanly insight?
This idea that it is the gender of the person leading a nation, not the distorted incentives of government itself, that leads to war is the most asinine thing I have ever read. The reason why war occurs is because those responsible for starting them do not have to bear the consequences of the war. The nameless and faceless men that get fed into the meat grinder of war pay the consequences.
Conclusion: Do empowered women benefit men?
That was painful. In no way did he address his thesis of how empowered women benefit men. He came close in the third section but still only danced maybe within a mile of the truth.
All of the supposed benefits which accrue due to women being empowered were all vague generalities. Even worse, when they were unpacked they were either patently false or did nothing more than stroke the ego of women.
This veneration of women really needs to stop. The author thinks he is empowering women but really he is treating them like children. He strips from them the human capacity to be violent. He boils them down to nothing more than delicate flowers while men play the role of violent perpetrators.
Women have said that they want to be treated equally for the last 60 years now, I for one am in favor of doing so. And with that comes with the recognition that women are just as capable of evil and violence as men are and we need to stop excusing their awful behavior.