Tuesday, September 01, Hun Xen: The charges stemmed from an April speech by Hun Sen in which he referred to an unnamed woman as a "cheung klang". The term means "strong legs" and is considered derogatory when used to describe women. The speech prompted Mu Sochua to file a defamation suit, but Hun Sen denied that he had been referring to her and countersued her for defamation, pointing to an April 23 press conference in which she made her suit public.
This is a very long article, the longest ever written on The Futurist. As it is a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife, it is not meant to be read in one shot but rather digested slowly over an extended period, with all supporting links read as well.
As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.
Now, the basic premise of this article is that men and women are equally valuable, but have different strengths and weaknesses, and different priorities. A society is strongest when men and women have roles that are complementary to each other, rather than of an adverserial nature.
Furthermore, when one gender either one is mistreated, the other ends up becoming disenfranchised as well. If you disagree with this premise, you may not wish to read further. When you tell someone that they are oppressed, against all statistical and logical evidence, you harm them by generating discouragement and resentment.
This pernicious effect is the basis of many forms of needlessly inflicted female unhappiness, as well as the basis for unjustified retaliation against men. All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who did not face hardships as severe as what women endured.
In reality, this narrative is entirely incorrect. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.
Warfare has been a near constant feature of human society before the modern era, and whenever two tribes or kingdoms went to war with each other, the losing side saw many of its fighting-age men exterminated, while the women were assimilated into the invading society.
Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes? This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality.
Both men and women have to perform tedious work, have insufficient food and clothing, and limited opportunities for upliftment.
As far as selective anecdotes like voting rights go, in the vast majority of cases, men could not vote either. In fact, if one compares every nation state from every century, virtually all of them extended exactly the same voting rights or lack thereof to men and women. Even today, out of sovereign states, there are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women.
This is not to deny that genuine atrocities like genital mutilation have been perpetrated against women; they have and still are. But men also experienced atrocities of comparable horror at the same time, which is simply not mentioned. In fact, when a man is genitally mutilated by a woman, some other women actually find this humorous, and are proud to say so publicly.
It is already wrong when a contemporary group seeks reparations from an injustice that occurred over a century ago to people who are no longer alive.
It is even worse when this oppression itself is a fabrication. The narrative of female oppression by men should be rejected and refuted as the highly selective and historically false narrative that it is.
In fact, this myth is evidence not of historical oppression, but of the vastly different propensity to complain between the two genders.
The Masculinity Vacuum in Entertainment: Take a look at the collage of entertainers below click to enlargewhich will be relevant if you are older than All of them were prominent in the s, some spilling over on either side of that decade.
They are all certainly very different from one another. But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.
As diverse and imperfect as these characters were, they were all examples of masculinity. They represented different archetypes, from the father to the leader to the ladies man to the rugged outdoorsman to the protector.
They were all more similar than dissimilar, as they all were role-models for young boys of the time, often the same young boys. Celebrities as disparate as Bill Cosby and Mr. Before the s, there were different masculine characters, but today, they are conspicuously absent.
Men are shown either as thuggish degenerates, or as effete androgynes.I cannot speak on Australia— all I know about is the US.
But, yes, I would say that American society has moved from a male-dominated society of the ’s to the anti-male society that it is today. Having read the article that your link directs to. The society we are fighting for has to be free from all oppression.
From an economic standpoint, you cannot have democratic economies unless the society at that time also works towards eliminating all forms of oppression: misogyny, racism, discrimination against native people, sexual violence. islam is the greatest crime and sin ever committed by man against god islam is evil in the name of god ™.
killing prophet muhammad (book below). Apr 15, · "If Male Chauvinist Pigs were men who regarded women as pieces of meat, we would outdo them and be Female Chaunvinst Pigs: women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves." To Levy's credit, she readily admits, more than once, that she, too, wants to "belong," to "get with the program," to seek acceptance among others, as is human.
So even though male objectification occasionally occurs (usually in the form of advertising), we can’t forget the context within which this operates. Often, male objectification is done in the form of tongue-in-cheek references to ads that have objectified women for centuries.
We are all aware of the discrepancies in our society. If having women in positions of leadership and power was a matter of national importance and urgency, we would have done something about it.