C’s just mentioned to me that there’s been a rise in pauper’s funerals, which is where the local council buries people with no family and no assets, and she pointed out that two thirds of them are men. To her this is a high proportion but to me that actually seems remarkably low. If you look at poverty statistics generally men are 90% of the bottom 10% of society. 90% of the homeless are men for instance, 90% of the workplace deaths are men, 90% is a figure that tends to crop up a lot. So this shouldn’t surprise anyone but for the fact we live in a society dominated by the idea of patriarchy theory and other feminist dogma as well as by the attitude that women that need help are oppressed victims but men who need help are losers who need to man up.
Until you start looking at the statistics you don’t realise that women are almost always looked after or sheltered. One of the funniest examples I came across of this was in a Girl Writes What video where she quoted a news article that was furious about the rise of deaths and injuries to women in the work place. In actual fact once the statistics were looked at what had happened is that fewer men had been killed or injured and so the proportion of women killed or injured had increased even though the actual numbers had remained static. The thing is that the article was written from the usual, normal, gynocentric worldview that predominates these days.
“Patriarchy hurts men too” makes no sense as an explanation and the mental gymnastics that have to be done to square the stats with patriarchy are pretty impressive. In fact they’re on the order of “No, the world is flat, it’s just that space is curved” type mental gymnastics. This patriarchy can oppress half the population but can’t stop them getting the vote and can’t give the other half a universally decent standard of living? How thick were the previous generation of women if they were successfully oppressed by this bunch of monkeys?