Sexual Apartheid and a Place to Park

2010-04-20
By

CNN News is reporting that South Korea and more recently China have taken to reserving parking spots for women. Not pregnant women or handicapped women or elderly women, but any woman. In essence, the only one excluded from the spots are men. At least one mall has taken the measure of providing female security personnel to assist with parking and enforcement.

The premium spots, now available at different types of businesses, have also been popping up in shopping areas from Germany to Singapore. A variety of reasons have been given for the measure, from protecting women from crime, to just offering them more shopping convenience.

In Iksan, Korea, the Ministry for Gender Equality and Family has installed the parking areas in that city as part of a larger effort to make Iksan the first woman-friendly city. They are planning on a total of 671 of the woman only spots throughout the metropolitan area. The spots are .2 meters wider than normal to aid women who are “unskilled at parking,” according to Korea Beat online.

So let’s recap that. The Korean Ministry for Gender Equality, sets up special parking spaces available to women only, but has to make the spaces wider than usual because women aren‘t competent to park a car in a regular parking space.

The temptation for humor here is too much to overcome. The sexist hypocrisy alone is worthy of three Leno monologues, and the pink parking lines at some locations don’t help. But there is an aside to this that is anything but funny. In the modern gender Zeitgeist, the foundation of sexual apartheid that was built in the supposedly enlightened minds of an insulated intelligentsia, is now pouring out like wet concrete in real world venues.

We have seen the sexual segregation of the victims of domestic violence enforced by legal acts like VAWA for the past fifteen years, and now similar bigotries are spreading throughout the world.

Male studies? Sorry, not allowed by the women’s studies programs. Just ask the people who run them. Natural disaster? No problem, stand in line for some relief, unless you are in Haiti. No men allowed there either. Got your ticket to fly? Well, if you are a man it better not be next to an unescorted youth or you will be removed, courtesy of British Airways. In B.A. speak, man is a word interchangeable with pedophile. Your right to sit in the seat you paid for is forfeit, to prevent you from molesting someone.

Want to book a room on the seventh floor of the Crown Plaza in Milwaukee or similar rooms in many other hotels? Sorry guys, for the sake of women you are 86’d before even thinking about it. These are special accommodations for special people. In other words, not you.

Rights to face your accuser and challenge their credibility in a criminal court? Not if you’re a man facing a rape charge. The constitution, in that arena, is a girl thing.  Take heart, your rights remain intact if you are accused of murder.

Think you have police protection from being assaulted? Think again, hombre. Meet the up and coming primary aggressor laws. Guys, if you get physically attacked by your female partner, do yourself a favor and just run. Because if you call the police for help, they are going to reward you with a set of bracelets and a trip to the pokey quicker than you can say bogus restraining order.

And now, here comes parking based on sexual privilege, though I am sure the American version, when it gets here, will include beta male enforcers at the ready with guns, to ensure the men stay at the back of the bus, or rather the back of the parking lot in this case.

Oh yes, the temptation for satire is all but overwhelming. After all, how many Rosa Parks jokes will be inspired by this latest round of gender insanity? And it actually is funny until you fully consider the implications of placing a women only sign on a public service.

We used to have similar signs here in America, during the days of my youth.(See right) Before it was over we were in a near police state, with water hoses on crowds, rivers of blood and plumes of smoke that floated up to the skies from cities going up in flames.

Some would say it all started with one woman who said no to taking a back seat because of the way she looked and the group she belonged to, but we all know it started with the institutionalized discrimination that put her in that position to begin with.

Looks like the forces of hate are coming back for a repeat, and it makes one wonder how long it will be before some uppity man, or many of them, get fed up enough with this nonsense to say no, and mean it.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.

Bio available at my website
  • PolishKnight

    A quibble about the Rosa Parks comment but a significant one.

    Rosa Parks’ story is lauded by conservatives and liberals alike as this lone, brave and definant woman who refused to move and triggered a civil rights movement. Even Rosa Parks says that isn’t true. She was an employee for the NAACP and helping them construct a legal test case to go to court. She found a controlled opportunity to generate publicity.

    There were other blacks who refused to move including a black man who was severely beaten (perhaps to death) and nothing happened. Rosa Parks was a clear beneficiary of chivalrous patronage in addition to a well backed political movement.

    This brings me to the observation that civil rights movement wasn’t as noble as people make it out to be. At least by the time the 60′s case along, the movement was taken over by communist liberals looking to use it as a tool to buy votes from non-whites and to use the race card to bash conservatives (even as most racists were dixiecrat voting Democrats.)

    To see how insincere the civil rights, cancel that, civil wrong movement is, check out the lack of sympathy shown towards white victims of beatings when they refused to give up their bus seat.

    http://www.fredoneverything.net/Kreager.shtml
    http://videos.stltoday.com/p/video?id=6172583

  • Utahtech

    I don’t think we are seeing the full and compete picture.

    I see it happening like this:

    A store will offer a female only parking. After 6 or so months of no protests other stores will say “Well it can’t hurt” and do it to stay “competitive” then after a few years you will see almost every kind of private business having woman only something.

    Take a look at today’s banks with women only checking/savings accounts, hotels with entire floors reserved for women only, as well as female only taxies, gym’s and even one U.S. city that has a few of their public busses women only. New York City has at least one public school that is female only. Most see this and don’t even give it a second thought just like no one today seeing any thing wrong with, for example welfare or W.I.C being available to only women.

    Fast forward 5 years, Local city governments have women only windows to pay parking and speeding tickets. If you complain, the say “Hey, look around, everyone is doing it, this has been going on for years it’s an accepted practice!” and they just blow you off.
    A few years later you see it in county, state then finley federal government such as IRS having a separate segregated women’s only rooms, until finely there is sections of the city being women only where men are not allows to enter, complete with their own grocery stores, libraries, gyms, day care and hospitals, which get government grants to “meet the needs of women” including grant money to pay female doctors and nurses (as well as day care workers, librarian’s ect.) in the female only hospitals higher salary (to compensate for century’s of discrimination and of course the pay gap) and giving them better equipment, and heath insurance ect….

    Fast forward 30 or 40 years and we find our selves living in a world where there is a man taxes ( like the one they try to pass in the 90’s) to pay for all the extra’s women are getting such as women having the right to stay home with the children for up to 2 years for example while still getting their full work salary. Women owned company’s being allowed to hire women only ( legally allowed to discriminate against men because female only is a “Long and accepted practice”. We may look at it now and say it’s not possible but I’m sure in the 1970’s if we where told about women not even being fined for bring false rape charges, paternity fraud, absorbent child support payments, female pedophiles made to be the victims, we would dare not believe it. It doesn’t take too long to lose all your as we have seen in Nazi Germany. If this where to happen here and we let it slide it will not be too long before we wake up in a world similar to what I describe above.

  • Skeptik

    Harry,
    Ihanks for clarifying what you meant.
    I think we’re on the same page.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @skeptic

    “If that makes me ‘hysterical’ in your eyes so be it.”

    I was referring to your accusation of ‘traitor’.

    “I’m simply make the point that those guys who would stay and home and let the wife/girlfriend go off in the car shopping on the pretext that they can’t get an easy enough parking space are selling their brothers short. They’s the male equivalent of Uncle tom niggas in my book.”

    Not in my view. They would be more like Uncle Toms if they just accepted the poor parking deal and carried on doing the shopping as before.

    And, of course, I was talking about men going about their ordinary business, not engaging in activism of some kind.

    Like you, I would prefer to see them scream and holler. But they cannot do this every time that they need to go to the supermarket! LOL!

  • Skeptik

    Hey Harry,
    thanks for the response to my comment -
    “Thanks a bunch traitors! Whilst your at home or work doing whatever, you’ve just sanctioned a policy ”

    however labelling thus
    Hysterical twaddle….seems over the top

    I’m simply make the point that those guys who would stay and home and let the wife/girlfriend go off in the car shopping on the pretext that they can’t get an easy enough parking space are selling their brothers short. They’s the male equivalent of Uncle tom niggas in my book.
    If that makes me ‘hysterical’ in your eyes so be it.
    I’m glad at least we both see this pinkparking policy as outrageous.
    Rather than this end up a case of two guys at loggerheads let’s see what ACTION we can take to support our Korean brothers eh?
    personally I’ve already written to the Seoul Times and Chosun Ilbo.
    Please do likewise if you haven’t doner so already. The addresses are at the top of the thread.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @Skeptic

    “I agree with those who see this as simply outrageous discrimination against men, period.”

    It is, indeed, outrageous.

    “To dress it up as somehow advantageous towards men seems a disingeneous rationalisation to me.”

    If you are referring to my post, then, perhaps, I have not explained myself very well.

    My point was that men will, and should, react to discrimination in ways that counter the discrimination. And they should also, if possible, use it to their advantage.

    “Thanks a bunch traitors! Whilst your at home or work doing whatever, you’ve just sanctioned a policy ”

    Hysterical twaddle.

    No-one here has sanctioned the parking policy – least of all my good self.

    Furthermore, the idea that men should not try to counter such discrimination is a recipe for making the discrimination continue, and worsen.

    A good example is men’s increasing reluctance to marry, to avoid the possible horrors that might arise.

    Would you suggest that men should carry on regardless? – and marry just as often as before?

    Would you castigate them for saying, “Well, I’m not getting married in the current climate. I shall stay single, and make use of any advantages that being single might bring me.”

    “Then there’s the guys who although they don’t have a disability sticker on their dashboard but have sustained an injury (let’s say sprained an ankle) who can’t park as close as they’d like whilst some fit athletic woman can breeze into the pink zone.”

    Indeed. And I would say to these men, “Shop elsewhere.”

    What would you say to these disabled men; “Carry on shopping at this supermarket just like you did before. Do not in any way change your behaviour.”

    I don’t think so.

  • DcFather

    Thanks for the clarification Mike. I was intentionally subtle and therefore easily misconstrued as to my meaning, and you are in a tough spot. I was making a point that GOVERNMENT treats women as inferior, in this case South Korea.

    Sarcasm yes, but no wicked smile. This law implies women are inferior, that isn’t funny, and it should be insulting to anybody unless they actually and truly believe women are inferior. Women arguing that point could make a difference, but why not men who say the same thing?

    GOVERNMENT should stop treating women as if they are unable to do simple things like park a car just as well as men, or walk as far, and stop creating special rights for women as if they can’t take care of themselves as well as men.

    If feminists truly wanted equality instead of special rights, they would make a fuss over this law as insulting to women, but most of us know equality has absolutley nothing to do with feminism.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    Here’s what DCFather posted:

  • Maybe government is correct that women are inferior and lazy and require coddling and discrimination in their favor in every aspect of their lives, in this case parking a car and walking to buy stuff being beyond their lesser capacity and agility relative to males.

    • I understand that this was written tongue-in-cheek with a wicked smile of sarcasm.

    I get it.

    Yes, DCFather is technically correct: The extra wide parking places IS an admission that women are “special” the same way there are “Special” Olympians. Governments are enacting “pro-woman policies” that assume women are handicapped as a class, and should all be awarded blue placards so they can legally park in the loading zone.

    I get it.

    The problem is that MND can’t be portrayed as endorsing the idea that women are intrinsically “lesser” than men. IMO your comment could have been used to caricature MND as somehow “unreconstructed” or “misogynist”, which this website is not.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    The comment has been struck:

  • Maybe government is correct that women are inferior and lazy and require coddling and discrimination in their favor in every aspect of their lives, in this case parking a car and walking to buy stuff being beyond their lesser capacity and agility relative to males.

    • Please be advised: this sort of thing will not fly on MND.

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @Mike LaSalle

    Please explain how the comment which asserted the possibility that women are “inferior” and “lazy”, was not moderated; but, by rebuttal to disprove such an assertion was indeed censored. Does MND stand for the idea that women are ‘inferior’ and ‘lazy’, then?

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    @http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/04/20/sexual-apartheid-and-a-place-to-park/comment-page-1/#comment-87044

  • “Maybe government is correct that women are inferior and lazy and require coddling and discrimination in their favor in every aspect of their lives, in this case parking a car and walking to buy stuff being beyond their lesser capacity and agility relative to males.”

    Nothing’s ever stopped women from their shopping sprees before, let alone some lack of agility. Quite the opposite, really, if you’ve ever seen them at the mall on a holiday, because they have no such deficiency in agility to buy their shoes! xD

    • Please reference MND’s submission guidelines, available here:

  • Men’s News Daily recognizes the diversity of voices in the world community and seeks to act as an inclusive and unbiased platform for the dissemination of ideas. Therefore, it is the policy of MND that any content, present in the publication or presented for publication, interpreted as hateful or inciting toward any group based on race, creed, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, political ideology or political affiliation will not be tolerated.

    • All comments are considered submissions. Please abide by our house rules.

    Thank you

    Mike LaSalle
    Publisher, MND

  • Skeptik

    I agree with those who see this as simply outrageous discrimination against men, period. To dress it up as somehow advantageous towards men seems a disingeneous rationalisation to me. Let’s break this down for those who rationalise it as an excuse to insist a defacto/wife or female friend/relative does the shopping. Thanks a bunch traitors! Whilst your at home or work doing whatever, you’ve just sanctioned a policy which makes it impossible for your elderly and physically feeble male friend or relative to get as close as he’d like to the department store entry on foot having found himself a good parking spot. You’ve just encouraged more women to shop in an environment which already caters to women far more than to men, so women will have more choice of goods and services and men, incrementally less. Then there’s the guys who although they don’t have a disability sticker on their dashboard but have sustained an injury (let’s say sprained an ankle) who can’t park as close as they’d like whilst some fit athletic woman can breeze into the pink zone. I could go on ad infinitum siting examples of how ALL men will be disadvantaged.
    When I read some men using simplistic excuses for giving already entitled women yet more priveleges I’m clearly being shafted by those guys. That’s deeply disappointing and in my view dumb enabling of misandry. I realise then it’s not just a case of feminist women being out to gain wherever they can at men’s expense, it’s also a case of there being certain male enablers of such selfish narcicistic womanhood.
    One other point I leave to ponder is this. How long do you think your typically strident empowered USA woman is going to go along with being the one to always do the shopping because of some dumbass department store’s parking policy? And on the other hand how many such women would lift a finger to get such a misandric policy overturned because they support men’s rights to equal treatment?
    Don’t be waiting too long to find answers to those questions men. You risk letting this be the thin end ofthe wedge if you do. What next? women only public libraries? women only 7/11s, women only (fill in with your imagination hereafter).

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @DcFather

    “Maybe government is correct that women are inferior and lazy and require coddling and discrimination in their favor in every aspect of their lives, in this case parking a car and walking to buy stuff being beyond their lesser capacity and agility relative to males.”

    Nothing’s ever stopped women from their shopping sprees before, let alone some lack of agility. Quite the opposite, really, if you’ve ever seen them at the mall on a holiday, because they have no such deficiency in agility to buy their shoes! xD

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @Harry

    “Not necessarily. Men can squeeze some advantage out of it by insisting more often that the woman goes to the supermarket.”

    What advantage is there possibly for me? I don’t have a women. Neither do gay, divorced, and single men. Why should we be forced to marry just to get food and other provisions?

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @Harry

    “My overall point is that where women are being given advantages over men in the workplace – or at the supermarket – they should, and will, respond by reducing their own efforts, and, further, that women will be under increasing pressure to take up the slack.”

    Women are already given every advantage over men in the work place. It’s called ‘positive’ discrimination; and, they’ve had no increase in pressure to take up the slack. The government policies that openly discriminate against men, by giving preference to women in hiring and promoting, have not freed men of their burdens, unless you count their high unemployment. I don’t think I need to tell you the catastrophe that would take place, if men were ‘positively’ discriminated against in super markets. Men work three more hours a week on average, and they’d likely have to start waiting three more hours to find a super market that will sell food to them, in this system.

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @Harry

    “Imagine, for the moment, that men were not actually allowed to park AT ALL in the supermarket.

    My view, in this case, is that men should insist that their women go to the supermarket.”

    My view is that men should insist that the super markets treat them like any other customer, and not deny them their services just because of their gender. I don’t have a woman. I would starve in that scenario. So would millions of others. Gay men, divorced men, single men; we would all starve. You can’t seriously insist that any advantage could be gained from this.

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @Phillip

    Exactly. You’ve hit the nail on the head.

  • Phillip

    It seems many are forgetting that discrimination without valid basis because of one’s sex is the problem here. Permitting discrimination against all men on the presumption that women will do all the shopping leads to just another reason for men to continue to play the game of ever-changing, retroactive rules. It becomes just one more “reason” for men to marry and become subject to increased government control, which obviously discriminates against him to begin with.
    Sexual discrimination needs to be met with outrage, not encouraged as if this will better men’s lives by somehow forcing women to provide services for them which it will not, especially those who choose to remain single. Exactly how could such discrimination coerce any woman to do the shopping for any man? It simply will not. This is not discrimination against only married men but discrimination against men, period; and accepting it on any grounds is not fighting against it.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @menareangrynow

    “Men being denied parking spaces, just because of their gender, couldn’t possibly be construed as an advantage.”

    Not necessarily. Men can squeeze some advantage out of it by insisting more often that the woman goes to the supermarket.

    Imagine, for the moment, that men were not actually allowed to park AT ALL in the supermarket.

    My view, in this case, is that men should insist that their women go to the supermarket.

    And, indeed, this is what would happen.

    And the children would also put more pressure on the women, rather than the men, to go to the supermarket.

    My overall point is that where women are being given advantages over men in the workplace – or at the supermarket – they should, and will, respond by reducing their own efforts, and, further, that women will be under increasing pressure to take up the slack.

    But if men do not respond by reducing their effort, and simply accept the discrimination then, surprise surprise, the discrimination will simply get worse.

  • DcFather

    Maybe government is correct that women are inferior and lazy and require coddling and discrimination in their favor in every aspect of their lives, in this case parking a car and walking to buy stuff being beyond their lesser capacity and agility relative to males.

  • Skeptik

    @Mickey T.
    I like your idea best as living in S.Korea I’m very confident about one thing.
    S.Koreans are immensely dependent upon exports for their incomes and hence their standard of living.
    The moment they get the message that they will suffer any form of consumer boycotting of their products they’ll respond in a heartbeat.
    masterful idea Mickey T. I encourage you and other MRAs to run with it. No use sitting around thinking IF this comes to my area. Much better to be pro-active and show support for S.Korean men who in my opinion get a very rough deal vis a vis Korean women but mostly aren’t even aware of it they’re so mired in old school disempowered chivalry.

  • Mickey T.

    @ Shattered Men

    “perhaps if it comes to our area……” is not good enough for me. We should make it known to these two countries that because of their misandrist policies, we will boycott all products imported from them. I will contact each of their embassies post haste to express this. And perhaps, one of us could write a form letter for all of us to sign.
    I realize we are up against one giant, and one who is up and coming. But trying, and I say this in most respectful way because you seem like a bunch of great and perceptive guys, sure beats the hell out of bitchin’ to eachother sometime.

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @Harry

    “And from an activist point of view, it is a good idea to alert both men and women to the fact that more will, and should be, expected of women in those areas where they have (or are being given) advantages over men.”

    From an activist point of view, it is a better idea to alert men that the gap between how society treats them and women, respectively, is growing. No one is going to expect that women feed men. Every human society that’s ever existed has operated in the opposite direction. These kind of advantages come without obligations. The people who support these changes pay no heed to the male point of view. To them, you asking that women do more shopping will be interpreted as “get me moar sammiches!”; because, they are often under the false impression that women do almost all of the house work, anyway.

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @Harry

    “I have no doubt, for example, that if I could not park easily at the local supermarket, whereas my missus could, she would say, ‘OK. I’ll go to the supermarket rather than you’.”

    To be blunt, I have every doubt that your missus would always say that. What if she is planning to divorce you? It would be just as easy, then, for her to deny you food, as it would be for her to deny you justice, by falsely accusing you of crimes.

    In addition, why should men be forced into positions, where they have to marry just to eat? I want an answer Harry.

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @Harry

    “Women, as a whole, take advantage of the advantages that they are given.

    Unsurprisingly.

    And men should do the same.”

    Men being denied parking spaces, just because of their gender, couldn’t possibly be construed as an advantage. It’s outright discrimination, which hurts men greatly. It places them into positions where they need to marry women just to ensure they can have access to food and other provisions. What if the wife says no? What about gay men? Neither of them could easily get access to what they need to survive. What about bachelors? What about divorced men? I could go on; but, men from every walk of life are put at a cruel disadvantage by this.

  • NorseFire

    I wonder how many men will think, ‘Oh, nice spot’ and park there anyway?

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @menareangrynow

    “My response is, where is my reserved space so I can buy what I need to survive? Men shouldn’t be placed in positions, where they need to rely on women just to buy bread…”

    Absolutely; but I also think that men should respond as I indicated below. And both men and women actually do respond in such a manner.

    I have no doubt, for example, that if I could not park easily at the local supermarket, whereas my missus could, she would say, “OK. I’ll go to the supermarket rather than you.”

    Obviously, this is just a metaphor for many other things.

    If life ‘out there’ is easier for her than for me, then she will feel under more pressure from the family – and others – to be ‘out there’ more often than would otherwise have been the case.

    And she WILL go ‘out there’ more often than would otherwise have been the case.

    Now men, as a whole, could say, “On No. I’ll go ‘out there’ even though I am being specifically disadvantaged.”

    But, by doing this, they would, in fact, be supporting the very system that is being set against them.

    And I think that men have sat back for quite long enough supporting the system that is set against them, thank you.

    And from an activist point of view, it is a good idea to alert both men and women to the fact that more will, and should be, expected of women in those areas where they have (or are being given) advantages over men.

    Women, as a whole, take advantage of the advantages that they are given.

    Unsurprisingly.

    And men should do the same.

  • Ohone

    The corporations are getting them into their shops with more ease.

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @skeptik

    Actually, when it comes to misandry, there’s plenty to talk about, when it comes to Korea. Take a look at their draft policy: up to two years mandatory for men, nada for women.

  • Skeptik

    Actually Paul,
    come to think of it with you having considerable reach through being a writer with MND you could do a piece on the situation I outlined in post #86768. That would really embarrass the South Koreans who’s economy being so export dependent are SUPER sensitive about their national image. They recently had their ‘national image world ranking’ plastered on the front page of a newspaper and web news site.
    I’m sure you could find S.Korean guys in USA to interview and attest to the disparity between men and women there and as the repercussions flow from exposing the misandry you might even get a series out of it. Now that’s something I’d love to see!

  • http://thecomingnight.blogspot.com Hestia

    Personally, if such a shopping establishment were by me, forget using the privileged parking spot; I simply wouldn’t shop there. A scathing letter to the store, newspaper, and anybody else that can be compelled to listen, likening such treatment of men to segregated America would certainly be on the agenda too, and telling everybody I know why we’re boycotting the store/shopping facility in question.

    It’s probably only a matter of time before we see this here, considering how many dept stores already have nice lounge restrooms for women but no equivalent for men. One dept store near my parents’ home provides a nice chair to sit in to nurse a baby, but not so much as a changing table in the men’s room. Here my poor husband was, out alone with our then infant daughter, and he had to walk back to the car just to change our daughter’s diaper as he understandably was not going to lay her down on the floor in a gross bathroom.

    IIRC, an airline over in asia has recently began implementing a woman-only policy for one of the bathrooms on certain flights. As if the bathrooms on a plane weren’t limited enough already!

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ Skeptik

    Forwarded, and thanks for the great post.

  • blupheonix

    @Harry

    I thought the exact same thing when I read this….

    Sounded just like the article about the UN, women only food lines…

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @Harry

    ” ‘You got the parking space. You do the shopping.’

    This is the way that men should react.”

    My response is, where is my reserved space so I can buy what I need to survive? Men shouldn’t be placed in positions, where they need to rely on women just to buy bread…

    What about all the single men, who won’t be able to find parking space at grocery marts? They’re being pushed aside. In a small way, this is very similar to the women-only food lines that the UN set up in Haiti.

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    If these parking spaces come to LA, I’ll have the fun of picketing each and every space, by replacing the painted symbol for woman of the pavement with the words “whites” and “colors”. God that would be a great way to spend the day! They already have separate bathrooms for men and women around here, and the ones for men suck in comparison, so maybe I’ll spend some time hitting up the parks too. =)

  • Phillip

    @ Paul,

    I wholeheartedly agree about attempting to be the first man jailed for disobeying. I put up with the family members of handicapped individuals using their handicap placards for prime parking but this is just blatant discrimination.
    This is a prime example of how the minds of sexist women work. They are insulted when anyone suggests that women as a group are less skilled in driving as men as a group… except when there are goodies attached like the wider spots being restricted to prevent men using them.
    For one thing, I’m sure such spots would see a larger amount of nails and other tire-damaging debris than a “normal” parking spot.

  • http://menarehumanstoo.blogspot.com/ Adi

    Harry you hit it on the spot perfectly!!!!
    That is the best way to deal with all this nonsense. “You have affirmative actions, so you earn the bread”. I don’t mind women having the higher status and more power than men, but I will hold them responsible accordingly.

    It is now a woman’s world and therefore it is mostly womens responsibility when something isn’t right.

  • http://www.shatterdmen.com Shattered Men

    Perhaps if it comes to our area, we should inform all of the stores around that area that not ONE DIME of the money we make will be spent in any store that supports this. We could also start putting up the picture included her to help them get the message that this is no better than the segregation we had in the 50′s.

  • Skeptik

    As alarming as Paul Elam’s expose on South Korea’s misandric pink parking spaces is it’s actually even worse than that.
    I’ve spent several years in South Korea and can tell you that women there for many years have had much more than parking spots – their very own universities! Go on! Just google search the term – ‘women’s universities south korea’ then watch your jaw hit the floor in astonishment at the number of them!
    Paid for by whom? Yep, you guessed it predominantly by male wage and salary earner’s tax. Worse still the young men are forced under the threat of imprisonment to do 2 years of national service in shit conditions whilst their privileged princess sisters get that University education. Even worse the Men’s rights movement isn’t even nascent there from what I can tell even though some young men suicide rather than face conscription.
    Feminists are often to be heard saying we need to support their oppressed sisters in Afghanistan and such. Well, here’s one guy saying the menfolk of South Korea could do with some long overdue support to overcome the misandry there.
    Thanks for the post Paul. I’ll be sending it to the Seoul Times online newspaper.
    Others may do the same to support our South Korean brothers by forwarding mail to the most widely read english language news portals here

    - http://www.theseoultimes.com/ST/index.html

    and to the Chosun Ilbo online news website here – # E-MAIL: englishnews@chosun.com

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    I do believe, Harry, that if they ever come up with a state sanctioned women only parking area where I live, I will do my best to have the honor of being the fist man to spend a night in jail for disobeying the law.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    If ever they reserve parking spaces for women round here then it will give me a great excuse for telling the missus that she, rather than I, can go to the shops.

    The same sort of thing will happen throughout society wherever matters are made ‘easier’ for women than for men.

    The men will just say, “OK. It’s easier for you, so you do it!”

    Indeed, women are now under much more pressure from their men and their children to go out to work, precisely because life at work is so much easier for them.

    “You got the parking space. You do the shopping.”

    This is the way that men should react.


    • Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

    Archives

    Resources