Strategic Thinking and the Road Ahead
On the face of it, Paul Young seems quite justified to complain to the Human Rights Commission about the banning of male viewers from an art gallery video exhibition depicting Muslim women without their hijabs or veils (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/complaint-over-women-only-exhibit-5046908). Since I am the first Men's Rights (http://nzmera.orconhosting.net.nz/manifest.html) activist ever in New Zealand (as opposed to a purely Fathers' Rights (http://nzmera.orconhosting.net.nz/dadsreso.html) activist), I should be glad that other people are now taking up the cudgels on behalf of men.
However, there are some problems with that stance:
1. Muslim women are too easy a target. Muslims are a tiny minority in New Zealand, and Islamic culture is probably the least anti-male culture on the face of the Earth. Where has Paul Young been, while I have been fighting the much more powerful White feminists and Maori feminists (who seem to dominate the domestic violence industry)? His action looks a little like Muslim-bashing.
2. As far as I know, Muslim society does not just ban men from female social events -- it also bans women from male social events. Therefore it is non-sexist and consistent.
3. The Muslim ban on unmarried and unrelated men and women from mingling socially protects men from false rape allegations. In Western countries, if a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman, the man is quite likely to be accused of rape, because a drunk woman is deemed to be unable to give consent, but drunkenness is not an excuse for (his) "criminal" behaviour. Logically, the woman should also be able to be accused of raping the man -- but we live in a sexist, anti-male society.
4. Moreover -- and here we get to the really sinister part of the story -- the man-hating, feminist rag The Dominion Post actually had the banning of men from this exhibition in big headlines at the top of its front page! That should automatically send up a huge red flag, announcing that something was really wrong here. The only times that The Dominion Post (or Radio New Zealand) has ever tried to interview me about Men's Rights was when they thought they could show me up in a bad light, or when I took them to court for anti-male bias (http://nzmera.orconhosting.net.nz/zohravag.html). A male feminist from The Dominion Post tried to interview me to get some sort of angry or depressed reaction to the fact that (at that time) New Zealand had a female Governor-General, female Prime Minister, female Chief Justice and female CEO of its largest listed company. However, I just said that I was interested in pro-male policies, rather than in male frontmen (http://nzmera.orconhosting.net.nz/frontman.html) -- so The Dominion Post did not even mention me in its story! So The Dominion Post only headlined this story about Muslim women in order strategically to drive a wedge between Islam and Men's Rights!
5. Here is another red flag: In one media account (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/8522600/video-prompts-nz-sex-discrimination-storm), Nicholai Anderson, a senior associate at the law firm Chen Palmer, was quoted as saying that "banning men would be unlawful discrimination by the museum or the people displaying the work." Chen Palmer is run by the feminist networker, Mai Chen, who is one of those rare specimens -- an intelligent feminist. When I was thinking of taking the Institute of Judicial Studies to court over its teaching of so-called "gender equity" to judges (http://nzmera.orconhosting.net.nz/institut.html), I spoke to one of Mai Chen's male subordinates about the possibility of his taking on the case pro bono (i.e. for free) -- Chen Palmer is the only New Zealand specialist Public Law firm that I know of. Negotiations broke down, because Mai Chen would only let the firm do it if I made the political concession of criticising the Muslim approach to women (or some aspect of it, such as the hijab and/or veil). Now, it was good that Mai Chen was willing to take the case on for free -- but it shows what women do when you allow them into the workforce: they use their job power for political purposes. I have lived/stayed in Muslim-majority countries for a total of 14 months, and my opinion is that, if we had a choice between the oppression of men in countries like New Zealand and the Muslim system, then the Muslim sysem would be a viable option.
Feminists are always thinking strategically, as you can see by the behaviour of many university lecturers, for example. For a start, the Women's Movement essentially involves the manipulation by Lesbians of other women, in order to create a society where Lesbians can live independently of men -- whether this is in the best interests of other women, of men, or of children -- or not. Then the Feminists have had to get into informal coalitions with ethnic minorities and unionists, etc., forming the sort of "rainbow coalition" which is the backbone of most large Left-wing parties. It is high time that Masculists also started thinking strategically too. At the international (United Nations) level, I have heard that (for example) the Catholics and the Muslims work together. At the national and local level, too, Masculists should work together with Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, other Christian sects, conservative Jews, other religions, conservative ethic minorities, anti-abortionists. and so on.
This message is too wide to fit your screen. Show full message