Here’s another key component of equalism:

Gender Reality Is Mirrored

Yin│yang  male│female  anima│animus  feminism│masculism, what if gender reality is mirrored?

I believe that mirrors represent the deepest, truest, and healthiest metaphor for gender reality. What if for every male complaint there is a mirror-opposite female complaint and for every female complaint there is a mirror-opposite male complaint?

The “mirror” is a kind of funhouse mirror—just as men and women are the same . . . but different, so the mirror-opposites are the same . . . but different, which is why they aren’t always obvious. At first, we may be at a loss as to what on earth the mirror-opposite of anorexia could be. But if anorexia in essence is all about females taking a self- destructive, sometimes fatal path in their efforts to achieve a societal ideal (a “Barbie Doll” figure), then the mirror-opposite is steroid abuse: males taking a self-destructive, sometimes fatal path in their efforts to achieve a societal ideal (a “G.I. Joe” physique)—women feeling the obligation to live up to the standards of a supermodel, men feeling the obligation to live up to the standards of a superhero. If anorexic women think they look fat when they’re actually thin and emaciated, “Men with muscle dysmorphia think that they look small and weak, even if they are actually large and muscular.”^[i]

Gender issues such as anorexia on the one hand and steroid abuse on the other, reflect each other all down the line. There’s the male version and there’s the female version. They’re the same . . . but different. Logically, the issues are parallel, the consequences equivalent. Mirror Opposites are different . . . but the same.

For every female complaint, there is a mirror-opposite male complaint. For every one CEO there’ve been many POWs.[ii] Hard/hazardous labor, battlefields, prisons, mines, the streets, the sewers—men have always occupied both extremes, the most and the least enviable positions on earth—the latter in far greater numbers than the former. Meanwhile women have largely occupied the middle ground; from an equalist perspective, that is neither oppression nor victimization; that’s an even deal.

The mirror-opposite of Patriarchy is something I’ll call Matrisensus (the female consensus, the Sisterhood). Historically, I envision these two equally powerful entities coexisting side by side, plying an equal overall force of influence in the human system, thus equally responsible for outcomes. Combined into one entity, I’ll call it the patrimatrisensus. Patriarchy is a valid word when understood in conjunction with the mirror-opposite matrisensus. But, when feminist defined as a stand-alone power—the power that rules our human world—this so-called “patriarchy” never existed. In its place there is and has always been the patrimatrisensus.

Feminism opened a huge gender-political “can of worms.” For the sake of damage control, the one-sidedness of feminism’s MalePower/FemaleVictimization (MP/FV), ManBad/WomanGood (MB/WG) gender belief system must be revealed through a clear and extensive presentation of the truths of FemalePower/MaleVictimization (FP/MV) and WomanBad/ManGood (WB/MG) down at the other end of the balance beam. When these mirror-opposite truths are entered into the equation, It All Balances Out may then be internalized as a well supported, healthy and rational outlook on gender reality.

In a society that believes MalePower is matched by FemalePower, the basis for extra empowering women (women-only) is gone. Believing that FemaleVictimization is matched by MaleVictimization, the basis for extra protecting and advantaging women is gone. Within a balanced gender belief system, feminism itself is left bereft of its ideological foundation. No more sabotaging males throughout the school system; no more feminist Glass Escalators—affirmative action, quotas, Title IV, et al, forcing female-only “equality.” No more female-only grants and scholarships. No more billions funneled through over a 1,000 female-centric organizations of all kinds. Understanding that IABO leads to a society that embraces true equal opportunity on a truly even playing field (which is all in the world males need).

And, rather than the Sisyphean task of changing laws just to have them changed back or replaced with laws even more misandric, in balancing out the gender belief system, we neutralize misandry at the source.

Theoretical constructs have their limitations (What’s the mirror-opposite of menstruation?), but those who feel the potential and the beauty of this mirror construct will forgive it its limitations. Seeing gender issues as mirrored lends itself to healing through mutual understanding, mutual compassion, shared responsibility, fairness and forgiveness. The severity of the issues remains the same, but attitudes shift. The beauty of the concept lies in its transformative power; and not just on gender politics, but also gender politicians.

The alternative? Says Gloria Steinem, “in this country alone . . . about 150,000 females die of anorexia each year.” Feminist author Naomi Wolf compares anorexia to the Holocaust saying, “When confronted with a vast number of emaciated bodies starved not by nature but by men, one must notice a certain resemblance.”^[iii] You see, the alternative is what we have now, the MalePower/FemaleVictimization misandry paradigm run amok. Actually, 150,000 suffer from, not die from anorexia. The actual annual death toll is between one and four hundred,^[iv] but believing that men have the power and women are the victims—ManBad (“the over-empowered oppressor/victimizer”), WomanGood (the “innocent victim”)—inspires hate hyperbole that would go so far as to compare “toxic” masculinity with the evils of Nazism!

For this reason, I’m loath to discuss gender issues with a feminine-ist. By vast contrast, when I discuss gender issues or critique female and male attitudes and behaviors with a fellow equalist, I know that she knows that I know that she knows that gender issues are mirrored. The points she makes may well cast my sex in a negative light, but I needn’t get “triggered” because I know that she knows that the issues surrounding “sex objects” are mirrored by the issues surrounding “success objects.” I know that she knows that gender issues are matters of shared responsibility. Given this mutual understanding, I can hear her truths, remain open, and be patient. When we’re through discussing Sexual Harassment, we’ll talk about Economic Harassment (women targeting men for false accusations, extor­tion, fleecing in divorce court, and paternity fraud). In place of the feminist monologue, we equalists enter into dialogue. We take turns.

In the realms of gender conflict and complaint, gender activism and advocacy, gender defining, gender issues, gender studies, gender politics, gender anything, there is femininism on the one hand and on the other hand there is . . .  nothing. For fifty years, society’s “solution” to gender conflict has been: women talk, men listen; women vent, men apologize; women complain, men remain “strong and silent;” women accuse, men hang their heads in shame; women’s concerns are raised to the level of major societal concerns, men’s issues remain nonissues. Perhaps the deep underlying fear is that Woman is already so “righteously” enraged and pissed-off, and the Battle of the Sexes already so over-heated, that we don’t dare further exacerbate the situation by entering male perspectives into the mix. In other words, Woman proclaims herself powerless victim of the universe, throws an endless temper tantrum, and Man hides behind his newspaper. And this, we’ve decided, is how we’ll keep the peace.

Well, how’s this working for us? Given the diminishment of heterosexual love, marriage and parenting; given unprecedented rates of female-initiated divorce, single mothers, and fatherless children; given vast damage to the social fabric; given the rise of social pathologies; given birthrates too low to sustain us; given the rapid rise of INCELS and MGTOW; given #MeToo and “Rape Culture” heterophobia, plus false and/or dubious accusations ever escalating, I’m thinking that inter-sex relations aren’t doing so great. In fact, it would seem that inter-sex relations are so bad; an enormous cultural force has gathered dedicated to obliterating gender altogether.

I think it’s time Man got out from behind his newspaper and asserted himself. The false ManBad/WomanGood moral polarity and accompanying Moral Panic are terribly destructive—all around. The feminist ideological dictatorship must end.

If there is ever to be a gender-neutral gender politics comprised of men and women working together as equal partners under “one roof,” I think that this Mirror concept will prove vital for keeping blood pressures under control and discussions constructive.

Moreover, the concept lends support for the sexes calling it even. If each sex has a mirrored claim to victim then neither sex has any claim to being the victim. The same goes for issues of power, abuse of power, the Good in each sex, the Bad in each sex. If every gender reality is mirrored, then . . . It All Balances Out. To the degree that the MalePower/FemaleVictimization paradigm is the problem, It All Balances Out is the solution.  –  Tim Goldich

[i]              Garcia, Guy, The Decline of Men: How the American Male Is Getting Axed, Giving up, and Flipping Off His Future (New York: Harper Perennial, 2009) p.161.

[ii]        WWII, Europe and North Africa, about 8.75 million allied POWs (Prisoners of War) taken by the Axis powers and 8.25 million German and Italian POWs taken by the Allies—in all, about 17 million soldiers, sailors, and airmen prisoners of war. This does not include the war in the Pacific, nor the Korean or Vietnam wars or any other armed conflicts worldwide. In comparing this number with the number of CEOs (Chief Executive Officers) up at the pinnacle of success, think of the “Fortune 500” companies. Multiply that number by as many as ten thousand and you still don’t approach the total number of POWs [Source: Vance, Jonathan F (editor), Encyclopedia of Prisoners of War and Internment (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2000) p.341]

[iii]            Sommers, Christina Hoff, Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women (New York: A Touchstone Book/Simon & Schuster, 1994) p.11, quoting Wolf, Naomi, The Beauty Myth, p.207.

In Revolution from Within, Gloria Steinem informs her readers that “in this country alone . . . about 150,000 females die of anorexia each year.” That is more than three times the annual number of fatalities from car accidents for the total population. Steinem refers readers to another feminist best-seller, Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth. And in Ms. Wolf’s book one again finds the statistic, along with the author’s outrage. “How,” she asks, “would America react to the mass self-immolation by hunger of its favorite sons?” Although “nothing justifies comparison with the Holocaust,” she cannot refrain from making it anyway. “When confronted with a vast number of emaciated bodies starved not by nature but by men, one must notice a certain resemblance.”

[iv]             Ibid., p.12. “What is the correct mortality rate? Most experts are reluctant to give exact figures. Reasonable estimates range from 100 to as many as 400 deaths per year.”

[1]             Garcia, Guy, The Decline of Men: How the American Male Is Getting Axed, Giving up, and Flipping Off His Future (New York: Harper Perennial, 2009) p.161.

[1]        WWII, Europe and North Africa, about 8.75 million allied POWs (Prisoners of War) taken by the Axis powers and 8.25 million German and Italian POWs taken by the Allies—in all, about 17 million soldiers, sailors, and airmen prisoners of war. This does not include the war in the Pacific, nor the Korean or Vietnam wars or any other armed conflicts worldwide. In comparing this number with the number of CEOs (Chief Executive Officers) up at the pinnacle of success, think of the “Fortune 500” companies. Multiply that number by as many as ten thousand and you still don’t approach the total number of POWs [Source: Vance, Jonathan F (editor), Encyclopedia of Prisoners of War and Internment (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2000) p.341]

[1]             Sommers, Christina Hoff, Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women (New York: A Touchstone Book/Simon & Schuster, 1994) p.11, quoting Wolf, Naomi, The Beauty Myth, p.207.

In Revolution from Within, Gloria Steinem informs her readers that “in this country alone . . . about 150,000 females die of anorexia each year.” That is more than three times the annual number of fatalities from car accidents for the total population. Steinem refers readers to another feminist best-seller, Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth. And in Ms. Wolf’s book one again finds the statistic, along with the author’s outrage. “How,” she asks, “would America react to the mass self-immolation by hunger of its favorite sons?” Although “nothing justifies comparison with the Holocaust,” she cannot refrain from making it anyway. “When confronted with a vast number of emaciated bodies starved not by nature but by men, one must notice a certain resemblance.”

[1]              Ibid., p.12. “What is the correct mortality rate? Most experts are reluctant to give exact figures. Reasonable estimates range from 100 to as many as 400 deaths per year.”

NCFM Chicago Chapter President Tim Goldich, Gender Reality Is Mirrored