Our modern society is a shameful place: discrimination is so prevalent everybody fails to notice it.
A case in point came in this morning’s broadcast of Triple M’s Hot Breakfast with Eddie McGuire.
The host, Eddie McGuire, recounted a tale of an internet-dating love triangle. A married woman, assuming a false identity on a dating website, arranged a rendezvous with a single man. Her husband accidentally stumbled upon her planned infidelity, and the resultant confrontation ultimately degenerated into a physical domestic dispute.
The whole team, McGuire, Luke Darcy, Mick Molloy, and even their support staff, laughed at this violent affront to human dignity.
It gets worse.
The victim in the domestic dispute was elderly, and possibly in a vulnerable mental state. Yet, the assault was still considered suitable fodder for light entertainment.
So why is it that you didn’t hear about this incident? One would generally expect such an on air gaffe to force an unconditional apology, as was the case with the King Kong fiasco. McGuire obviously has form with these types of issues.
No apology was forthcoming because the victim described above was not the unfaithful wife, as you may have expected. It was the would-be ‘other man’, and we, as a society, have been conditioned to indifference whenever the victim is a male.
In truth there were two victims of violence, an addendum which highlights the problem of societal double standards. In the breath between laughing at the assault of an innocent, lonely old man, the mood shifted, the tone became more solemn, and the following piece of information was prefaced with a disclaimer against domestic violence: the wife was also on the receiving end of her disgruntled husband’s fist.
Imagine the outrage were the genders reversed. Laughing at a woman being assaulted, while simultaneously demonstrating the presence of mind to condemn violence against men. Were an apology not to ensue, it’s unlikely the broadcast would have continued.
But that was not how it unfolded.
The husband’s actions may have been understandable given the betrayal but remain wrong none-the-less. Violence is unacceptable and he was duly punished. An innocent third party, the unwitting would-be ‘other man’, has had public humiliation added to his injuries. The sole female in the story, however, receives nothing but sympathy; her newly acquired ‘victim’ status absolving her of any responsibility in the situation she created.
Is this what passes for equality, fairness and responsibility? Clearly it is by the current paradigm dominated by feminist ‘thought’ (yes, the quotes are necessary).
I feel certain, even without the need for research, that not a single feminist would have contacted the station to complain despite repeated assertions that they are ‘fighting for men’s rights, too’ whenever their
objectivity is questioned bias is exposed.
This anti-male bias; the discrimination, disrespect, neglect, and indeed the hatred of men can ironically be illustrated by the fact that the very word describing the behaviour, misandry, is not even recognised by my trusty spell-checker.
The discrimination against men is so severe it not only goes completely unnoticed but is actively supported by the victims, echoing the behaviour of Muslim women in extremist cults who have become so brainwashed by insidious oppression they actually believe being held captive, and forced to cover every inch of their skin, constitutes reasonable behaviour. In much the same way women of last century took to the street to oppose their own right to vote, in order to maintain what they considered to be a very reasonable status quo that had stealthily built up around them.
Consciousness needs to be raised and the public discourse altered before we can have any hope of equality. Endorsing and supporting hypocrisy and irrationality will only lead to resentment, division and conflict.
As for a solution to the hypocrisy there are two paths to take; either enforce the same strictness with respect to violence against men, or drop the disclaimer over violence against women.
I’d prefer the latter.
Some may say that this course would only serve to promote ‘a culture of violence against women’, a point I would agree with in principle were the qualifier ‘against women’ to be removed. The problem with this example, as with society at large, is violence. Contrary to what most would assume given the public discourse and endless media campaigns: most victims of violence are actually men. It is a shameful reflection on society that this reality is simply ignored.
Despite this ‘in principle’ agreement, the latter remains the best alternative as a matter of free speech. A concept especially important in the field of humour (The above tale was a comical situation when you fill in the details I have forgone in the interest of brevity).
Were society to adopt the former, humour would have to pass through the ‘feminist fun filter’ or its male equivalent: resulting in the death of comedy itself. Comedy cannot be afraid to offend people.
“A joke isn’t a joke unless it’s at somebody’s expense” – Christopher Hitchens
If the effect of such ‘social irresponsibility’ is to produce people who feel they can use ‘I heard it on the radio’ as a mitigating circumstance in the commission of a crime, the solution is very simple: the paltry excuse should be taken into account as it is with drink driving. Attempts to absolve criminal responsibility with such claims should only be rewarded by having the punishment increased.