Same Dangers of Money, Guns, SUVs and Dogs

The founders of the United States sought to establish social equality rather than role reversal as perpetual revolution. Hence the effort of the left in pursuit of power role reversal is wrong headed rather than correct. Money, guns, SUVs and dogs are equally dangerous in the hands of women as with men. Rather than viewing themselves as the disadvantaged in regard to men with an inherent woman’s prerogative to inhere within a lesser standard of social accountability in select situations a women must recognize the lethality of her empirical tools including politics.

Let me provide an example of the ongoing inherent disparity between cognizance of women’s actual versus perceived empowerment. A women in a prosperous community takes her SUV out twice each day to allow her dog to run alongside it for exercise over a pleasant rural road over which a poor man rides a bicycle each day in pursuit of graduate studies. The woman’s dog pursues and attacks the man on his bike several times causing him to defend each time with kicks to the dog trying to just bite an Achilles, leg or foot. The distracted bike riding creates a danger of bike crash as well as the man is looking backward since the dog invariably attacks from behind.

So the women, being unlike male drivers seeking to avoid legal and social confrontations that they would be held accountable for, continues to take her dog to the same road each day to exercise her dog with the improvement of stopping her SUV, calling her woofie over and holding it by the collar and admonishing woofie with nurturing yet reproving words until the bike rider is 100 yards further down the road before releasing woofie so it can sprint and attack the bike rider moving away, from behind, once again. Eventually the dog attacks cause the man to crash.

 The woman's thought evidently did not go so far as to reason that the bike rider though a man was not immune to injury or that her woofie was not legally allowed to run free to attack people on a public highway though it may be good exercise. If a man were driving the SUV with his dog attacking a woman repeatedly over a period of months, society would have a different opinion about the individual.

Neither is the drunk driving of a woman of potential less harm to pedestrians and other drivers than a man. Neither is a gun fired by a woman less potentially fatal to those shot. Nor are incompetent politics and international relations actions of less consequence to political victims than when a man pursues such stupid or malformed bad international relations choices. It is simply a convention that politics done by an incompetent majority are somewhat infallible these days.

Political accountability and self-awareness of skill or lack of it in domestic and international politics that benefit or harm given demographic sectors are necessary for the right function of a competent, advancing society. Humans rights watches cannot just advocate exfiltration and dumping of millions of people from one nation to another to solve Zulu infringements on human rights. Creating a barrio in Los Angeles California is by dumping millions of Hispanics from south of the border does as much harm to the rights of the poor in the United States as it does to relocate people from a poor nation to a temporarily wealthy nation so they can have a better standard of living free from domestic abuse at home. Ought not everyone in the world from any nation have equal opportunity or right to relocate their disadvantaged, domestically challenged or suffering to the United States cumulatively by the billions.

There is no fundamental advantage in redistributing people from nation A or B to nations X,Y and Z that are better than solving the problems in nations A and B that prompt ideas of redistributing people to X, Y and Z. Kant’s moral imperative is a two-edged,or even a multi-dimensional sword. Any law, or premise regarding mass social politics should be equally valid not only in primary but in real-politic effects. Society cannot rationally improve its social structure by just redistributing power or people from one place to another, instead it should improve the social and physical ecosystem everywhere while recognizing the need for equal social rights yet also recognizing the real difference between men, women and those regarding themselves as homosexual. Each have different social interests and abilities that should be addressed by social law to serve the interests of people as they are without infringing the liberty and equally valid billions? rights of others. Children and heterosexual couples have different interests than children and homosexuals in some respects. Nations have certain local advantages for citizens of a democracy that internationally located people do not-such as in electing politicians to represent their local interests.

In order to advance national interests women need to recognize just where their newly empowered social status still kills even when in their hands, as it did formerly rather more exclusively for men.