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
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