Sexism is a problem. So, too, is sexism. And the fact that we can openly discuss the one and not the other is doubling down on sexism.

THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF DOUBLE STANDARD SERIES:

I: THE BATTLE OF THE SEXISM

II: LOOK ONE WAY BEFORE CROSSING (you are here)

III: HEADS, YOU’RE SEXIST; TAILS, I’M NOT

IV: DIGGING FOR GLASS

---

I hereby nominate chauvinism watchdog website, Madam Premier—due to its excellence in treating anti-female chauvinism differently than anti-male chauvinism—for a “Misandrist of the Year” award. Madam Premier (who has been interviewed for its expertise by both CKNW and CBC Radio) looks for examples where Canadian premiers are treated differently than male politicians, which once again, I think is a laudable goal: let’s highlight any instances of sexism so that we can figure out why they’re still happening, and whether they’re having a significant effect on our political process. Unfortunately, the organization seems to seek the answer it already has in mind, as opposed to simply documenting what it discovers.

First, Madam Premier only identifies examples where it perceives female Premiers to be treated differently in a negative or sexist way, but it does not cite cases where the opposite occurs, that is, where her sex protects her from scrutiny (as in the case noted in THE BATTLE OF SEXISM in which Christy Clark made a phallic dysfunction joke). Nor does it note examples in which male Premiers are targeted with sexist remarks.

Second, Madam Premier commonly notes cases where Premier Clark’s appearance is questioned; I think this is a reasonable criticism since “looks” should have nothing to do with political office, and the Canadian media does not usually examine politicians’ appearance. Madam Premier, however, seems unwilling to acknowledge that there have also been instances where male politicians are singled out for their looks (talk to Dalton McGuinty, Gregor Robertson, and Justin Trudeau for verification). It may be the case that Ms. Clark is hit more often (or in a different way) by such devolved and irrelevant talk, but until Madam Premier is willing to compare her to analogous male politicians, the alleged double standard is impossible to assess fairly.

Third, a major portion of Madam Premier’s collection is filled by instances of citizens making vile and/or sexist comments online. My objection here is that, along with identifying this disgusting material, Madam Premier implies that our society in general embodies a matching level of chauvinism. The website seems oblivious to the nature of anonymous internet fiends (commonly referred to as “trolls”) who slither around the web making the most insidious comments they can fuse together with their limited brain cells. It is because sexism against women is taboo that they make use of it. They want to be shocking. In my experience, they spew equally awful statements against men, but because anti-male sexism is not currently taboo, they attack from other angles that they think will be more damaging.

Assessing society’s mores by collecting the thoughts of the internet’s most vicious is suspect. I’m not saying that we can’t learn something from the trend within such a compilation, but Madam Premier ought to temper their accusations against the rest of us by recognizing the particular antisocial source of these cruel tirades.

On the other hand, Madam Premier and other supposedly anti-discrimination groups do not collect any of the anti-male sexist language that is used every day by much more influential pundits on radio and television. For one of many never-discussed instances, after the US presidential debate between Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney, commentators on CNN accused the two would-be leaders of the world—who both had the audacity to assertively argue for their candidacy—of being “little boys,” “puffing out their chests,” and displaying “too much testosterone.” Not only were these misandrist statements sanctioned by other media, they were supported as the phrases de jour, and echoed on many talk shows (including BC talk shows). In contrast, similar commentary against two female politicians would have been instantly (and correctly) condemned, and led to the firing of the perpetrators.

Fourth, Madam Premier helps itself to some impressive assumptions of intention about the writers they deride. Consider their current lead “misogyny” story from a 2011 editorial by Times columnist Iain Hunter. Along with identifying what sounds like some sexist or at least offensive comments from Hunter, it also makes some wild extrapolations about his intentions in cases where he appears to be empathizing with perceived extra challenges for women in politics; its criticisms of Hunter, in those cases, rely on unsubstantiated interpretations of him, which could easily be applied to Madame Premier with the same result.

The double standard is growing.

---

For your consideration, I’ve included the entire anti-Hunter transcript here with three perspectives:

(A) Hunter’s offending comments identified by Madam Premier, (B) Madam Premier’s response to Hunter, and (C) SethBlogs’ response to Madam Premier’s response.

MADAM PREMIER: From today’s Times Colonist newspaper comes a truly enraging column. Iain Hunter makes jokes about eating disorders, dismissive comments about the gender of a female premier, and more. (The full column is available here.) Some quotes:

HUNTER: If the legislative precinct makes her sick, as she has said it does, why is Christy Clark so keen, apparently, to stay there as premier? Is there such a thing as political bulimia?

MADAM PREMIER: Hunter makes casual jokes about bulimia.

SETHBLOGS: Hunter’s use of bulimia may be tasteless, but from a pundit who likes to write on the edge, the metaphor is not necessarily sexist. I’m not sure I see the difference between referencing this disease and others so commonly called upon in the rhetoric, such as cancer, schizophrenia (although it is usually confused with disassociative personality disorder), and, of course, impotence. I realize that bulimia is more common to women than men, so Hunter may have intended it as a sexist remark, but I don’t think we can assume so.

HUNTER: A lot of it has to do with [Clark’s] sex.

MADAM PREMIER: Hunter suggests that her unpopularity is because she’s a woman.

SETHBLOGS: Taken in context, I’m not sure that’s what Hunter meant: it sounded, to me, more like he was arguing that Clark is at a disadvantage because she’s a women. Either way, if Hunter is accusing the political process and/or the electorate of being sexist, how does that prove that he is sexist against women? He may be wrong, but isn’t he arguing the same thing as Madam Premier, that politics are harder on women than men? In fact:

HUNTER: Political leadership makes hard demands of women.

MADAM PREMIER: Hunter condescendingly suggests that all women aren’t up for leadership.

SETHBLOGS: Again, even if Hunter is wrong that politics are especially demanding on women, why does Madam Premier think his argument contains an implication that women can’t handle politics? Could Hunter not be arguing that politics are more work for women because he believes we still live in a chauvinistic society, in the same way that Madam Premier argues in its mission statement, “It’s not easy being a woman in politics—even when you’re the Premier of a Canadian province”?

HUNTER: Trying to be more like men throws away the only advantage they have. Floppy grey pant suits don’t suit.

MADAM PREMIER: Hunter implies that “the only advantage” women in politics have is their sexuality and appearance.

SETHBLOGS: And, finally, I think Madam Premier has a legitimate complaint. Although I think they targeted the wrong part of Hunter’s argument (that is, onace again, I’m not sure why suggesting that women don’t have advantages is sexist towards them: once more, isn’t that Madam Premier‘s point? That female politicians are at a significant disadvantage to male politicians because of how they’re treated?). But Hunter’s suggestion that female politicians are “trying to be more like men” is a grand assumption of his own that women are pretending to be “masculine” at the expense of their natural femininity. I’m not sure in what way he thinks Clark is acting like a male, but it may be that she’s acting like herself, even if that person does not match Hunter’s expectation of how women normally behave. (Certainly, from my perspective, Clark sounds the same as when I listened to her on the radio as a talk show host.) Moreover, Hunter’s floppy pant suit metaphor strikes me as cheap and potentially sexist since it reduces the conversation about a politician to a genre of clothing that is primarily (if not exclusively) worn by female politicians, and how it fits them.

HUNTER: …delegates chose a leader, not for leadership abilities, but because they thought a woman had the best chance of keeping their party in power.

MADAM PREMIER: Hunter says that BC Liberal Party members—who democratically elected Premier Clark as leader—only picked her because they decided to take a ‘chance’ on a woman.

SETHBLOGS: Certainly, Hunter is insulting the BC Liberal Party for playing politics with their choice of leader, but it’s not necessarily sexist for someone to suggest that a political party had faulty motives. In my reading of Hunter’s entire article, he doesn’t seem to be arguing that by definition every vote for a female is a vote for her sex. However, Hunter is suggesting that, in this particular case, if Clark were a male radio star who had been out of politics for several years, he would not have been elected by his party. This may be wrong, but it’s not necessarily sexist to suggest that particular voters are gender biased; isn’t that what Madam Premier argues every day?

To that end, I’d like to submit the following for consideration as a future entry in Madam Premier’s archive of chauvinism:

Check out this condescending mission statement from Madam Premier about women in politics:

MADAM PREMIER: It’s not easy being a woman in politics…

MADAM PREMIER (suggested by SETHBLOGS): Madam Premier assumes that women want an easy ride in politics.

MADAM PREMIER: …even when you’re the Premier of a Canadian province.

MADAM PREMIER (suggested by SETHBLOGS): Madam Premier assumes that women working in a powerful male-dominated profession ought to have an easier life than women working in female-dominated professions.

MADAM PREMIER: Follow along as we share some upsetting examples of continued sexism in Canadian politics.

MADAM PREMIER (suggested by SETHBLOGS): Madam Premier capitalizes on the stereotype that women are overly emotional and easily upset.

For the sense of humourless among us, let me state for the Sethblogs’ record that I am joking. I am attempting to satirize Madam Premier’s style of assumption by using it against them. Of course, there is nothing misogynistic about Madam Premier’s mission statement, but if they applied the same style of jumping to conclusions to themselves that they do when analyzing literature they describe as sexist, they unfortunately would have no choice but to indite themselves as well.

---

THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF DOUBLE STANDARD SERIES:

I: THE BATTLE OF THE SEXISM

II: LOOK ONE WAY BEFORE CROSSING (you were just here)

III: HEADS, YOU’RE SEXIST; TAILS, I’M NOT

IV: DIGGING FOR GLASS

Sexism is a problem. So, too, is sexism. And the fact that we can openly discuss the one and not the other is doubling down on sexism.

THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF DOUBLE STANDARD SERIES:

I: THE BATTLE OF THE SEXISM (you are here)

II: LOOK ONE WAY BEFORE CROSSING

III: HEADS, YOU’RE SEXIST; TAILS, I’M NOT

IV: DIGGING FOR GLASS

---

British Columbia is an interesting place in which to study the battle of sexism. As of the most recent election, the ratio of women to men in the legislature, while the highest it has ever been, is still 16% below the 50-50 ratio that one might expect in a sexism-free society. The ongoing disparity has provoked the BC NDP to create a diversity quota that restricts future candidates by gender (as well as race, disability, and sexuality); that is to say, that modern pariah, the white, heterosexual, bi-pedal male should wait at the back of the line before applying. Meanwhile, upon noticing in 2012 that she was less popular with women than she was with men, BC Premier Christy Clark held a women-only meeting. Both policies are discriminatory against men, and yet many feel that they are justified by the gender imbalance in BC politics. I disagree.

Discriminating against anyone, for any reason other than merit in the area to which they are applying, is serious business. Allowing sex or gender to be the deciding distinction between candidates is a dangerous precedent to set, and so before tacitly authorizing political agencies to undertake such a drastic action, we must demand critical study in the area where they claim there is an unnatural disparity.

When considering if intervention is required, we must first establish that there is a likelihood of systemic sexism that is causing the alleged problem. If fewer women are elected to the BC legislature because (or partly because) some of the voters are sexist, then that would not be an example of systemic sexism. Unfortunate as it may be, the rules of democracy are clear: the voters get to decide. We cannot tell the people who to vote for, no matter how egalitarian and well-meaning our intentions.

Personally, for example, I think society would do better with more academics in politics (to the chagrin of Canadian voters who hated intellectuals such as Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, while adoring man-of-the people, Jack Layton, who did his best to hide his academic pedigree). As much as our government may be better served by a more intellectual culture, the people have the right to their prejudice against the erudite among us. This may not be ideal, but the benefits of allowing everyone in on electoral decisions necessitates the unfortunate result that we allow everyone—even bigots—in on the decisions.

If, however, it can be found that there is sexism inherent in the infrastructure of our political process, then that would be antidemocratic, because it would suggest that a few people running the system are influencing the results that represent all of us. The people have a right to be sexist; our institutions do not. And so, given the continuing disparity of women versus men reaching political office (and complaints that women still have an unfair disadvantage), I would favour a nonpartisan, academic investigation into our political framework to see if the intuition that there is a systemic problem can be verified.

Thus far (without such a targeted study cited in my listening), the only potential culprit of systemic sexism I have heard mentioned is that women have a more difficult time becoming candidates because—while the electorate will vote for them—those with the chequebooks to fund political campaigns are less likely to support women than men. It’s possible, of course, that this is a nonsexist discrepancy: it’s conceivable that, if there are general differences in the personalities and aptitudes of the sexes, the style by which men tend to fundraise may happen to resonate more with financial supporters. However, by allowing fundraising success to be a significant factor in determining the candidates for public office, we are inviting a small percentage of people (the wealthy) to have a greater impact on our elections than the rest. Thus, if it turns out that such high-income people tend to be sexist in their decision making, then by a loophole in the democratic process, we would be condoning systemic sexism.

But the solution to systemic sexism is not NDP-style systemic sexism in the opposite direction, which is a blunt instrument that may overcompensate for the problem. Far from combatting systemic sexism, such a policy increases it, while hoping that the offsetting discrimination will create a zero-sum level of sexism.

Instead, then, if we agree that the ability to convince a few wealthy citizens to contribute money to one’s campaign is not a quality that is intrinsically relevant to political office, then we should take such fundraising out of the equation. Political candidates ought to be allotted equal funds by their parties. This may be a major change to our political system, but given that the NDP have successfully imposed a discriminatory policy based on race, gender, and sexuality to choose their candidates (without a major backlash), there is clearly an appetite for a significant adjustment in the name of egalitarianism.

Nevertheless, in spite of that commonsense antidote for possible systemic sexism in political fundraising, the muddy waters in which BC’s discussion of sexism resides have blocked any consideration of it. All sexism is bundled together as one problem that can only be solved by parachuting more women into politics.

Women-in-politics advocacy group, Equal Voice BC, argues for increased female representation by noting that women are more likely to work on important women’s issues, and that, in general, governments that include a critical mass of women tend to accomplish more because they are less combative. In other words, Equal Voice BC supports gender-profiling political candidates. I would say this anti-male argument was despicable if it weren’t so common, and unquestioned in the media.

I have yet to witness a BC commentator acknowledge the distinction between gender representation quotas (where we require a minimum percentage of one or both genders for more balanced gender representation) and gender profiling quotas (where we require an increased percentage of one gender in a particular arena because they are thought to have superior abilities); while gender representation quotas at least have a theoretical basis in fairness, gender profiling quotas are openly claiming that one gender is more valuable than the other. Yet gender profiling quotas are able to ride the coat tails of the perceived fairness contained within gender representation quotas, and thus keep pundits from questioning them.

Moreover, the fact that the gender profiling of candidates is spoken of so freely among advocates (without fear of being branded by pundits as gender-discrimination purveyors) is evidence of a double standard with regard to how the media treats anti-male and anti-female sexism. If advocacy groups were ever to gender-profile in men’s favour, they would be promptly denounced as chauvinistic. That is, if someone suggested that we need a higher percentage of men in an occupation by arguing that there is a critical mass of men that would allow us to achieve a particular goal, that advocate would be wearing tar and feathers within the day (and rightfully so).

It may be the case that more women in politics would cause more work to be done on behalf of causes that benefit women (which may or may not be justified, depending on the society in which such work would happen), as well as generally getting more government tasks accomplished, but ethically, we ought to be asking whether those potential ends justify such discriminatory means.

Gender profiling quotas are a dangerous type of discrimination. Even if it can be established that one sex tends to be superior to the other in a particular trait, the real world disparity in the two sexes’ abilities would never fit the profile quota exactly, and so we would be dismissing qualified people because the group to which they belong happened to generally fare worse in the aptitude we were seeking. Although it is more work, I suggest that—instead of identifying the sex that more often coincides with a desired characteristic—advocacy groups should simply look for people who demonstrate the experience or aptitude in question.

For instance, if a feminist watchdog organization has evidence that a crucial issue is being ignored, they should promote candidates who seem to support their concern. Such politicians may happen to be more often women than men, but so long as they are selected for their individual merits, men would have no reason to complain of gender discrimination.

The blanket notion, in contrast, that we should aim for more women in politics because women will produce better results is an affront to the collective value that a person should be measured by his or her individual ideas and skills as opposed to his or her sex or race. If advocacy groups want to argue against that guiding principle, so be it, but they should be challenged by the same assertiveness from the media that would automatically be aimed at a group or person who would suggest that we should choose more men for a particular job “because they’re better at it.” And yet, when interviewing such sexist advocacy groups, most pundits don’t acknowledge the drastic measures being suggested.

I think the reason for such uncritical thought is twofold:

(1) Pundits are afraid to be seen as sexist if they criticize a women’s advocacy group, and

(2) Sexism has so many layers to it that commentators tend to treat it as one big black-and-white question: are you in favour of a society that discriminates against women or not? You’re either with them or against them, and if you’re with them, you can’t question the means they suggest for solving the problem.

The fact is, there are still fewer women in politics than men, and this very well could be the result of something chauvinistic; consequently, any means of combating the apparent problem is seen as righteous, regardless of whether it crosses ethical lines.

Some argue that such a double standard is justified by the double standards that likely caused the disparity in the first place. Once again, this line of reasoning compounds the problem by multiplying the double standards against each other; instead, then, I submit that our goal should be to seek out and destroy all sexism, regardless of its orientation: give egalitarianism a chance by having a genuine zero-tolerance policy for anything that contradicts it.

This means that one rule fits all. Commentators tend to point out examples where female politicians are treated more harshly because of their sex. I think this is a worthwhile exercise. The standard of investigation, however, is not applied equally to identifying examples of male politicians being treated more negatively because of their sex, or female politicians receiving less harsh treatment because of theirs. Such non-traditional sexism cases are sometimes noticed by the pundits, but they are rarely scrutinized with the same outrage as those where female politicians seem to be disadvantaged.

For instance, when Premier Christy Clark was criticized for making a phallic dysfunction joke at the expense of her ex-husband (after her microphone stand failed to perform at a speaking engagement), a regular pundit on CKNW’s Bill Good Show laughed and noted that Mr. Good’s microphone was bigger than she recalled. This piling onto the controversial joke prefaced her commentary that Ms. Clark’s irreverent remarks were being taken too seriously. Perhaps the commentator was right, and we should allow our politicians more room for “edgy” humour, but I suspect that if the joke were on the other sex, a Mr. Christy Clark would not have escaped criticism so quickly, and might even be out of a career by now.

Clearly, we possess a double standard in the way we respond to double standards: double standards against men are rarely treated as seriously as those against women. Until this trend is combated, a sexism-free political process is even further away than we hope.

---

THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF DOUBLE STANDARD SERIES:

I: THE BATTLE OF THE SEXISM (you were just here)

II: LOOK ONE WAY BEFORE CROSSING

III: HEADS, YOU’RE SEXIST; TAILS, I’M NOT

IV: DIGGING FOR GLASS

Recently, a passenger on a WestJet flight, calling him (or her) self “David,” left a chauvinistic note about the female pilot, who had the audacity to desert her homemaking obligations in favour of taking a position at the head of the plane. Said the passenger:

“The cockpit of an airliner is no place for a woman. And woman being a mother is the most honor. Not as ‘Captain’…”

So went the grammatically-challenged rant that would have made the men of Mad Men feel sheepish. It’s clearly an awful and sexist note, but I’m amazed to see the symphony of reaction to it from both social and traditional media as though it’s significant. Before jumping 30,000 feet to conclusions, I think we should consider three questions:

(1) Do we have any idea of the personal context of the writer of the rant?

He could be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or—judging from his apparent struggles with English—a visitor from a more gendered and/or sexist culture, so why are the mutterings of one individual—who is probably not a public figure and may not be a person with influence in our country—getting us worked up?

(2) Even if “David” is as sane and educated as the next Sethblogs’ reader, why does it matter if one citizen expresses sexist opinions?

In her interview with CTV, the victim of the note—17-year veteran pilot Carey Steacy—said that this is her first encounter with such unabashed sexism; so, while this experience may be worthy of her blog as a disturbing (or “funny,” as she put it) example of humanity, in the grand scheme of public discourse, why do we care about the rantings of one equality-challenged moron? (I’m estimating, based on what the pilot said, that she’s received direct sexism from 0.0001% of the people she’s encountered.)

While (hopefully) we as a society have managed to outlaw sexism in the workplace, and in public institutions, did anyone really think that all minds (from all bigotries of life) would immediately agree? I’m surprised and delighted that the pilot has received so few sexist remarks given that she’s of such a significant minority in her field, but in this social networking world, it doesn’t matter how often something sinister happens, it only matters how often it’s re-tweeted.

I don’t feel sorry for “David”: since he openly insulted his pilot, people are free to retaliate, but what baffles me is that they seem to be arguing with him as though he’s more than an individual citizen with radical opinions. They burn him in a straw man effigy and then they suggest that he is a symptom of a serious problem in the airline industry that needs to be fixed.

(3) So, most significantly, why are we not criticizing feminist leaders for using the tiny rantings of a single passenger as a muse for misandry?

In the CBC Radio version of the story, they asked a women’s advocacy group what they thought about this circumstance, and the one-track-minded agency predictably helped themselves to the “chauvinism for chauvinism” conclusion that the incident demonstrated that we should have more women at the helm of planes. Wow, that’s a serious policy initiative provoked by one stupid note, and yet the CBC reporter informed us of the suggestion with a straight voice as though there was no need for her as a journalist to question it.

If WestJet wants to ban “David” from their flights because he was openly rude to one of their employees, I would have no objection, but for an advocacy group to leap from the behaviour of one bad customer to a major human resources policy change deserves serious discussion. In the absence of proven sexist hiring policies against women, the notion of purposely hiring more women pilots (to teach David a lesson) means that airlines would have to reduce the number of successful male applicants; that is to say, airlines would have to discriminate against men. And based on what evidence?

Yes, it’s the case that not every citizen believes in equal rights for women (and vice versa), but individual people have a right to believe whatever they choose. It’s not the airline’s job to educate their passengers; it’s their job to have fair hiring policies, and if there is evidence that they don’t, then that should be protested and rectified.

No matter how educated and egalitarian our population becomes, we will probably never rid our society completely of sexist minds. So it is society’s job to try to protect our population from those bigots, not to the let the bigots provoke discrimination of a different kind.

According to Translink (British Columbia edition), sexual assaults on Metro Vancouver transit are becoming more frequent. If they’re right, then that’s troubling (especially if it’s a significant rate of increase), and I hope that transit, and society in general, is able to reverse this trend.

My concern on this blog, however, is the misandrist rhetoric that seems to inevitably result any time there is news of individual men assaulting women. As in the case of the apparent serial rapist who terrified the citizens of the UBC campus last year, there seems to be a belief amongst some feminist commentators (who are unchecked by the media that interviews them) that, because most reported sexual assaults are committed by men, most men are guilty.

Consider Angela Marie MacDougall, the Executive Director of Battered Women’s Support Services, who told CKNW’s Simi Sara that:

“…the biggest thing that we have to say is that men have to stop. It’s just really something about our culture where there’s this idea that men can do this type of sexual violence with impunity.”

By the word impunity, MacDougall seems to imply that our culture condones, or at least doesn’t care about, men attacking women. Oddly, in my couple of decades of riding transit several times a week, I’ve never witnessed a sexual assault (even though I’m the sort who’s naturally wary that a bad agent could board my bus at any time, so I’m usually watching for misconduct). Nevertheless, MacDougall says that:

“… 90% of [women], in terms of the straw poll that [she’s] done, and some surveys that [she’s] seen, and research that [she’s] done, experience at least one form of sexual harassment or sexual assault while on public transportation.”

That is an extraordinarily high number, for which I would like to see the source study and its parameters (I think we should always be respectful but skeptical of high numbers coming from non-profit agencies who have a vested interest in convincing donors that their area of work needs significant aid).

Nevertheless, even if the true number is considerably less than 90%, it may still be a deplorable total. That doesn’t mean, however, that men in general are committing these crimes: instead, it’s likely that a tiny but prolific percentage of males are performing these ugly deeds. But MacDougall uses the 90% victim number, before calling out men in general, as a means of luring our brains into thinking that a high percentage of men commit sexual assault.

This trick of language echoes the anti-male word choice used by feminists at UBC last year when there appeared to be a serial rapist on campus. As I articulated in my post TAKING OFFENCE, after the rapist had attacked a fourth woman, and police asked students—women in particular—to be extra careful when walking at night, feminist students complained that this safety plea was offensive:

Instead of telling women not to get raped, they said, we should be telling men not to rape women.

Men? What do men in general have to do with an individual predator?

The anti-male claim that masculinity in general provokes male sexual violence requires evidence beyond speculation. It’s conceivable that our society’s construction (or lack of deconstruction) of gender is partly to blame for some sexual assaults on women. However, that still does not justify blaming men, altogether. There are many men who despise macho culture (which is allegedly to blame), and have no interest in preserving it (for that matter, there are some women who support and cheer on macho men: go to a Canucks’ game and notice that it’s not only the male fans who celebrate the fights). So what does the average male who politely goes about his day have to do with violent criminals?

While the design of our society may have something to do with why some men assault women, and it may be a higher percentage of men who contribute to a psychopathic belief that rape is permissible, I would bet that the vast majority of Canadian men believe that rape is a horrific crime. And yet, without evidence to the contrary, “men” are treated as though they are all complicit in the actions of individual rapists.

(It is an odd extrapolation, which, against any other group, would be denounced as bigotry: for instance, if the assailant turned out to be a member of a racial minority, would we call out that racial group and tell them to stop raping women?)

Nevertheless, not only do misandrist feminists blame all men for the sins of terrible individuals, they also argue that mens’s shared choice of washroom obligates the apparently few of us who don’t directly assault women to take responsibility for our gender’s alleged embarrassment and to talk to our friends about their bad habits. Says MacDougall:

“…this is a social issue that really goes beyond what the police can do. So it does take for the men… to speak with other men about the importance of respecting women, of looking at that culture of masculinity, and the ways in which gender violence is endemic in that, and for those men that choose not to be violent, or to do sexual violence on transit, to raise their voice to those that do. That really matters, and I think that goes a long way.”

I’m touched by the way she says, “for those men that choose not to be violent…,” as though we all have urges to attack women. Who are these men that MacDougall wants me to talk to? I’m not aware that I’ve ever met such a person. In my many years of playing a variety of sports, I’ve never heard a man tell another guy that he enjoys sexually assaulting women in his free time.

I’d say if anyone ever hears anyone else plotting to assault a woman (or any person) on transit, the best thing to do is to call the police. If the assault is in progress, I think that most people will do what they can for their fellow citizens, and I certainly hope that I would step in. Perhaps the strongest people present (usually men) are the best candidates for such an intervention, but I would not do so because I felt guilty as a man that another man was a criminal; instead, if I had the courage to intervene in such a dangerous situation (and I hope I would), it would simply be because I wanted to help a fellow citizen who might otherwise get hurt.

For today’s rant, I’d like to zoom in on how some university students have been trained by their gender studies professors to view their world, and how the media is terrified to question them.

---

As a result of the six sexual assaults against female students at UBC this past summer (crimes that police say were probably committed by one violent individual), officials increased campus patrols and asked students—especially female students—to be extra careful when walking at night. According to CKNW news reporters, some students said they were “offended” by this request because it “implies that [female students] are asking for trouble.”

Oh my: where have all the good arguments gone? Asking students to be careful, when someone is, literally, out to get them, is not in any way blaming the victims; instead, it is simply trying to reduce students’ risks of further attacks. Sadly, there will probably always be violent human predators in our society: they seem to be a fact of nature (and/or nurture), and like other such powerful forces, the act of preparing for them, so as to mitigate their reach, is a reasonable thing to do. Asking students to participate in their own safety is not insulting them; it is showing care and respect for them, as it suggests that they can be proactive in their own safety.

I am aware of the concern with blaming victims, and I think it is legitimate to check law enforcement for language that seems to suggest the victims are culpable for crimes committed against them. However, what is the basis for criticism here? If these critics were to script the perfect phrases for the police in cases where there is a dangerous offender in their neighbourhood, what would they suggest? And if such critics were aware of precautions that, in their experience, seem to reduce one’s chance of becoming a victim, would they withhold the information just to avoid suggesting that one could reduce one’s risk? (To that end, would they consider the suggestion of taking a self-defence class also to be offensive?)

I am baffled by the lack of critical thinking exhibited by these complaining university students from my alma matter. What exactly are they arguing? Should one never adjust one’s behaviour for the sake of safety? Are these auto-offended students really advocating that their classmates go solo wherever they normally would at night, and not worry about a possible assault, because after all, they’re not doing anything wrong? (By that same argument, one shouldn’t practice defensive driving either.) This is a dangerous suggestion that could put easily-persuaded students at increased risk, which makes me wonder why the journalists who reported the students’ radical argument (that safety suggestions are offensive) didn’t seem to challenge them.

Why didn’t the reporters ask the allegedly offended students what the alternative was to the police’s request for students to be vigilant (and avoid being alone as much as possible) when walking at night until the rapist was caught? I realize reporters are loathe to criticize female university students who are claiming to be feminists, but when those students are making potentially dangerous arguments, is it not the duty of journalists to challenge them?

One such feminist student was, in fact, given a forum on CKNW to explain why the safety request was offensive: instead of telling women “not to get raped,” she explained, “we should tell men not to rape women.”

I’ll take on the misandrist element of this remark in my next post Attacking Men, but for now, I would like to clarify something: law enforcement agencies that advocate being careful in dangerous situations are not necessarily suggesting that criminals have a right to commit violent crimes in poorly lit areas. Instead, it’s conceivable that the police want to catch the bad guys, but are aware that they cannot be omnipresent, and so, until they have cleared the streets of all violent offenders, they are suggesting, that—for our own safety—we the citizens avoid dangerous situations when feasible. I think the police probably thought it was implied—by their increased patrols apparently aimed at catching the rapist—that they are, in fact, opposed to rape. Indeed, I think all but a tiny fraction of the male population consider rape to be a moral outrage. So telling men not to rape when there’s a serial rapist in our neighbourhood would be like reminding citizens not to murder when there’s a serial murderer out there.

Nevertheless, these bizarre arguments were published without any criticism by the Vancouver media. This is not good news for the pursuit of gender equality: when the worst arguments are allowed to spread without contradiction as representatives of feminism, genuine equality-persuing feminism is unlikely to see much time in the spotlight.

Misandry, the hatred of men, is rarely identified in popular Canadian culture, and yet it seems—to my increasingly sensitive ears—to be growing in popularity. It is difficult to know whether or not misandry is, in fact, now more prevalent in Canada than its anti-female sibling, but it is clear that, whereas misogyny has been effectively pushed to the shadows (such that it is politically dangerous for any public person to be perceived as under its influence), anti-male sexism is openly practiced on our public airwaves every day.

---

SETHBLOGS UPDATE: Reviewing this post after many years of studying the battles of sexism, I see that—in these next paragraphs—I will be guilty of that which I accuse present-day Western culture. That is, I will presume that, during certain times and places (for instance, Western society’s deep past), sexism has been much harsher against women and girls than it has been against men and boys. I now see that such an assumption is not as easily assumed as I assumed. As with those I accuse in the present, my no-nuance conclusion relies on me forgetting to consider the obligations and privileges of both sexes.

For instance, while, yes, team men acquired the franchise before women as a group , those men were simultaneously being drafted into wars that their female counterparts were not. Certainly, in that past—as well as in current-day religion-run cultures—gender was a thicker dividing line which restricted women’s freedom, but I negelected to observe that it also demanded particular duties of men. I stand by modern agnosticism that I don’t know which sex has in total been most mistreated by gender expectations, but I retract my unearned conclusion that women necessarily suffered greater mistreatment in our past than men did. As with those who jump to that thesis about men and women today, I was riding a stereotype, which may or not have been right. 

Nevertheless, the spirit of this post remains a match for my current feelings. Regardless of the status of the historical scorecard, in modern discussions of sexism, the consensus is that women are the sole victims of it, and men are the leading perpetrators. I believe such generalizations are sexist and have potentital to hurt our society, and so I intend to take them on.

And now back to SethBlogs 2014 oversimplifying the backstory.

—SethBlogs, April 2021

---

I believe that, in the history of this world, anti-female chauvinism has had more power than the reverse, but, as we’ve seen in the last century, our society can change rapidly. As George Orwell expressed in Animal Farm, the oppressed can become the oppressors if we don’t scrutinize them with the same intensity as we did their predecessors. It is not my intention to argue that public misandry in Canada is as influential today as misogyny may have been previously (and perhaps continues to be in nations where chauvinistic religious teachings overpower secular democratic philosophy); instead, I am arguing that no one should be the victim of bigotry, even if one’s gender-similar ancestors started it.

Thus, with this post at its launching pad, I intend to write an Anti-Misandry series within SethBlogs (simply click the Sethics vs. Misandry link in the Categories to the right of this post to see all future arguments). In this introduction, I am not yet making the case that misandry is running free in our public discourse: I will leave that to my upcoming posts. However, I will suggest here, for those who are skeptical that such pervasive sexism against men could possibly exist in a world that has for so long been ruled by Kings before Queens, that the swinging of the pendulum may be an inevitable result of human nature.

For the average human ego, a disadvantage is as good as an achievement. We will often highly esteem in ourselves the obstacles we believe we have endured as much as we appreciate our official results. (It’s simple mathematics of the ego: if getting to the top rung on whatever ladder of success one is climbing is considered good, then arriving there from the bottom rung is more impressive than inheriting the position.)

The tricky thing is, then, since most human egos yearn to see their life in the most complimentary possible analysis, we will want to credit ourselves with as many disadvantages as we can get away with. This means that, even if the freedoms and opportunities for our particular group improve, our natural tendency will be to resist noticing or acknowledging when things change for our better. (This is not to say that those who claim disadvantage are incorrect, but merely that we cannot, as many gender analysis studies do, take self-reporting as infallible.)

Moreover, on the other side of the distinction, it is also predictable that those people who are accused of continuing to enjoy condemned historical advantages will be reticent to question their accusers (especially if they want to be seen as progressive). Many men, for instance, who believe in gender equality—or at least want to be perceived so—would prefer to err on the side of anti-male language (and get credit for being a friend to all women) than to admit to feeling skeptical of a feminist claim.

These two inevitable forces, under the influence of politically correct rage against divergent opinion (as depicted in my posts, NO QUESTIONS ASKED and ONE OPINION FITS ALL), has yielded a media culture that is collectively incapable of critically assessing chauvinism. I have no doubt that there is still much anti-female sexism lingering in Canada, but—in the absence of genuine criticism of modern feminism—it’s difficult to know where we’re at.

(See, for instance, my post THE USEFUL CRUELTY OF SCRUTINY which documented CBC’s forced and condescending “International Women’s Day” piece regarding three allegedly disadvantaged women of Bay Street in Toronto.)

Thus, in opposition to these one-sided sexism discussions, this Anti-Misandry series will seek to identify cases of anti-male language which are allowed to roam free in the public discourse, unchecked by the Canadian (and sometimes American) media.

This is not meant to be an anti-feminist production. (That is, it is not opposed to feminism’s stated goal of persuing equality.) On the contrary, it is an egalitarian project: to my mind, the best nutrition for any philosophy is not to patronize it, but rather to criticize it so that only its best arguments persist.

---

Don’t take my word for it: before sampling my rant-filled waters, I suggest reading the foremother of anti-misandry, one of my philosophical heroes, Christina Hoff Sommers, in particular her book, Who Stole Feminism?

Journalism is vital to a free society; so too is criticism of the media. And yet SethBlogs doesn’t see as much oversight of the media’s methods as there are for other vital societal resources. SethBlogs suspects that this oversight oversight provokes lazy complacency among our favourite journalistic representatives.

UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LAZY JOURNALISM SERIES:

I: THE USEFUL CRUELTY OF SCRUTINY (OF IDEAS) (you are here)

II: EXTRA SENSORY PRESUMPTIONS (OF EMOTION)

III: SMYTH vs. THE FALSE DICHOTOMY (OF ROLES)

IV: EXTRA SENSORY PRESUMPTIONS (OF INTENTION)

V: THE EMPEROR HAS NO QUESTIONS (ON SEXISM)

VI: THE EMPEROR HAS NO QUESTIONS (ON RACISM)

---

In honour of International Women’s Day, CBC Radio sent a journalist straight into the heart of capitalism to find out how women are doing. The small survey provoked an eloquent, but, I would say, somewhat unsubstantial response. Nevertheless, instead of taking the women he interviewed seriously enough to critically question them, the reporter cheered on his three key witnesses as though they had courageously unearthed the soul of male chauvinism in our society. It was a puff piece of the worst kind because, to my mind, it lacked respect for the people it seemed to want to celebrate.

Thus, in belated honour of International Women’s Day, I would like to point out what I perceive to be a significant impediment to genuine feminism in Canada: most Canadian media refuse to grant the Canadian feminists the right to be questioned.

In the CBC report, our concerned and sensitive “journalist” travelled to Toronto’s Bay Street, where he apparently intended to acquire an insightful look at the plight of career women in the great metropolis by interviewing three female employees of capitalism. From their diverse stations in the economy, he received three stories of woe that he could only listen to with compassion.

(1) The first presenter, a lawyer, explained that she had lost her opportunity to make partner in her firm because she wasn’t willing to sacrifice her family life in order to work the relentless hours required. She therefore hoped in future that the lawyering world would desist in holding back those who wanted to succeed professionally and raise a family at the same time.

Now it would seem to me that a good journalist would question this argument. Does our heroine’s unfortunate circumstance have anything do with the mistreatment of women, or might it simply be a matter of pragmatism on the part of the law firm? In their highly competitive world, perhaps legal firms promote the people who put in the most work hours, regardless of what such over-working does to their personal lives. If it happens to be that more men than women are willing to let their home lives suffer, then—their bosses might say–so be it. Would they be wrong?

Such a promote-the-workaholics system may be harmful to the health of our society, and so may be worth looking into, but it would be logistically daunting—and perhaps ethically questionable—to force firms to restrict their employees’ efforts. This doesn’t mean that it is not a cause that should be pursued if the alternative is dire, but, by not asking his subject specifically what she would have her company—or society—do differently, and instead essentially saying, “You go girl!”, the reporter condescendingly cheers for women, but does nothing to further the discussion that could conceivably have influence on their actual circumstances.

(2) We next met a newly-acquired member of the Bay Street economy whose complaint—if it was one—was simply that so far she found it difficult working in a world where she was outnumbered by men. She said nothing in the piece about any patriarchal bias from the majority; apparently, simply the presence of more of one type of person than another should be sufficient to garner our sympathies for the outnumbered. Perhaps it should, but I would think a journalist would ask the minority representative for details of why the imperfect ratio troubled her.

Personally, I think the complaint deserves significant criticism: everyone is in the minority in some way or another in their life and, unless in that capacity you are experiencing actual bigotry, what’s the problem? (I’m not saying there isn’t a problem, but I would like to know what it is if it’s going to be used as an argument for change.) The reporter apparently felt the answer was self-evident and so did not see any need to ask his honoured victim a follow-up question. In doing so, he neglected his journalistic responsibility.

By not respecting the Bay Street critic with the same investigation he would impose on, let’s say, a male nurse who might complain about being outnumbered in his profession by women, the reporter cost us either a worthwhile justification for the dissatisfaction (which I—previously not sensitive to this difficulty—could have learned from), or perhaps he might have found evidence that he was, in fact, dealing with an unreasonable claim. In either case, to ask tough questions is to give the speaker the same consideration the reporter would any other interviewee: it would show that he sees her as responsible for (perhaps even capable of) defending her own argument.

But, when we laud any group’s claims as righteous no matter what, we avoid investigating their nuances. Surely, sometimes, being an objective journalist means we will find that a complaint is invalid (much, perhaps, to our chagrin), but sometimes it means we will find precisely why it is valid, which in turn may give us a better idea of what can be done about it.

(3) Finally, the interviewer approached what I found to be the most interesting commentator, a food court business owner. She explained that she was exhausted from playing the role of both full-time entrepreneur and leader of her family life. In the latter, she said she was lucky because she had a wonderful and supportive husband; nevertheless, her dream was to live in a world that assumed an equal domestic balance between the sexes.

This startled me that a husband could be described as wonderful and supportive, and yet not apparently willing to take on 50% of total chores in a dual-income family. Given again the reporter didn’t seem to ask any probing questions, we’ll just have to assume that the business owner was including in her math all work done by both members of the couple, including not only the traditionally female tasks, but also the traditionally male duties, and so I was intrigued by the discrepancy in her final count. While such an imbalance does not readily demonstrate sexism in her business world, it may indeed indicate that discrepracncies in work done at home makes professional work more fatiguing for women in general, and thus more difficult to succeed in.

I find this to be an intriguing complaint with no obvious solution, and so I would have been interested to hear if our third heroine had any suggestions for dealing with it. In some heterosexual teams, of course, it may be that the couple is content with the man taking on more of the paid work, while the women does more of the home work. But for those women and men who would rather the opposite, it may be difficult to find a teammate who matches their preferences. We can’t really legislate responsibilities within marriages, I wouldn’t think. Committed relationships are replete with personalities of various flavours, so maybe, as individuals, we simply have to take responsibility for our own needs and weed out out candidates until we find someone with the values/qualities we want. This is a disatisfying answer, I’m sure. Perhaps the alleged unwillingness of men in general to share in 50% of household chores is so prevalent that heterosexual women are left with little choice if they want to be in a relationship.

Or perhaps there is no problem at all, and our speaker was simply under-valuing the contributions of her husband.

I’m not sure what the answer is to these questions, but I would have been very interested to hear what the contributors had to say about them.

Instead, the reporter once again treated the feminist complaint as infallible, and so not worthy of investigation. In this paradigm, women are not diverse collections of traits just like men, capable sometimes of brilliance and occasionally of the opposite; instead, they are compressed into one category wherein all of their opinions are beautiful, by definition. That, to my thinking, is a good way to impede moral progress. As with any project, if the planner is never subjected to the cruelty of scrutiny, their results will suffer.

---

UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LAZY JOURNALISM SERIES:

I: THE USEFUL CRUELTY OF SCRUTINY (OF IDEAS) (you were just here)

II: EXTRA SENSORY PRESUMPTIONS (OF EMOTION)

III: SMYTH vs. THE FALSE DICHOTOMY (OF ROLES)

IV: EXTRA SENSORY PRESUMPTIONS (OF INTENTION)

V: THE EMPEROR HAS NO QUESTIONS (ON SEXISM)

VI: THE EMPEROR HAS NO QUESTIONS (ON RACISM)