What Role Men Played in the Fall

If you think about it, the problem is the fault of men, not women. The very beginning of all of this was women being given the right to vote. Over 90% of women did not want that right, but only a small and vocal minority did. Men, perhaps because they felt bad for women, gave them that right without the appropriate responsibility that they themselves had to exercise. It's a simple thing to do to point out how women in America do not exercise responsibility in rights, how they need to listen to men responsibly. But how can they be blamed? We are the ones who gave them the rights against their will without allowing or showing them how to do so responsibly.

The very problem in its foundation is therefore not of women: it's of men. Men not showing women how to behave. We can't blame women when we gave them rights against most of their will and without responsibility, nor showcasing that responsibility accordingly. It was our bad decision and refusal to hold them accountable, when they knew that, that led to the disaster. The fact that things have gone badly today is therefore all an offshoot and a continued manifestation of that problem: men giving rights or allowing rights or powers to women without showing how to be responsible, originally at least in a manner they did not want. It's not women's fault; they didn't want this originally and their ignorance can hardly be blamed when we never taught them better as we had and have a responsibility to. As demonstrated, only we know how, because of the nature of manly culture and its origin. The fault lies entirely, therefore, with men.

The problem is not equal. It is not the fault of women for not listening and men for not teaching. That's not accurate. Looking at the situation's nuances, it's obvious that the most accurate place to cast the blame is with us.

Therefore, we should be very gentle in how we go about this. It's not their fault, nor both of our faults. It's ours. That's what the facts indicate. We technically have two options: we can deny them rights as once was so there's no fear of inappropriate exercise of them. Or two, we can instruct them how to do so responsibly, and mandate the importance of that, as we do to ourselves. The latter is definitely the best option for a variety of societal reasons. In short, women were mostly household because of a mutual agreement that existed for certain specific, historical reasons that are today in developed countries no longer present. The practical matters that led women to seek being household are mostly gone, at least as of a necessity, so women are in theory free to exercise rights boldly. Therefore, we should do what we should have done from the beginning, which is: celebrate the rights, but understand deeply the importance of being responsible and being held accountable when conducting them.

This indicates a large shift in strategy. It's not appropriate to blame women, even in part, for their ignorance. I see many people today talking about these gender-related and relationship problems being the fault of both men and women, that it's the fault of men for not speaking up and instructing and women for not listening. But this is not true, and it's harmful to actually solving the problem. It won't solve the problem because it focuses effort not on the true solutions, not on where the problem originates from and where it can be undermined and built better. If we focus all of our effort on the correct place, fixing the unity between men and women will be like taking candy from a baby.

The way to fix this is first to recognize that it is, according to the evidence, primarily the fault of men. We were not accountable or responsible. And because the issue still exists, still aren't. Responsibility dictates we show others, everybody to whom it pertains, to be responsible.

So to solve this, guys are going to have to speak up. We need to hold women accountable. This must be done gently yet firmly. It is not the fault of women for misusing their rights. So we need to calmly instruct them on how to do so while understanding what happens is not their fault. This gentleness and understanding is important, because if it is not done gently, they will not understand.

However, in that sense, we must therefore be harsh on ourselves. Men have been foolish to extend such liberties to women without holding them accountable. While we must speak gently to them, we must be very harsh among ourselves for not stepping up sooner, and to anyone who refuses to do so. Giving someone power when they do not want that power, when they do not know how to exercise that power is not charity.

Fixing this issue will solve so many issues in our democracy. It all stems from a misunderstanding of what it means to be a man and woman, how to operate in society as one, and the relationships that are malformed as a result. If we look at the housing crisis, it is caused by many complex issues. To solve it, we must come together as a democracy and discuss these complex issues earnestly and with fervor and diligence. Yet we cannot do that if we do not understand what it means to be ourselves, and how to interact with others as a result.

When I use the term relationships, as in malformed relationships between men and women, I mean that word in the broad and simple sense. I am talking about relationships between people in society in the simple sense. America is a democracy, a country; and a country is in essence a group of friends. In order to solve complex issues like housing democratically, we must extend to one another mutual love, charity, and compassion. This is called friendship, not really in the casual, happy-go-lucky or personal way, but friendship at a much grander and national scale. The closest story I can tell is after 9/11, before I was born, when people typically describe an immense sense of closeness, belonging, and compassion among strangers in America. This is called friendship, in the most real sense. So if we can solve the gender issue, which is in essence what I've put forth and whose solution is, too, accordingly, we can solve housing, the economy, and the rest.

Therefore, men need to tell women quite simply: "You have rights. These rights are valuable and meaningful. I, and the rest of us, congratulate you, if that means anything. With these rights come responsibility, and the accountability of it. You speak freely about a great many subjects, and rightly so, because speaking freely is American and just! This free speech has to come with a commitment to saying things that are truthful and original. That is not to say that everything you say must be true or totally original. But you must do your best, from your perspective, to say things that you believe and know to be true and original. This is a task that is rich not only with rights, but with meaning. This is a type of meaning that is lasting. I see women sometimes talking about how they want more out of life or desire some sense of purpose. This is that purpose. It is acting boldly, but also with justice and with compassion for your fellow human beings, the knowledge that you must be cautious."

That's a very good instruction to women surrounding the nature of free speech, and the commitment all speakers have to being truthful and original. So, when a guy says something dumb, invariably other guys will alert him to that fact and depending on the severity berate him with an onslaught of undesirable adjectives. Now, this same idea must be extended to women, however: it must be done gently and without as much fervor, because women do not understand, by and large, the nature of responsibility because they are not a part of this culture, this idea. So when a guy says something dumb, it's fine to tell him he's an idiot. However, when a woman says something dumb, I don't think it may necessarily be helpful to be as vehement, because they simply will not understand where we are coming from, since they don't get that sense of accountability, since we haven't yet taught them. When they say something slightly ignorant, we need to gently guide them just as in the example I gave of original, truthful free speech.

The example I gave was just an example surrounding one instance of action that must come with accountability. Free speech that is true and original is one example of a very, very tireless list of actions. The idea applied in that example, that of gentleness, of calm explaining, of understanding yet still being firm to get the main point, must be conducted.

That is the balance. Indeed, we still must be firm. When a woman, again as an example, says something unreasonable, we need to call that out. We need to be gentle, calm, and understanding, but we must indeed call it out and not allow it. "Hey, you can't speak like that. What you said is backed up by no evidence and seems to be parroting common talking points from someone else. You have an amazing ability to speak freely. But you need to be careful to exercise that responsibility with a commitment to truth and originality. I only ask you the next time you give an opinion, you firmly believe it to be true and from yourself."

It's firm, and that is a standard that will be held, but it's understanding and gentle.