Real-World Solution to Gender War
Having spent the first 12 years of my life in Russia, where women tend to be better than men, I used to see women as universally better than men; but my experiences with American misandrists cured me of that error. I have since then modified my standpoint to value the good in both men and women and to not value the bad in both men and women. And that means especially supporting men who are willing to be good to women and women who are willing to be good to men, while fighting those in each gender who want to be nasty to the other 50% of humanity.
As someone with economics education, I look for practical ways to solve problems; and that includes social problems. The biggest social problems these days revolve around gender relations. In some parts of the world, women are good to men and men are horrible to women; and in other parts of the world, men are good to women and women are nasty to men. I have in mind a practical solution to this imbalance.
I am not talking of government action, and I am not talking of military action. I'm talking of using real-world mechanisms to solve social ills. And the real-world mechanism of which I am talking here is as follows:
A large-scale intercultural flux for intermarriage, allowing men who are willing to be good to women to get together with women who are willing to be good to men while creating an incentive on everyone else to be good to the other gender.
Think about it. In Iran, a beautiful, kind, warm, loving woman is going to be spending her life getting battered by some ignorant misogynistic idiot who has no idea how good he has it and takes her for granted and treats her as if she was Satan. In America, a noble-minded liberal man will be getting maliciously attacked by some horrible abusive harpy who sees in him an embodiment of the patriarchy and treats him as if he were the Taliban. If the Iranian woman gets together with the American liberal man, then they will forge a positive-sum relationship in which they'll treat one another better than either can expect to be treated at home. This will be good for them; but more importantly it will be good for everyone else.
Why will it be good for everyone else? Because it will create incentives on everyone else to be good to the other gender. One of the main postulates of economics is that when left to their own devices people pursue their rational interest; and in relationships the biggest rational interest to be pursued is how one wants to be treated. An international flux for intermarriage will reward the people who are willing to be good to the other gender with better relationships, as they will magnetize the attention of the other gender. And it will also be a viable reason for the rest of the men to be good to women and for the rest of the women to be good to men - because, if they aren't, they can expect to see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who are willing to be better to them.
Right now, the incentives on both sides are toward the worst possible behavior. We see misogynistic brutes like Glenn Sachs, Michael Murphy and the Fatherhood Foundation claiming to speak for men and influencing other men to be terrible to women; and we see awful harpies like Catherine McKinnon claiming to speak for women and influencing other women to be terrible to men. In both cases the gender is represented by its worst elements; and in both cases the gender comes under coercion from these elements to be the worst thing that it can be. And this is not bad either only for women or only for men. This is bad for everyone.
There is a real world mechanism however to counteract the influences of the scoundrels on either side of the gender debate; and that is for a real-world mechanism of international relationships to take the legs out from under each group of scumbags. The women who are willing to be good to men, and the men who are willing to be good to women, should get together and create better relationships.
The more this is done, the more there is a real-world need for both men and women to be good to their partners, the better will be the relationships all across the board.
This actually stands to solve these ugly social problems. Men from the Taliban who want to be brutal to their wives, like American harpies who want to be horrible to their husbands, will not be competitive and will have to change their ways. Meanwhile both men and women of goodwill on both sides will be rewarded for their goodwill with good relationships. At the societal level there will be coercion on both men and women to be good to the other gender, resulting in more men and women treating each other right.
The problem with many idealistic schemes is that they either lack an enforcement mechanism or feature a Draconian enforcement mechanism; but in this situation neither is the case. The mechanism here is the same mechanism that has created capitalism and economics. It is the mechanism of real-world choice based on rational self-interest rewarding the parties that have the most to offer their partners, while rendering non-competitive the parties that seek aggressively to do wrong. In a situation of large-scale cross-cultural flux for intermarriage, the men who are willing to be good to women and the women who are willing to be good to men will emerge winners; and the men who want to be ugly to women and the women who want to be ugly to men will be made to lose.
Ultimately it makes sense to be neither for nor against men or women. There will always be women, and there will always be men, and among both men and women there will be people who are willing to act rightfully and people who decide to act wrongly. The rational stance is neither in favor nor in opposition to either men or women. The rational stance is in favor of both men and women who are willing to act rightfully and against the men and women who choose to act wrongly. And in matter of gender relations this means the following:
To stand in support of men who are willing to be good to women and women who are willing to be good to men, while standing in opposition to those in each gender who want to treat the other gender like dirt.
The more men are willing to be good to women, and the more women are willing to be good to men, the better will be the lot of both men and women. Which means that this is the rational direction to take for anyone who wants to better the lot of either men or women. The men who are willing to be good to women should be free to create positive-sum relationships with women who are willing to be good to men. And the people in each gender who are unwilling to do that should go without partners until they are.
The way in which people are treated is a function of the choices of the people doing the treatment; which means that the logical solution on matter of how people are treated is to encourage both men and women to be good to their partners. This does not take millions of dollars, and this does not take huge government expenditures. This takes something as simple as a change of attitude. The more people are encouraged to be good to their partners, the better will be the man-woman relationships. And this means: The better the lot of both women and men.
The anti-male feminist crusade has not touched the real wrongdoers among the men, who are quite comfortable in their Islamic or right-wing Christian communities and sneer at the feminists. And the Muslim misogynistic crusade likewise has not touched the real wrongdoers among the women, most of whom are also quite comfortable in their academic, media or corporate worlds. Instead both movements have victimized people who have done the least to cause the problems: In case of feminism, the liberal-minded men who are closest to American academia; and in case of Islam, the Middle Eastern women who are under control of groups such as the Taliban.
If either of these groups is what it portrays itself to be, they wouldn't be victimizing the people who have done the least to cause the problems. They would be fighting each other and leave everyone else in peace. But I have not seen the McKinnon feminists do anything about the real oppression of women by the Islamic societies, and I have not seen the Taliban fight American feminism. Instead both groups like to abuse the people who are responsible neither for mysogyny nor for political correctness. And that says a lot about the character of both groups.
Men of goodwill: Do not allow yourselves to be represented by the worst among men. Stand strong in your goodwill knowing that it makes you better than those misogynistic scumbags. Women of goodwill: Do not allow yourselves to be represented by the worst among women. Likewise stand strong in your goodwill knowing that it makes you better than the harpies who falsely speak in your name. Both men and women of goodwill: Get together and create positive relationships with each other, where you are treating each other well; and show to the rest of the world how it can have better man-woman relationships.