Adderall online Cialis online Viagra online
Payday loans

Darrin Albert

Do PC feminists really think women are too weak…..or just too special?

November 5th, 2009
By Harry Crouch
Article Source
Posted in Darrin Albert, Harry Crouch

This is a must read article. It’s one of the best I’ve seen on male disposibility and female pampering - Harry Crouch.

Do PC feminists really think women are too weak…..or just too special?

by Darrin Albert (Member, National Coalition For Men (NCFM)/MS Psychology)

I was having lunch with a friend one time, a nice enough guy, and I asked him if it was fair that most of the blue-collar grunt-laborers seemed to be males wherever you looked. I don’t know if this resonated poorly with any feminist sympathies of his or not, but he told me something to the effect that “Well, men are bigger and stronger and logically are more cut out for that sort of thing”. I didn’t want to keep badgering him about this issue, but I really wanted to ask him a followup question: If males are so “big and tough” and well-suited for this kind of dirty grunt-work, why do men comprise the vast majority of work-related fatalities? I mean, just because men are “better” suited this does not mean that they ARE suited for a certain line of work. This all got me thinking further, and I believe there are three note-worthy societal platitudes that many PC feminists exploit to their advantage to maintain or increase womens place of privilege. These platitudes are “winner takes all”, “if you give an inch they will take a mile”, and “ladies first”.

Winner takes all:

Okay, so let us assume that dangerous work and war are for “big boys” only. To the untrained eye this might seem reasonable. However, there is a caveat when it comes to the issue of physical strength. Hypothetically speaking, let’s assume that an average female soldier has a 25% chance of dying in a war and an average male has a 15% chance of dying (these are arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point, and such numbers could also be generated for “risk of death” in a hazardous job setting). At first glance this disparity appears to be unfair to women, and it essentially is. But here is where society starts to exhibit a cognitive bias. Let’s assume that there is a scale or balance represented by “man’s likelihood of dying” on the left side and “woman’s likelihood of dying” on the right side. Notice how the “likelihood of dying” reflects a continuous variable whereas the human states of “life” and “death” are mutually exclusive (since a person can only be alive or dead, which is also sometimes called the Law of Excluded Middle). Next, we notice how society tends to place the 15% chip on the left side of the balance (male’s likelihood of dying) and the 25% chip on the right side of the balance (female’s likelihood of dying). Naturally, the right and female side of the scale tips downward since there is a greater weight of 10% (25-15). This is where society tends to take a “winner take all” approach and does massive rounding of numbers. Just because there is a slightly greater chance of female death, society extrapolates this to justify keeping women out of war almost altogether (by using the societal forces of the male-only draft and covert socialization of males to “take it like a man” by being disposable heroes, protectors, and breadwinners). By keeping women out of war almost altogether, however, the male likelihood of death either stays the same (15%) or even increases while the female chance of death goes from 25% to 0% (since the women who would have fought are now exempt). So what was hypothetically unfair for women before (10% higher chance of death) is now extremely unfair for men (15% higher chance of death). The variable and continuous concepts of “more” or “less” don’t mean the same thing as mutually exclusive concepts like “either” or “or”. They should not be confused with each other. To put things in more simple terms, how is it fair to men that their general increase in stamina and physical prowess translates into male disposability? The bottom line is that regardless of strength, males are dying in tragic numbers. Are women really too weak….or just too special? Are men really strong….or just disposable?

If you give an inch they will take a mile:

This maxim is generally a translation of Murphy’s Law to some extent, and it basically says to “be cautious”. However, PC feminists who follow the Duluth Model of female victim/male perpetrator (and others who believe in maintaining restrictive gender roles) seem to use reverse psychology. In other manner of speaking, if these folks can get chivalrous men to “give an inch” then maybe with a little arm-twisting they can also get the men to “give a mile”. So here again we see how a slight disparity in physique between men and women can be used to justify a whole myriad of unreasonable demands on male beasts of burden. As such, we notice that a SLIGHT disparity in size can lead to a MAJOR disparity in disposability. When all is said and done, it is the so-called “big tough” men who comprise the vast majority of the homeless, suicides, the prison population, victims of prison rape, job fatalities, victims of the “glass cellar”, victims of the female dominated “spending gap”, victims of the scientifically proven “pay gap myth”, false allegations, military draft bias, restrictive “big boys don’t cry” brainwashing, domestic violence bias, sentencing disparity bias, sexist female-only government programs, chivalry bias, unfair custody/divorce laws, the longevity gap, and victims of violence in general. Are women really too weak….or just too special? Are men really strong….or just disposable?

Ladies first (chivalry as female privilege):

There is an old-fashioned saying “when mama is happy we are all happy”. It guess it is up to the worker bees to make life more comfortable for the queen and appease her. Unfortunately, just as every rose has a thorn every cute honey-making bee also has a stinger (bees are not necessarily as sweet as their honey). And that stinger is chivalry….a politically-correct term for anti-male sexism. When men are cornered into making stressful and life-threatening sacrifices for women and children we call it the “gentlemanly” thing to do. Talk about spin-control. We teach men and boys that it is just as rewarding for them to “work” and “give” to women pleasantries that these very same women just as happily “take”. I see the ads depicting a “love-struck” man “happily” spending hard-earned money and buying his true love a “wedding ring”, chocolates, spa packages, or flowers where the woman is just as happy to “accept” them. I wonder how many women have EVER bought a man an expensive ring and treated him like the “prize”….or how many working women feel entitled to the male-dominated professions of the “glass ceiling” as opposed to joining the equally male-dominated blue-collar underclass of the “glass cellar”. After all, the pay-gap is not only a myth, but the female dominated spending gap is very real. I recently went into a hard-ware store that was selling T-shirts saying “The Man’s Shopping Mall” on them. Naturally I compared the type of merchandise in the “man’s shopping mall” (hardware store) with the merchandise in the garden-variety shopping mall. And since the aforementioned T-shirt took the liberty to separate the stores by gender, I will assume for the sake of argument that the garden-variety clothing store is generally female terrain (although technically shopping malls have a myriad of clothing and items for males). The merchandise in the hardware store generally emphasizes boring and possibly dangerous work-related productivity that also benefits “women and children”. For example, they had items like toilets, house paint, bug spray, glue, deck stain, power tools, tool boxes, work clothing, cement mix, WD-40, tires, grass seed, lawn mowers, and auto-motive parts. The regular shopping mall has items that allow women to feel special, pampered, healthy, safe, happy, beautiful, comfortable, relaxed, or to feel like a princess. Common things in these stores are fashionable clothing, nail salons, massage centers, makeup, jewelry counters, candy shops, food courts, chic bath and body solutions, fashionable purses, and hair salons. Obviously, when females do traditional and “domestic” household chores this is not fun and games either. However, if housework is as menial as PC feminists would have us believe, why are so few women willing to marry down or marry a male househusband while she scurries off to the salt-mines? I am reminded of a “battle of the sexes” board-game I saw once showing on the cover a “power drill” on the male side and a “diamond ring” on the female side. How can that box cover even be remotely symbolic of a “gender battle”? How is a power drill (a boring tool for work) even remotely comparable to getting a romantic and frivolous diamond (paid for by men)? It would have been more accurate to call the board game “Unsuccessful Battles of the Male Underclass”. It is funny how many self-professed “progressive” and avant garde intellectual “feminists” want to retain age-old conservative notions of chivalry and female materialism. Are women really too weak….or just too special? Are men really strong….or just disposable?

I am a masculist AND a feminist. I believe that gender roles can restrict us all. I think too many females are objectified as “sex objects” while too many males are objectified as disposable and heroic “success/status” objects. As a feminist, I believe that women are strong, talented, and intellectual. As a masculist, I believe that men are sensitive, vulnerable, capable of weakness, and emotional. As a masculist, I believe that men are too often taught to “play the hero” and take unnecessary risks to “prove” their masculinity. As a feminist, I believe that women are too often taught to “play the victim” and playing the part of a “damsel in distress” with “learned helplessness”. Males and females alike have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This means equal pain AND equal pampering. So this begs the question: if we as a society like to think of ourselves as “tolerant”, “compassionate,” and “non-sexist”, then how does it get away with treating males so badly? I believe the answer involves cognitive biases like cognitive dissonance (justifying hurtful thoughts, feelings, and behaviors with guilt-alleviating and ego-preserving intellectual justifications like the “just world hypothesis”), blind obedience (like the Milgram Shock Experiment), blind conformity (like the Asch studies on conformity), biased conceptualizations of “privilege”, and self-fulfilling prophecy/role-playing (like the Zimbardo Prison Study). Few of us want to “admit” to being “sexist”, since this is a “negative label”. It is easier to “believe” you are non-sexist when you can at the same time justify resentment and envy with excuses like the “Duluth Model” or the male perp/female victim dichotomy. And it is not just PC feminists. I believe that in general male death, pain, and disposability has always been secondary to the protection of “women and children”. I will close with a statement that too many men throughout history have always wanted to say: Why do I always have to be the strong one?

Originally published November 5, 2009 at

Bookmark and Share

Site Meter