Rita Panahi, of the Herald Sun, often writes articles critical of Feminists, which cheers me up every now and then. She complains of “the perpetually outraged sisterhood” and “the duplicitous hypocrisy of the feminist movement.”
One might think that I would endorse Panahi and her column as a must read for the Men’s Human Rights Movement (MHRM), and maybe I would have. At least, up until I read her latest column. It was every bit as hypocritical as the Feminists she so regularly takes to task.
The crime that gets her on her soap-box this week is:
The South Australian Government had to remind public transport users to be “courteous and considerate” after a heavily pregnant woman was forced to stand during a recent train trip.
Now, by “forced” she means that no one got up to give her a seat. There wasn’t actually any “force” involved. But of course, decrying Feminist techniques doesn’t mean that Panahi won’t use them herself.
Obsessing about trivialities and drumming up faux outrage may be a fine clickbait tactic but it doesn’t mean you’re taken seriously.
And I won’t be taking Panahi too seriously from now on, either.
What we are supposed to do, of course, is imagine that everyone else on that train was fit, healthy and fresh as a daisy. We are also to imagine that a young, healthy woman has become debilitated because she is carrying a few extra kilos. Then, we are to fall for the romantic notion that, because she is carrying a new life (cue music) that her discomfort suddenly outweighs everyone else’s.
Once again, in true Feminist fashion, it is her body, her choice, and everyone else’s problem.
The lack of manners those women experienced made me think of Blanche and a line in the last season of The Golden Girls where she explains to a suitor: “I don’t want to be treated like your equal. No! I want to be treated much better than you.”
That should be the ideal all women strive for in life. It’s not only pregnant woman who deserve to be treated with all due deference.
Deference, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, means, “respect and esteem due a superior or an elder.”
How, I wonder, does Panahi “strive” for this exalted status?
As a woman I am as capable, independent and empowered as any man, but that doesn’t mean I want to be treated like one.
No, Panahi doesn’t want to be handed a shovel when holes need digging. She’s not up for the frontline of battle, and wants a guaranteed spot in the lifeboats. On and on, she claims a right to priority, but without telling us why.
Women are superior, it seems, because they just are. But does Panahi have the honesty to admit this? Like every Feminist she has ever criticised, the answer would appear to be in the negative.
It isn’t an admission that I’m inferior or superior; it’s merely an acknowledgment that we are inherently different.
This inherent difference, of course, means that she is “due deference” simply because she is a she. The man, being inherently not a she, gets no deference. Like the sky is blue and the world is round, women are privileged. No need for great or kind deeds. No need for achievement or excellence.
Simply put, when she wakes up in the morning, before she even gets out of bed, never mind actually does anything of any value, she is better than 3.5 billion people, because they are all mere males.
Likewise, a man paying for dinner doesn’t mean I’m obliged to be extra friendly; it’s just a courtesy that should be common practice. Of course, good manners dictates that the woman offers to pay or split the bill but a truly chivalrous man wouldn’t hear of such a thing.
Indeed! She “offers” to pay, simply so that they both can pretend how “capable, independent and empowered” she is. The couple can engage in doublethink as long as they like about how the woman can pay for her half, just as long as, in the end, he gets his wallet out and does the “truly chivalrous” thing.
Note that Panahi uses all of the typical Feminist straw men to strengthen her argument for superiority. To disagree means we expect sex for buying her a taco and want her to be paid a pittance for doing the same job as man, only better, and in heels.
A British newspaper decrying the death of chivalry claims that it sank with the Titanic where “an age of chivalry, honour and men of all classes trying to behave like gentlemen” was replaced by an “every man for himself” mentality.
A man’s survival, never mind his self-respect, is nowhere near as important as M’lady’s displeasure. The only difference between Feminism and what Panahi calls chivalry is terminology.
The outcome, women with unearned privilege while the men do the heavy lifting, is the same.