The Case for Feminist Reparations

Disclaimers:
-This was written during the 2016 Presidential campaign, but I'd argue, still relevant.

-I am not equating misogyny with racism. They are distinctly different issues

-I do not condone cheating on one’s significant other. It’s not nice.

-I enjoy this idea just as much as the rest of the male population will.

Blame Bill for this, but, unfortunately I think it may be time that we men took a pretty serious hit. 

Thanks to the recent resurgence of discussion about “blow-job-gate” (Bill Clinton’s marital-indiscretion scandal) due to Hillary’s presidential campaign, I’m proposing something rather drastic:

We should give women cheating on their male spouses a pass for a while.

I know, I know, that sounds unfair and ridiculous. Here’s my pitch, (which, trust me, I’m not at all thrilled about making,): thanks to centuries of male dominated societal oppression, philandering and hypocritical reprisal from ‘emotionally-castrated’ husbands, it’s time that women are allowed to be 'pimps'.

Throughout human history, husbands have notoriously cheated on their wives and gotten away with it. And at the same time, whether it’s a government or religion supporting the beheading of cheating wives, or the disturbingly common practice of preemptively mutilating a woman’s genitals at birth so as to remove any sensation and render her un-attainable by any other man, or simply the stigma associated with being a “whore”, we men have effectively protected ourselves from being cheated on.

I’m not suggesting that women never cheat on their husbands, but the difference in the volume of the reprisal in its aftermath is undeniable. The results of this play into the societal acceptance of the ‘fact’ that women are more emotional. This is simply not the case; men just either protect themselves from it better or exhibit it differently.

The usual response by a man being emotionally distraught is violent anger. This idea does have scientific merit since the hormone testosterone, (found in significantly higher levels in men than women,) does, in fact, make a person more prone to violent and confrontational behavior. (Possibly relating to the evolutionary gender roles established by early men being hunters and early women staying closer to home to protect offspring.) But I don’t think I’m making too bold a claim by suggesting that this is not sufficient justification for woman-beating.

Another possible reason that there is more drastic reprisal for a woman’s indiscretion is the resulting implication of that man's impotence or emasculation. Whether this is only his own emotional self-deprecation or actual behind-his-back snickering taking place, men have been taught that anything that might suggest a lack of virility or diminutive genitals (limp dick, tiny penis, respectively) is cause for violent action or masculine posturing (spousal abuse, buying a Hummer, respectively).

While I’m at it, I might as well bring up Britain’s King Henry VIII’s (as well as numerous men throughout history,) weird ‘scientific’ theory that it was his wife’s biological pre-disposition to decide the sex of his child. Using King ‘Hank Numero Ocho’ as an example, he’s become infamous for his frequent decapitation of wives who were implicit in the treasonous crime of failing to produce a male heir.  But while this logic seemed to become common knowledge among men in power throughout the world, and consequently the common-folk who followed their example, it is in fact quite the opposite. 

If I may be so bold as to use scientific fact to back up a claim, “when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much and decide to have a baby,” women have an X chromosome and an X chromosome to contribute, men have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome to contribute. If the woman spins the wheel and contributes an X chromosome (100% of the time,) and the man spins the wheel and contributes a Y chromosome (50% of the time) they get a boy. Conversely, if the man contributes an X chromosome, they get a girl.  Suffice it to say, there have been a few unwarranted beheadings over the years. So there, I’ve just single-handedly put an end to THAT long-standing debate. *Drops the mic…*

I only bring up that nonsense to suggest that men love to create reasons to crucify women, and just using one very antiquated example, maybe some male apologizing is in order.

But back to Bill…

The reason that I, only now, have developed this theory for ‘Feminist Reparations’ is because of the embarrassing way that the Clinton administration dealt with the Lewinsky knob-slobbering allegations. Because Hillary Clinton is now running for president, this subject has come back into public scrutiny and I’d like to close the debate on this with an outrageous suggestion so that Bill’s screw-up doesn’t end up reflecting badly on Hillary. I’ve always thought of the whole fiasco as a way to suggest Hillary’s capacity for forgiveness, reconciliation and compromise, while maintaining an heir of feminist power and political savvy. And I’ll stand by that. But in hindsight, the way the whole ordeal was defended by his administration as a whole only solidifies this as the crux of my argument. Immediately after the embarrassing details came to light, the female members of his cabinet were forced to come forward to defend and make light of his deleterious marital mistake. The media gave too much attention to the affirmations given by female members of his staff, who rightly suggested that this was not really a matter that had anything to do with his tenure as president or even politics at all. While I absolutely agree that a person’s penis should not have any bearing on their ability to lead a nation, unfortunately the argument came out sounding more like a justification for his illicit social behavior. It ended up coming across as if a man can just get away with doing something like that and then be immediately defended by all the women around him. It is my belief that, (while I realize I may be a few years late here,) it was only Hillary’s prerogative, and no one else’s, to defend him in such a way, if she saw fit to do so. It does not reflect badly on her to have forgiven him based on their own private, personal conversations about their marriage and relationship, but I believe his actions and the justification given by his staff and supporters (myself included) were the last straw for female forgiveness of historical male marital indiscretion.

So, reminiscent of the “No Peace, No Pussy” chant from Spike Lee’s recent ‘Joint’: “Chi-Raq,” I think we as men owe women a couple of passes here and there on spousal betrayal. Just to even things out a little. I can see that some men reading this might think I’m putting myself in a precarious position by writing this, but I’d prefer to think that I’ll be exempt from this new movement because I was the one who started it, so just let me keep thinking that. As I said in my disclaimer, I don’t think it’s a very nice way to go about being in a relationship but I feel at least the suggestion has some merit. Plus, if this takes off (oh god, please, don’t) think of the benefits for the next generation of men: male depression will become completely acceptable and understandable, ushering in whole new fields of study focusing on treating depression for everyone, and maybe, just maybe, men crying will no longer be a source of ridicule or shame. So guys, let’s all start crying now, cuz’ it’s gunna’ be all the rage in a few years…