it's obvious to anyone who doesn't live under a rock that the tree of liberty is greatly withered and probably on its death knell if something doesn't change soon. I speak of rights and liberties in general, but the rights of men are first and foremost always at stake, whereas women in America rely upon privilige primarily. (Obviously, they have rights as well, but women in a totalitarian state can "prosper" from big government,whereas men cannot.) I use the word privilege intentionally. I once looked up the etymology of the word, finding that privilige comes from Latin words meaning "private law." Thus I am saying that big government creates privilige, women being among the primary benefactors, at least in the modern world, although in past socieites as well. That is, privilige is inherently unjust, being applied most often by the State to only certain groups. It is one thing for an individual to apply preference to a friend or family or a certain religion or philosophy; it is quite another matter entirely for the government to apply preference for certain groups. This is leads to a decay of rights. For one group to gain privilige from the government, another must be robbed of...something. This typically includes liberties and money, among other important things.
(Thus the group with privilege now votes for those so called leaders who grant more privilege to them, hence big government is the result. I'll assume that most reading this take this as a foregone conclusion.)
Therefore, men's rights are inherently intertwined with the size of the government. A big government is not to men's benefit. A healthy masculine portion cannot exist in a society in which Big Brother is, well...big. A small government doesn't have the resources to do much harm. A big government has all the resources it needs to do great harm.
And how many rights do men have in this society? Many of those rights either do not exist or are small.
Consider a man's right to defend himself. As a man, do you feel confident in your right to defend yourself if someone broke into your home? Or would you fear such a scenario because you are much more afraid of Big Brother punishing you for defending yourself?
I recall the story of Rayon McIntosh. He was the man who defended himself after being attacked by two women. Fortunately, he was cleared by a grand jury, but many in the man-o-sphere doubted this would happen, and rightfully so. Do you think mainstream society and the legal system would have had such a problem with this case if two men had attacked McIntosh instead of two women? It wouldn't have been a story. This is an excellent example of female privilege in this society. In a free and fair society, the initiation of force is a immoral regardless of who initiates it. In a saner world, it would be the violation of the principle that would be considered horrible, not the violation of privilege. No doubt many would have expected McIntosh to just take a beating, perhaps even be willing to die so that female privilege was not violated. I suspect that the two women who assaulted him were so egregious in their attack that McIntosh was eventually cleared of wrongdoing.
The other absent right I wish to speak of is the absence of men's reproductive rights. There is a severe double standard. Men's sperm is essentially regarded as not their own. It is de facto property of women. Ask yourself this, if a woman raped a man, or in some other way forcibly took his sperm, and used it to impregnate herself, birthing a child in the process.....would the man have any recourse? Would he have to pay child support? These are of course retorical questions for most reading this. It is, again, female privilege...that permits this - privilege that originates in a large government.
Lack of reproductive rights and lack of rights to defend himself are the two most egregious examples that men have virtually no rights in this society. The size of the government is inextricably connected to men's rights (or lack thereof.) If you are concerned about men's rights, you of course need to recognize the source of the problem and not the synmptoms. Even if many more like Rayon McIntosh are cleared of wrongdoing when they exercise their inalienable, inborn rights, this would only alleviate the symptoms of the problem. The problem is the system that punishes men for exercising rights.
A big government will inevitably result in a lack of men's rights. These two are not only correlated, there is causation with the large government stripping rights away. Therefore, any men's rights issue will inevitably lead to a critical eye being cast towards the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment