For quite a few years I have become increasingly aware of certain developments in western society regarding the way men and women are perceived. While the rights of women have been considered a serious issue for many decades, the rights of men have increasingly become neglected and outright violated. This post is about those observations, and the negative implications that these developments have for our society.

In regards to the title, I have purposefully chosen a variant of the very famous text from centuries ago called "Vindication of the Rights of Woman" by distinguished feminist Mary Wollstoncraft.


General observations

The first time I noticed this was while watching comedy shows and movies in my childhood. Increasingly it seemed acceptable to portray the man as the weaker sex. What struck me about it then was how one sided the affair was. While some segments dealt with the sexes equally, it was certainly not acceptable to joke about women the same way one could joke about men. In fact, it was acceptable to outright proclaim that women were stronger as a sex, which has been the theme of numerous programs over the years.

One might argue that this is due to the centuries of oppression that women were subjected to. This however is a flawed argument that I will return to later. For now, let me continue with other things that have become apparent to me over the years.

Continuing with the double standard theme, there is also the issue of violence. While I do not condone unprovoked hurtful behaviour of any kind towards a living being, I do find it interesting that men are judged by a different standard. For example, if we were truly equal, there would be no difference between violence towards a man, and violence towards a woman.

Statements like "you must never hit a girl" are still prevalent in our society. If one was generally against violence should the statement not read "one should never hit a person"? To differentiate between the sexes in this respect not only belittles women as a sex, but also denies weaker men certain rights simply because they were unlucky enough to be born male. This is precisely the form of arbitrary discrimination that true feminists have fought against for centuries.

Finally there is also the issue of our natural tendencies. There are some characteristics that tend to be more present in men than in women, and vice versa. Males are often more aggressive, competitive, less prone to being ruled by emotion, and often more sex fixated. While I know that this is a very general characterisation, and I would never assume that a given individual has these qualities, they do tend to be more prevalent in the gender as a whole.

My observation here is that most if not all qualities that tend to be more "male", are viewed as undesirable. They are things that must be avoided, often called immature and even stupid. When a child hurts another through the use of language, the other child is all but praised if he can retaliate in a similar fashion, and disciplined if he reacts with force. If the aggressor is female, then retaliation through force is always unacceptable irrespective of the severity of the original attack.

Similarly, men are expected to embrace the female characteristics, to become more emotional and to talk about feelings in the same way that women tend to communicate. Inability to do so is not considered different, but rather it is seen as stupid and barbaric. Yet it is not difficult to argue that the inherently male characteristics that we seem to abhor have a distinct advantage in certain circumstances, and have evolved for a reason.

No such demand is placed on the opposite sex. If women act irrationally we must learn to accept it (and fear it according to popular media). We must embrace and worship most of what is inherently female, and we are not allowed to challenge the status quo. I recall reading on several occasions women proclaiming how pregnancy makes them beautiful, and if any man disagreed he was clearly a horrible, misguided and foolish person. Not one man dared to disagree, and yet (a few fetishists aside) no man finds a pregnant woman more beautiful. We accept it, we respect them, and we may love them, but in no way is that condition attractive. Yet, as with most things today, we are expected to nod our heads and agree.


The argument from oppression

The argument that years of oppression somehow grants women this luxury today, is utterly flawed. On the one hand this sort of vengeance would only be relevant if two conditions were fulfilled:
1. The men alive today were the ones responsible for the oppression
2. The women alive today were the ones that had suffered

Neither is true and since one is not responsible for the sins of one's ancestors, no valid claim can be made here.

Most importantly however, it directly opposes the very thing that feminists have fought for. It draws a line between the sexes, re-establishes arbitrary discrimination, and potentially gives future generations reason to swing the pendulum right back where it was a few hundred years ago.


Conclusion

The path we are heading on is not a promising one. Instead of eliminating the last traces of discrimination we have simply shifted their focus. We have accepted some very obvious double standards in our culture and our laws, and we have inadvertently reinforced the division between the sexes.

I am fully aware that women may still be discriminated against in some areas. However, the reason I have chosen to highlight this development is because two wrongs do not make a right. Furthermore, while discrimination towards women is considered a valid and important topic, discrimination towards men is ignored and even laughed at.

I will end by highlighting one incident I came across some years ago because it really is an excellent example of what I have discussed so far. I recall when Tom Arnold's joke to Terri Hatcher during the Golden Globe ceremonies was met by boos. When she had asked him if she should take over his speech, he responded "talking is probably not what you do best."

Granted, this was no great joke, but it became an incident that was discussed for weeks to come, and which tarnished his reputation. At about the same time, I happened to come across some stand up comedy by his ex- wife Rosanne Barr. Her entire monologue was centred around the incompetence and stupidity of men. Interestingly it was met with cheers and applause more than with laughter.

If a joke that belittles a group of individuals, whether male, female, black, white, or whatever, is met by cheers, is not reasonable to assume that there is more here than just humour? If I were to crack a racist joke to an audience that gives me a standing ovation, would one not question the integrity of this audience?

Either way, why do we accept this blatant double standard? Why are men today unable to stand their ground and defend their right to be held to the same standards, and to acknowledge that our natural impulses are no more or less admirable than those of the opposite sex?

My first post on this topic deals with the unfair and privileged position that religion still enjoys in most of the world. It questions why an ideology that consistently fails to provide any form of valid, reliable proof, continues to be granted the same status as a legitimate theory. I will not address issues involving religious inconsistencies, nor delve into the effects of religion throughout history. It is precisely these sort of discussions that sometimes indirectly legitimise religion. Therefore, for now, I will focus only on the issue of the necessity of proof.

I do not claim that what I am about do discuss is unique to this blog. However I do believe that it is something that is not mentioned anywhere near enough in everyday life, so I feel that it has a place here.


Religious influence

Almost every culture on earth is to some extent influenced by religion. Laws, customs, morality, and so on are all prone to being influenced by religious preaching. Virtually every religion on earth claims to be the absolute truth and virtually every religion has a different idea of how one should live one's life.

Yet, at the same time, there is not a single religion that I am aware of that has managed to provide an ounce of categorical proof to back its position. Despite this, religious followers not only expect to be respected for their beliefs, but they often also expect to be allowed to influence society with their dogma.

When confronted with the absurdity of their position, the reaction is most often either:
1. An attempt to turn the argument back on itself, essentially asking the atheist for proof.
2. An attempt at trying to pass extremely vague and often unrelated facts and notions as proof.

Below I will deal very briefly with these examples and with what qualifies as proof.


Evidence and the burden of proof

Each theory that is created bears the burden of proof. A theory is not automatically true until proven otherwise. It must provide evidence for its position, and it must actively ward off attempts at its falsification.

For example, if I were to make the claim that the world was created by a giant invisible gerbil, it would be up to me to provide evidence that this is the case. It would not be adequate for me to ask my critics to prove me wrong. Any evidence that I were to provide would have to be verifiable, reliable, and unambiguous. This implies a thorough scientific approach in regards to gathering information and evaluating the results. Furthermore, any evidence that I provide must be specific enough so that it would not be more applicable to other possible theories, and also so that it would warrant abandoning simpler theories in its favour.

Another line of argument used by religious followers is to point to a lack of knowledge as evidence. How often has one heard the response "how else do you explain life?". Lack of knowledge is never evidence of anything. Question like these only imply that one does not know something, they do not justify or even hint at the existence of a higher power. Furthermore, these kinds of questions could just as easily be used to "prove" the existence of my invisible gerbil. If one looks back, centuries ago even the weather was considered "evidence" of God, simply because people did not know better at the time. Therefore, in order to prove or even suggest the existence of a God, one must provide direct evidence of this God, not gaps in our current scientific know- how.


Conclusion

Considering the issues discussed above, it should be apparent that all aspects of religion, whether good or bad, boil down to one central concept, namely proof. In the absence of proof, it becomes ridiculous to consider religion as anything more than an old relic. So why is it that people consistently allow religion to play a major role? Moreover, why do atheists so often indulge religious people in discussions about the origins of life, about the numerous religious inconsistencies, about morality, or about the positive or negative impact religion has had?

In the end, all of that is irrelevant and every single attempt to involve, or refer to religious thought, should be met by one simple phrase:

"Prove it"