Punishment, Crime and Culture - Part 1: Punishment

I have a heart of stone.

I think I should just put that out there, here and now, no duplicity, no beating about the bush. It's part of that whole "amoral" aspect of my being... well... me. And besides, it's going to show through in this blog - a lot - so I may as well "own it" now as opposed to have you assign it to me later.

After all, this is a sticky subject. There really isn't any such thing as a "neutral party" for the topics of "punishment" and "crime". Directly or indirectly - and of course, of much more personal impact when it's directly - everyone is effected, everyone is impacted, everyone is damaged.

Except for me, of course, because I have a heart of stone.

And not to give away too much too soon, but maybe I should have instead titled this series "Order, Chaos and You" because, once all the rationalizations and excuses are stripped away, I think you'll see that the real problem is not a competition of people, but a competition of destinies.

Or maybe you won't...

After all, virtually no one sees farther ahead than revenge no matter what their other options are. Are you so different? I suppose we'll see. Let's begin...

So why, in the title, is "Punishment" first? Isn't the standard vernacular usually "Crime and Punishment"? (As made famous by some other author, um... a while ago.) Well, it's because as far as I can tell, crime and punishment do not actually come in that order, but rather the reverse. (But more on that in a minute...)

The primary reason that "punishment" is first is because... I do not believe in it - as in: at all, as in: ever.

The fact of the matter, dear friends, is that punishment doesn't exist, not in this life and not in the next.

Am I already stretching your suspension of disbelief? Good. Perhaps it will help you pay attention as we go. Because, as hollow and dismissive as what I just said must ring to people who know for a fact that that they have been "punished" - possibly severely, probably by people they loved - I still must insist that it is true, and not just "semantically so" either.

Punishment - what we're taught to think of as "punishment" - is in fact nothing at all like "paying your debt to society" or even "natural consequences".

Punishment is simply another word for revenge.

So, gentle readers, understand right now that each and every time you were "punished" by... your parents, your teachers, your friends, your bosses, your churches, your girlfriends (boyfriends don't punish), your dentist, your sports team, your stranger-who-failed-to-smile or your name-any-other-relationship-you-care-to-mention, that it was done NOT in any sort of effort to "teach you a life lesson" or "for your betterment" or "to make you tougher", etc, etc.

It was done for revenge, for offenses real or imaginary, committed by you or, indeed, even by somebody else and you merely the proxy.

Now let that thought percolate for a moment or two. It is rather an important one, and I find that most people don't get it on the first try. So take your time and understand the deep, nasty implications, the systematic and horrifying injustices that exists under the false name of "punishment".

And unfortunately, it gets worse...

All the emotional pain you've ever experienced - we're talking about you, your pain - has been a direct result of you "punishing" someone else.

Not true? You really do think: "It's not me, it's them"? Do you really think you're not just as much to blame as anyone for your own unhappy situation? I think you'd better save your denials and rationalizations for someone whose heart isn't made of stone. Frankly, I know better.

Let me state this categorically:

Punishment is a concept of pure evil which has no merit and no place in an enlightened society. Punishment has - and can have - no other objective than revenge.

And before you start, don't think that I haven't read the counter-material. Don't think that I'm unaware of the "studies". I know how dogs are trained and I know what it takes to keep them obedient. I'm not here to train dogs.

I'm telling you, there a difference between giving a child a smack on the butt at the very moment when he's pulling his sister's hair and making him wait-til-his-father-gets-home to get his "punishment". One is useful attention-focusing strategy and the other is revenge-tinged abuse. (Psychological abuse as well as physical, I should add...)

But therein lies the problem: specificity and intent. Little children actually need quite a bit of physical intervention just to keep them safe. It is nowhere near good enough just to tell them: "Don't touch that". In fact, it isn't even good enough to specifically tell them: "Don't touch that because it's hot and it will burn you and it will really hurt."

You don't seem to understand: they see you touching it.

Can you comprehend what I'm saying? I mean really: How many adults are going to actively consider themselves to be "hypocrites" for carefully handling a hot frying pan and spatula? Rebel against this idea if you must, but that is how the unreasoning mind of a child sees it:

If it really was "hot", if it really was "going to burn me", then adults would be afraid of it too. Ergo: It's "safe" to play with.

Life is a funny, perverse thing, is it not?

So, what is reasonable? What is a "good strategy" when it comes to teaching children about the realities of "hot" things?

Ideally... tell them about it, yes, but then arrange for them to "find" something less hot and burn themselves on that. That way they fully receive the true educational experience of a real-world process without having to bear a life-long scar for the exercise.

BTW: If you can successfully pull of this type of parenting, then you are a god.

Less ideally? Notice them reaching for the "hot" thing and spank their little ass - hard - and tell them: "No!"

At least then you'll have invoked the dog-training dynamic of negative reinforcement, which works because of attention focusing and idea-association with pain. (Technically, this is not punishment but "conditioning".)

Least ideally? Not being there/not paying attention when they do burn the shit out of themselves and later, when they're crying, say: "I told you so..." (You are no parent.)

And straight-up unforgivable? Never tell them anything at all about this "hot" thing and let them figure it out on their own the "hard way". (Now you're not even human...)

Am I being a bit too abstract for you? This is, after all, supposed to be a blog about punishment and crime, right? Well, let me tie it in for you then:

In order to gain proper perspective on civil justice, you have to become very clear on your goals. For an array of historic and religious reasons, most people seem to hold the belief that "punishment" is one of those goals. I'm here to tell you: it's not.

None of the teaching scenarios I described above involved punishment - none whatsoever - not even the one that involved spanking. The natural consequence of playing with hot things is NOT wait-til-your-father-gets-home and then be "punished".

The real consequence is getting burned, sometimes severely, sometimes beyond what any plastic surgeon can repair, sometimes... to death.

Your job as a teacher is to show "children" how to avoid natural consequences. I said "avoid", as in never have to suffer them. If you subvert that by attempting to overshadow or replace them with contrived "punishments", then not only are you not a teacher, but you're actually a dis-informer, a double-agent, a saboteur, a villain.

Do you like my flare for the dramatic? Me too!

But don't misunderstand me, people, I do NOT take the subject of punishment lightly - and NOT because of some pseudo-cultural taboo either.

I take the concept of punishment seriously because it has come to be used as a cultural scapegoat from reality - and sometimes, even as a form of currency. The false perception that it is any sort of tool for "correction" or "improvement" - or that it can be used as "payment" for misdeeds - has led to disasters of every sort on every level, emotionally and physically, socially and economically, environmentally and evolutionary.

But most importantly, it has led to cruelty, and tried to counter cruelty with cruelty.

The philosophy of punishment must end.

Unless of course, your goal is revenge. No, no. Think about it carefully and you may just come to understand how often you really do seek revenge.

Road rage? Revenge. Working slower than you need to? Revenge. "Forgetting" items at the grocery store? Revenge. And we haven't even started talking about the biggies yet.

You need to understand that the entire Cycle of Bullying is 100% about revenge; pay-it-forward revenge, true, but revenge nonetheless. You - yes: you - punish the innocent all the time in a multiplicity of ways because someone, somewhere, sometime did the same to you. It's all revenge.

But, hell, maybe you're totally good with that. Maybe your goal really is revenge - and you know it - and that really is how you intend to prosecute your life. If that is the case, then I would just say:

You seriously need to adjust your goals!

Because what you want is not only impossible, but the act of pursuing it will positively identify you as part of the problem and thus make you subject to the policies I'm about to lay out in coming installments of this series. Trust me when I say that current policies and attitudes toward "punishment" and "crime" are much more "caring" than what I'm about to propose. You do not want to find yourself on the "wrong" side of a truly goal-oriented system of Law and Order.

But that'll have to wait until next week (or so). Until then, watch your life and notice the "punishment" going on, notice what "good" it does and how it "enhances" your goals. In fact, notice if you have goals at all.

Until "Crime" time.

Sincerely,

--Geo

Public Health Care

I wonder what my opinion on this is going to be...

I shouldn't really admit this, but I actually don't always know in advance of writing these blogs. I mean. I think I know going in, but sometimes I surprise myself. Sometimes the process of writing and having to really think about what I'm going to say causes me to... alter my stance, even if just a little bit. I wonder if this is going to be one of those times. Let's find out.

Scratching my head here, but I can't think of one topic that has been more hotly debated these last several years than Public Health Care. It seems like there really is no middle ground on this debate; you're either mostly for it or entirely against it. Very polarizing. And very sad as well, for a number of reasons; most of which I'm going to talk about as we go.

But I can't just jump in all wimbly bimbly. Oh no! Because this is an issue that "everyone already understands". This is an issue where the "righteous camp" is completely obvious.

Bah! This is an issue where cooler heads never prevail and the only question people really care about is: "Where are your loyalties?"

So, we're going to need a rather specific introduction to this thing or risk simply joining the "highly principled" muck. And I don't like getting dirty...

So... here's a scenario:

Say you were helping a buddy do some landscaping - not really backbreaking labor, mind you, but some lifting, shoveling, hauling dirt around, etc. - a couple of hours worth of work maximum. Now say that not long after this your back started hurting - a lot. You decide to shrug it off as over-exertion because, after all, this is hardly your first-ever sore back.

But as the days go by it just gets worse and worse. By the end of the week you can't sit or stand or even lie down without excruciating pain. You can barely walk, you've hardly slept and you can't think straight anymore. It's time to get some help.

So off to your doctor you go. (Office visit: $100.) They do an x-ray (~$100 additional) but can't figure out what's wrong with you. So off you go to an Orthopedic specialist (office visit: $250) where they insist that they can't properly diagnose your problem without a full MRI of your spine. (MRI: ~$4000).

Now it's days later (of non-stop pain) and you're finally back for a second Orthopedic consultation. (Additional $250.) They review your MRI results and discover therein a herniated L5-S1 disc. Recommendation: immediate discectomy surgery. Estimated cost: $20,000, plus hospital costs, plus post-operative check ups, plus physical therapy, plus the distinct possibility that even after everything is said and done, you still won't be out of pain.

Pretty grim scenario so far, right? Unfortunately, it gets worse. On top of everything else, factor in the reality that you just came off nearly a year of unemployment; you have tons of debt, no savings and absolutely none of these medical costs are going to be covered by your new job's insurance due to "pre-existing conditions".

OK, okay. Pretty far-fetched, right? I mean, anybody can manufacture a sad-sounding story when they want to play for sympathy...

Except for that is exactly what happened to me in the Autumn of 2010. It turns out that a great many things are merely "interesting" or "problematic" until they happen to you. Then shit gets real.

But my story is hardly the worst I've ever heard, hardly the worst of people I actually know. This sort of thing happens all the time to all sorts of people - and it's always a big, expensive mess. A mess, I need hardly point out, that no one wants to own or clean up.

And I suppose I also hardly need to tell you that Public Health Care involves a whole lot more than just treatments for injuries and accidents. There are so many sick people needing so much care! The scope of it simply boggles the mind. What to do? What even can be done?

Hmm... maybe my opinion on this is starting to show through after all. I won't kid you; it was a tough situation for me sitting in that specialist's office being told that if I didn't have the disc surgery right away that I would probably end up with permanent nerve damage and partial paralysis of my left leg for the rest of my life. Now that... is intimidation.

And, as it turned out, also not true. But perhaps I'll save the idea of medical malpractice for another blog...

The first point I would like to go for from my little story is to ask you to consider the very serious question: What were my real options in the situation I just described? What would have happened had I decided to go ahead with the surgery recommendation?

Well, for me personally, it's a little hard to guess. Had I undergone the surgery it would have required weeks of time off work for the initial recovery. Weeks, I should add, that I didn't have any "vacation days" built up to cover. I very probably would have lost my job. (The brand new job, as you'll recall, that I had just barely started after a life-alteringly long bought of unemployment.) Obviously I didn't have the funds to pay cash for the services, so my only option - barring some anonymous gift or something - would have been to undergo the surgery anyway and then declare bankruptcy. (I.E. Lying and stealing...)

Do you understand what I'm saying? My options appeared to be "become a cripple" or "go bankrupt". How the hell do you choose between options like that?

But I won't leave you hanging. As closure to my little story, let me say that the $20,000 price tag scared me enough to seek out a second opinion, which was the SMARTEST THING I EVER DID. It turns out my first Orthopedist was a quack! The second one sent me instead for a fluoroscopic injection of steroids (cost: $1400) that got me out of pain - as well as no longer suffering paralysis - within less than 24 hours.

Can you freaking believe it? Less than 10% of the cost of the first guy's "recommendation" and it totally worked!

I was lucky, in several ways actually. Lucky to have avoided costs that I never could have re-payed under the circumstances and lucky to have the type of spine injury that was actually amenable to non-surgical treatments.

I spent the next several months in physical therapy, the next couple of years making $250 per month payments against my medical bills (remember, even without surgery I was already on the hook for over $6000) and the rest of my life strengthening my core and maintaining the flexibility of my spine. (It really never will end for me...)

But as I said: I was lucky. Not everybody in my situation gets off so easy. And a lot more people are faced with even harder choices than the one I had. They don't get to decide "pain" or "no pain". They have to face decisions like "Do I get this operation or do I die? Do I agree to pay for these procedures or do I let my child, spouse or parent die?"

And we're not talking about a few thousand dollars here anymore either. We're talking about hundreds of thousands, perhaps even more. We're talking about total-life-time-earnings levels of cost here.

Cost...

That's what these issues always come down to, isn't it? How much is it going to cost and who's is going to pay?

You know, back in the day these sorts of issues were much easier to deal with. Back in the day when you needed a treatment you... simply asked God for a miracle, because there were no treatments. When your fate - or the fate of your loved one - became obvious, you resigned yourself to it... and died, usually in some extent of agony, because there also wasn't anything like pain killers. ('Cept for whiskey, o'course...)

I'm not sure how many people truly pine for the "good old days". If they do, I'm pretty sure that the suffering-and-dying aspects of it are not exactly what they have in mind. (Unless they are truly disturbed individuals...)

But these days are complicated. These days we have the extreme inconvenience of "options". Although, I'm not completely sure it's accurate to call them "options" when the fine print of the matter is, should you be required to pay the whole cost of them out of your own resources, virtually no one - not even in this shiny, first-world country that we live in - will actually be able to do so. Makes for a fair few social problems, to say the least.

So let's talk about those problems a bit. And let's also talk about "goals". I like goals. Or I should say, I like the idea of goals - specifically the idea that, if you keep your attention on your goals, and not allow yourself to be distracted and diluted by... well... distractions and delusions, then you might just achieve a thing or two in this life.

So, I want to ask you a simple question: What is your goal for Public Health Care?

Does that seem like an odd question? Are you immediately inclined to answer with a rebuttal question? Something like: What're you asking me for? That's not my job. I don't have a Public Health Care goal.

You don't? Hmm... That is interesting...

I did mention that this was going to be an "amoral" blog, did I not? I want to point out that I don't play "devil's advocate". I actually don't care about most things of the sort that most people would call "moral". I assure you, there will be plenty of offenses given to your moral sensibilities here - just as many of your "moral sensibilities" offend me.

Personally, I believe that "moral" arguments have vastly and unjustifiably clouded this issue from its very inception. It shouldn't start there! (It might eventually go there, but it definitely shouldn't start there...) For any social problem there is always - ALWAYS - a natural basis to launch from. And here is the proper basis for this one:

Nature never intended the weak to survive or thrive.

Reality, friends, is a harsh thing. Do you know what happens to a wounded zebra on the plains of the Serengeti? In the morning they find small scraps of white and black. Why should we expect any different?

No, seriously, why? We take a lot of these ideas completely for granted without ever interrogating them or becoming completely clear with ourselves on why we believe what we believe, why we do what do. It's not good enough!

It doesn't tell us anything to recite from rote "because life is sacred", because it quite evidently isn't. Nor is it even close to influential to claim "because we were commanded to", because we weren't. We pretend to be principled when all we really are is well trained dogs. It's not good enough!

Of course... neither is the reverse idea. Who gives a shit what nature "intended"? Unlike wild animals, we have learning, tools, intelligence and will. It no longer has to matter what nature did or didn't "intend". We have the power to do otherwise, if we so choose. And with that power comes responsibility.

So I re-ask the question: What is your goal?

Notice that I didn't ask "What is the right thing to do?" or even "What is the most affordable?" Those points have been talked stupid already - and to no resolution. No, this needs to be a lot more basic than that. I want to know - or more precisely: I want you to know and then also tell me - what your real, honest, highest priority is.

Do I sense a little hesitation? Why is that, I wonder? Could it be that you don't know what your own highest priority is? Or is it that you simply don't want to tell me? possibly because of how your true goals might reflect upon you? Don't want to be exposed? Don't want to be judged? Don't want to be "punished"?

Bah! I'm going to go ahead and assume it's the first one; that you simply don't know.

Don't feel so bad. Most people don't actually know what their highest priority is - regardless of the subject matter - because, in the final analysis, their highest goal is always "personal comfort". And frankly, "personal comfort" really is an all-around nebulous concept.

It is a truly rare individual indeed who can specifically name their highest goal. And maybe that's why people shy away from trying at all. After all, continuing-to-breath-in-and-out is quite probably humanity's true highest goal. Not very laudable. But I digress...

So suppose instead of asking you "What are your goals?", which you can't answer, I instead give you these five agendas to prioritize from highest to lowest. Suddenly this just became a "political activity". As such, you should know that your choices will be advertised to all the world. They will know that it was you - yes you - who definitely decided: "This one is truly important." and "This one is not going to happen." Let's begin. What ordering will you choose?

• Restricting government.
• Keeping abortion legal.
• Winning the War on Terror.
• Eliminating religious messages in schools and other public places.
• Providing health care to anyone who needs it regardless of their ability to pay.

Do you find this to be a "loaded" list? (And if so, in what way do you find it skewed?) Do you feel like my little assignment is unfair? that it's some sort of set up to make you answer the way I want you to? Well... 

OF COURSE IT IS, STUPID!

The thing you don't seem to realize is that this is the same sort of tactic that your political/religious "leaders" use to manipulate you with ALL OF THE TIME. Ridiculous lists of "apples" and "oranges" when they know only too well that A) you don't like apples and B) "pears" is the actual right answer but, hell, there's just no money in pears.

So let's try again with a different list. I think you'll find this one, if anything, even less manageable than the first. But see for yourself. How will you sort these priorities?

• Providing health care to anyone who needs it regardless of their ability to pay.
• Avoiding supporting - i.e. paying money for - government programs that you don't believe in.

Not quite what you were expecting? Perhaps you object to my "over-simplification" of your options? Oh really? Well let's think about that for a bit, shall we?

Republicans hate Obama-Care (to be pronounced with a spit). It does actually have a proper name, you know? The Affordable Care Act? But honestly that just doesn't role off the tongue nearly as nicely, now does it? Nor does it have nearly the same ability to associate to-the-man acrimony. So, let's play along and just call it: Obama-Care.

And as I was saying, Republicans hate Obama-Care. But one does have to wonder... why?

Of course the obvious answer is: Because they're Republicans. And, sadly, that probably ultimately is the real reason, but let's continue to play along just a little bit longer and examine some of the "stated" reasons. (Highly paraphrased by me, of course...)

Reason 1: We can't afford it.

You know what? This is a damn good reason. Daydreaming and do-gooding aside, eventually someone has to feed the bulldog. (Or in my case: the Shih Tzu...) If you can't afford something then, by God, you can't afford it. You don't lie. You don't steal. You don't "borrow from the future". You say to yourself: "Self, I have some bad news: We can't afford this."

And I'll be the first to sympathize with your hurt feelings when that happens. So many fine things in this life are just... out of reach. What are you going to do, cry about it? (Actually, yes.) Being practical is never fun. In fact, it's pretty much the polar opposite of happiness most of the time. (That's why people avoid it...)

But there's just one problem with this particular objection...

We already do afford it.

I'm guessing you already know that it is quite illegal to turn anyone away from an emergency room in this country, regardless of the patient's citizenship status or ability to pay. They get seen, they get treated (at least to the extent that an emergency room can treat someone) and questions of "who's going to pay" are only ever settled after-the-fact. And where does the money to pay for those "free" services eventually come from: tax dollars.

And why is that? What travesty of economics allows this intolerable situation to continue? Because the bleeding-heart liberals refuse to turn anyone away.

You know, it is absolutely within the realm of possibility that all public funding for health care end - all of it.

And it doesn't have to be just-like-the-good-old-days either. We have advanced medicine now! If you - or anyone - gets hurt or sick you can simply go to an institution of healing, in much the same way that you might go out to a nice restaurant, peruse their menu of services, decide what looks "good" (as well as what you can afford) and then either order or walk away. Simple! No harm no foul.

Well...

There is one small difference, I suppose, between ordering food at a fancy restaurant and ordering emergency medical services, which is:

Should you not be able to afford the service at one restaurant, you can still feel reasonably confident that you will be able to find another that you can afford, that in the end, no matter where you eventually end up, you will be fed.

Medical care isn't like that.

Medical care could, if one were bloody-minded enough, be considered the biggest scam ever perpetrated in the history of humanity. Consider what you "get" when you go in to your doctor's office with a complaint.

For starters, you DON'T get any guarantee of relief. You may leave hurting just as much, feeling just as ill, as when you went in. The medical profession makes no promises of "improvement". You agree to pay for the attention given regardless of the outcome.

What other profession on this planet can get away with such a non-commital business model? Amazing fees (my doctor's office fees amount to almost $400 per hour) with no guarantee of any positive result whatsoever!

(Actually, I'll tell you who else can "get away" with it: lawyers, clerics and politicians. But accurately, even they can only get away with it for so long...)

But of course, I exaggerate. Of course there is a very good reason that doctors not only can, but must, operate from that business standpoint, which is:

Unlike restaurants, who know you're hungry and have several options to deal with that, doctors do NOT know in advance what's wrong with you or, in fact, if they will even be able to help.

(Lawyers, clerics and politicians? Now they're just fucking liars...)

So, it truly is quite impossible for a regular doctor to offer a "menu of services" that has anything more on it than basic diagnostic services. Yes, they can charge a blanket fee of $100 to walk in their door and be "looked at", but if it turns out that there's anything at all wrong with you, the expectation that the initial consultation fee would cover that too goes right out the window.

I hate being so pedantic with the obvious, but I just think that, in their mad quest for "blame" and "consequences", people sometimes forget about these pesky little realities. They forget that it might just be possible that they, themselves, had something to do with the creation of the problem. (Funny how that happens...)

The point is: You might walk into your doctor's office feeling "mildly off" and exit with the understanding that you have cancer, or a heart that's about to attack, or an aneurysm that might just kill you before you reach the end of the block.

You didn't know. You didn't expect it. You didn't plan for it. You didn't save for it.

And how could you have? You expected to drop a $20 co-pay and walk away with a prescription for Lortab. Now you have to look into your pocketbook/bank account/soul and decide: "Can I afford to keep on living?..."

You think I'm just manipulating you, don't you?

Asshole! I know a woman - a seemingly healthy, athletic young woman - who suddenly discovered that she had a brain tumor - a fucking brain tumor! And, no, she didn't have anything even similar to "insurance" at the time. She had to make this exact choice. She had to decide: Do I undergo brain surgery - a procedure that there is no way on God's green Earth that I can possibly pay for, a procedure that might not even work, a procedure that itself might kill me - or do I simply do nothing and allow myself to die?

How do you like that spin on "We can't afford it"?

NOBODY CAN AFFORD IT! THAT'S THE POINT!

And just so you don't have nightmares from worry and wondering: she did get the surgery. It worked. She recovered. And as you might have also guessed, she declared bankruptcy and passed all those costs on to us. She "screwed" all of us... so that she could live. You know what? I'm glad. I wanted her to live.

But that's not what would have happened under your health-care-a-la-carte model. She would have died. And do you know what else? In the same position, even you - with your fancy job and lifestyle - would also have died.

Well, maybe not...

I mean, what do I know? Maybe you really do have several hundred thousand dollars sitting idle in your checking account at any given moment. After all, exactly how many businesses do you know who are anxious to give "credit" to a dying man? Cash - in advance - or walk. (Or crawl, as the case may be, depending on whether your legs still work...)

And undoubtedly there are some who do have that kind of cash. But how many? Is it even greater than 1%? Is it truly only 1% of humanity who actually "deserves" to live?

No seriously: you tell me. These are your goals that we're talking about. We can totally pursue the policies of "survival of the fittest/luckiest" if that's what you really want to do.

But do NOT tell me that is how it "has to be" because we "can't afford it". We CAN afford it and we DO afford it. We just resent the hell out of having to because, after all, it's "somebody else's problem".

Reason 2: Public Health Care isn't government's purview. (AKA: No "big government".)

This one is actually my favorite... because it's such utter bullshit. Every time I hear someone official making this sort of argument I watch carefully to see if their poker face is going to twitch under the complete absurdity of it all.

But since the gullible will, quite evidently, believe just about anything, let's consider the point as if it really were serious for a moment.

Here's a question: What, in your philosophy, is the "proper role" of government? I ask because, to hear some of you talk, you seem to believe that we could-get-along-just-fine without any government at all. But is that true?

Let me ask you this: Do you drive a car?

Maybe you don't have a car. Fine. Do you ride anywhere in anyone else's car? or in a bus? or on a freaking bicycle? How do you suppose that the roads under your tires got there?

Another question: Do you think it would have be "fine" to do nothing at all after 9/11? Do you think it would have perfectly acceptable for the terrorists to slink back to their camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan with no response, unchallenged by us in any way, and allowed to plan their next attack on unarmed civilians with complete leisure? Why do you suppose that didn't happen?

In fact, how do you think that electricity, gas and water actually get into your house to run your lights, warm your feet and wash your dishes? Magic? Just another one of Jesus's wonders?

No. All those things were provided by an organized, functioning government. And in fact, that's the only way they could have been provided because - just like health care (clue) - they are FAR TOO EXPENSIVE for any one person or small community to afford on their own.

I don't mean to call you unobservant, but...

You already live under - and always have had within living memory - a "big" government. It's not only big, it's HUGE! It's far bigger than even the largest of corporations, by orders of magnitude, and it has to be because that is the size of the problems that it is called upon to address.

Military, infrastructure, education, these are all  perfect examples of public problems that are far too big for any "community" to handle. If "big government" didn't handle it, it wouldn't get handled. It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

Health care is just like education. It is a fundamental national problem which can only be solved at the national level. After all, who else could solve it? Private insurance companies? They're actually the ones who created this mess in the first place!

It seems really bizarre to me that conservative folks will become terrified to the point of treason by the trumped up threat of "big government" and yet have no compunction whatsoever about the actual threats of "big insurance" and "big pharmacology". Have you ever heard the term oligopoly? Look it up. Your new dictator isn't "Obama". It's the unelected, unaccountable elite executives of the multi-national corporations.

Of course, other conservative apologists will claim: "It belongs to the States to administer Public Health..."

The States? Really?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! 

Oh gosh! That was a good one! I needed that...

Seriously, have you seen the States? Have you seen how "well" they typically do at managing education, or employment, or civil liberties, or separation of church and state, or keeping the freaking lights on?

I really must write a separate blog on this subject sometime, but to keep things brief: States are both passé and obstructionist. Their main "contribution" - if they have one at all - is little more than creating a tiny piece of regional identity. Their main downfall is inefficiency and the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy to be abused and siphoned off from.

Yes, there are a few jewels out there but, as a rule: STATES SUCK at their job. States are just as much a part of the problem as the Pharmo-Insurance monopoly is. They do not deserve the trust this level accountability requires. They cannot do the job.

And just to round things out, I have also heard the unspeakably lame claim from certain parties that "religions" should be given the task of caring for the poor. It's hard not to simply gape open-mouthed at that level of audacity. I can't imagine any collection of self-referential egoists more un-suited to the task. Neither can I imagine funneling upwards of 20% (or more) of the national budget into the hands of any private organization, let alone one who aren't even accountable to shareholders. That is simply the worst idea I've ever heard.

But all of those observations aside, the real reason it has to be the national government - and nobody else - is because they're the only ones who can actually accomplish the goal.

You didn't forgot about the goal already, did you? You know? Providing health care to anyone who needs it regardless of their ability to pay? Remember that goal?

You forgot about the goal... again... Sigh!

It's not your fault, not really. A great many people have spent a great deal of time - and money - in the distinct and deliberate attempt to make you forget - or failing that, to make you so confused as to give up and just let them "deal with it".

If that is the case then, whether you realize it or not, your priority decision has already been made. You've already decided that "avoiding paying" is more important by simple virtue of the fact that you've left ultimate decision making power to people who have highly vested interests in maintaining the current state of business.

I guess I can't blame you. After all, avoiding paying is money in your pocket, right? (Or at least in somebody's pocket...) You can count money, measure it, use it to pay country club dues with. That's real. But "saving lives" and "alleviating suffering"? Why, that's hardly definable at all! How will you know if you're even succeeding? That sort of policy is a hole with no bottom...

There is, however, just one problem: You still wish to claim the identity of someone who "cares about the suffering of others."

Hmm... Well this is a problem...

Are you sure I can't just talk you into coming to grips with the label of "greedy, heartless bastard"? Come on, people! Help me help you! It would make my job sooooo much easier if you just would. We'd be done already!

No? Shit!...

Well, let me think...

Still thinking...

Hmm...

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but there simply is no win-win solution to this problem. There will be no having-the-cake-and-eating-it-too. So the only "smart" thing left to do is minimize losses; the idea of profit has simply gone right out of the picture.

The only way I can think of to actually offer people medical care AND ALSO minimize cost is...

National Socialized Medical and Pharmaceutical Care.

Did I just feel it grow colder?

Look... people... you've given me almost nothing to work with here! No matter how "smart" I may be, I still can't do magic. If you want people to "receive help" then somebody's going to have to pay for it. And as I've already beaten to death, that scope of "help" doesn't just grow on trees. Treatments for single cases of severe genetic diseases can reach into the millions. MILLIONS! Can you freaking afford that?! Well neither can anyone else!

I mean, why do you think that insurance companies were invented in the first place? Believe it or not, there actually once was a time when they sincerely cared about helping people cooperatively pay for bills that none of them alone ever could. This is not a "new" idea.

But of course, that seems like such a long time ago. These days insurance companies thrive on illnesses, the more the better, in fact... for their profits.

Sounds counter-intuitive, I know, but here's how it works: The more people get sick - or the more they hear about other people getting sick and how expensive it is - the more willing they become to pay ever increasing premiums for medical insurance. But it's a bait-and-switch. They spend more but insurance doesn't cover more. It's brilliant!

No, seriously: Why do you think that Obama-Care is so vehemently opposed? Because it's "so expensive"? No! It's because it removes major cash-flow devices from insurance companies, such as eliminating pre-existing condition qualifications or the denial of coverage to certain high-risk individuals.

FOLLOW THE MONEY, people! (And try not to be such corporate tools in the future...)

And while I'm on the subject: What, exactly, is the "conservative alternative" to Obama-Care? Exactly how does the Conservative Right intend to actively address the goal of "Providing health care to anyone who needs it regardless of their ability to pay"? I personally have never heard a single meaningful suggestion from them.

But you know... maybe I just "missed it". Maybe I got confused by all the rambling bullshit about "responsibility" and "merit" and it slipped right by me. Knowing me, it could have easily have happened. So tell me now: What is your alternative plan? What is your brilliant scheme that absolutely achieves all the same "goods" while completely avoiding all those nasty "bads"? I'm waiting to be amazed...

Um... Hello?

Are you ignoring my question? Pretending you "didn't hear" is a very childish ploy, you know?

No? Nothing?

I don't like to make too many blanket statements but, right now, at this juncture of human history...

THE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT IS COMPLETELY FUCKING USELESS!!!

And worse than useless, really, because you defend a status quo that is obviously, demonstratively, broken, and that by your own standards and values. You defend the Oligopoly! The abusers! What the bloody hell is wrong with you?!

Ahem...

Reason 3: Obama-Care is not the "right" answer.

You know what? When you're right, you're right. The sad fact of the matter is: Obama-Care is not a particularly good solution. Despite my rantings above, the truth is that Obama-Care does not, ultimately, remove control of American Health Care from the hands of insurance companies. If anything, it more firmly entrenches it, despite the additional limitations it inflicts against its profit margins. The Oligopoly continues in spite of all. The status quo remains.

But not only that, Obama-Care was written so poorly with enough loopholes for anyone - or rather: any company or even ENTIRE STATES - to "opt out" if they so desire. Thus Obama-Care is not truly a "national" policy. It has almost no ability to enforce itself. It's weak as water, and thus the goal remains ever distant, with no real hope of closing the gap.

We live in troubled times when the government of our land is willing to abdicate its obvious responsibilities to citizens in favor of corporations and their moodiness. But that is how it is. The real question is: Is that how it's going to stay?

You know, there was a third policy option that I deliberately omitted from your list of choices because I didn't want to "offend" you:

• Winning.

The sad fact, the utter human failing, is that both sides of this situation care far more about winning than either "providing care" or "avoiding paying" combined.

Do you see the level we're operating at here? Do you see the real obstacles that we have to contend with? We, as a nation, have more than enough money and resources to create the most impressive - completely free - national health care system that the world has ever seen. But it doesn't happen - and it won't happen - because doing so would be seen as "losing". And if there's one thing that Americans are not, it's "losers".

People suffer and die - and will continue to be allowed to suffer and die - because a handful of delusional elites cannot abide the perception - the perception - of having "lost" to the agenda of the people. I just don't think I can express the essence of the current situation any more succinctly than that.

But if nothing else, it's at least comforting to know that there really is "nothing new under the sun". Key individuals still can muck up the works for entire nations, and even for the world as a whole. It's inspiring in a way. It shows what really is possible when the "right person" is in the "right place" at the "right time". (And all of us? We're just jealous that we're not that "person"...)

So... people lose... And in fact, I lose too.

You see, my dirty little secret is that my spine will never truly heal. I'm living on borrowed time. Active and fit as I appear to be now, it will eventually deteriorate on me back to paralysis. I've got a wheelchair in my future.

But who knows? Maybe they'll invent a synthetic spine soon. That would be fantastic! Can you imagine how many people that could help?

But at the same time, they might as well not. Can you imagine how much it would cost to replace a spine? So much more than my life is worth. I would never be able to afford it. Neither am I willing to allow my kids get on-the-hook for it either. They'd never own another dime again. It would ruin their lives!

No, I'm afraid that neither nature - nor the values of conservative America - ever did intend for the weak survive or thrive. I cannot thwart either of their wishes. I accept my weakness. I am resigned to suffering.

I'm sorry, but that's the end of the story. I can't truly anticipate any additional closure for your curiosity.

I wonder what's going to happen now. We already have a system that doesn't work. And Obama-Care won't work. And none of these bastardized, watered-down partisan compromises will work. The only way forward that I can see is pure national health care...

Or we could just let go of the whole thing and stop pretending that it's one of our "values". It wouldn't accomplish the goal, true, but at least the honesty would be refreshing.

Sincerely,

--Geo

I Don't Need Feminism?

Nobody is going to love me for this...

Hey, I don't know that for sure. Keep a good thought, right? After all, maybe "history" will love me... when I'm dead. (Yeah, that'll be great. I'll look forward to that...)

So, yeah, maybe I am a little "late to the party". I got a link on Facebook the other day to an article rebutting something called the I Don't Need Feminism movement. It was the first time I'd heard of it and, as someone who's already blogged more than his share about feminism, I was intrigued.

In case you don't already know, the fuss was/is that young American women are openly defying the authority and validity of Feminism by creating little selfie photos of themselves holding up signs describing their particular objection to Feminism. Distention in the ranks? The vice grip of Feminist terror starting to break? You have to know that I had to know more.

And so I did some looking to see if there was any real substance to this little "rebellion". As it turns out, there was. There are some definite trends among this generalized dissatisfaction, no doubt about it. But I have to tell you, it's not what you - or they - think it is. As it turns out, the I Don't Need Feminism movement is just as misguided and wrong as Feminism is. Women just don't seem to be able to get this right. And so it falls to me to straighten everything out.

Can you begin to see why nobody is going to love me for this?

And actually... it gets worse: While I'm here I'm not only going to correct Feminism; I'm also going to dismantle Masculism as well. Might as well, right? After all, I'm on the subject...

Um... maybe that observation isn't exactly as obvious to everyone else as it is to me. Well, it will be before the end. That is, it will be if you can manage to keep your rage and prejudices in check that long. Can you do that? If you can't, well... I'm afraid that makes you squarely part of the problem.

But personally, I wouldn't believe me until I'd heard the information. I could be a raving nutter for all you know. (Which would hardly be novel in this debate.) Frankly, I would make me prove it one point at a time before I believed any of it.

Fine with me.

Let's start with a brief - and not all-inclusive - summary of the I Don't Need Feminism sign content, shall we? The main points I saw, in descending order of importance (as determined by me) were these:

1. I don't need Feminism because I don't hate men.
2. I don't need Feminism because I don't have an inferiority complex.
3. I don't need Feminism because I already have all the "rights" I deserve.
4. I don't need Feminism because sexual equality has been achieved.
5. I don't need Feminism because I already earn what I'm worth.
6. I don't need Feminism because Patriarchy doesn't exist.
7. I don't need Feminism because there is no such thing as "rape culture".
8. I don't need Feminism because the only people who have ever oppressed me were women.

I think that will do. And of course, I was paraphrasing (mostly) and not quoting. And I left out the ones that were, in my opinion purely inflammatory and probably not indicative of then general rationale of women who support the I Don't Need Feminism movement.

So, what do you think of this anti-Feminist thinking? What on the above list is not substantially - or entirely - true?

The correct answer is: none of it. Everything on this list is logically or factually flawed... but probably not for the reasons you're thinking. But more on that in a bit.

First, I think you should know that a whole bunch of people - men and women - took it upon themselves to respond in kind to the assertions of the anti-Feminists. In fact, I found many, many more sign-selfies made by pro-Feminist supporters out there than the reverse. But I'm not sure that you should read too much into that. At least, not just yet.

Here is my summary of the messages of the I Need Feminism rebuttal (also ordered in descending importance):

1. I need Feminism because I do not feel physically safe.
2. I need Feminism because I still experience verbal harassment from men.
3. I need Feminism because I still experience social pressure for appearance and behavior.
4. I need Feminism because I still "get judged" for my sexual standards.
5. I need Feminism because a wage gap still exists between men and women.
6. I need Feminism because idiots keep trying to pass anti-Feminist legislature.

There were a few more notable ones, certainly. I particularly liked the one that said "My great-grandmother died as a Suffragette so that I could vote." Possibly true. Although the only reference a quick Google for deaths related to Suffrage that I could find said:

"In June 1913 Emily Wilding Davison threw herself under the King’s horse at the Derby racecourse and was killed. She was the only suffragette to die for the cause and was made into a martyr."

But... that was a British Suffragette, and quite a bit more like a suicide - or at the very least: tragic miscalculation - than a martyrdom. But I digress...

So, what do you think of this pro-Feminist thinking? What on their list is not substantially - or entirely -true?

The correct answer is: none of it. Everything on their list is also wrong. And yes, once again it's probably not for the reasons you're thinking. Is it time to stop winding up and start explaining? Yes, I think it is.

So why is it - in fact, how could it possibly be - that so many impassioned, activist-minded people on both sides of an issue can still be altogether wrong? Two reasons really: 1) They only gave themselves enough space for a tiny little thought bubble of communication - certainly no where near enough to express a wholly formed thought (which is a pervasive problem in Internet-based culture in general) and 2) They fundamentally don't understand feminism --- any of them.

Funny thing, but it turns out that there are literally a million ways to be wrong about something. These guys are not only wrong about the particulars of feminism, but also fundamentally wrong about their understanding of themselves. Rounding all this up is going to take a bit of doing, but let me inch into it just a tad by saying:

Everyone - man or woman - is both a feminist and a masculist. Both and always.

Recent conversations have reminded me that there are "many types of Feminism", and this is true. But in case you hadn't noticed yet, I spell feminism differently than Feminism. And I can assure you, there is only one kind of feminism. (Don't worry, I'm trying to confuse you on purpose to hold your attention. Is it working?)

Feminism, with a capital "F", at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is: "A collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending a state of equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women."

Fair enough... for starters.

Whereas feminism, with a lower case "f", according to me, is: "Respect for and pursuit of all things intrinsically feminine, such as: sensation, pleasure, beauty, love, sexuality and spirituality." (Did I just quote myself?)

Now don't get ahead of me, people! I see you're little minds just racing with sexist thoughts right now, but you're just simply going to have to wait.

But don't get me wrong. It's okay to feel how you're feeling. To react to stimuli is feminine. I gave a stimulus, you reacted to it. What could be more appropriately feminine? (And yes, I'm including you reacting men in that assertion too...)

But you really do need to hear the second half of the definition because the fact of the matter is, feminism does not - and cannot - exist without masculism (and vice versa). So let's go ahead and define masculism now as well to compare and contrast:

masculism (rember the lower case "m") is: "Respect for and pursuit of all things intrinsically masculine, such as: reason, interpretation, construction/destruction/invention, relationships and survival."

Do you start to see where I'm coming from now? There really is a duality at play, and masculism and feminism really are nothing more than the fundamental aspects of every human's personality.

And of course, there is also a Masculism, with a capital "M" out there as well - just as misunderstood and misused as Feminism, I assure you - of which I will have a bit more to say as well.

Now then...

Is your mind flexible enough to grasp that there are various politically-oriented groups out there who deign to call themselves "Feminism" (or "Masculism") yet which may - or may not - ultimately have anything to do with their unfortunately same-named personality trait of "feminism" (or "masculism")?

That was a long and complex question, so... read it again just to make sure you understood it.

You see? This is the essence of the misunderstanding. All of these people, the Needers and the I Don't Needers, believe that the scope of "Feminism" is smaller - and in many cases: much smaller - than it really is. They believe they already know what feminism is while, in very fact, they do not.

Let's take some time and analyze the disconnects and the fundamental misinterpretations of the I Don't Needers, shall we?

• I  don't need Feminism because I don't hate men.

Point of fact, "hating men" is fundamentally antithetic to feminism. In fact, you cannot be a true feminist and hate - not just men, but anything at all.

And I'm not just saying that as a moralistic ideal either. Hate involves a goal and goals involve interpretation of success or failure (as well as the subsequent projection of the failure outward onto others). Because of the dynamics involved, only the masculine can ever actually hate.

But guess what, "ladies"? You have a masculine side. In fact, the more "Feminist" you are, the stronger your masculine aspect is shown to be, because, and this is interestingly ironic:

Feminism is masculine.

As are all political pursuits of any kind, because all politics are really nothing more than the manipulation of relationships for the purposes of goals.

Too esoteric for ya? Tough! You're going to have to play along for a while regardless; your inner masculine wants to hear the rest of what I have to say...

Here's the thing that pro-Feminist supporters need to come to grips with: Some of the people out there currently calling themselves "Feminists" really, truly do hate men, vehemently so. And some of them are so aggressive about it that I, personally, do not feel safe in their presence. That level of hate sends a really strong message.

Now you may thinking (and rightfully so): "But those are the 'Radical' Feminists."

That is the wrong thing to think.

If you allow haters to continue to use "Feminist" in their self-description, you validate them as a legitimate segment of Feminism and, in so doing, condone their attitude.

Did you know that you were doing that? I suspect not.

I'm afraid a painful threshold awaits, and it goes a little like this: Feminism needs to clean out the haters.

There is no more space for condoning the hate-mongering aspect of Feminism. They are defeating the cause because - whether "ignorant" or not - the anti-hate women (and men) of the world cannot hear your reasonable message over their noise. You have to disassociate them - clearly and finally - and say in no uncertain terms:

Real Feminism fundamentally respects and values men.

And any form of "Feminism" that doesn't is false, abusive, misguided and, ultimately, misnamed.

I hate to be blunt, but that is the cost. Feminism has cancer growing in its body. What's your choice? Cut it out or let it kill you?

• I don't need Feminism because I don't have an inferiority complex.

You know, I'm really tempted to shrug this one off as simple projecting. However it was a recurring theme, so let me give it just the smallest treatment here.

True feminism thrives on fully experiencing the current moment, whatever this moment may be. (Which is why books like the Power of Now ring true...) feminism doesn't compare itself to anyone. That's what masculism does.

But basic personality traits aside, no one likes a "complainer".

But what I want to point out is that to "complain" is not always the same as to "demand someone else fix it" because "I can't do it on my own". Sometimes it really is an effort to raise awareness of a problem or opportunity that can only be remedied/seized by the group. Anti-Feminists are choosing to see Feminist complaining as a confession of weakness rather than a call to arms.

Which isn't to suggest that weak-minded complaining never happens. Frankly, they both happen together a good bit of the time. Perhaps if pro-Feminist messages were more clearly stated this would happen less. It is something to strive for at the very least.

• I  don't need Feminism because I already have all the "rights" I deserve.

This one is interesting. After all, what person wouldn't want "more rights"? I suppose it must be a certain ethic of egalitarianism that also seems to have coincided with this I Don't Need Feminism fad. Fairness is a high ideal which I admire. Fairness is also a masculine trait.

The problem is: the basic needs of feminism (notice the "f") are highly different than those of maculism. I don't care what certain Feminists might say, men and women are fundamentally different - and not just at the physical layer - and are not to be treated identically. It really shouldn't surprise anyone that that reality might drift into the realm of policies and legalities as well.

But you did notice that I said "might". While I consider myself highly feminine by personality (inasmuch as a man can be), I don't pretend to understand what its really like to be a woman. And neither, I would like to point out, does any woman know-what-it's-like-to-be-a-man. (Thank you very much!) There will always - ALWAYS - be special needs and considerations that are completely gender specific.

As to what those special considerations specifically are? I couldn't say in advance. It's funny how certain topics that seem really obvious once they're brought up have, quite literally, sat unconsidered for... ever. That's precisely why we have courts and legislatures. If we could predict everything that was going to happen in advance, we'd just have laws, not legislatures. Laws that would "never need to change". (Cough... religion... cough.)

Egalitarianism is a fine... starting point. Ultimately, however, it isn't good enough as a long-term solution. It's a lazy man's ideal. People who care about optimal quality of life will look beyond. It truly is quite likely that women do not indeed have all the rights they "deserve". And the same goes for men.

• I  don't need Feminism because sexual equality has been achieved.

To a certain extend I can just say: "See the section above." But I will add to it just this little bit:

Sexual equality is a very ill-defined term. There are indeed a great many areas where men and women have attained complete equality in this country. In fact, there are a good number of areas where women have become - or simply always were - superior to men. Not mention the existence of realities where simply isn't possible to make men and woman "equal" regardless of any pretense of law making.

Simply put: equality isn't actually the goal.

In the end, literal equality isn't physically possible for anyone. And - and I think this is important - neither is it even necessary. The true goal is to maximize opportunity - for everyone - regardless of  what shape of system must be created to accommodate that.

Equality will never truly be real. Nature doesn't provide for that. But we can seek to maximize our collective capacity for happiness. And if you will allow it, that truly is the "goal" underlying the duality of feminism and masculism.

• I  don't need Feminism because I already earn what I'm worth.

This assumes that the main goal of Feminism is to equalize assets and financial power. It isn't. Not to go into history, but the original main goal of Feminism was to participate in representation - not because "there were specific things that needed to be done" (although there definitely were) - but because there was no good reason "why not".

But more to the point, I have no idea what anyone makes - and neither do you. I decide (and continually re-decide) what I'm "worth" all the time - including, I should point out, what my time off is worth to me. This is something every individual must do, no exemptions or special treatment based on sex.

• I  don't need Feminism because Patriarchy doesn't exist.

A clear rebuttal to the Feminist assertion that Patriarchy does exist and causes many - if not most - of the problems Feminism seeks to redress. It certainly does beg the question: Does Patriarchy exist?

Quick answer: No! And also: yes. Yeah, I didn't think I'd get away with that one, so here's the deal:

Literal Patriarchy as spun by Feminism does not exist in this country anymore and arguably hasn't since the pre-revolutionary Puritans lost sway to more mainstream immigrants. When witch-hunting ended, so did Patriarchy.

OK... I'm guessing that that's not quite what you have in mind when you think of "Patriarchy". You see what I mean about definitions? Tricky things! Misunderstandings are EVERYWHERE! Particularly when it comes to issues of Feminism.

In fact, what most Feminists refer to as "Patriarchy" today is actually Romanticism.

"What is Romanticism?" you ask. Good question! Which... I'm not really going to answer. Look it up if you're truly interested in the origins and historical/political aspects. Myself? I'm more oriented towards its cultural implications for modern relationships. Of which it has many; so, so many.

Romanticism is what created and solidified the gender roles that everyone up until the Women's Rights movement took completely for granted. Romanticism told you who you were, what you were, how to behave and whom to regard as honorable and authoritative. Men were men. Women were women. And children were in the process of becoming one or the other.

So? Fine! Whatever! It was still a system where men were "in charge" and women had little or no power.

You know what? I find your attitude (which I just projected upon you) irritating. What makes you think that your grand-mother and great-grandmother had "no power"? No, seriously. What makes you think that pre-Feminist women had no power?

Do you know what it meant to be a "working woman" before World War I? It meant that you were a prostitute. No woman of any class would ever be caught "working" unless the world was about to end.

Interestingly, the world very nearly did end. There was World War I, in which nearly 18 million people died, followed by the Great Depression which collapsed economies world wide, followed by World War II, in which so many people died that they stopped counting after 60 million, but even more interestingly, into which they actually, successfully, recruited women into the effort.

World War II opened up Pandora's Box. It conclusively proved that women could do a "man's job". (And also that a black man could do a "white man's job. And that a "middle class" man could have both respect and a decent wage just like a society man...) It got the wheels a-turning for a cultural revolution. The rest of the history you probably can recite on your own.

I've strayed far from the point, but I think it was worth the distance. Literal patriarchy has never existed in modern American consciousness. Rather, we inherited a culture of Romanticism which held - and this is the point - which held every woman's imagination for almost 200 years. It was not a "male conspiracy". It was the American Dream. It was romantic. It was "safe". It gave identity.

And this is ultimately why the answer is both "yes" and "no". No because there is no "Patriarchy" and yes because there was/is a similarly restrictive culture at play that actually does need addressing: Romanticism.

Though I do have to confess, the only reason I feel compelled to pull out that highly semantic distinction is because Feminists use the confusion of concepts to place blame. And it bugs me! I am not a patriarch. Social demands on women do not originate in patriarchy. And most of all: there is no possibility of fixing current cultural problems by getting-men-to-quit-patriarchy. They already quit - during the Industrial Revolution. It's time to come to grips with the idea that modern culture is everybody's "fault" and everybody's responsibility to fix.

• I  don't need Feminism because there is no such thing as "rape culture".

OK, that one is true. There is no such thing as "rape culture". Nowhere in this society is any boy ever taught where and how to rape a woman or girl. It is clearly illegal and the definitions of what constitutes rape are well communicated and well understood - as are the punishments that await those who do.

Yet, it still happens, and one has to wonder why.

No, I won't pretend to know the psychology of rapists. If I had to guess - and I do - I'd say it had something to do with impulse control, and least for the non-premeditated variety. (The others? You can just kill those. I won't complain.)

But I did imply that this attitude was "wrong", did I not? And here's the problem: Even thought it's true that "rape culture" itself doesn't exist - and is a glaring exaggeration used as a tactic for attention by Feminists - their underlying motivation is far from dishonest. They genuinely do feel unsafe and at risk. They just want people feel the seriousness of the issue the same way they feel it. When you flippantly dismiss their cry for help and justice, you depersonalize and humiliate real people who have received real harm. Is that what you meant to do?

Anti-Feminists need to grow a bit more empathy. Some issues are not a we-win or they-win situation. Some issues really are everybody's problem. This is one, and it deserves more than dismissal as a "tactic", even if that is the way some people convey it.

• I  don't need Feminism because the only people who have ever oppressed me were women.

I don't mind telling you, there were a LOT of these. Does that shock you? And as I recall, the only men who sided with the anti-Feminists all held messages along these lines; they perceive Feminism as the motivation for physical and mental abuse that they personally have suffered.

I don't know exactly what to say about this one. I can't tell anyone: "No, that isn't possible. Women don't abuse." because I, myself, have been abused by women. I know first hand what it's like to be degraded, humiliated and smacked around. It's isn't fun. It might take years to recover from, assuming you can recover at all.

But... to blame Feminism? No.

Just as with Radical Feminism, those abusers were stealing the name without permission. Abusers can come up with all sorts of rationalizations to justify their actions, all just as implausible and insane as the next. I know that it doesn't take the hurt out for me to say this, but you were screamed at, beaten - and maybe even raped - by a crazy woman, not a Feminist. No true Feminist would ever defend her actions. Rather they would be horrified that she had invoked their cause to excuse her insanity.

I'm afraid blaming "women" for the abuses of one woman is equivalently irrational as Feminism blaming "patriarchy" to the oppression of women. The anger is real, the target is wrong. It's misdirected hostility.

But for what it's worth (and I wish it was more): I'm sorry. I know how you feel.

So that pretty much covers why the sign-selfie anti-Feminists are fundamentally wrong and turned around on the subject. But there are still two additional things I want to say about them and their so-called point of view before I move on to the pro-Feminist "arguments":

1) Despite everything they provided as reasons why they "don't need Feminism", I still don't think I've heard the real reason. And since they won't tell you, I will: identity.

The only reason that anyone would ever claim not to be - well, anything at all really - is because they have already developed an incompatible identity to the contrary. (I mean, if they didn't know what it was, then they would just say: "I don't know what that is...")

Some women may think that they can't be a Christian and a Feminist, or a Wife and a Feminist, or a Republican and a Feminist, or so many others. But it just isn't true. And the only reasons they believe such ideas are because of disinformation and the malformed and agenda-laden opinions of others.

And also because...

2) Despite everything I've said, Feminism truly has given anti-Feminists good reasons to not to want to join them.

No, you're not as "wrong" as I made you out to be. You're just not very... clear... in your perceptions of what really is at play here. That's why I'm here. I'm your self-appointed, apolitical referee.

Clarity can be a truly marvelous thing, you know? You should try it. But I warn you: it doesn't come cheap. You end up quitting part of your identity in the process, and that never is a comfortable experience. In fact, most people are simply too afraid to try. But you're not "other people", are you?

So now that I've unspun every sign-based anti-Feminist rationale, it's time to turn over to the Feminist side of the debacle. Remember, there were far more pro-Feminist postings out there than anti. Which I still don't think you should read too much into because, popularity of activism aside, their messages were poorer in both quality and clarity than the anti crowd. Let's commence the debunking, shall we?

• I need Feminism because I do not feel physically safe.

Safety is a big issue. I'm not going to pretend that it's safe out there, because it isn't. And I'm also not going to pretend that most of the "causes" of unsafety aren't men, because they are. But I basically have two things to notice about this "demand" of Feminism: 1) Safety is not just a Feminist issue and 2) What exactly do you suggest that we do about it?

Now please do not immediately take the wrong impression. I really do care, and I would never wish to dismiss or minimize anyone's very real apprehension about their personal safety. Frankly, there are places that I don't dare go either exactly because I perceived them to be the lairs of unsafe people.

Yes, I very much care, but frankly, I don't know what to do to make the situation any better either. No honestly, I think about this issue all the time. Doctors want to make people better, but I want to make better people. But how?

I mean, we can talk about "education" and "spreading awareness" - and, yes, we should do that. But frankly those messages have been around for years and years and none of the problems have subsequently, magically gone away. We may have improved prosecution, but we haven't really improved prevention.

Did you know that a full 1% of our population is currently in prison? No, I'm not talking about the third world or emerging places like China and Russia. I'm mean here, in the United States, home of the "free".

Do you understand the implications of what I'm saying? In this country we have nearly three million people in prison! Right now! Can you imagine such a number? That's enough people to populate a small country! In prison! At tax payer expense!

And not, I should add, "rehabilitating" one little bit.

I'll ask it again, because I'D REALLY LIKE TO KNOW: What do you suggest that we do about them?

Actually, I have some suggestions on that point. But crime-and-punishment is rather out of scope for this blog, and neither are my thoughts on that subject specifically aligned with Feminist theory anyway. So I'll save them until another time...

So why am I saying all this? To try to put relative problems in perspective. I hear you say things like: "I should feel safe to walk alone at night. I shouldn't have to plan ahead to be accompanied. I shouldn't have to restrict my choices of where and when I go..."

I agree, and in an ideal world that would be the case. Sadly, such a thing has never so far existed in the history of this planet. And I mean that for both men and women.

Do you have any idea of what it would take to accomplish the level of safety you're demanding? Not only constant surveillance of all people at all times, but the ability to stun or remove them at an instant's notice should they seem to be doing something aggressive.

And "seem" is an important word. Things are not always what they seem. Intentions are not always what they seem. The government - or whoever's watching everybody all the time - would literally have to be able to read minds in order to truly keep you safe.

Well... that or we can quarantine you in a bubble all by yourself. Or maybe we can strand you on a desert island somewhere. I hope we can find one that's big enough to feel like an unrestrained environment, but no promises. You're not the only one who doesn't feel safe, you know? And there really is only so much planet to go around.

And yes, I get that none of that is "fair". I'm being unrealistic because you're being unrealistic. Honestly, I don't know how to bring "fair" into this situation.

You all have me, as a masculine, at a loss. You have a problem that I would very much like to fix - to please you so that you can be happy and pleased with me - but I simply don't know how. No one does! It's a logistical nightmare from which there is no waking.

But I want to point out that matters are made worse, not better, by the continually complaining, the continually blaming - especially of the very people who are actually trying to help. It isn't winning you any friends, any support or any "extra effort". And worst of all, by constantly demanding progress on problems that no one can actually solve, Feminism itself comes to be seen as ineffective.

Ah, progress...

You do understand that progress is a masculine imperative, right? As I said, Feminism is masculine. As such, Feminism is required to produce results. Not just set agendas, not just make demands, but actually produce.

Welcome to a man's world, "ladies". The anti-Feminists are holding you to the same standard as they hold us. Does it feel good? (Actually, that is an honest question. To a real masculine, being held accountable truly does feel good. As long as you're behaving "accountably", that is...)

Have you ever wondered why people "blame the victim", as you say? Do you truly think it's because they honestly believe that the victim "asked for it"? No. It's because at some level they know - not just suspect, but know - that there was nothing that anyone could have done to prevent what happened. The only person who was there, who might have been able to to something positive, was the victim herself. That person was "obviously" under-prepared for the situation.

Feels like blame, doesn't it? But in actuality it is a confession of powerlessness and grief.

I understand that politics is about power. I get why women would want to band together to push for particular regulations and other provisions that a legal system really can provide. But there comes a point when every person - no matter who they are - will be left completely to their own devices to cope however they can. That's not "poor government". That's not "Patriarchy". That's life. You want someone to blame? Blame God.

And after you're done doing that, start to think seriously about actually taking some of the advice offered by your masculist allies. It kills us to see how irresponsibly women continue to behave even in light of all this unsafety. It is true that we all dance the line between "freedom" and "safety", but there simply are more skillful ways to do it.

Honestly, I didn't mean to harp on the subject of safety quite so much, but it really is multi-faceted. You will claim that "someone needs to be the voice" of these issues, which is true. But I will claim that continuing to rant and blame over issues that simply cannot be solved smacks of "she doth protest too much" and demanding-without-producing. Why do people conclude that Feminism has an "inferiority complex"? Why do people conclude it's passé.

Because modern Feminism has no concrete, measurable, attainable goals.

And literally I could stop right there. I don't really need to cover the rest of the list because all of them are also cultural imperatives rather than actionable policy items. There is seriously nothing that a masculist like me can to do "make these things happen". They are unreasonable demands that hurt relationships. (As unreasonable demands always do...)

But...

I do feel compelled to follow the format I set up. Plus I do have a few choice words specifically for each topic over-and-above the established idea that they are "cultural" rather than "political". So I'm going to give each one a bit of a treatment regardless before I get on with... well... what it is I ultimately came here to say.

• I need Feminism because I still experience verbal harassment from men.

Not sure if you noticed this or not, but men are idiots. They're not "quick learners", if you know what I mean. The problem (or one of the problems at least) is that there is a segment of the female population that actually likes and responds to that sort of treatment. Ladies, I have two words for you: MIXED MESSAGES.

I have to tell you, you've all collectively created this problem. I guarantee you there are men from whom you would very much enjoy receiving a "cat call". Your beef is that the ones actually doing it are not them.

But, as I said: men are idiots. They can't really tell a woman of quality from a skank hoochie most of the time. If these dogs are ever going to be "house broken", it's going to have to be via consistently applied discipline - and treats.

But sorry to say, bitching about it simply makes you a "bitch". There's always another who will respond positively, and thus the behavior is reinforced and continues.

• I need Feminism because I still experience social pressure for appearance and behavior.

Sorry, but social pressure will never end. Extra sorry to report that the vast majority of pressure on women comes from other women. Why is that? You know why! You do it too.

Also, remember all that rambling bullshit I said earlier about Romanticism? That's why.

Roles... Now there's a dirty word if I ever heard one. If you truly didn't believe in the importance of roles, if you truly didn't wish to attain the rewards they claim to offer, you simply wouldn't care what social pressure was being applied to you.

BUT YOU DO CARE. It's so obvious, and not just because you're complaining about it all the time. You continue to watch TV. You continue to respond to the advertising. You continue to gossip. You continue to envy. You want to win at the ever-changing, never-ending game of  Romanticism. And why? Because your identity is as a "romantic".

Personally, I will not let off my demands for either appearance or behavior in a romantic partner. I require quality and beauty.

Not fair? I'm going to turn that around on you and ask: Why do you believe yourself incapable of both quality and beauty? Where is this defeatist self-esteem coming from? Why can't you become the best version of you?

Moreover: Exactly whose permission do you need before you can begin to achieve? Exactly whose validation will finally prove to you once and for all that you're worthwhile? Why are you powerless in the face of other people's opinions? Where is your mind?

Ah, I get worked up. It's a side-effect of having a huge imagination and no companionship. Like Frankenstein, I've been trying to create an "ideal companion" for quite some time. No success though, as you might have guessed...

But let's be clear on this point: There is nothing anyone can do to "fix" social pressure. It's like the wind, sometimes it pushes ships across the ocean, other times it destroys entire areas. Plan as you will to use or avoid the wind, but never believe that you can make it stop blowing.

• I  need Feminism because I still "get judged" for my sexual standards.

Um... here's the thing: I won't be able to "slut shame" you if I don't know that you're a slut.

Not good enough? Tough! It turns out that it really isn't cool for ANYONE to be sexually promiscuous, and I'm not just speaking from a moralistic point of view because I don't have any.

Why, oh why, do you think you need to fuck dozens of guys and then brag about it? What kind of "relationship strategy" is that? "I use people and that makes me cool because..." Exactly what am I supposed to fill in that blank with?

Promiscuous people have categorically bad self-esteem. They never "believe" in themselves, so they have to have constant new "testimonies" from others that they are "worth the attention". It's exactly like being addicted to a drug. The high wears off, and the high was the only thing that was ever "real"  in the first place.

Do you honestly think that if people like me would just become "happy and accepting" of your "lifestyle" that everything would just magically sort itself out? Not a snowball's chance in hell! These are your demons, not mine.

Personally, I will be much happier with you - and much more likely to give you the positive attention that you so desperately crave - if you stop abusing me with your fucking stories. (Mild pun intended...) I do NOT want to know how poorly you've treated yourself and others. I do NOT want to have to imagine the self-deprecating activities you've been up to. I do NOT care to engage in anything similar to that with you. And, to the extent that you persist in conveying such information despite my objections, YOU ARE SEXUALLY HARASSING ME.

Now that's what I call "slut shaming". Effective? Only to the extent is gets you to A) change or B) leave me out of it.

• I  need Feminism because a wage gap still exists between men and women.

Does it? I've been reading recently that women are now exceeding men in terms of college educations, middle-executive positions and overall employment in general. I'm starting to think that if a gap does exist, it's men who are on the lower side of that gap.

Hmm... I wonder if Feminism will actually fight for my next promotion in an effort to close that gap up a little.

Of course, the real rationale behind the rhetoric of "wage gap" is centered in non-dependence. That was, after all, the single biggest impetus of the Women's Rights movement back in the 60's and 70's.

And it was 100% correct and justified too.

It simply isn't sound policy - not to mention: fair - for a woman's financial fate to depend entirely on the good graces (and luck) of... some man. So many retiring women have found themselves with nothing in the wake of losing their primary relationship. They have no marketable skills, no real-world experience, and thus find themselves merely shifting dependencies, usually at a distinct downgrade in lifestyle.

But dependency is so "romantic"!

You know, you Feminists are really not very good at this whole Feminism thing, are you? You want the cake and to eat it too. You say you want to be independent but then you pursue low-paying soft-science and service careers. You say you want to be both a career woman and a mother but then you create a level of debt that you couldn't possibly afford on your own. You say you want to be "equal" to a man but then still require that man to provide double or triple (or more) of the financial support to your relationship.

Why do you think that you deserve that? Why do you think that's "OK"? Why do you think that sort of double standard is justifiable - or even logical?

Something on the order of 60% of all marriages end in divorce. Most of those involve minor children that will continue to require full levels of support. Why do you think Feminist law gives custody of those children to the woman in virtually all cases? For the welfare of the children? Bah! It's for the welfare of the mother. Because society understands that she has not prepared herself for this kind of eventuality - because she hasn't.

That is NOT Feminism. That is just plain thoughtlessness and laziness. And frankly no wonder that Masculist groups have cropped up demanding "rights". The system really is unjustly stacked against them. Just as it once was stacked against women who wanted the freedom to be independent, it now oppresses men who wish for the freedom to be in their own children's lives.

But the real culprit here is, once again, Romanticism. If I didn't have to play the role of "sugar daddy", if it truly was good enough for me just to bring myself, bring my half of our financial relationship to the table, I would have been recommitted to someone wonderful years ago.

But it isn't...

It seems fairly likely that I will live out the rest of my days alone because I am only judged on my material success - or lack thereof. Truth is, I have a good job and I already do make more than most of the women I might otherwise consort with. But it just isn't "enough more". It isn't enough to be "truly impressive". It doesn't imply the level of lifestyle that is core of a "proper relationship". It isn't enough to make me a "real man".

My sour grapes? Yes. But also a plain indication that women - even those who call themselves Feminists - don't ultimately take Feminism particularly seriously, not when it comes to compromising their comfort.

Wage gap? You bet your ass! And without it Romantic relationships would be completely unfeasible.

But pretty soon we're going to find out what relationships look like without it, because it's all but disappeared in the younger generation. Pretty soon we're going to see first hand how men and women interact - or indeed: if they interact - when there is no longer any meaningful "wage gap". Death to hypergamy! Vive l'intimacy! (At least that's my hope...)

• I  need Feminism because idiots keep trying to pass anti-Feminist legislature.

OK, you got me! I was getting bored with bashing Feminism anyway. This one is categorically true with no "buts" that I can conjure. Idiots - particularly ill-motivated moralists from the Right - actually do keep trying to pass anti-Feminist legislature or revoke or curtail existing pro-Feminist legislature. If someone organized doesn't stand up and say "No you don't" then they eventually will.

But you will notice the distinct difference between this idea and the rest of the list, right? This one has actionable policy items that can be identified, understood and acted upon. It doesn't involve vague wishes for a "better society"; it involves goals.

I know that this blog has already been way too long. I know that I have had more than my fair share of opinions about Feminism and that I try the patience of my reader with my sometimes out-of-the-blue definitions of things and insistence on what might be considered minor details. The thing about that is though:

Feminism is important to me.

• I need feminism, real feminism, because, even though the world really is a dangerous place full of crazy people, it is also a wonderful place full of beautiful people. Without feminism it would be completely impossible to appreciate the difference. Life would be hollow and meaningless, a perpetual misery from which death itself would feel like a merciful release.
• I need feminism, real feminism, because masculim of itself has no agenda and thus no goals to pursue. Feminism instructs us as to what is "good" and "pleasurable" in this life. Feminism, not masculism, gives the direction, sets the agenda. Masculism merely brings it into reality (if it can).
• I need feminism, real feminism, because without it true intimacy in a relationship will never occur. Masculism creates business relationships, goal-oriented relationships - which are absolutely necessary and good - but it does not have the capacity to... feel. I want to bond, not just cohabitate. That's the difference.

As for Feminism the political movement? No, I don't need it. It would be fabulous if it could reform itself and return to the honest pursuit of Women's Rights. Who knows? Maybe it could even fight for my right to be more... feminine, to support me in seeking out some of my own passions and pleasures, without having to constantly wonder what opportunities and relationships I was foregoing - what negative judgments were being passed down - by my not being adequately devoted to "progress".

Yes, if that truly were the case, then I would most definitely need Feminism. But until it becomes honest, until it becomes clear, focused and loving, I'm afraid I will have to consider modern Feminism both a fraud and an obstacle.

But be that as it may, I call upon all women everywhere to understand that feminism, with a lower case "f", is your primary personality aspect. I call upon you to notice that your real contribution to this world has nothing to do with "rights" or "equality" or "power", but the ability to bring beauty and meaning into this otherwise cruel and purposeless existence.

And if that sounds trite and trivial to you, then you simply have no grasp of what's really important. Wake up! Time is short!

As for me? I pledge to continue to try to bring quality and clarity to this otherwise confusing situation. That's what I'm good at, my limit capacity to communication notwithstanding.

I love women. And I admire anyone who actively stands up for things - and people - they believe in. I say: grab hold of Feminism and make it your own. Toss out the haters and get on with the vigilant advancement and protection of all things feminine. That's the true road to progress, and if you take it you will have my support.

Sincerely,

--Geo