April 2002
Posted April 22, 2002
Glenn J. Sacks - The Baby Bust! April 22, 2002 -
The problem with many modern women is that it never seems to occur to them that they, not men, are the cause of their own problems.
Posted April 8, 2002
Lawrence Osborne - Iron Joe Bob versus the Goddess! June 28, 2000 -
According to feminist myth, women ruled the world long ago. Not sure how, given that another feminist myth asserts hierarchy was an invention of the evil and never-to-be-sufficiently-damned patriarchy. But, this is what feminists believe:
"Once upon a time, the many cultures of this world were all part of the gynocratic age. Paternity had not yet been discovered, and it was thought ... that women bore fruit like trees--when they were ripe. Childbirth was mysterious. It was vital. And it was envied. Women were worshipped because of it, were considered superior because of it.... Men were on the periphery--an interchangeable body of workers for, and worshippers of, the female center, the principal of life." - The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future, Cynthia Eller
Sounds like female supremacist propaganda, to me. All this talk of a feminist Eden destroyed by a patriarchal apocalypse:
"Along came male rule, war and sexism, and things have gone catastrophically downhill ever since. Female hoes were replaced with male swords."
Could it be true? Is there any merit to the myth? Or is it just more junk churned out by feminist ideologues intent on infecting female college students with their anti-Semitic-like hatred of men? For unless we set the battle between matriarchy and patriarchy upon a mythic stage, where gods and goddesses fight for dominance, then we would be hard pressed to explain the universality of patriarchy in the ancient world:
"If the Kurgan invasions might explain patriarchy in the Middle East and Europe, they surely can't be the source of patriarchy in, say, Borneo or Andean Peru. And while Minoan Crete might look like a matriarchy from the scattered evidence of its few artifacts, nothing is thereby proved. There's not a shred of evidence that government and war in Crete were not the exclusive province of men."
What purpose beyond politics, then, could such a myth serve? Perhaps it's part of a larger revolt against the lacquer-like veneer of pop-femininity, obsessed as it is with plastic perfection:
"Goddess-mongering is also a kind of confused, blind attempt to reclaim some form of earthy femininity in a culture that fundamentally recoils from it -- today's divas and Hollywood stars are a pretty sapless bunch."
If such is the case, then the myth of a prehistoric matriarchy is a symptom of a longing to embrace rather than revile the essential characteristics that mark the difference between the sexes:
"As our corporatist society becomes increasingly sexless and blandly androgynous, pathological reactions inevitably set in. Matriarchalism could be seen as one of these. ... However, this is not a problem of feminism per se but of the wider culture: Another such reaction can be seen in the romantic masculinism and warriordom of Robert Bly."
Perhaps, too, this explains my own confusion, as I read Iron Joe Bob rather than Iron John.
- Salon Magazine.
Posted April 9, 2002
Martin Fackler - The China Syndrome? April 7, 2002 -
The way feminists tell it, American men are the embodiment of "the Great Satan":
"You know, there's much of a concern about crime in (America) but not when it's crime against women and children." - Gloria Steinem, No Safe Place, PBS, March 27, 1998
Preposterous feminist propaganda notwithstanding, how ever bad women may or may not have it in America, there can be no doubt conditions are worse in China:
"In the most comprehensive study to date, an article published recently in the British medical journal The Lancet estimated 157,000 Chinese women die by suicide every year."
Of course, China has a huge population and even if a small percentage kill themselves the number would be high. But the rate of female suicides in China is unique for being disproportionately high:
"And in contrast to the rest of the world, where men commit most successful suicides, more than half China's victims are women - most in the countryside."
Why the disparity? To a significant degree, it's a symptom of their oppression in the still patriarchal Chinese culture:
"Another possible factor is the deep-seated Chinese bias that women are worth less than men. ... Rural women are still treated as the property of their fathers and husbands. ... Abortions of female fetuses in favor of sons are also widespread."
The case is pretty clear cut. Powerlessness and pervasive misogyny drive many Chinese women to take their own lives. With this, most feminists would doubtless agree. Yet those same feminists will turn right around and claim American men commit suicide in such disproportionate numbers not because of powerlessness and pervasive misandry, but because of power and patriarchy.
Author Sylvia Walby, for example, who wrote Theorizing Patriarchy, says the suicide rate for western women is lower because their choices are limited by male power.
I may just be a dumb injun from the south Seattle suburbs, but this has me perplexed. If the high suicide rate of Chinese women is a symptom of their oppression, then how can feminists say the high suicide rate of American men is a symptom of their patriarchal privilege?
- Seattle P-I.
Posted April 8, 2002
Ann Quindlen - Let's jeer it for the boys! April 15, 2002 Issue -
It's that time of year, again. No, not tax day, which doesn't discriminate by gender, but April 25th, the day when women get even with men by teaching boys to resent girls. Yes, it's Take Our Daughters to Work® day!
As an equalitarian, I have absolutely no problem with parents taking their daughters to work. Okay, maybe the whole Take Our Daughters to Work® thing is elitist - after all, if dad drives a truck or mom wipes butts and cleans up vomit in a convalescent center (for the record, I've done both), it's probably not such a good idea. But giving girls a glimpse of what lies ahead is a fine idea. Unfortunately, it also teaches boys to resent girls, a fact feminists find amusing:
"And it's amazing how, almost from its inception, the opponents were all over it, complaining that it sent a bad message about female victimhood, that it was based on false research about girls and low self-esteem, above all that it was gender-biased, that the boys were not invited. ... I never had a bit of trouble explaining: I just remind them that the Senate is still 87 percent male."
As if the facts are irrelevant that those men were voted into office by the female majority, and that few men fit the feminist profile of the privileged male. To understand why these facts don't matter, it is necessary only to discover she is an elitist, apparently believing work is about offices and executive suites:
"Boys don't have to be introduced to the office. They're old acquaintances. ... You can talk all you want about improved access for women now, but it's a recent development, and it still stops several steps from most executive suites."
Just as it stops for most men. But that matters not at all to the feminist bigots:
"Welcome to it, girls. The boys may complain. But that will teach you something, too."
- Newsweek.
Posted April 8, 2002
Jonathon Keats - The liberating corset? March 1, 2002 -
The corset, according to feminists, is an instrument of bondage. It objectifies women, thereby subjugating them to male desire:
"The sexual body is a dangerous thing, best shrouded from sight. That's the line taken in a new book by feminist scholar Leigh Summers, Bound to Please: A History of the Victorian Corset, an examination of the garment's 'role in female objectification' originally written as her doctoral dissertation."
Typical for a modern feminist, her position is actually little different from those advanced by the men of Victorian England:
"While her mind is perhaps slightly sounder than that of Victorian phrenologist Orson S. Fowler -- who warned that wearing a corset excited dangerous 'amative desires' by pressing blood to bowels -- her reasoning is largely consistent with that found in such chauvinist classics as 'From Ballroom to Hell' and 'Where Satan Sows His Seed.' Plus, she uses language like 'hetero-patriarchal dominance.'"
Such fashion sexually objectified women, but it did the same to men, who wore doublets, hose and codpieces. To the feminists, such objectification, particularly of women, is oppressive, yet the truth may be exactly the opposite:
"Objectification of others isn't evil. On the contrary, it's a step in the direction of honesty about ourselves. ... Women can today be more fully women, men more fully men, because secondary sexual characteristics are not shrouded in shame. Far from an article of bondage, the corset has been an instrument of liberation."
- Salon.
Posted April 8, 2002
Cathy Young - Does Russell Yates share responsibility for his children's deaths? March 25, 2002 -
"What kind of a mother stands by a man who beats her and the kids?" How many times have we heard that? Not so much, recently, but 8, ten years ago it was a common question put with some indignation to feminists who blathered endlessly about battered women and how terribly oppressed they are by marriage.
Some women and men fall in love with one another's neuroses, get married, have kids, lead miserable lives, and all men are to blame. No responsibility for the women, no accountability, they're just victims, oppressed, battered and abused by a patriarchal system that puts them on a pedestal of pain and prejudice.
Though policy makers and much of the media now take this as undeniable truth, most of the rest of us know it for nonsense. The price of liberation is responsibility. Responsibility hard won through the tireless efforts of women such as Sojourner Truth and Susan B. Anthony. And what if women, having won and continuing to win greater and ever growing liberation, find responsibility a harsh mistress? Too bad.
After decades of gains, the tide is turning against the feminists and their attempts to have things both ways. But now, following the guilty verdict against Andrea Yates, and widespread condemnation of her husband Russell for failing to protect his children, some leaders of the fathers' movement were tempted to take the same path to irresponsibility so recently owned by feminists:
"More recently, several fathers' rights advocates, including attorney Jeffrey Leving of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children and physician Ned Holstein of the Massachusetts-based Fathers and Families, have spoken up in defense of Russell Yates. ... Whether or not Russell Yates can be held legally accountable for his actions, or lack thereof, his moral culpability seems pretty straightforward."
Forty years ago, there would have been no question of this. Even though the courts may have held women to a lower legal standard due to their dependence, society still expected both parents to take responsibility for the well-being of the family as a whole. After decades of feminist excuse-making and male bashing, however, we seem to have lost perspective:
"Has gender bias played some role in the public judgment of Russell and Andrea Yates? Possibly. ... Given the amount of father-bashing and male-bashing in our culture in recent years, I understand why fathers' advocates would be tempted to defend a father under attack. But the attacks, while sometimes intemperate, are not undeserved."
Fathers' groups can ignore that, follow the feminist example and ride the backlash through yet another cycle of the power struggle between the sexes. But is that a worthy goal?
"The National Organization for Women gave itself a black eye in this case with its knee-jerk support for Andrea Yates. Fathers' groups should not go down the same road of gender-based excuse-making."
We should aspire to do better.
- Boston Globe.
Posted April 5, 2002
Glenn J. Sacks - Misogynistic fringe fanatics? April 5, 2002 -
A misogynistic fringe element within the growing men's and fathers' rights movement resembles the vicious man-bashers who took over the feminist movement. We ignore them at our peril.
Posted April 5, 2002
Bill Maher - Did Shelley Long indulge in racist profiling? January 31, 2002 -
Virtually every person who has appeared on radio and TV to confront the feminists' anti-male bigotry has had the experience of being shouted down. But few can say it happened on their own show! This is exactly what happened to Bill Maher when he tried to talk about Winona Ryder's little legal problem:
Bill: "But I wanted to bring this up. There's this T-shirt that is wildly popular. I don't know in all cities, but certainly here in Los Angeles - 'Free Winona.' ... why are the shirts so popular, why are so many -- and I know the answer. And women don't want to hear it. But girls steal."
At which point both female guests, Anne Robinson, host of The Weakest Link, and actor Shelley Long, started shouting. And when Maher asked, "Could I just finish explaining this?" Long had one word for him:
Shelley: "No!"
That used to happen a lot to men who confronted these issues on the air. But by the 1990s so many of us, such as author Warren Farrell and Mel Feit, Executive Director of the National Center for Men, were both so well-informed on the issues and so well-trained to handle those situations, that feminists began refusing to appear with us because they didn't like looking stupid. But this time, Long, who had just previously voiced the trite complaint about how oppressed she, as an upper class white woman, is, not only shouted down her host, but was prepared with statistics:
"Shelley: The National Retail Security Survey says -- 55 -- I do my homework, Bill. You know I do. The National Retailers Security Survey -- 55% men, shoplifters. 44% women, shoplifters. The one missing percent? Refused to acknowledge gender."
Okay, what, exactly, does the survey say?
"The study indicates that 55% of apprehended shoplifters were men, 44% were women, and about 1% of the cases supplied no gender."
That's almost exactly what Ms. Long said, although the report continues that, "It is noteworthy that the study also suggests that female thieves steal more per incident than men do."
Apprehension statistics also indicated that whites, who comprise about 82% of the population, accounted for 41% of apprehensions, blacks, who comprise about 13% of the population accounted for 29%, and Hispanics, who make up about 12% of the population, accounted for about 44% of apprehensions for shoplifting. (Source: Retailer News)
Without knowing the exact racial composition by gender of the apprehensions, we can conclude two things from these statistics: First, the numbers add up to 115% (I've emailed the author of the above referenced article to request the corrected numbers; however, percent distribution by race is taken from the Table No. 10 of the Statistical Abstract in which Hispanic is a "bi-racial" category, hence the skewed total), and second, most of the people apprehended for shoplifting are not white. Which means either that the bulk of shoplifters are African American and Hispanic males, or that prejudice and profiling let most of the white, female shoplifters get away with it.
If the former, then it's a sad comment on those populations. If, however, it's the latter, then we have to ask, did Ms. Long indulge in racist profiling?
- Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher.
Posted April 5, 2002
David Wroe - Will men soon have "The Pill"? March 25, 2002 -
Among the many feminists complaints we have come to know and love, one of our favorites is that if men could get pregnant there would be a Pill for men, and it would be paid for by the government. The cock-eyed whining of the new rage women aside, men have long wished for a Pill because we'd like to have control over our reproductive lives, too. So why isn't there one?
"A male pill has generally been seen as unprofitable for drug companies. Since most of them make a female pill, they would lose a customer for every one they gained by selling a male pill."
So money, not male sexism, has fueled the feminist fires and frustrated men throughout the West. But a Pill for men may finally become a reality, thanks to a study in Australia:
"Australian couples have provided world-breaking evidence that a male pill could be completely effective. ... Dozens of couples are believed to have been involved in the research, in which fertile men led normal sex lives for two years without their partners becoming pregnant. The men were given a three-monthly shot in the arm of progestin and testosterone for the trial, but this contraceptive could also be taken effectively as a pill."
The study, led by David Handelsman, was conducted by the ANZAC Research Institute and Melbourne's Prince Henry Institute, in Sydney. If this pans out, the only thing more exciting may be watching feminists froth over how unfair it is for men to take control of their own reproductive lives.
- Sydney Morning Herald.
|
