The Gender Monopolies
A men's rights site has been talking about "loser men" who "would do anything for a date.
" My response: These men aren't losers, they are men of goodwill.
And the more men do that, the better.
The mens' rights people want to monopolize the world's manhood and train it to be horrible to women.
Their behavior is similar to 1990s political correctness, in which the worst among women wanted to monopolize womanhood and train women to be horrible to men.
And the more people of either gender break free from these monopolies, the better will be the lot of both women and men.
The people who claim to speak for their gender - both the politically correct and the father's movement - appropriate for themselves unearned, unelected and unrightful power over half the world's people.
Neither begins to be worthy of such a power.
In both cases, we see the worst in each gender claiming to speak for the gender.
The 50% of humanity that are women, and the 50% of humanity that are men, deserve better than being represented by the worst people among them or told by these worst people among them what they can do, how they can be and what relationships they can have.
And the more women reject political correctness, and the more men reject the men's movement, the better will be the lot of everyone.
In situation of monopolization of anything, the people who run the monopoly can make wrongful demands and produce an inferior product, because there is no competition.
Whenever we see a monopoly - either an economic monopoly or a social monopoly - this becomes the result.
Both manhood and womanhood should be free from monopolizing entities and opened for competition.
This will result in both manhood and womanhood having to compete to improve itself and its treatment of other gender.
The result will be: Better people and better relationships.
Both gender monopolies stand in the way of that outcome and result in the other gender having a bad deal.
The result is people being the worst they can be and people treating their partners the worst way they can.
There needs to be a competitive pressure upon both men and women to be good to their partners.
And that means breaking the monopolies that exist on this matter and letting people compete based on what they have to offer and how they choose to behave.
I am neither for nor against either men or women.
Both have always existed, both will always exist, and among both we see people who are willing to act righfully and people who choose to act wrongly.
I am in favor of better relationships between men and women.
I am in favor of both men and women being good to their partners.
And I am in favor of those people in either gender who elect to be good to their partners.
For this reason I advocate this: The mechanism of free competition.
And no, this is neither heartless nor unethical.
This mechanism will reward the men and the women based on what they have to offer and how they choose to behave.
A man, or a woman, who wants to be good to one's partner, will be rewarded with a good relationship.
And people - both men and women - who choose to be terrible to their partners will have to change their ways.
The entities that seek to monopolize either gender are the biggest blockage to this ideal outcome.
With both the fathers' movement and the political correctness, we see coercion on 50% of humanity to be horrible and to behave in ugly ways.
And just as free-market economic competition puts a competitive pressure upon the producers to be the best they can be, so the international and intercultural relationships put a competitive pressure upon both men and women in the component cultures to behave the best that they can to the other gender - or see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who would be better to them.
On both sides we see a heavy reliance of moral arguments; and in both cases it is illegitimate.
Neither the men who want to be horrible to women nor women who want to be horrible to men deserve to claim ethics or principle on their side.
A person with ethics will be good to one's partner.
This is the case both with women and with men.
A man who is actually good has no use for the father's movements, and a woman who is actually good has no use for political correctness.
A good man will want to be good to his partner, and a good woman will want to be good to hers.
For everyone else, the best solution is competitive pressure that demands of them to be good to their partners.
The more this is in effect, the better becomes people's behavior in relationships and the better become relationships themselves.
" My response: These men aren't losers, they are men of goodwill.
And the more men do that, the better.
The mens' rights people want to monopolize the world's manhood and train it to be horrible to women.
Their behavior is similar to 1990s political correctness, in which the worst among women wanted to monopolize womanhood and train women to be horrible to men.
And the more people of either gender break free from these monopolies, the better will be the lot of both women and men.
The people who claim to speak for their gender - both the politically correct and the father's movement - appropriate for themselves unearned, unelected and unrightful power over half the world's people.
Neither begins to be worthy of such a power.
In both cases, we see the worst in each gender claiming to speak for the gender.
The 50% of humanity that are women, and the 50% of humanity that are men, deserve better than being represented by the worst people among them or told by these worst people among them what they can do, how they can be and what relationships they can have.
And the more women reject political correctness, and the more men reject the men's movement, the better will be the lot of everyone.
In situation of monopolization of anything, the people who run the monopoly can make wrongful demands and produce an inferior product, because there is no competition.
Whenever we see a monopoly - either an economic monopoly or a social monopoly - this becomes the result.
Both manhood and womanhood should be free from monopolizing entities and opened for competition.
This will result in both manhood and womanhood having to compete to improve itself and its treatment of other gender.
The result will be: Better people and better relationships.
Both gender monopolies stand in the way of that outcome and result in the other gender having a bad deal.
The result is people being the worst they can be and people treating their partners the worst way they can.
There needs to be a competitive pressure upon both men and women to be good to their partners.
And that means breaking the monopolies that exist on this matter and letting people compete based on what they have to offer and how they choose to behave.
I am neither for nor against either men or women.
Both have always existed, both will always exist, and among both we see people who are willing to act righfully and people who choose to act wrongly.
I am in favor of better relationships between men and women.
I am in favor of both men and women being good to their partners.
And I am in favor of those people in either gender who elect to be good to their partners.
For this reason I advocate this: The mechanism of free competition.
And no, this is neither heartless nor unethical.
This mechanism will reward the men and the women based on what they have to offer and how they choose to behave.
A man, or a woman, who wants to be good to one's partner, will be rewarded with a good relationship.
And people - both men and women - who choose to be terrible to their partners will have to change their ways.
The entities that seek to monopolize either gender are the biggest blockage to this ideal outcome.
With both the fathers' movement and the political correctness, we see coercion on 50% of humanity to be horrible and to behave in ugly ways.
And just as free-market economic competition puts a competitive pressure upon the producers to be the best they can be, so the international and intercultural relationships put a competitive pressure upon both men and women in the component cultures to behave the best that they can to the other gender - or see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who would be better to them.
On both sides we see a heavy reliance of moral arguments; and in both cases it is illegitimate.
Neither the men who want to be horrible to women nor women who want to be horrible to men deserve to claim ethics or principle on their side.
A person with ethics will be good to one's partner.
This is the case both with women and with men.
A man who is actually good has no use for the father's movements, and a woman who is actually good has no use for political correctness.
A good man will want to be good to his partner, and a good woman will want to be good to hers.
For everyone else, the best solution is competitive pressure that demands of them to be good to their partners.
The more this is in effect, the better becomes people's behavior in relationships and the better become relationships themselves.