Blame and Shame to Control!
By Rod Van Mechelen | Originally posted December 4, 2003
Whenever a man speaks with passion, the feminists accuse him of being angry, and when he's angry, they accuse him of hatred. It's a tired old tactic: Blame and Shame to Control.
The feminist roaches scuttle for cover
2003 Olympia, Wash. - Feminists whine. They've been doing it for decades. They do it all the time. But starting about five or six years ago, they stopped publicly arguing the issues with equalitarians, the real champions of equality.
For example, for an inteview in Seattle feminist fluff-for-brains Susan Faludi, author of Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, refused to even be in the same room with Warren Farrell, author of Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say. Maybe it was because she lied about him in her best-selling sexist rant, Backlash, or maybe it was because, like most other American feminists, she had learned the hard way that spouting sexist dogma at an equalitarian was a fast way to be exposed as a bigot and a fraud.
So they stopped. All of a sudden. Like roaches when the light comes on, they all scuttled for the cover of darkness. And ever since, although they still whine and complain, most feminists have curtailed their public displays of anti-male sexism. So I was surprised to learn that a Seattle P-I columnist unleashed a vitriolic torrent of venom aimed at men:
(T)he deep, wide water table of hatred toward women burbles along just under the surface, spewing forth each time we tromp on a sore spot. ... The wellspring of that anger spreads across all racial, social and ethnic boundaries and while many of us, male and female, are nimble enough to step free, more people are soaked to their socks than you might ever imagine. - Susan Paynter, Whose fault is it? Why, the woman's, of course, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 3, 2003
This is so typical. Whenever a man speaks with passion, the feminists accuse him of being angry, and when he's angry, they accuse him of hatred. It's a tired old tactic: Blame and Shame to Control.
And they do want to control us men, especially now more than ever, thanks to the highly successful efforts of shock jocks like Tom Leykis, whose entertaining shows reach millions of men with the truth about feminism and the emasculating feminization of America.
Consequently, men are getting pissed. For some examples of why men ought to be mad, check out the Men's Anger List, which includes 71 items, in James Novak's excellent if slightly out-dated Why white men are voting Republican essay, or Raj Kumar Singh's great article, Why a men's movement?
Feminists don't get it
Beyond what's covered in their articles, I have to add that Paynter's sexist diatribe brilliantly demonstrates how, when it comes to sexual harassment, feminists just don't get it:
And that Ballard High School vice principal must have enticed her boss into sexually harassing her by wearing tight clothes to work. The poor guy never had a chance. - Susan Paynter, Whose fault is it? Why, the woman's, of course, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 3, 2003
With respect to that individual case, I don't know the details. But I do know this: If that woman did, in fact, wear tight clothes, then she is guilty of sexual harassment.
What most people don't understand, and what feminists fearfully hope we will never understand, is that in the landmark case regarding hostile environment sexual harassment, the court specifically noted that, "where male employees allege that co-workers engage in conduct which creates a hostile environment, the appropriate victim's perspective would be that of a reasonable man." To understand why this is important, you need to know what hostile environment sexual harassment is:
The courts have held that "a hostile environment exists when an employee can show (1) that he or she was subjected to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, (2) that this conduct was unwelcome, and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment." (Ellison v. Brady, 924 Federal Reporter 2d Series, pp 875 - 876) Further, "EEOC guidelines describe hostile environment harassment as 'conduct [which] has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.'" (Ellison v. Brady, 924 Federal Reporter 2d Series, p 876) - Rod Van Mechelen, Sexual Harassment, 1991 - 1992
Simply put, in the eyes of most men, a woman wearing tight clothing is engaging in conduct of a sexual nature, and because we can get in trouble for noticing (and it's hard not to notice), that creates a hostile work environment for us. By definition, that's sexual harassment.
Oh, come on now! What guy doesn't want the women at work - especially the attractive ones - to wear sexy outfits? How about the ones who don't want to get fired? This is why Tom Leykis tells us to ignore our female coworkers.
That's good advice, but it gives women free reign to do anything they want to harass us as long as employers allow it. Worse, most marriages these days begin as an office romance, and as long as only the reasonable woman standard is applied, women have all the power, and it's all arbitrary. This is why I'm telling you it's time to start actively defending ourselves against this sexist double standard.
If, by definition under a reasonable man standard, a female coworker is sexually harassing you, don't ignore it, report it. It won't take more than one or two cases for word to get out, after which women will demand clear cut rules that spell out exactly what is and is not allowed. Men who are real harassers won't like that, but for the rest of us, it will be a small first step in the right direction.
Rod Van Mechelen