This blog post from Scott Adams on Donald Trump rebranding ISIS as “Evil Losers” is well worth your reading time, particularly the last paragraph. That’s where I want to zero in.
An hour ago you believed there was no way to stop the spread of the ideas behind terrorism. I just told you how to do it by the end of the week. While I don’t expect the browser companies to take my suggestion, I do expect some of you will realize for the first time how winnable the war of ideas is.
Maternal feminists and equity feminists based their arguments on the specialness of women – because of women’s special reproductive status, they were deserving of special rights and considerations. This worked to a certain extent, but it quickly became obvious that special and equal were mutually exclusive: women were going to have to pick one.
Unless they could rebrand men with a simple, sticky word that asserted the moral superiority of women while questioning the validity of men’s greater rights, given their greater responsibilities.
That word was violent. And while radical feminists were asserting men as violent, they simultaneously claimed women as victims. In actual fact, women are a lot more violent than men, but they are not as strong as men, on average, so their violence has less of an impact on their adult male victims. Women’s violence against children (especially unborn ones) is the stuff of legends and needs no elucidation here.
How do you win the war of ideas, as Adams puts it?
You brand men as the violent ones, focusing in on the impact of male violence, not the frequency or mortality rates. In fact, if you can characterize women’s most lethal violence as healthcare, so much the better. Men are violent and women are victims, and voila!
Radical feminism is born.
A man only has to hint at aggression and he invokes the violent brand. Women instantly become victims and we are off and running! A great deal of the men’s rights movement has focused trying to wrest a bit of the victimhood mantle away from women and expand our understanding of who can be a victim of what, but perhaps this is the entirely wrong approach.
Do we really need to understand men as victims? Everyone, obviously, can be a victim, depending on the totality of the circumstances. That’s non-controversial. What everyone can NOT be is a woman and a victim.
Perhaps what we need to do is attack the branding of men as violent. Strength does not equal violence. Or in the alternative, violence if the only truth, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps we need to attach the concept of good to violent?
Read Scott’s piece and let’s explore this. Do we really want to play Oppression Olympics?
What’s our brand strategy?
Lots of love,