Gender Disparities in Democracy Are Fatal
FEMALE RUDDERS:Gender disparities within Democracy are larger than commonly understood.
(Beware reading this essay, it could destroy your faith in politics.)
Boyish prows on the ship of state
“Biology is not destiny” Simone de Beauvoir
Despite appearances to the contrary our liberal democracies of today have considerable female leadership in the foreground and in the background, a majority influence. Sailing ships often had female names on the bow and stern and frequently sported a mermaid sprite or womanly clasping bust as effigies under the bowsprit, yet almost Â all profits on the voyage, control of the cargo and manning operations went to men. Today, do our ships of state exhibit a similar tendency in reverse; men are now carving out political careers beneath the overarching wand of women. Women voters have the overwhelming numerical influence within advanced democracies and this has distinct downside effects for the estate of men. Excess female influence can distort notions of democracy from being a fair system of government. Some alternatives by way of correction are sketched as future possibilities. This essay is shows how men must not and cannot support a current biased feminist liberal democracy for it is not a fair system of Government. Democracy today is unfair to men.
One generation out from 1972 – (bra-burning and the Pill) – discrimination against men is extremely marked. Men in New Zealand are significantly locked out of nursing and primary teaching for example. Men were once 46% of our primary teachers, today barely 6%. In child custody battles men do not receive a fair 50-50 outcome (more like 90/10). There are probably many other situations also badly discriminatory to men. It is an area barely beginning to be catalogued. Men may be guilty of rape but there is no legal equivalent for women, such as nymphomania/’manhandling’/prostitution, for instance. I was myself abused by a woman when young: its cure is almost invisible, simply not discussed in the literature. Or, nowhere to the extent it is for girls. Passed over in silence. I suspect if we went looking we would find almost exactly the same level of criminality. Nowhere does feminism make this explicit, such as saying ‘men are bad, women are good’, but, seemingly they would like to strongly imply it. For, if they do so the absurdity is immediately apparent. Women abusing boys are rarely jailed. Nor, in researching such matters is anyone even ‘looking’ for women abusing boys (or, heaven forbid; lesbians abusing little girls) Living shorter lives than women; men do the dying in our society. Seven times the money is spent on women’s health, than on men’s greater health needs. If ‘biology is not destiny’ then all efforts should be to bring men’s health, longevity and numbers up to those of women.Â Thus seven times as much money ought rightly be spent on men’s health. There are many other areas of excessive discrimination against men, too many to cover here. Masculist thinking on these things has only just begun. It is more like the feminist estate in 1860 or 1890’s to which it could fairly be compared. These thoughts have only just begun. Men, I think, will not sit around in consciousness-raising groups: they will act, once aroused. Men of New Zealand wake up! We have nothing to lose but our strangling apron strings.
Equal pay for equal work is fair in a literal anecdotal sense, becoming unfair only when raised into an ideology, if it means artificially created government jobs. These jobs could number 100,000 or more. Jobs reserved for women, that are indoors, in cities and extremely highly paid. These job holders really ‘do work’, meaning 8 hours a day being busy, piles of paper, reports, and so on. However if opened to market pressures no one might be found to bankroll this out of their own money. Public service managers, many of whom are women, yet depending on the private sector paying taxes, began in New Zealand for instance to be paid much more than male managers outside. The tail was wagging the dog, just to -‘raise the bar’ for women in the public service.
The reason why men, as a group, may always be deserving of more money is that it is mostly men who do the really dangerous, loud, dirty, remote, high-up, stressful, low-down and inconvenient jobs, all of this despite thirty six years of progressive feminism. The person who risks life and limbs for others deserves more recompense than someone in cosier conditions doing the same thing. Paying the cosy, more than, or, ‘the same’, on ideological principle, than the life-risking outside worker is unfair discrimination. This shows bias against men in our society as a result of an inbuilt gender bias within democracy.
We cannot recommend democracy to other nations if it is in any way ‘a female form of government’—, if it has bias: it must be non-discriminatory and gender neutral in all its outcomes. All the social, cultural, political and legal fields under it must have gender neutral outcomes. It is particularly dangerous a system of governance if it is biased in any way. It is biased, as women live to vote up to nearly two elections more than men. In our advanced western-style democracies there are more women also. This combination of women’s larger numbers and greater longevity means around a 10% to 12 percent advantage of influence at election time. As Victoria University Professor John Roberts reminds us each close election on New Zealand television, our political parties are so fine tuned to each other that, in a contested election, just a 4% swing can often upset a government. Women’s vote strength is powerful indeed, having three times as much influence, where it counts, than men. people commonly believe they ‘know that it is 49% to 51% ‘ but that is proportion overall: we are concerned here with political power and influence only in the voting cohorts above the voting age of 20. Women as a whole get to vote two elections more than men PLUS in slightly greater numbers… giving overall in voting strength more like 45% to 55% advantage in western societies to women. Democracy is womens government!
There are significant concerns therefore also around express women’s control over the political process. Particularly where a woman’s political control is total, in the area of creating people. Democracy is government by the people so who controls the creation of people controls the system. As the 55% advantage of women voters control 100% the creation of future voters. With thoughts like the above, democracy as a fair system is nigh unrecoverable. In the interim men cannot support it. The responsibility of eco-feminism and the collapse of demand is essential to understanding how these factors have caused this so called ‘credit- crisis’. Ask yourself the question, why was so much bad credit risk extended to people? Was it because they had run out of people? New Zealand would have had a population of 6-8 million by now if we had continued with the birthrates of 1970-71: one generation later eco-feminism has destroyed us. (We really did want those unwanted babies after all) as they are/were and always, will be our collective future.
Democracy however has the longest history providing better social, legal and political outcomes. In contains within it sufficient freedom and methods for accountability; chiefly the courts, elections and a free press. Recently some very heavy censorship laws along politically correct lines have been promulgated. This is fatal to venting contrary pressures within democracy and would constitute attacks on male-rights and freedoms to do so. These things must be allowed to be expressed. Feminism has brought many real benefits to women. In democracy one has the right to object, protest and to put forward alternative views like the above. Academic life and the freedom of the mind flourish where all outlooks and viewpoints are explored; even sometimes extreme and paradigm breaking opinions. In the germ of these things lies our best political hope. We can freely explore all options for the future when we are free in democracy to speak, write, read and see unpopular or unfashionable ideas.
PROXIES for DEAD BROTHERS
Alternatives to democracy range from monarchy to dictatorship. New options could include electronic voting where the entire electorate votes on all issues, just as surveys appears to do (binding surveys anyone?) Another option could be to have a parliament where there are no parties, every member stands independently. A true citizens parliament.Â Another method could be to give proxy votes to a dead brothers living brother: gauged in such a way backwards in time (18 months back: – two elections back) as to ‘fix’ the ten percent gender disparity. Yes, that’s right, some men get two votes! I can see no ther fair way to make democracy workable and fair. TheÂ method this writer prefers however I call a taxocracy where the time honoured revolutionary phrase ‘no taxation without representation’ is inverted to read NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION. Thus democracy is ended in favour of a new system, why not fix everything at once? So that only tax MAKERS can vote: Tax Takers do not vote. This corrects a world that neither Michael Joseph Savage or Karl Marx ever imagined: A world where approximately half the people are working to pay the other half on the gravy train. This is the state New Zealand is in now.Our Prime Minister appears totally unaware of it. Refer him to this article. Print or post a copy to your friends. Overseas as well.
This is to account for mishandling of economies by EMOTIONAL womens concerns (excessive expenditure on womens ‘health’) as distorted within large gender disparity of VOTING cohorts: up to 12% advantage (depending on the Country) Such disparities, even if suppressed are fatal to a proper account of post-modern democracy. They would otherwise emerge more dramatically elswhere. This dangerous anomaly within democracy must stop.
Whatever method is chosen we must break out of the loop where women control the creation of people, people control the government and where women secretly and numerically control the electorate vote and thus all the governments. Remember this insight is new in masculist thinking, any errors must be compared only with similar raw material from the feminists of around circa 1860 or 1890’s, we men have a long way to go to throw off the evil shackes of a false female or feminist consciousness. A democracy so constituted is unfair.Â This introduces distortions to budgets and economies that ruin productivity and competitiveness in advanced economies. Our ‘productivity’ figures must be entirely fictional is one direct deduction from these tenets of masculist population economics. No wonder historians say no democracy has lasted much more than two hundred years. Our time is up. This Soviet Union type collapse can be laid directly at the door of eco-feminism.
Phillip O’Sullivan 2008 email@example.com