The Backlash! - February 1996

The Truth About Feminism

by Kenneth R. Pangborn , Trial Consultant

Copyright Men International, Inc., 1988

In early 1988 MS. Magazine described me as an "extremist" and I suppose that this editorial will be sufficient to prove the point to some of the more radical feminists. The subject is the bashing of men, and specifically fathers by feminist rhetoric.

The difficulty is that from our view much of the rhetoric (read polemics) of today's feminism is a simple replay of every classic propaganda technique known to the human race. This includes scapegoating, glittering generalities, half truths and the BIG lie! Feminist success at pawning off the biggest line of trash is a subject of immense concern to us as men and supposedly as spokesmen of sorts for the male gender.

It is distressing to see discussion of sensitive subjects in such absolute terms. Of course it helps to understand the frame of reference of the speaker of the statistics, to understand the definitions they are using so one can judge better the accuracy or import of what is being said. As feminist authors such as Susan Brownmiller make the claim that all men will rape a woman during their lives, one needs to understand the current feminist orientation to place it in context.

It may surprise a few people who know very little about feminism, even though they may think they know more, that much of the leadership and formulators of feminist ideology are avowed lesbians who hold, at least subconsciously that all heterosexual contact is a form of rape. It is easier to understand with such a broad definition how these people could say what they do and in their own minds not be telling an untruth. In point of fact less than 2% of the male population commits 100% of the rapes in America.

The same kind of misinformation permeates discussion of family violence in America. While the highly charged emotionally manipulative "horror stories" are paraded before the public, statistical information added to the discussion is at the same time exaggerated and incomplete. This is true of many topics of feminism. Exaggeration is a technique that feminism has over-worked. Our view is that the real statistics are bad enough, exaggeration diminishes the problem and trivializes the problems that are so real for so many victims.

As a father of 4 daughters I resent that. I resent that exaggeration of statistics and encouragement of false reporting makes it harder on the real victims. In domestic violence, not only has the incidence been over-estimated, but feminists have shouted down discussion of violence by women against men. I would refer the reader to the work of Dr. Suzzanne Steinmetz of the University of Delaware whose work clearly shows that family violence is not the exclusive province of the male gender by any reasonable distortion of fact. This work clearly demonstrates that violence is equally a problem for both genders.

Perhaps the most annoying subject is the topic of child abuse. Here is where misinformation has been masterfully manipulated by feminism. It has been known for more than a decade that the majority of child abuse in America did not occur at the hands of fathers, but indeed at the hands of single parent mothers (67.3%). However much of what information comes out today nearly reverses those figures. The intrusion of massively false data has sent many professions scurrying in the wrong direction.

Nowhere is this more true than on the subject of child sexual abuse. It is also well established that less than 2% (1.65 %) of sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by the biological father. First most of what we define as sexual abuse is perpetrated by siblings. The number 2 perpetrator, only a few percentage points behind, are the step-fathers, boyfriends and male companions of single mothers.

In the later case the abuse occurs either with the direct participation of the mother , her encouragement, or by her tacit acquiescence to it. All the rationalizations in the world simply do not justify the position of those women. Feminist sources have been established to have encouraged knowingly false allegations against fathers in divorce cases to gain objectives such as better financial settlements or more favorable custody and visitation schedules. This is a vicious tactic one that we feel fits in well with the mean spirited temperament of modern feminism under Eleanor Smeal.

This brings me to the subject of deadbeat dads. Golly, we have been bombarded by statistics on this "National Disgrace". There is perhaps no subject as full of manure as this. We have all head " U.S. Government figures show 5 Billion dollars in unpaid child support" in America. But do we know where these numbers came from ? Did you know they came from the U.S. Bureau of Census? Did you know how the Bureau (Feminist Branch) arrived at the numbers they throw out? No? Not unless you have seen the documentation or read an obscure part of the Congressional Record from 1983 Senate Hearings on Child Support.

The data comes from a questionnaire sent to 1.6 million single mothers asking them if they got enough child support from the fathers. Survey methods are among the most unreliable methods of data collection. They are if they are done without a system of verification, which by the way, the Bureau did not employ. We know this for a fact, in 1982 when there was a big push on income tax refund interceptions to collect child support that in areas from which hard data is available, that 33% of the cases were nakedly false. This represents the cases where the amount was sufficient enough to get a father to protest and hire a lawyer. This does not reflect other false cases where the amount was too small or the father could not afford an attorney.

But let's look at the subject feminism does not want discussed. Let's look at a couple of facts that will cause feminist amazons to choke and offer a string of senseless rationalizations for. First, in the United States one child in four is illegitimate ( 1 in 3 in Florida). Second, of those children born out-of-wedlock more than 50% have birth certificates where the father is described as "unknown"!

If we compute the figures in any reasonable accounting system the whole child support question deflates from its gigantic proportions to something pathetic, and it points the accusing finger not at deadbeat dads but at deadbeat moms who have a litter of kids with only a vague notion of which male might be responsible for impregnation! In short, as truth would have it, we have a case of the "pot calling the kettle back." I am totally disinterested in feminist apologetics. I am tired of the feminist theory that women are never responsible for anything negative.

To the feminists that may raid our board for "intelligence", let me say this to you. All of the excuses you use to avoid responsibility for negative acts of women, simply adds to the arguments that women are not responsible enough for important posts. Think about it! Feminist argumentation treats women like mindless children who have no free will or minds of their own, who are cowardly and afraid to stand up. That is the conclusion that can be drawn from feminist argumentation.

To illustrate how the feminist propaganda juggernaut works, let me give two illustrations that should be good for some humor. Much as Josef Goebbels of WW2 Germany so aptly perfected, the process of scapegoating is an effective tool for political objectives. When you add into this situation, tactics again similar to those of 50 years ago, we can see how views can be distorted. The best way to promote false information is to find a believable spokesperson to tell the lie.

Let's work with the recent book of Dr. Lenorre Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution. Weitzman is one of feminism's largest Valkyries. Her activism is long standing but little known. Weitzman's book maintains the absurd premise that while women's economic position suffers by 42% following a divorce, a man's actually improves by 73% . I am often amazed at how widely accepted this non- sense has become.

Only a moron or simpleton would accept such a preposterous premise. How many accountants or lawyers do you know that would advise a young man to get a divorce as a way of getting ahead in life??? This preposterous premise is a highly emotional one that gets women to say 'Right- on." But few people familiar with the divorce process believe it. Weitzman's premise leaves so much out of her mathematics that it proves the old say that "figures don't lie, but liars do figure"! Weitzman's accounting system was entirely self-serving to be overly kind.

Lenorre Weitzman's book comes into better perspective when taken into account along with fellow feminist Dr. Phyllis Chesler's book, Mothers On Trial which maintains the idiotic position that women are widely discriminated against in child custody cases. Chesler shrugs off the fact that 92% of custody awards are to mothers. Chesler bemoans the 4% of custody awards to fathers which she claims is way too large. How much too large?

Well, based on her study of 64 cases (which is about all she could find in the entire nation covering a 10 year period) she says that father custody should be completely eliminated. Chesler could find no reason that a father should ever gain custody of his children. Her recent appearances on Donahue and the Sally show on behalf of run-away mothers belie her statements about "Primary Caretakers" being any real issue. Chesler, it seems hold that custody awards must be on the basis of who has spent the most time with the children, unless it was the father, then she frantically searches for another rationalization.

Lenorre Weitzman on the other hand has some interesting conclusions of her own in her book. Sifting through the verbiage, Weitzman concludes that even if courts were to award a woman all of the assets of the marriage (including pre- existing assets ) (special equity assets) and all of the man's future income, it would not be fair to her. Her premise goes further, that even if the court ordered the husband to work 3 Full-Time jobs and awarded her all of that income tax-free, the woman would still be getting screwed! Of course, I am not using her words. But I am accurate as to the net of her statements and conclusions.

Naturally Weitzman is torn between her position of not wanting Fault to be a consideration, and the need to "Justify" such draconian punishment of men. Even Weitzman has some dim realization of how ludicrous her position is. Greed is a wonderful thing , isn't it? I must point out for the uninformed reader that Lenorre Weitzman was one of those rabid Femagogues who burned their Bra's outside the state capitol in Sacramento, California demanding "No-Fault Divorce" as a way to improve women's share of the opt in divorce. Weitzman has concluded that 50% of everything wasn't enough even when the woman didn't deserve the first penny.

It has been feminists like Weitzman and Smeal that have reduced marriage to a economic enterprise or occupation they are attempting to unionize. In doing so love, tenderness and human feelings of a positive nature fly out the window. Is it any wonder that American bedrooms have become armed combat zones?

If you scratch me hard enough you might even hear me say that, yes, I believe that fault divorce or at least some modification of it, should be brought back. The bad or capricious spouse should not profit. After all, marriage is a civil contract. What good is a contract, any contract, if one party can breach the contract in bad faith and automatically profit from it while the person who kept it is punished? It makes a joke of contracts, and a comedy of the legal system.

In any social situation, when a segment of the society loses its incentive for proper behavior, or as in this case, receives automatic reward for negative acts, is the result anything but inevitable? Look at the state of the family today. Then take another look at the absurd argumentation of today's feminism. You judge!

Excuse me for getting in one last jab. Today's feminism, at least at the top, is dominated by the most radical elements of the lesbian culture, the most hateful of men. You can add this into this equation. I should not need to prove that statement, I will if you'd like. It stands by itself as a statement of fact!

[ HOME ] [ BACK ]
The Backlash! is a feature of Shameless Men Press

Email to the Editor