We all make mistakes, and it appears that feminism was based on a variety of logical errors that we all overlooked. Education programs have tragically brainwashed our society to once again believe the world is flat or one dimensional. (In the early 1990's I overheard A government official from China commenting that North Americans thought in "Black and White," a good observation) Much of our current logic is based on half-truths, truths that are deceptive lies because these truths are merely part of a greater truth. Given that this concept, "anti+truths" is unknown, we are indeed victims of this "light" that deceives, some might even argue the work of the devil.
First, victimization of "a woman," any individual for that matter, affects us all. Not merely the individual, be they a woman, man, white, black or whatever but to use a phrase of today, "the entire village." A "woman" who is victimized can also make victims of their father, their brothers, their sons, or even their husband; we have polarized the issue of victimization. To selectively isolate victimization is manipulative and polarizing. We should begin to appreciate that even the abuser, male or female, is also a victim of their actions. So by this philosophy one must ask, why such a negative anti-father, anti-male agenda has been allowed to develop; perhaps we should blame it on the deceptive half-truth.
(A crime, or any negative incident, against "any individual" eventually affects the entire global village; the ripple effect. To isolate to a specific group is half-truth based logic)
Having said that we must replace these illogical polarizing "us verses them" or "man verses women" discussions with those that reflect the above noted reality. A father marries a woman, a father helps create a child, and fathers care that their daughters live a fair and good life (most fathers), and have children and grandchildren, as do mothers, good+mothers, GOD BLESS THEM . . (It should be obvious that our selfish culture of today would reject a life of sacrifice). . . . To think otherwise is "the sick" I refer to. To separate and polarize the sexes, is illogical. In all fairness to the "radical-negative-feminists, they may have been exposed to abuse, or have been brainwashed to believe that "all" are bad because of "their" individual bad experiences which may account for this negative "black and white" attitude. The chain of negativity continues.
It is important to appreciate that while their are some men and women within our society who at times show negative responses to each other and the world, it is important to appreciate the many forces and situations have sculptured such a behaviour or response; sometimes we may never know "the truth' about an individuals behaviour; the unknown dimension to truth. We are fools to believe that we can isolate blame to one entire group or merely to one person at the exclusion of all others. Many situations and factors influence behaviour including a persons personal choices and not to forget the work of the devil . . . ( this force appears to work through the weak, and as the Bible says, focus on individuals to create chaos, that is if you believe in the Bible)
In dealing with these negative incidents, we should utilize a positive approach that appreciates the complex and imperfect reality of human behavior and relationships. It is totally illogical and manipulative for us be fooled by deceptive statements like, "most spousal abuse of women is caused by men"; the statement only allows one answer and is purely exploitive. Or that most victms are.... We are stereotyping the problem.
We are polarizing the issue of violence and abuse, and are inadvertantly adding more tension and stress to male/female relationships. We have created government funded systems that feed off of social polarization. A type of "parasitic system" that even may create and add to the problems, as would a cancer, in a paradoxical fashion. A cancer, is an imbalance of the body attacking itself, a very good model to appreciate, both on a microscopic and macroscopic level.
A reoccurring theme in this website is that we should take a positive approach to social problems and appreciate the variety and complexity of causes. We should also be careful to appreciate that we create systems that feed off of social problems; what I call "parasitic systems.". We should also accept the reality that we can change these systems to rather "promote the positive" while addressing the negative causes and not merely the symptoms.
We should appreciate the errors of "half-truth" logic. For example we often hear of a very polarizing statistical comparison that polarizes male verses female salaries. These comparisons FAIL TOTALLY to acknowledge the women and men who are married to each other and who share their incomes with each other, their children and the community. We should not think of these individuals in isolation. The importance of "family" income and "children" are totally ignored by radical-negative-feminists. The polarization of issues, statistics and terminology has gone undetected; this is a game.
Tragically "this game" and anti-family logic is being taught in many programs and this must be countered and or corrected.
One of the greatest manipulations of information, statistics, terminology and logic has occurred in the area of family violence. The manipulation of government funding to acquire political power has come through many different avenues, most importantly, the Stop Violence Campaigns. "Stop Violence against Women," contains three negatives, is sexist and bigoted and deceptively infers that men are the cause of this violence, when in fact lesbian relationships, are statistically the most abusive, not to mention "normal" "sado-masochistic" relationships. Violence in of itself is a half-truth based concept, for not all violence is abusive and their are many other equally powerful types of abuse. I strongly suggest you read, "GAMES PEOPLE PLAY" by Dr. Bernes. In Thunder Bay, I suggested that we should replace the slogan, "Stop Violence against Women," with "Stop Violence against People" an individual from a local woman's group called this "a step backward for women"; how revealing.
We could even say more by saying less (a paradox) by saying, "Stop Violence."
Rather than negating the negative, ie "Stop Violence," lets "Promote the Positive," such as respect. It becomes obvious that the current political philosophy is not at all directed at promoting the positive, but rather laying blame and dividing.
Much of the negative-feminist rhetoric often speaks of men and women but fails to acknowledge the God given roles of motherhood and fatherhood. Both individuals working, and maintaining a family, undergoing personal sacrifices to raise, educate, teach, and support their children, their grandchildren and great+granchildren. It would appear that some radical-negative-feminists would manipulate public funding to support their lifestyles with children without relying on a father, a husband, or men; social programs allow and even promote social decay; a paradoxical negative effect. In the case of radical-lesbian feminists, social programs deceptively subsidize their lifestyles, when they disguise themselves as "single-mothers." In other cases "single mothers" through responsible work raise their families and contribute in a positive manner to society as a whole; lets not paint all within a group with the "same color" brush.
The polarization of logic of much of the radical-feminists often divide along lines of male and female. This totally ignores the reality that normal men marry normal women, that normal men and women conceive both boys and girls, and that each man and woman are descendants not of men or women, but are the genetic composites of both their parents, male and female.
Perhaps there is an insight into how the societies of the 20th century have relied on books for knowledge and wisdom. Not to say that there isn't some knowledge of benefit, but tragically, we have ignored the wisdom that had been amassed and communicated by voice for so many years. I recall the story of how I acquired my name.
When I was born, at the local hospital, a nurse brought to my mother a book, detailing the various names that you could select and name your child after. My mother's response to the invitation to use "the book" to name me was,
It appears we are looking to " questionable books" for expert advise when "science and logic" would suggest that we seek wisdom from those "individuals" who are practically+successfull, rather than merely theortically-successfull....whatever field of study they are in . . . . .