Home > Issues > Gender Equity > Patriarchal Gender Equity

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies


Patriarchal Gender Equity

© Peter Zohrab

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

It is fascinating to delve into the lunatic things that Feminist academics get up to!  But these lunatic activites have seriously sad consequences for society.  I first came across Alison Towns in connection with a woman being let off scot-free after killing her male partner.  Since then I have been mining an article, of which she was the co-author, for insights into academic Feminist incompetence, misandry (man-hatred), deviousness and lies -- see Dominance and Entitlement: the Rhetoric and Lies which Feminist "Academics" Use to Control Men and  Propagate their Hatred of Men and Gavin's Conservative Ideology, extracted from under the Jackboots of Feminist Academics. I continue to mine that article, Peter J. Adams, Alison Towns and Nicola Gavey, "Dominance and Entitlement: The Rhetoric Men Use to Discuss their Violence towards Women" Discourse & Society 1995 6: 387, here.

The phrase "Patriarchal Gender Equity" may seem to be a contradiction in terms.  However, I think that that phrase has a certain practical validity, given that Adams et al. (1995) quote examples of what they clearly consider to be "patriarchal" views (although they do not use that word), and I will now quote excerpts which Adams et al. (1995) themselves quote, in order to show that those views in fact exemplify aspects of Gender Equity -- i.e. fairness as between men and women.  Whether a scholarly analysis of the term "Patriarchal" would also conclude that those views are Patriarchal is a question that I will leave unanswered for the present.

Here is the first excerpt:

My advice has always been to, not just to partners but to all females, that um if you have [phrase indistinct], then you've got to expect it back... It's a physical thing coming again, but the bottom line is, y'know, whether it's male or female, if you're gonna go and hit someone you've gotta expect it back... I'm not saying it's ok, but...  that's how in most cases a lot of it happens ("Tom", p. 294, emphasis ignored).

This excerpt is about gender equity as regards violence.  The implication is that women expect to be able to hit men without the men retaliating and/or that women hit men and are not punished for doing so.  This fits in with sexist, anti-male phenomena such as the White Ribbon Campaign, the fact that a male assault on a female is subject to a higher maximum penalty under New Zealand law than an assault by a female on a male, and the fact that the USA has a Violence Against Women Act but no Violence Against Men Act. 

Here is the second excerpt:

I'm not a chauvinist male ... There is a limit to what you really can do.  They've had this argument at the fire station.  Women trying to be firemen...  You got a high pressure hose that takes two full grown strong men to hold, it's gonna take four or five females.  Y'know, I'm not saying they can't be in the fire brigade or anything because there are other things they can do; driving the engine, whaever, you know.  But there is a limit to what a person is, all persons are capable of ("Tom", p. 398, emphasis ignored).

This excerpt, like the third and fourth excerpts, is about gender equity in employment.  Affirmative action in employment discriminates against men, because it prevents men from getting jobs for which they are physically qualified and gives them to women who are not physically qualified.  It is inefficient and wasteful, and provides the public with a second-rate service in essential services such as the fire service, the police and the armed forces.  It demoralises men working in those industries, because it forces them to treat as equals people (women) who are not their professional equals.  Moreover, there are no industries in which men are the beneficiaries of affirmative action and given jobs for which they are less qualified than available women are.

Here is the third excerpt:

But as the guys say, 'equal pay for equal work,' and um, you know when a van back into the, into the dispatch part of the um spare parts department and there's an engine to move, who moves the engine? (P.A.: Yeah).  It's not, it's not the women who do it, it's the guys who get out there and lift the heavy motor and, so I think if you're expecting equal pay for the same kind of work then I guess you, you've got to be prepared to do that sort of work as well.  I, I, I don't agree with that.  There's no way I'd stand by and watch a, watch a woman struggle with a heavy engine or something like that.  I, I would get in there and do it myself ("Doug", page 398, emphasis ignored).

Here is the fourth excerpt:

PA: You mean there's a lot of similarity between men and women? ...

Chris: Yep.  As long as they're prepared to do, yeah, the same amount of work...

PA: Yeah?  How do you, how do you see that?

Chris: As in, like, they want equal wages and stuff, but if it's a physical job and they can't do half the stuff.

PA: Yeah...

Chris: I don't mind helping them and stuff and um, you know, 'cos they're physically not as strong as men.  You know, I don't mind that, but like other jobs, you know, if they're, if they're not up to really putting in the hard physical stuff, you know, maybe they should get paid a little bit less. (page 398, emphasis ignored). 

Here is the fifth excerpt:

PA: So what do you think of women's rights and feminists?

Rob: Aw fuck them.  No they shouldn't be allowed.  Well I believe in ... they only want equality when it comes down to the workplace or earning money but they don't wanna be equal when it comes to fuckin' digging ditches or or or you know, or giving up their seats.  I've never seen a woman get up and give up her seat for a man in a bus or anything like that... they want their cake and eat it too... I dunno, it's evolved over years and years and now they're getting too cocky and all these business women.  I believe a woman's place (pause) is is like is equal.  It should be more of a lesser scale than a man really.  That's what I think.  I think they shouldn't be too dominant.  They should be equal.  I don't think they should dominate a man.  It's not right.  It's not nature (page 401).

In the fifth excerpt, Rob confronts the issue that women have privileges that men don't have -- yet the dominant ideology states that men and women are equal and/or should be equal.  Although he does not express himself very clearly, his message seems to be that, to compensate for their privileges in some areas of life, women should suffer some detriments in other areas of life.



As I have argued in my book, Sex, Lies & Feminism, a Liberal Masculist approach would be to say that men and women should be treated exactly the same, whereas a Conservative Masculist approach would propose that women retain their privileges, but that these be counterbalanced by different privileges which men would have, as well.  It is noteworthy that the individual men featured in the above excerpts seem to be aware of these sorts of issues, but it is disconcerting that their views are featured for the reason that they had recently been violent towards women.  It seems to me that Feminists merge the separate issues of Feminism/Anti-Feminism and Domestic Violence, and use the draconian, Feminist-inspired Domestic Violence laws to persecute Anti-Feminist men.

Given the Feminist domination of Domestic Violence policy in New Zealand, together with the anti-Feminist views of these men, it is my belief that Feminist individuals and/or groups pushed the partners of these men to behave in such a way towards these men that violence resulted.    Any violence perpetrated by the women would either not have been reported to the police or would have not been taken seriously by the police or the courts, whereas any violence by the men would have been both reported and treated seriously, with the result that the men underwent Feminist brainwashing (i.e. anti-violence) courses and came to the attention of Adams et al..  It is nothing short of Feminazi oppression for men to be persecuted for their beliefs in this way.



Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

24 July 2015