Between Women and Men

On the issue of feminism and equality of the sexes, I would like to thank Antoinette Rydyr (in her article “Feminism Versus Freedom”, Prohibited Matter #5) for her excellent, accurate and articulate comments about bull-feminists and their strange tendency of thinking no-one matters unless they agree with the feminist philosophy: that all men are rapists and therefore to achieve an equal society we must ensure that only women have rights.

At the risk of raising the ire of hardcore feminists the world over, let me say point blank that the single biggest weakness in the whole feminist (bowel) movement is the strange belief that women can somehow achieve equality without men.   No way!   I am sorry to have to tell this to you ladies, but it is impossible for women to achieve any kind of equality at all, unless it is equality between women AND MEN!   These are the only two sexes, women and men (if we rule out gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trisexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, string-vestites, leather-freaks, eunuchs, hermaphrodites, etc.), so unless women achieve equality with men, how the hell are they supposed to achieve equality at all?   Man-bashing female-domination (which hardcore feminists like Carmen Lawrence and Ita Buttrose, and male feminists like John Cain and Paul Keating seem to want) is not equality!

Before I go any further, let me set the record straight on the hardcore feminist term “inverted sexism”.   Not so long ago Ita Buttrose polluted the airwaves with a burst of verbal diarrhoea in which she said that due to there being more men than women at the executive level in this country, inverted sexism was necessary to even things up.   I disagree with this for two reasons.   Firstly as the cliché goes “two wrongs don’t make a right”.   Or to put it another way “Sexism + sexism = Double-sexism”, not equality as Ms Buttrose seems to think.   If sexism is wrong (and obviously it is) then double-sexism is doubly wrong.   Secondly the term “inverted sexism” is nonsense anyway.   There is no such thing as inverted sexism, because, despite what Ms Buttrose would have us believe, sexism does not mean “discrimination against women by men”.   Sexism means, “discrimination against women or men on the basis of their gender”.   So if we follow Ita Buttrose or Paul Keating’s policy of giving jobs to women because they are women, not because they are the best person for the job, we are not guilty of “inverted sexism”, we are guilty of “flagrant sexism”.   The only kind there is.   The whole point to equality is that when a job is available the best candidate should get it regardless of their gender.   When we decide to pick a woman for a job despite knowing she is not the best candidate available, we are not “evening things up” as Paul or Ita would like us to believe, we are acting in an openly sexist manner.