Goodwill and Man-Woman Relationships
I had an older friend who was a brilliant writer but had a negative view of women, particularly of mothers. I challenged that view, and that resulted in him terminating the friendship.
I also had a correspondence with a professor who studies domestic violence. I wrote some material critical of 1990s feminism, and he terminated the contact.
I realized from this that I am a moderate in a debate dominated by extremists. I want the best of all worlds. I want women to be free to be feminine, beautiful and loving; I also want men to be good to them. I want the world full of beauty and appreciative of beauty. I want mutual goodwill and better interaction at all levels to result in people being the best they can be and enjoying the best life they can have.
Right now, we are seeing some people claim that women are evil or inferior and should be treated in ugly ways; and we see other people claim that men are destructive and that women should be nasty to them. Neither is a prescription for a livable world. A livable way demands goodwill of both men and women toward one another. Men and women share the same planet, and the better men and women get along the better the world becomes, the better it is for both women and men.
There are cases when this outcome is effectuated through persuasion, and I've seen this work in a number of situations. Wherever possible this approach should be taken. But there will always be people on both sides who do not want that outcome however convincing the arguments toward it; and for this reason there needs to be a coercion to minimize the nastiness and the ugliness that such people do. I support the following measures toward that effect.
One is to outlaw false advertising in relationships. Outside the situation of arranged marriage, the people who become abusive are in most cases people who have put on a false front. These people act kind and nice while wooing then turn into monsters when married; which means that these people misrepresent themselves. A person who sells a defective car, house or computer gets done for false advertising. How much more should be the case in relationships, where at stake is not products sold but people's lives.
Another is to encourage large-scale cross-cultural flux for intermarriage. We see in some parts of the world women being good to men and men being bad to women; and we see in other parts of the world men being good to women and women being bad to men. If the better party in each gender teams up with the better party in the opposite gender, the result will be goodwill, and willingness to be good to the other gender, rewarded with good relationships - as it should very well be. And another result will be a real-world mechanism to bring the men who are not willing to be good to women and women who are not willing to be good to men to change their ways and their attitudes - or see the other gender leave in large numbers to go elsewhere.
Finally, there should be a sliding scale for domestic violence, as there is for most other crimes. Breaking the skull of one's wife should draw a heavier penalty than slapping her. I propose this sliding scale:
Severe brutality (guns, knives, sulfuric acid, life-threatening injuries)Brutality (strangling, broken bones, lesser injuries)Severe violence (sticks, whips, visible bruises)Serious violence (punching, dragging by hair)Mild violence (slaps)
with severe brutality fetching 10 years or more; mild violence fetching a fine; and everything in between fetching a sentence in the middle appropriate to the severity of the violence committed.
Similarly, there needs to be disincentive on women from practicing malicious behavior. It is fair to stand up to a man who is being abusive; it is not fair to attack someone who hasn't done anything wrong to oneself. The women who call their non-violent partners losers or worse, portray as misogynists the people who are not misogynists, and go around preaching to other women that they should be nasty to men, are as much at fault as are wife-beaters. Just as there needs to be disincentive on men from practicing violence, so there should be a disincentive on women from practicing nastiness. Given how much each party suffers from such misbehavior, this is a compromise that should be acceptable to reasonable elements in both genders.
As with all positive change, there needs to be a combination of persuasion and coercion. The position of goodwill does not side with men, and it does not side with women. It sides with men who are willing to be good to women and with women who are willing to be good to men. If you are a man who has ill will toward women, then you should not be with a woman; and if you are a woman who has ill will toward men, you should not be with a man. On this it is far more common for men who hate women to get together with women than it is for women who hate men to get together with a man; and it is the stance of such men that must be challenged the most. If you don't like women, don't be with a woman. If you don't like your particular partner, then don't be with her.
The best aspect of taking the moderate path is that it leads to excellence. When everything is fair, people rise as far as their efforts would take them, creating a meritocracy such as what was intended by America's founders. With positive practices preached, explained and incentivized, and negative practices condemned and disincentivized, there will be a strong direction toward benefit. And this stands to benefit one and all.
What must be supported is not men, and it is not women. What must be supported is better interaction between the women and the men. Women should be freed to pursue beauty and goodness, and men should appreciate and reward beauty and goodness.
The result will be a better way of living all across the board.