By C-rad Bogus
Oh me oh my, it seems a very relevant and poignant development has gone largely ignored.
Mainstream news media attention has never been a reliable gauge of what exactly the public at large deems important.
Nevertheless, the recent ruling from the EU targeting British insurance companies has been met with an interesting mix of both loud denunciations and eerie silence.
Long story short, the courts ruled that charging male motorists higher premiums than female motorists amounted to discrimination. U.K. insurance firms have just over a year to comply with the law, after then, the male-female cost gap must be laid to rest.
Needless to say, insurers are less than joyous about this and have put forth a defence of their dastardly practice. They say that men are statistically more likely to get into an accident, injured in an accident, die in an accident etc. Ladies, being genetically ordained as goddesses of the asphalt, suffer lower casualties in all categories of road-related carnage. Debate surrounding the fickle science of Statistics notwithstanding; the spotlight issue in all this is, however one slices it: the new gender dynamics (apocryphally: woman 2.0 ).
What a colourful assortment of carnival characters this brings out! Equality, sex-discrimination, age-discrimination, wage-discrimination, laissez-faire capitalism, public costs, externalities, civil rights, human rights, kryptonian rights…
This offers to us a fascinating case study of the feminism beast, from whom we have heard every sort of bizarre, contrived, reality-skewing nonsense. Always first to enlighten the world with their two-cents of input on whatever disaster, calamity, or injustice is currently at hand.
As an ideology, Feminism has been predominantly a left-wing domain. Ship-jumping is not uncommon, but the noisiest, most-obnoxious and brazen march in the shadow of the banner of Marxism. This in mind, how would an avowed feminist tailor a response to this blatant miscarriage of justice?
Say they argue against the ruling, calling it discriminatory – but it was the courts who ruled in favour of ending discrimination against male motorists.
Say they argue that this is government intrusion into the free-market – they risk allying themselves with the right, and being viewed as turncoats for defending the patriarchal, unholy juggernaut of capitalism.
Say they argue that the male-motorist is the spawn of the devil, to be kept at bay at any cost – such a claim would be challenged with rational, logical debate, a style completely alien to their M.O.
Say they agree with the ruling, but they want (insert arbitrary condition unsubstantiated by logic or evidence) – this will be all too predictable. Knowing that they are cornered, they wail over the oppression inflicted by men over the ages. Never letting a good opportunity go to waste.
The list goes on.
Feminists and women (I cannot stress the distinction enough) everywhere are slowly beginning to see what genuine equality looks like. Rest assured it resembles nothing of what was in the brochure. In response to this court ruling their options are very limited, and the probability of rank-breaking and infighting is high.
When the dust settles, women may even end up paying higher premiums than men (has a nice retroactive-justice ring to it).
All this is cause for rejoicing as it reminds us that hope survives, but the battle is far from over.
Equality, fairness, justice, solidarity, these issues have long characterized the MRM’s battle cry.
Hear that honey? That’s the sound of you, coming out of the twilight zone.
