What does feminism do to hurt men?

I don't believe that feminism cares about harming men. I believe that feminism cares only about maximizing women's well-being, and that it does not regard the effect of its actions on men or on gender (in)equality. To feminism, harming men is sometimes just a means to an end. This entry lists some of the ways feminism harms men.

Feminism campaigns against equal parenting.

• The National Organization of Women (NOW) actively opposes equal parenting. (Source: National Parents Organization)

Feminism advocates for the prohibition of paternity testing.

• Feminism has eventuated a law in France that prohibits men from testing the paternity of their children. A judge may sentence any man who contravenes the law to one year in prison and fine him €15,000

• Feminism has eventuated similar laws throughout Europe (Source: Wikipedia)

• Feminism advocates for such laws in the UK (Source: The Spectator) 

• Feminism challenged Michigan's paternity testing laws. (Source: Michigan law archives)

• Notable feminist Melanie McDonagh wrote a widely published article that opposed paternity testing:

DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves…Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them. The point is that paternity was ambiguous and it was effectively up to the mother to name her child’s father, or not… Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter…in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice.

Feminism has successfully, and violently, interrupted every MHRM event on Canadian campuses. 

• Ryerson
• U of O
• Simon Fraser
• Queens (also here) 
• U of T (see video below)

Feminism has successfully campaigned against the development of male contraceptives.

• As evinced by this video.

Feminism has ensured that no woman legally rapes a man when she forcibly envelopes him.

• Feminism ensured that the definition of rape excluded forced envelopment. (Source: justice.gov; Mary Koss)

• Feminism is Israel successfully prevented the promulgation of a bill that would illegalize forced envelopment. (Source: Jerusalem Post)

Feminism shamed men into fighting in World War I. 

• Feminism organized the White Feather Campaign in order to shame young men into military service. (Source: Wikipedia)

Feminism skewed the 2008 economic stimulus package to benefit more women than men

• The National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority, the Institute for Women's Policy Research, and the Women's Law Center successfully skewed the 2008 economic stimulus package to benefit women disproportionately. (Source: The Weekly Standard)

Feminism advocates violence against men. 

• The SCUM manifesto written by prominent feminist Valarie Solanas, who shot Andy Worhol, promotes violence against men. (The acronym stands for 'Society for Cutting Up Men'). The video below depicts feminism in Sweden celebrating the murder of men in order to honour Valarie Solanas. 

• Popular feminist magazine, Jezebel, has gloated about, and advocated for, the battery of male intimate partners. (Source: Jezebel)

• Feminism uses the hashtag  #killallmen to promote violence against men. 

• Prominent feminists have glorified violence against men.

I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig. — Andrea Dworkin

The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.— Sally Miller Gearhart

The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men. — Sharon Stone

Feminism advocates for the abolition of Father's Day.

Feminism advocates for the institution of concentration camps for men.

• When the Swedish feminist party, F!, attained support of 25% of the electorate, its members suspected that the support for party indicated that Swedes would accept their more radical proposals. Among those, was the proposal to intern all men in concentration camps, presumably for a defined period. (Source: The Guardian)

Feminism advocates for the curtailment of men's freedoms.

• Feminism uses the term 'stare rape' to advocate prohibiting men from looking at women.

• Feminism also uses the term 'male gaze' to denigrate the act of looking at a woman. Feminism operates the magazine 'The Good Men Project' in order to encourage men to behave as feminism wants them to behave (see picture below). One of the 'Editor's Picks from the articles published by The Good Men Project is an article titled 'Dealing With My Own Male Gaze'.

•  Feminism wants to dictate how men sit in public.

(From mentakingup2muchspace.tumblr.com)

(From Vice.com)

(From The New York Times)

(From Bustle.com)

• Feminism wants to dictate how men pee.

(Why doesn't she remember to put the seat up?)

• Feminism wants to dictate how men express their romantic feelings.

Feminism encourages women to relish, or ignore, male suffering.

• Feminism often uses the "male tears" trope to trivialize male suffering.

• Feminism uses the phrase "what about teh menz?" to mock people concerned about male suffering.

• Feminism sustains a culture of misandry within itself. 

 (Feminist mocks man who committed suicide)

I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them. — Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine, editor.

Feminism successfully advocated for implementation of the draft in England.

• Feminism successfully advocated for implementation of the draft in England (Source: Wikipedia)

Feminism opposes shelters for battered men.

• Feminism harassed, assaulted, slandered, and otherwise campaigned against Earl Silverman, founder of the first shelter for abused men in Canada, until his organization fell bankrupt and he took his life. (Source: Womenspost.ca)

• Feminism in the UK oppose the creation of refuge spaces for battered men. (Source: The Guardian)

Feminism advocates for considering women's rights before men's, and human, rights.

• The image below depicts three members of the Montreal cell of the popular feminist group 'Femen' advocating for the priority of women's rights.

Feminism uses violence to suppress the truth about male victims of female domestic violence.

• This widely cited paper lists the methods used by academic feminism to control the literature. (Source: The Journal of Criminal Policy )

• Method 1. Suppress Evidence

• Method 2. Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory

• Method 3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration

• Method 4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not

• Method 5. Create "Evidence" by Citation

• Method 6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding of Research That Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance Is the Cause of PV

• Method 7. Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs.

• Feminism interrupts a forum for abused men.

• The Florida State Law Journal published over 200 pages of extensive documentation the history of feminism's suppression of the abuse of male partners by females. (Source FSU Journal of Law)

Perhaps the most physically and personally intimidating behavior was directed at Suzanne Steinmetz, who had first brought the issue to the public’s attention.43 Steinmetz appeared on such shows as the Today Show and Phil Donahue. 44 Her work was reported in various newspapers  and magazines, including a full-page story in Time magazine.45 Yet,  while Steinmetz’s work received some support, the public attack, the public attack against Steinmetz and her family evidenced the public's overwhelming rejection of her work. Verbal threats were launched against her and her children - at home and in public. Threatening phone calls were made to Steinmetz and the sponsors of her speaking engagements in order to prevent Steinmetz from further publicizing her work. On one occasion, a bomb threat was called into an ACLU meeting at which Steinmetz was scheduled to speak. Professionally, Steinmetz was also threatened. In an attempt to prevent her from receiving tenure, every female faculty member at the University of Delaware was lobbied by individuals calling on behalf of the women's rights movement... Other social scientists committed to the study of husband abuse and family violence were similarly mistreated.Such tactics seem to have proven effective. Both researchers who were involved in the early projects and even those who might have become involved admit that they now choose to give the topic of battered men "wide berth".

• Feminism sent Erin Pizzey, founder of the first shelter for battered women, death threats in response to her advocacy for abused men. Consequently, Pizzey fled England. 

Feminism advocates for the automatic arrest of men who call police about domestic violence.

• Patriarchal dominance theory claims, incorrectly[1], that only men commit non-defensive domestic violence. That theory informs feminist anti-violence programs, such as the Duluth Model, the model used most commonly by police forces to educate their officers. (Source: theduluthmodel.org) The image below illustrates the Duluthian conception of domestic "power and control".  Note that the creators used only the feminine personal pronoun to refer to the victim. 

• Feminism has also advocated for laws that mandate the arrest of the "primary aggressor" in situations involving domestic violence, be it mutual or unilateral violence. Such laws have been implemented in approximately half (23) of the American states. (Source: nij.gov) 

• The preponderant use of the Duluth Model for training police, and the mandatory arrest laws effected by feminists, jointly engender a state of affairs in which police forces require, and train, officers to always arrest only the man when they respond to calls about domestic violence. 

• Further consider that feminism promotes the conflation of 'primary aggressor' with 'man, as evidenced by this passage from the Australian Law Review Commission's consideration of opinions on the matter from community organizations. (Source: alrc.gov.au)

The Inner City Legal Centre and The Safe Relationships Project submitted that it may be even more difficult to identify the 'primary aggressor' where there is violence between same-sex couples.

• The aforecited FSU Law article also attests to this effect of feminism's influence. 

When it comes to arrest, female domestic violence perpetrators are simply not considered. As one of the arrest replication experiments candidly noted, female offenders were not included in the study because they were not considered to pose any danger. Their exclusion from the study clearly implied that arrest could be used in a more discretionary manner when it came to females offenders than it could be in the case of male offenders... The experiment's authors concluded "arrest remains a more conscionable choice than non arrest"... evidence indicates that police ignore violence perpetrated by women and that such inaction is judicially endorsed.

Feminism advocates for judges to punish leniently women who harm men.

• Feminism advises judges to sentence women more leniently than they sentence men. (Source: The Telegraph)

• Feminism convinces Brooklyn DA to request home-sentences for female offenders. (Source: New York Daily News)

• Feminism advocates to close all women's prisons in England. (Source: BBC)

• Feminism advocates for special, favourable, treatment of female violent offenders.

Feminism advocates for the abolition of the presumption of men's, but not women's innocence.

• We have already evidenced the fact that feminism has eventuated police training methods that teach police not to arrest women, that feminism has eventuated more lenient sentencing for female offenders, and that feminism has eventuated the legalization of female-on-male rape, in some jurisdictions, in other jurisdictions feminism has ensured that the definition of rape excludes female perpetrators. Accordingly, when feminism uses gender-neutral terms to discuss the judicial treatment of perpetrators of sex-crimes, feminism refers only to male perpetrators.

• Prominent feminist writer, Jessica Valenti, wrote an article for the Washington Post advocating for such a change. Note that she uses the masculine pronoun to refer to the accused and the feminine pronoun to refer to the victim.

We should look to Sweden, where some activists want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn’t give it.

• Feminism has argued that false accusations benefit the accused. Below, I've quoted Catherine Commins, assistant dean at Vassar College in New York.

Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience. They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions.

• Below, I've quoted from an article in the Wall Street Journal written by Judith Grossman, a feminist, lawyer, and mother of a young-man falsely accused of rape.

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women's rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act... I fear that in the current climate the goal of "women's rights," with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim

Feminism demonizes men.

• Feminism's demonization of men has succeeded so fantastically that many don't apprehend how favourably they receive such messages. Often, only parody exposes the double standard. Below, I've inset images from three of feminism's popular campaigns; following those images, I've inset a parody of them.

(Feminist campaign)

(Feminist campaign)

(Feminist campaign)

(Parody)

• Anita Sarkeesian, the most read internet feminist journalist, slanders men with articles that I believe, and hope, that nobody would tolerate about any other group. Below, I've inset screen caps of my parodies of those tweets. 

• Feminism's literature seems replete with messages that demonize men.

All men keep all women in a state of fear. — Susan Brown Miller

Probably the only place where a man can feel truly secure is in a maximum security prison. — Germaine Greer

Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are. — Marilyn French

To conclude, if you identify as neutral or feminist on gender issues, please ask yourself whether feminism is a movement that you want to identify with. You can support gender equality without supporting feminist hatred. Egalitarianism does exactly that.

Evidence Re. Gender Equality and Feminism

Men's rights advocates undertake to resolve issues such as premature death, childlessness, imprisonment, or the enjoyment of fundamental rights, such as voting. In contrast modern feminists are concerned with self-esteem issues. E.g. Campaigns for "banning bossy", increasing the number of women in society's most prestigious positions, etc.

In other words, the issues that concern feminists are less fundamental than the issues that concern men's rights advocates. The following facts evince that.

Women have it better in all but 4 developed countries

• According to a  rigorous meta-analysis by the Brookings Institute.
• According to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (see image below)

Women enjoy the unconditional right to vote. Men do not. 

Men, but not women, must serve as military combatants in most countries (including developed countries) in order to enjoy the right to vote.

• List of countries that have instituted mandatory military service. Note that the list does not include countries, such as the United States, that require men to register for the draft. 
• The United States requires men, but not women, to register in the draft in order to enjoy the right to vote. 

Women have the right to genital integrity. Men do not. 

• FGM, but not MGM, is banned throughout the west. 
• Spare me the "but its worse for girls" argument. Anti-FGM laws include even a pin-prick to a female infant's genitalia: a procedure that mutilates the genitals less than male circumcision does. 

Women have reproductive rights. Men do not.

• Feminists argue that a fetus is a part of a woman's body, and that women enjoy the right to bodily autonomy and so should enjoy the right to chose whether to abort a pregnancy. 
• Men are not allowed to choose not to be a father to the child.
• Effectively, the law requires men to finance a woman's unilateral decision to turn an extension of her uterus into a human being. 

Women can give away a child for adoption without the father's consent.

• This article in the National Post describes the state of law well.

Judges punish women less harshly than they punish men who commit the same crimes.

• Judges sentence women to serve 60% briefer prison sentences than they sentence men who commit the same crimes to serve.
• Judges sentence female murderers to death less often than they sentence male murderers to death. 

Women are 350% less likely to be homeless.

• This statistic is almost universally accepted. The Wikipedia article on homelessness cites it well.

Men are 300% more likely to be the victim of unilateral domestic violence.

• Feminist magazine Jezebel brags about this
• Rigorous meta-analyses have concluded likewise.

Spare me the 'men are bigger so it's more damaging when men do it' argument. 

• Is battery less blame worthy if a small man beats a large women?
• Physical damage isn't what makes domestic violence especially terrible. What makes it especially terrible is that the person you love did it to you.
• Suppose a woman spit in her husbands face every morning to wake him, would you not consider that blameworthy domestic violence?
• If someone falls down the stairs, do they often need to see a counselor for years after the event? Usually they do not need to do so. If the physical damage were what made domestic violence especially terrible, then many more people would need counselling after a purely physically damaging event (such as falling down the stairs).

Men are awarded alimony in only 3% of cases, even though 37% of female spouses earn more.

• The US Census Bureau provides the data evincing this statistic.

Before the foregoing statistic leads you to conclude that wage discrimination exists consider that the laws of economics do not permit two things of comparable value to remain unequally priced. If it were the case that women provide the same value to firms as men do and that firms pay women less than men, then entrepreneurial firms would hire women and cut costs, thereby increasing the demand for female employees, thereby increasing their wage. What is that extra value that men provide firms? Men work more hours, and they do more dangerous work.

Men work more hours than women work.

• Forbes reports that men work more hours than women work, and that that difference solely accounts for an earnings difference.
• The Harvard Business Review concurs,
• so do other academic studies.

Men work more dangerous jobs

• A man's chance of dying at work exceeds a woman's chance of dying at work by 1000%.

Women control 70% of consumer spending

Women benefit from extra money men earn by risking their lives at work, and spending more of their life at work.

• the Harvard Business Review reports that women control 70% of consumer spending.
• the Boston Consulting Group reports the same statistic.

Men die more frequently, at every age, in every country in the world.

• The WHO life tables evince this statistic
• The following graph, published in the Economist, illustrates the rate of death by gender over time.

No matter how you slice it, we spend more on women's health.

Be it per death, per incidence, or per person, we spend more on women's health. Despite the fact that men die more often at every age.

• This Thyroid Cancer Canada website contains the evincing data.

Women control a 10% greater share of the vote.

• Men's longer hours prevent them from voting. Note that the voting rates of each gender equalize at 65, the most common age of retirement.

• Moreover, after 65, men vote more often than women. It stands to reason that they would vote more often if their longer working hours didn't prevent them from doing so. 

• People vote more often as they mature; however, the male population decreases faster than the female population does, so women control a disproportionate number of votes. That would be true even if we were to assume that each gender votes equally often. 

There are more childless men than there are childless women.

• According to the US Census Bureau, the courts award mothers custody of their children in 86% of cases.

Boys are required to pay their rape victims child support. 

• An often cited precedent requires any male victim of rape to pay child support to his rapist if she impregnates herself while raping him.

This is a partial list. I'll complete it soon.

What Does 'Street Harassment' Actually Mean? (Part 1. Indecency)

'Street Harassment' is a term used by third wave feminists to denote unwanted romantic communication in public. The website www.stopstreetharassment.org defines it thus:

 Street harassment is any action or comment between strangers in public places that is disrespectful, unwelcome, threatening and/or harassing and is motivated by gender or sexual orientation or gender expression

A Google image search for 'street harassment' renders a set of images that convey the notion of 'street harassment' well.

'Street Harassment' conflates public masturbation, compliments from strangers, and every other act that exemplifies public sexual expression. A number of important characteristics differentiate these acts from one another. However, as far as I can tell, public sexual expression is the only characteristic that assimilates them. In order to effectively treat the matter, I will secern four types of 'street harassment': indecency, vulgarity, compliments, and emoting. I will treat the feminist reaction to each type of 'street harassment' in a series of brief entries.  This entry is the first of those.

Indecency

An image in the collage inset above the previous paragraph encourages people to "speak up against public masturbation." The image evinces the existence of a harmfully selfish attitude that characterizes feminism: The feminist who created the image didn't consider, or didn't care about, the state of men who masturbate in public. Either she didn't consider that mental illness almost certainly afflicts men who masturbate in public, or she did consider it, but judged that she ought to condemn these men rather than help them.

Men constitute 75%  of the homeless. If a man has no home, then whenever he masturbates, he does so in public. If feminism desires to curtail public masturbation, then it ought to undertake to reduce the prevalence of homeless men. Many public housing administrations ascribe priority to female applicants. Feminism could equitably reduce the prevalence of homeless men, and thereby reduce the prevalence of public masturbation, by advocating for the gender-equitable treatment of public housing applications.

We invest 500% more in research that studies conditions that afflict only, or mostly, women than we invest in research that studies conditions that afflict only, or mostly, men. Mental illness equally afflicts men and women. As such, the disproportionate investment in research that studies women's afflictions necessitates lesser investment in research that studies conditions that afflict both genders, such as mental illnesses. Few sane people publicly masturbate. Therefore, reducing the prevalence of mental illness will reduce the prevalence of public masturbation. Accordingly, if feminism desires to curtail public masturbation, then it ought to undertake to reduce the prevalence of mental illness by advocating for gender-equitable investment in health research. 

To condemn an ill or addicted man for public masturbation does not normatively differ from condemning a similarly afflicted woman for publicly masturbating those men for their money. Ought we punish drug addicted women who perform sex acts in public for drug money? Perhaps. However, feminism, to the surprise of no one, argues that we ought to punish only her (presumably, male) customer.[2]

 A, presumably, drug addicted, woman performing a sex act in public. Courtesy Google StreetView

Feminism has defined 'street harassment' as unwanted public expressions of sexual orientation. Every sex act expresses a sexual orientation. Therefore, if bystanders regard public sex acts, such as the aforedepicted one, as 'unwanted', then campaigns that advocate against public masturbation ought to advocate against prostitutes who perform public sex acts. However, no street harassment campaign does so.


Is there any consideration that reconciles feminism's approval of, typically, female behaviours that satisfy its criteria for street harassment with its condemnation of, typically, male behaviours that satisfy those criteria? I can discern none other than a desire to maximize female well-being, no matter whether doing so harms men.


-----------------------



[1]In my previous entry, I cited the statistics I used in the first paragraph.
[2]

Patriarchy Isn't Parsimonious

1. Preamble


There are two reasons for rejecting patriarchy as a construct that explains the existence of gender-specific roles. After the following definition of patriarchy, I will render an argument for each reason in order to ascertain whether we ought to use patriarchy in order to explain the existence of gender-specific roles.


Definition 1 'Patriarchy': the predominate western culture, which oppresses women and imperils their well-being, and which men instituted in order to ensure their own well-being.


2. Western Patriarchy Does not Exist


In this section we will ascertain whether the common conception of patriarchy concords with western history. If we discover that it does, then patriarchy, as commonly conceived, possibly exists. If we discover that it does not, then patriarchy, as commonly conceived, does not exist.


Assertion 2.1 If patriarchy, as people commonly conceive of it, exists, then the preponderance of western cultures imperil the well-being of woman in order to ensure the well-being of man.

Let 'T→H' stand for 2.1


Fact 2.2 Western cultural practices imperil the well-being of men in order to ensure the well-being of woman.

Let '¬H' stand for  2.2

The following considerations evince fact 2.2.

• There is a custom that obligates man to die whenever his death increases the probability that a woman will survive. ('Woman and children first.')

• Man teaches his son to "never hit a girl" and "never hit a woman", despite the fact that woman does not teach her daughter to "never hit a man". 

• Man sentences woman to serve briefer prison sentences for committing a given crime than he sentences man to serve for committing the same crime. [1]

• Man imperils his life when he toils to provide resources for woman and child. (Note, historically, most jobs involved dangerous manual labour.)

• Man requires any man who has lived with woman to pay her when she decides not to live with him, no matter whether she proffers a reason for her decision (i.e. alimony, child-support).[2]

• Man gives woman control of 70% of their resources, (Western woman controls 70% of consumer spending.)[3] 

• Man will imperil himself in order to ensure the well being of woman, and does not expect her to reciprocate. [4]

• Man invests 200% more in woman's health than he invests in man's health [5], despite the fact that in every country, at every age, man dies more often than woman does. [6]

• Man ensures woman is safer than he is. (In every western country woman enjoys more safety than man does.) [7]

• Man participates in 'Men Against Violence Against Women', despite the fact that woman perpetrates 70% of unilateral domestic violence.[8] (Some feminist magazines acknowledge that statistic and encourage woman to abuse her partners - for fun.) [9]

• Man granted woman the unconditional right to vote. Man will permit man to vote only if he serves as a combatant in the military or registers for the draft. (Sweden, Russia, Denmark, Switzerland, The Ukraine, Norway, Finland, Austria, Israel, South Korea, Mexico, Singapore, all of South America, etc. permit man to vote only if he agrees to serve as a combatant in the military. The United States permits man to vote only if  he registers for the draft to vote.)[10]

• Man requires that the police arrest only the man whenever there is violence between a man and a woman, no matter who assaulted whom.[11]

• Man requires boys, as young as seven years old, raped by woman to pay her for twenty years if she impregnates herself while raping him. [12]

Conclusion 2.3 We cannot warrant the belief that patriarchy exists.

Proof:

1.  T→H
2. ¬H
3. ¬T         [MT 1,2]    

Consider that if patriarchy, as people commonly conceive of it, exists, then the preponderance of Western cultures imperil woman in order to ensure the well-being of man. However, western cultures imperil the well being of man in order to ensure the well-being of woman. Accordingly one of the criteria of patriarchy has not obtained. Therefore patriarchy, as people commonly conceive of it, does not exist ■


3. Patriarchy is an Inefficient Explanation


In this section we will consider an explanation of the existence of gender-specific roles that appeals to cultural selection in order to ascertain whether we ought to accept that explanation instead of an explanation that explains gender-specific roles by appealing to patriarchy, or vice versa.


Definition 3.1 'Cultural selection': The natural process by which cultural traits that engender cultural persistence become more prevalent over time. 


Assertion 3.2.1 The existence of a great probability that a given culture will persist through a given period is contingent on the existence of a great number of people participating in that culture.

Let 'P→N' stand for 3.2.1.


Proposition 3.2.2 The existence of a great number of people who participate in a culture is contingent on the existence of a great number of women who participate in that culture.

One man can do the reproductive 'work' of many women. Accordingly, the number of women who participate in a culture determines whether, and how quickly, its population grows.

I acknowledge that a culture could increase its numbers by proselytizing participants from other cultures; however, proselytizing is a zero-sum game, so to speak; accordingly, by itself, proselytizing can ensure the persistence of only a minority of cultures.

Let 'N→W' stand for 3.2.2.


Assertion 3.2.3 The existence of a great number of women who participate in a culture is contingent on the survival of a great number of women who participate in that culture. 

Let 'W→S' stand for 3.2.3.


Lemma 3.2.4 Whether a culture persists through a period is contingent on the survival of a great number of women who participate in that culture.

Proof:

1. P→N
2. N→W
3. W→S
4. P→W    [HS 1,2]
5. P→S    [HS 3,4]

The lemma is an implication of the syllogism that consists in 3.2.1-3: Whether a culture persists through a given period is contingent on the existence of a great number of people who participate in the culture; whether a great number of people participate in the culture is contingent on the existence of a great number of women who participate in the culture; whether there are a great number of women who participate in the culture is contingent on the survival of a great number of women who participate in that culture. Therefore, by a hypothetical syllogism, we may validly infer that whether a culture persists through a given period is contingent on the survival of a great number of women who participate in that culture ■


Remark 3.3 Both, explanations of the existence of gender-specific roles that appeal to patriarchy, and explanations of those roles that appeal to cultural selection, explain why cultures forbid woman from working outside the home: Explanations that appeal to patriarchy assert that man forbids woman from working outside the home in order to enslave her. Whereas explanations that appeal to social selection assert that cultures forbid woman from working outside the home in order to ensure her safety.

Let 'f' stand for the explanadum 'why cultures forbid woman from working outside the home'.


Remark 3.4 Explanations of the existence of gender-specific roles that appeal to patriarchy cannot explain why cultures obligated man to work outside the home. Contrariwise, explanations of the existence of gender-specific roles that appeal to cultural selection can explain why cultures obligated man to work outside the home: non-domestic work posed a greater risk than domestic work did. Historically, a human would perish unless s/he, or a member of his/her, group completed certain non-domestic tasks. In order to ensure the safety of woman, cultures obligated man to complete these tasks.

Let 'o' stand for the explanadum 'why cultures obligated man to work outside the home'.


Definition 3.5 For any set, A, that includes all the elements of any other set, B, and B does not include all the elements of A, then B is a proper subset of A. 

We may restate that definition thus: If A subtract B is a non-empty set, and if B subtract A is the empty set, then B is a proper subset of A.

Let '((S-P≠Ø)∧(P-S=Ø))→(S⊃P)' stand for 3.5

Lemma 3.5 The set of explanada of the explanation that appeals to patriarchy, P, is a proper subset of the set of explanada of the explanation that appeals to cultural selection, S. 

Proof:

P={f}
S={f,o} 

1. ((S-P≠Ø)∧(P-S=Ø))→(S⊃P) 
2. (S-P≠Ø)→((P-S=Ø)→(S⊃P))    [EX 1] 
3. (S-P≠Ø) 
4. (P-S=Ø)→(P⊃S)              [MP 2,3] 
5. (P-S=Ø) 
6. (S⊃P)                      [MP 4,5]

Consider that both explanations can explain why cultures forbid woman from working outside the home, but only the explanation that appeals to cultural selection explains why cultures obligate man to work outside the home. As per 3.5, if one set, A, includes all the elements of another set, B, and B does not include all the elements of A, then B is a proper subset of A. The set of explanada S includes all the explanada of P, but P does not include all the explanada of S. Therefore P is a proper subset of S ■


Fact 3.6 The two explanations in question posit the same number of considerations. 

Let 'C' stand for 3.6


Proposition 3.7 For any explanation, A,B, if the explanada of A is a proper subset of B, and if B posits as many or fewer considerations than A posits, then we ought to accept B, and reject A. 

Occam's Razor advises us  to accept the explanation that posits the fewest considerations whenever we must choose to accept one explanation from a number of explanations that explain the same set of explanada. The explanation that appeals to patriarchy needs to posit another consideration in order for it to explain what the explanation that appeals to cultural selection explains. Accordingly, Occam's Razor advises us to accept the latter explanation and reject the former one.

Let '(S⊃P)∧C → J' stand for 3.7


Conclusion 3.8 We ought to reject explanations of gender-specific roles that appeal to patriarchy and accept explanations of those roles that appeal to cultural selection. 

Proof:

1. ((S⊃P)∧C) → J   
2. (S⊃P)
3.  C 
4. (S⊃P)∧C       [Conj 2,3]
5.  J             [MP 1,4]       

Consider that in 3.5 we concluded that P is a proper subset of S, and that both the explanations in question posit one consideration. Therefore, as per 3.7, the explanation that appeals to patriarchy satisfies the criteria for rejection; whereas the explanation that appeals to cultural selection satisfies the criteria for acceptance. Ergo conclusion 3.8 ■


4. Postamble

The common conception of patriarchy as an extant social system that harms woman does not concord with the facts. Moreover, there are better explanations of the phenomena that feminists claim patriarchy explains.

--------

[1][a] Men receive 63% longer prison sentences according to large UMichigan study. 

[1][b] Female murderers rarely sentenced to death according to SFL & NYCLU study. 

[2][a] US Census Bureau: 3% of divorced men awarded alimony, 37% of divorced wives earn more.

[3][a] Women control 70% of consumer spending in the US according to Harvard Business Review

[3][b] The original study cited by the Harvard Business Review linked in [3][a]

[4][a] (Video) Comparison of bystanders' reactions to violence against men and women.
[4][b] (Video) ABC News comparison of bystanders' reactions violence against men and women.
[4][c] (Video) ABC News comparison of bystanders' reactions to drugging of a man and a woman.
[4][d] (Video) OCK TV Comparison of bystanders' reactions to violence against men and women.
[5] Thyroid Cancer Canada website with statistics on Canadian cancer research investment.
[6] World Health Organization life tables.
[7] See figure 1 (below).
[8] Academic review of intimate partner violence studies
[9] Feminist magazine Jezebel boasts that women initiate 80% of unilateral domestic violence.
[10] Wikipedia list of countries that mandate military service.
[11][a] Kingsnorth and MacIntosh, (2007) p. 461
[11][b] Felson and Pare, (2007) p. 436
[12] 'Hermesmann vs Sayer', an often cited precedent that requires boys to pay rapists child support.

Figure 1:

Divorce and the Optimal Strategy

A recent article, "Why Great Husbands are Being Abandoned", written by Randi Gunther and published in the Huffington Post, begins thus:

Fifty percent of marriages are still ending in divorce, and women continue to initiates those endings... They’re dumping men who are faithful, attentive, and respectful, the very men they said they have always wanted. Why would women who have accomplished the female dream suddenly not be satisfied with it? Why are they leaving these ideal guys, and for what reasons?

 The author adds her professional experience as a clinical psychologist

I am currently dealing with several of these great husbands. They are, across the board, respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive guys whose wives have left them for a different kind of man. These once-beloved men make a living, love their kids, help with chores, support aging parents, and support their mate’s desires and interests. They believe they’ve done everything right. They are devastated, confused, disoriented, and heartsick. 

I take special issue with the following

Most often these women still love their husbands as much as they ever did, but in a different way. They tell me how wonderful their men are and how much they respect them. They just don’t want to be married to them anymore.

The author then comments "I think I know what's going on" and proceeds to unanswer the question in no fewer than 1,000 words.

I propound a briefer answer to the question:

All things being equal, there is no reason for a man to invest in one child over any other child if he does not know which child is his own. Consequently, women secure a man's investment in their respective children by promising to mate only with him. However, women (justifiably) demand the man reciprocate her promise, lest there be reason for him to invest some of his resources in children other than her own. Therefore, if a woman has, or will have, sufficient resources to raise her child without remaining in, or entering into, a monogamous relationship with a man, then she will not remain in, or enter into, such a relationship.

Given that the current system of administering the family law effectively guarantees women their children and the resources to raise them, the foregoing explains why divorce rates are what they are, and why women file for 90% of divorces. The foregoing also explains why 99.87% of women who are the sole breadwinners of married households will divorce their husbands within three years of attaining that status [1]. It explains why women who earn enough to raise children by themselves marry less often than other women do [2]. It explains why women do not marry men who earn less than they do [3].

------

[1](a)

[1](b) 

[1](c)

[2]

[3](a)

[3](b)