Dr, Wayne Mapp
has recently been appointed the National Party's Spokesman for Political
Correctness Eradication. As he says in his article The
Problem with Political Correctness, each of us has our own
view on what is or is not politically correct. Perhaps that is why his
article concentrates on only a few specific, serious issues -- as opposed
to those issues which he considers trivial or merely amusing. Since
women constitute more than half the electorate, it is perhaps not surprising
that Feminism, including specific aspects of totalitarian Feminism (Feminazism),
did not rate a mention.
His article concentrates on the coercive aspect of Political Correctness,
but I would like to add to that the one-sided
advocacy aspect of this phenomenon. Under the ideological system
of Political Correctness, on issues where (for example) Maoris have
strong views (e.g. on the pronunciation of place-names), generally only
Maori views are consulted and publicised -- that is because the Politically
Correct decision-maker (e.g. a journalist) "knows" whose views
are correct, and so does not need to balance those views by asking an
opponent of those views what they think.
Similarly, on issues where Feminists have strong views (e.g. on Female
Circumcision, Domestic Violence, Rape, Child Sexual Abuse, etc.), only
Feminist views need to be consulted and publicised, because the Politically
Correct decision-maker (e.g. a journalist) "knows" whose views
are correct, and so does not need to balance those views by asking an
opponent of those views what they think.
This has a totalitarian effect on political decision-making and public
opinion. For example, during the recent general election campaign, I
heard the National Party Leader, Dr Brasch, say that he and Labour Party
Leader Ms Clark had voted the same way on a recent Bill that legalised
prostitution (I don't know the details of the Bill/Act, because I'm
not interested in it). The reason he gave was that it was unfair for
a prostitute to have to run the risk of being prosecuted when the client
did not.
Most prostitutes are female and most of their clients are male, so
this is partly a question of chivalry and anti-male sexism. Because,
if it was as easy in Western societies to find a pro-male point of view
as it is to find a pro-female point of view, a countervailing argument
could easily have been found. For example, under the Misuse of Drugs
Act 1975 (as amended), someone convicted of dealing with controlled
drugs can get as much as a life sentence, whereas someone convicted
of possession and use of controlled drugs cannot be imprisoned for longer
than six months.
If the political culture was not swamped with one-sided publicity about
the Feminist viewpoint, someone might have had a chance to point this
out to Dr Brash. He (and others) might then have realised that punishing
the prostitute and letting off the client was perfectly consistent with
the way that the dealer and user are treated in the case of drugs.
I, and others, are constantly providing pro-male arguments, but we
do this without state funding and in relative isolation. A lone person
putting forward a novel argument appears odd, at best. If
you create a novel Feminist argument as part of a state-funded "research"
project, get one of the hordes of cloned Feminist journalists to publicise
it, and get a lot of moronic Feminazi law-students to shout down anyone
who disagrees with it, it is relatively easy to get that argument accepted
in the marketplace of ideas.
