If politics is the robust exchange of ideas, there are certainly times when one must look beyond personalities to see the crux of what is being debated.
In the furious exchange between Sarah Hanson-Young and David Leyonhjelm many have become fixated on male versus female or civility versus offensive language. However, it strikes me that the crux of this debacle is actually about collectivism.
Whatever the specifics of the exchange in the Senate were this much we know for sure: Leyonhjelm is rejecting misandry and blanket blame being placed at the feet of all men as penance for the crimes of some.
Men as a collective gender should not, cannot and will not be blamed for the actions of criminals.
Of course, individual responsibility is at the very heart of Liberal Democrat Leyonhjelm’s belief system. It decrees that each individual is solely responsible for his or her choices and accountability sits squarely with the person rather than the community or society as a whole.
It is utterly absurd that during a time when diversity is being forced down our collective throats, gender politics is speaking in such clearly divisive language. While diversity agendas are a priority in businesses and institutions across the country gender politics clearly defines bias which gender discriminates between male and female.
No wonder there is a growing revolt against the collectivism that gender politics dictates. Make no mistake, this is not going to conveniently vanish; it will keep rearing its ugly head no matter which personality happens to personify the problem in the political arena at any given time.
Before Leyonhjelm told Hanson-Young to ‘stop shagging men’, the debate on that day in the Senate was about women’s safety. Senator Fraser Anning put forward a motion to relax the import on pepper spray or mace. ‘Access to a means of self-protection by women in particular would provide greatly increased security and confidence that they will not become just another assault, rape or murder statistic,’ Anning said. This comes after police were widely criticised for advising women to take care after the rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon in Melbourne.
The troubling coverage of Dixon’s death shone a bright and damning light on the stalemate we have arrived at in Australia regarding collective male blame.
Fierce feminists on one side say rather than telling women to take care we should be telling men not to rape. This is collectivism in its clearest form. The fembot army wants all men to step up and fix the reality of crime. Not only is that unreasonable, it’s impossible.
After Dixon’s murder it was clear to see how deeply far left activist messaging has permeated society’s narrative on ‘violence against women’.
Through the dark magic of gender politics, all women are deemed under threat from all men.
Such collectivism is a destructive and unhelpful worldview. Ultimately, this may well be what ensures feminism implodes.
The reality is, our battle in life is good versus evil rather than men versus women. In that, feminism has collectivism all wrong – and the masses are beginning to revolt.
The response to Anning’s motion in the senate came from Senator Janet Rice. ‘The last thing women in Australia need now is another man in power telling us that we are responsible for violence against us. The priority must be to eradicate men’s violence.’
Those two words, ‘men’s violence’, are commonly used when left feminists screech that it is all men’s cumulative responsibility to end crime.
Statistics are pored over, dead women are counted in the name of political point scoring, so that far left fembots can wag their finger in men’s faces and tell them, ‘this is your mess, clear it up’.
What they fail to acknowledge is that schooling the good will never eradicate evil.
On this issue both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are as clueless as each other. There is no leader between them.
So desperate are they to virtue signal their way to securing the female vote they have both bought into this costly narrative.
After Dixon’s death, Turnbull told parliament, ‘Our hearts go out to Eurydice’s family. Our prayers, our sympathy, our love are with them as they grieve her loss. Women must be safe everywhere. On the street, walking through a park, in their home, at work. We need to ensure that we have a culture of respect for women.’
He added, ‘I believe, Mr Speaker, that I speak for every honourable member in saying we must never, ever, ever, tolerate violence against women. Eurydice Dixon, we mourn her loss. We grieve with her family. And we say “never again”.’
And with that, Turnbull promised to end crime; he was just too blinded by feminist brainwashing to realise it.
Shorten said on that day in parliament, ‘Women in Australia have a right to movement. It is not the fault of women if they choose to walk home from transport to their house.’
He added, ‘We need to tackle the enablers of violence and we need to change the attitudes of men.’
He too promised to end crime – and he too was too blinded by incontestable bias to recognise.
Both Turnbull, Shorten and the majority of politicians have bought into the collectivism that feminist theory outlines. Apparently all have forgotten that any ‘ism’ is dangerous.
Fast-forward again to Anning’s motion to relax the import on pepper spray in an effort to help women feel safer. This new spat between Hanson-Young and Leyonhjelm centres on precisely the same issue.
Why? Because we do not have a leader strong enough to stand up to the feminist army and tell them that not only is ending crime unreasonable, it is utterly outrageous to lay the blame for violence at men’s feet.
It is offensive and sexist that we have arrived at a position where we’re talking about ‘male violence’ unchallenged.
Leyonhjelm is entirely correct to say that misandry is equally as objectionable as misogyny. What a crying shame it is that ‘slut-shaming’ ever entered this debate and the real issue wasn’t addressed.
The focus should be on misandry. We should all be talking about the injustice of blanket blame.
Ultimately, each and every one of us should be voicing our collective fury at the injustice of feminist collectivism and defending the right of good men not to be tarred by criminals.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
Get 10 issues for just $10
Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first month for free, then just $2 a week for the remainder of your first year.
Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator Australia readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
SUBSCRIBEAlready a subscriber? Log in