Home > Issues > General Theoretical Issues > Prostitution and Political Correctness

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies


Prostitution and Political Correctness

© Peter Zohrab 2005

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


Dr, Wayne Mapp has recently been appointed the National Party's Spokesman for Political Correctness Eradication. As he says in his article The Problem with Political Correctness, each of us has our own view on what is or is not politically correct. Perhaps that is why his article concentrates on only a few specific, serious issues -- as opposed to those issues which he considers trivial or merely amusing. Since women constitute more than half the electorate, it is perhaps not surprising that Feminism, including specific aspects of totalitarian Feminism (Feminazism), did not rate a mention.

His article concentrates on the coercive aspect of Political Correctness, but I would like to add to that the one-sided advocacy aspect of this phenomenon. Under the ideological system of Political Correctness, on issues where (for example) Maoris have strong views (e.g. on the pronunciation of place-names), generally only Maori views are consulted and publicised -- that is because the Politically Correct decision-maker (e.g. a journalist) "knows" whose views are correct, and so does not need to balance those views by asking an opponent of those views what they think.

Similarly, on issues where Feminists have strong views (e.g. on Female Circumcision, Domestic Violence, Rape, Child Sexual Abuse, etc.), only Feminist views need to be consulted and publicised, because the Politically Correct decision-maker (e.g. a journalist) "knows" whose views are correct, and so does not need to balance those views by asking an opponent of those views what they think.

This has a totalitarian effect on political decision-making and public opinion. For example, during the recent general election campaign, I heard the National Party Leader, Dr Brasch, say that he and Labour Party Leader Ms Clark had voted the same way on a recent Bill that legalised prostitution (I don't know the details of the Bill/Act, because I'm not interested in it). The reason he gave was that it was unfair for a prostitute to have to run the risk of being prosecuted when the client did not.

Most prostitutes are female and most of their clients are male, so this is partly a question of chivalry and anti-male sexism. Because, if it was as easy in Western societies to find a pro-male point of view as it is to find a pro-female point of view, a countervailing argument could easily have been found. For example, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (as amended), someone convicted of dealing with controlled drugs can get as much as a life sentence, whereas someone convicted of possession and use of controlled drugs cannot be imprisoned for longer than six months.

If the political culture was not swamped with one-sided publicity about the Feminist viewpoint, someone might have had a chance to point this out to Dr Brash. He (and others) might then have realised that punishing the prostitute and letting off the client was perfectly consistent with the way that the dealer and user are treated in the case of drugs.

I, and others, are constantly providing pro-male arguments, but we do this without state funding and in relative isolation. A lone person putting forward a novel argument appears odd, at best. If you create a novel Feminist argument as part of a state-funded "research" project, get one of the hordes of cloned Feminist journalists to publicise it, and get a lot of moronic Feminazi law-students to shout down anyone who disagrees with it, it is relatively easy to get that argument accepted in the marketplace of ideas.




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

7 August 2015