All too often we notice how men and women are held to different standards. Often times women are held to impossibly ridiculous standards such as not being able to sleep with who they want, certain politicians trying to regulate a woman’s body and many other issues. Not many will deny this or at least they wouldn’t if critical thinking is being utilized. Granted men are also held to ridiculous standards and sometimes those standards are directly imposed by women. Society in general and the world in general can be unfair to a person for any reason but very few issues have caused such a polarization and a divide quite like the gender argument.
With all of that said there is one issue in particular that many agree with but many also disagree with. This whole idea that men caused all of the problems in the world and women are merely living in the world sharing none of the responsibility has to go. To make such a suggestion is to remove humanity from women which groups such as Women Against Feminism have made into a primary argument. Not only is the idea that men cause all the problems and women do not share a large part of the blame for the issues of the world completely a lie but it is beyond egregious to even make a suggestion. Anyone should be free to make any opinion they want to so long as the opinion doesn’t directly and irrefutably threaten someone’s life or harass them beyond a shadow of a doubt. But if the same group that wants to police up supposedly troubling and “problematic” language has so many of their members running around making such suggestions then maybe that group needs to do some soul searching.
Of course just making the suggestion that some women can be apart of the problems in the world is going to ignite debate. We all know this. But there are some simple points of evidence to this. Let us review this evidence.
Remember the Trophy Shirt Controversy? Target, as a company sold a shirt that said, “Trophy” on it that was sold in the women’s section. Of course many of us were wondering what exactly was the issue? Who cared? A lot of people cared and so much so so to the point where there were thousands upon thousands of angry tweets and facebook messages aimed towards Target. Now the important part to remember is that this whole article is about how women can cause problems too. One, not many of these people, many who were feminists, cared to notice how, according to Target’s own corporate website, that they have workers who make these shirts. As many of us can imagine those workers probably aren’t getting paid 15 dollars an hour to perform their back breaking label and many of those workers happen to be women. In all of this controversy about what a shirt said how many of those people, even the feminists, really cared about the grand irony of it all?
The Target situation also reveals a huge amount of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. Remember this one line from the NBA about buying animal products. “Because when the buying stops the killing can too.” Interesting. So in other words even a business like the NBA can recognize that it isn’t just about who is producing the material but some of the blame can go on the consumer. After all, would we not jail a person for producing child pornography featuring eight years olds while at the same time punishing those who watch it? This is interesting because it appears that some social ideologies don’t seem to get this.
Who are the primary consumers of clothing made by women in the third world? Well if the Daily Mail article about who buys more clothing and accessories (men or women) is true then men spend only on average ninety-nine dollars less than women but that still makes women the primary buyer of clothing even when you consider this. When one considers the L.A. Times article about clothing and how damaging it is to human rights and safety conditions we learn that most of the clothing in the west comes out of those same third world countries where people get paid extraordinarily low wages and are often subjected to atrocious working conditions. If women are actively participating in the purchase of those clothing pieces in the West and if we are to believe that not buying elephant tusks and rhino horns is a generally good idea how are we going to perform ridiculous amounts of mental gymnastics and engage in outlandish cognitive dissonance and say that a lot of women are apart of the problem with this particular issue?
But the consuming portion isn’t over. As we know many social ideologies want to convince us that women aren’t even the blame for war. Throughout history there have been female war lords and even women as royalty and even the most foolish of people wouldn’t deny that. However the general claim of a particular social ideology that will tell us that women are not partially responsible for wars such as the American war in Iraq yet at the same time women benefit from such a war is absolutely asinine.
How do women contribute? Well again if you aren’t willing to absolve those who buy rhino horns and elephant tusks as you would call them apart of the problem how can we absolve women from this equation when it comes to wars? It is a widely known fact that many times there were women who fought in wars as well but primarily it was the men who did the heavy lifting and we all know that. Some people say the war in Iraq was about oil and there is evidence to support that suggestion. But wouldn’t that have benefited women in the West?
Let us consider some hard evidence. When looking at an issue like this one has to consider who are the consumers and who do it in the majority. Well of course you have to consider who are the majority of drivers that are taking up all this gasoline? That would be women according to a USA Today article about more women having driver’s licenses and having more vehicles than the average man. Of course that isn’t hard to imagine given the population of homeless men who aren’t even driving that far surpass any reasonable doubt of who are the majority of drivers. In other words it is business as usual. Men get resources for women and when things go South or criticism is levied men catch all the blame while women can sit back and not catch equal amounts of blame.
The consumerism idea doesn’t end there. To those who want to absolve women of all the world’s issues we bark back with the consumption equals support of oppression argument. Who in the world spends thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars on a blood diamond without a woman asking for it, suggesting she receive it or outright demand it? This is something that someone would have to be outright insane to suggest that women aren’t driving up the market on. Conflict diamonds are very profitable and the sale of these diamonds are pretty clear in scope.
The Kimberley Process was hailed as a major step toward ending diamond-fueled conflict. Ian Smillie, one of the early architects of the process and an authority on conflict diamonds, estimates that only 5% to 10% of the world’s diamonds are traded illegally now compared with 25% before 2003, a huge boon for producing nations that have a better chance at earning an income off their natural resources.
But Smillie and other critics argue that the Kimberley Process doesn’t go far enough. Unfair labor practices and human-rights abuses don’t disqualify diamonds under the protocol, while the definition of conflict is so narrow as to exclude many instances of what consumers would, using common sense, think of as a conflict diamond. Conflict diamonds under the Kimberley Process are defined as gemstones sold to fund a rebel movement attempting to overthrow the state—and only that. So when, in 2008, the Zimbabwean army seized a major diamond deposit in eastern Zimbabwe and massacred more than 200 miners, it was not considered a breach of the Kimberley Process protocols. “Thousands had been killed, raped, injured and enslaved in Zimbabwe, and the Kimberley Process had no way to call those conflict diamonds because there were no rebels,” says Smillie.
Even in some cases where the Kimberley Process has implemented a ban—as in the Central African Republic (CAR), where diamonds have helped fund a genocidal war that has killed thousands since 2013—conflict diamonds are still leaking out. A U.N. panel of experts estimates that 140,000 carats of diamonds—with a retail value of $24 million—have been smuggled out of the country since it was suspended in May 2013. The Enough Project, an organization dedicated to ending resource-based violence in Africa, estimated in a June report that armed groups raise $3.87 million to $5.8 million a year through the taxation of and illicit trade in diamonds.
Someone would have to engage in a serious amount of intellectual dishonesty and outright lying to suggest that women aren’t apart of the problem. They are not the sole cause but certainly a lot of women aren’t offering a solution either. So the next time you say men are the sole causes of all the world’s issue look at your lady friend wearing that huge rock and realize that she has a 5 to 10% chance of supporting people losing their arms and legs in mining incidents and supporting 10 year old children to go out with AK-47 rifles and shooting up villages.