|Operation Gender War Excerpts |
Why is it popular for many females to cast males as evil? Are we? And what has caused them to have this judgement? Is the world suffering from an overdose of testosterone, as Sinead O'Connor claims? Are men redundant and nuisances, as Germaine Greer says? Referring to women's demand for equality and "all the privileges pertaining to the estate of the human being", hadn't Simon de Beauvoir claimed that "by and large we have won the game." In 1952! That's when her book, The Second Sex, was published and when she claimed women's victory. 1 viii [Introduction]
Everything is flying around in chaos - with the media lying, sales-people spinning, films fantasizing, politicians seducing. So trying for authenticity is beyond many people's capacity. The business of earning a living doesn't allow all the time needed to clear the smokescreens, get at the truth, and to hold the phoneys up to justice. Thus, in a form of self-defense, the female inclination to subjectivity, towards paying attention to the interior, personal and feelings centered details in contrast to focus on the exterior details of society's management, control and direction has now become the worldview of the moderns. It's a form of escape from facing up to the reality that the 'enduring truths' about America are, in fact, fiction, propaganda. It leaves the search for objective truth behind.
Just as the nineteenth-century woman subordinated theology to sentimental literature, then debased rules and laws in favor of a feelings approach to life, today a world has arisen, one that highly values psychic relationships between "individuals," relationships that occur in the present or within a short period of some part of a lifetime. History is dying - everything happens at or near the subjective now. p132 [Chp. Spice & Rodham]
The gender feminist believes that the average man is a potential batterer. To gender warriors like Gloria Steinem, it is a sales job, this snow job, this characterization of men as idiots, buffoons, mental cases that live to beat and batter girls, women. Steinem, founder of Ms. Magazine, is at war. Her strategy is to disseminate rhetorical shock tactics (memes), to confuse, overpower and humiliate adversaries. The gender feminists are committed to the doctrine that the vast majority of batterers or rapists are not fringe characters but men whom society regards as normal - sports fans, career employees, former fraternity brothers, pillars of the community. For these normal men, it's said, women are not so much persons as objects. In the gender feminist view, once a woman is objectified she is therefore no longer human, thence battering is simply the next logical step. Of course the guys are rapists, brutes....
...Feminist activists have a large stake in exaggerating battery and abuse, and they have virtually no conscience in doing so. The plight of the fair sex is the subject area where the spin-as-facts "tacts" - statistics and studies on provocative issues like rape, battery, wage differences, eating disorders - promote women as victims of the oppressive patriarchal system. Their facts may not be true at all, but the gender feminists use this "activist research" for recruiting. They say men are a physical menace to women. End of story. That's the agenda and feminist norm!
Gloria Steinem, long time spinster, in 1992 published Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem, which says patriarchy requires violence and "the most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home." p329 [Chp. Lash]
Men don't defend their sexuality. They've been made guilty; they just take abuse. Ridiculing men and their sexuality as dangerous to society gives the females unopposed grounds upon which to build their version of the female alternative to their spun perversion of males. ... The evidence shows false claims of sexual abuse and assault are so high that these claims are unprincipled attacks on men, used to gain rewards - money, child custody - and to punish men. Whether they did anything or not! Our society is letting men take the rap, even if they are innocent.
A study of male sexual offenders found that 30 percent had themselves been sexually abused as children. Of these, 78 percent had been abused by a woman.89
Shocking. But can our society cope with this and other information that doesn't bolster the consensus image of women as caring, innocent victims?
Nearly 60 percent of convicted rapists were sexually abused as children by women. p358 [Chp. Lash] 90
Feminism provides a front, a cover, for the tooth-and-claw, bottom-line disdain for others found in our society. And rationality is so conditioned into us and so overused that reason itself has been perverted. Reason today is actually destroying our emotional, intuitive and common sense response to the world. So the collective focus of many feminists, the focus on humanitarian values, has limited audiences and can only go so far.
Citizens are being raised and nurtured on subjective experience and are taught to derive their sense of power from immediate personal relationships. But the elite class thrive on execution of objective strategy and acquire their power through their growing world economic domination. The elite of America prefer the masses they have under their control to be subjective, and they foster their control through the media. People are being trained and told not to hold opinions about the external world because it is all going to happen "out there" with or without them anyway. Today a subjective individual is featured wrapped up in "personal" relationships, and here people's opinions are like rights!
Feminists brought down the highest values of Calvinism in the 19th century, and replaced them with an anti-intellectual sentimentalism. Their dissimulation behind a sentimental illusion would hide the class struggle in America. And this served capitalism. Psychological norms have been replacing religious norms ever since, meaning people are increasingly taught to focus more on what they should feel, not on what they should do. iv [Introduction]
Men, your mommies and school teachers, even movies and paper-back novels, have set you up for all this female-sympathy glue, and so you might be thinking weird, deranged things regarding love and marriage. For many men the dressed-up lie that they conquered and married is going to turn, and with a vengeance she will demand just what they should do in, as Nietzsche put it, the "long stupidity" of marriage....
....Men are threatened with both productive and reproductive oblivion." 5 Because they can't be productive, earn a good living, they are unable to find a mate to reproduce with. The number of guys in this boat doubled in the ten years between 1985-1995. p289 [Chp. 21st Century Foxed]
Soon thereafter Bill Clinton began making the news, first as a presidential contender, then as a sexual disaster area. But even before his election, beginning even before Gennifer Flowers, the "bimbo eruptions" tracked this Bill Clinton's trail. Clinton's problems only helped Faludi's case against the shortcomings of a society she saw as supporting male privilege.
Clinton, the Big Kahuna, Mr. Large, was a Federal Reserve Bank connection for his favorite free-loading feminist-flunkey sponges. Faludi and rage-feminism lucked out with Bill Clinton. Here was a guy obsessed with women, a slave to his attraction, with sex scandals flushing out all about. Here the gender feminists had a male to ridicule. So in general, the reactive female camp did well with this Bill. Without their support he would lose his job. They had him in a testosterone basket. So the elitist feminazis types, the grudge-bearing bunch, began to try to take over America! And up front and center, soon they are going to produce the next president of the United States, they think. Why it's going to be none other than Bill Clinton's cuckolded wife, Hillary, the super-victim! p317 [Chp. Lash]
Dark forces are feared and reason is upheld as their protector. Because of fear of uncertainty, and because uncertainty is non-rational, the use of reason to find security, answers, is embraced. So fear motivates the exclusive use of reason with its isolating and self-interested characteristics. Then when looking for personal reward, reason becomes connected to function. That is logical. But everything that works is not necessarily good. Everything that could work to make one's life an individual success in a competitive society couldn't be allowed. On its own, practical reason can leave people alone and frustrated. Value, ethics and humanism, if left out and not incorporated into reason, will strand society in a wasteland of inhospitable and deadly competition, each person alive only unto herself.
Same with nations that live on "rational ideology." Belief in market economics ideology is based on pure reason, a reason that doesn't have to get its hands dirty in the real world ....
...Are these women today overreaching, trading their natural emotional wisdom, intuition and common sense for some mental constipation? What they want, and what they need, isn't going to be satisfied by today's "reason" alone.... p29 [Chp. Zoo Glue]
Hillary, like Peggy Sue, got married. Marriage was her choice first and foremost, and she delayed her law degree and her graduation to follow her husband around. She had the right stuff for her own professional career. A sturdy mid-westerner of high intelligence, strong will and ambition - she had wanted to be an astronaut at age fourteen. But she threw herself into the role of the subservient wife. Did she think she was in love, or that she had to tone down her individual ego? The pose for competitiveness isn't usually like the attitude that generally invites an intimate marriage contract.
Snidely known at Wellesley as "Sister Frigidaire," because of her platonic opposite-sex relationships, she yielded to her man's career path. And her later defense of his philandering drives home an aspect of her personality not to be ignored. Whether it's masochism or defending her meal-ticket, it's off-balance, showing lack of any principles other than personal chauvinism. Gennifer Flower's, who had a twelve-year extra-marital affair with Hillary's husband, Bill Clinton, was reported saying Hillary has been with more women sexually than even this Bill Clinton! So who is dysfunctional here? p107 [Chp. Spice & Rodham]
End the Gender War
The female gender has moved location, in hope to repair the collective's body and soul, and its consciousness. The World Wars' damage is deep. "She's" become responsible for the external, or partly so, even though she may not be best suited for the outside world of politics and the external sciences of structure and control. The distance women have brought into their marriages was originally for more freedom to influence the healing of society. Women wanted room to expand their compassionate influence on all of society. Unfortunately, many angry and self-interested women have gobbled up the extra room and called it their liberation from men. And thus the hope of marriage programs making a comeback is crashing. p383 [Chp. Purposeful Incarnation]
Madonna's phallus girls and their phallus mom were obviously not going to make much of a dent in the patriarchy. They were integral to its working. Their aspirations were to be equal or better than the males in the game; this was how they had been trained. They had bought into the divide-and-rule propaganda pabulum served up in an elementary education, paid for with public monies. They wanted only power, for many reasons, some noble-sounding like freedom of self-expression, Emersonian self-reliance and personal responsibility. But their competitiveness served state-run corporate machinery established years ago. p262 [Chp. Mad Donnna]
So the maturing young girls see all about them liars and swindlers and zero accountability. It's a game they see, life in this society, and the winner can choose to exercise power over those who lose.
But power for many women is involved even in the minutest of circumstance. In relationships there can be an adversary where power, hers, is usually seen as in jeopardy. Her cosmetics and paint are cover-ups that may allow human pretense to attract and vanquish "her" patsies and marks. As in politics, life can become a dress-up spin world for those raised on the robbery. Life then gets seen by many as simply corrupt, and in kicks the insurance, but it is unfortunately now the motivator. And this allows domination, because neurosis, the insurance, is constriction. p181 [Chp. Freedom to be Confused]
Well, the gender feminists are right about a conspiracy to cripple a gender, but their perception is self-deceptive. Maybe their labeling of a gender war against themselves as unjustified and immoral is the result of anger from neurotic guilt, the guilt of those who have falsely, but knowingly, portrayed a merciless campaign as being against women. Because what is going on is a lambasting of men by those who seek female-gender power and privilege....
....Many in the media may be victims of the people they publish. It seems the lies and spin of many feminist wagers of the gender war are the only "reasoning of the facts" that most editors have understood. p320 [Chp. Lash]
Some of the press chased Diana because she was part of the process that controls nations. Trying to catch rich bloody liars is tremendously difficult because their professional staffs find the leaks, plug the cracks and maintain illusions. So when a fault appears and the ground begins to move, the press race to watch. Diana dumped the royals but wanted to be one. She mixed with the elite, slept with them, and used the press to promote herself. Diana had a history before her marriage of emotional and psychological problems. Her affairs with her lovers began before Charles returned to his liaison with the older woman, Camilla. And Diana called Charles a terrible father, something which does not seem true. As a star celebrity she tried to lose what her brother called her "deep feelings of inadequacy." p271 [Chp. Mistaken Identity]
Worship of Women
The worship of women has been a foundation of western society like a sea bottom, and an ocean of emotion has been poured over this worship....
....The worship of woman is the keystone prop of western society. But the direction of attention into the worship of women is the miscue that has facilitated losses in both gender camps, since women and men have been forced to surrender precisely that which western society always makes such a fuss about - their individuality.
Meaning their personal understanding of the "other" is gone, replaced by impersonal, idealized stereotypes....
....Worshiping women set the stage for the gender wars that are so messy and so full of innocent disillusionment. p386 [Chp. The Bomb]
History of Thought on Female Instincts
The cunning of the gender feminists is nothing new. Male Philosophers and thinkers throughout history have commented on the instinct in women. Arthur Schopenhauer and Immanual Kant, top thinkers of their time, cautioned about the deceptive nature of women. p321 [Chp. Lash]
[What they said. Plus: Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Hegel, Rosseau, Freud, Neitzsche, Carl Jung and more.]
The Rise of Authoritarian Women
While Arden's cosmetic crusade swept America, in Europe D.H. Lawrence was heard storming around, contending about women being "on the move," predicting a coming persecution of men. The "dynamic polarity" between the sexes, according to Lawrence, had swung around and men were becoming feminized, assuming sympathetic-sensitive roles, while women became active, effective, authoritative.... p77 [Chp. Estrus Ardent]
The great aspect of the mind is finality. Once the mind believes it understands it goes to "lock-on," and that is the end of it. Beliefs rule! The mind uses reasoning, and then it reacts to opposition to its conclusions. This is the fact that is killing - a ready victim is the mind of today. Must critical thinking be so defensively adept to forge forward? The shrinking self-doubt and over-analysis brought on in the engaged minds of today is duck soup to the longhairs dissembling their emotional-manipulative dis-information discourses.
The mind is fed as if it were like the female of today, she asking for all the instruction, then becoming a site of victimhood! The torque of the rational option as it hits into the new millennium is insidious masochism, an abrupt halting of action, and the pause to consider opinion before having an opinion. As the moderns pause, the longhairs create reality, the consensus, disseminate the news, and tell the people what they should think. The people think they hear what the majority think and drop the subject. They have been trained to be rational, and the pause comes almost naturally.
Everyone is a victim of this type of progress - dishevelled, ripped through the shredder of the psych-out. Noam Chomsky says propaganda is to democracy what terror is to totalitarianism. p189 [Chp. Freedom to be Confused]
Being with their fathers has proved to help children manage their emotions, develop intelligence and attain better grades in school. These children are socially better adapted and have better relationships with the parent they aren't living with than the children who live only with their biological mothers. p359 [Chp. Lash]
Women hire specialists, hit men just like furnace men, plumbing men, electrical men, all working to keep her needs in tune, even when it's the removal of her "goon." But to be searching for his penis thrown out in the road... this a possible punishment for males not educated about the amount of female murder and assault - this comes from ignorance! Getting hitched is the entrance fee into this mode.
Eight-inch carving knife and the unsatisfied Bobbit merge. Slashed while sleeping! He has been tortured indeed, but while he is in stitches, our courts the female have here acquitted.
The 41 percent of spousal murders females are here found guilty of - well, they don't include: a successful poisoning that's been classified as a stroke or something else (and poisoning is the female's preferred murder method); nor does it count third-party hired killers or boyfriends persuaded to murder. (This type isn't documented as a woman killing an intimate, but is instead classified as a third-party killing.) Thus the number - 41 percent - could be a lie. It's probably higher. Go figure, but get a grip!
Sleep on man, at your own peril. p311 [Chp. The Male 'Click' Experience]
Rape serves the gender feminists because it gets sympathy and support for females. By fudging the numbers through their unaccountable advocacy research, a huge political victory is won by these self-interested enemies of men. Many gender feminists seem to carry utopian visions of sexual relations, where there is sex without power, sex without persuasion and sex without pursuit. This is unrealistic, but "reality" is not their interest. Power is, and it seems there are no rules in their pursuit of power.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that up to half of all rape allegations are untrue. p335-336 [Chp. Lash]
There are more females in university than males today, and females have more sports teams in these universities than males. In all the media, the law courts, the schools and the universities I found men's needs are either ignored or debased. Even their families and homes are being lost, taken away. Studies show that one-third or more of all children born in America today are not cared for within a marriage. In African American communities the rate of unmarried moms can be over 60 percent. Single moms could soon be the group controlling the majority of the children. viii [Introduction]
So all you western feminized guys, are you now alerted and with chagrin making moves to protect yourselves from this scathing rebuke and insult?
....Most of you have been raised by females. The first seven years always mold the person, and elementary teachers have always been mainly female, and thus feminism has flushed all around our western society for over 200 years.
It's becoming ever more clear, ever more certain that the best bet for the future is for ignorance. The culture of ignorance suits this information age. Just as good attracts evil, happiness is balanced by sadness, or peace is contrasted by war, so insight is muddied by false information. Ignorance can lead to blind belief and to prejudice.
North American society is in the cultural grip of feminization. It has been for over 200 hundred years. It is a feminized society. All the while, all the noise claims the opposite! Virtually no one even thinks this through.
Most accept various accounts of women's liberation as a progressive and recent event. It isn't at all recent. The hegemony over the culture that has been garnered by the feminine ethos in the past two centuries has both served the elite capitalists and sacrificed the male population. p299
Quote:Fast Facts on the Gender War
Gender and Sports
Gender and Sports
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) participation:
128,209 women participate on 7,684 teams, compared to 200,627 men participating on 7,705 teams. (1)
The difference between the number of men and women participating on NCAA teams can be mostly accounted by the fact there are no female football and wrestling teams. Male football and wrestling teams account for 60,203 athletes. (1)
13,392 women participate on 966 basketball teams, compared to 15,141 men on 950 basketball teams. (1)
2,323 women participate on 282 golf teams, compared to 7,197 men on 678 teams. (1)
436 women participate on 22 ice hockey teams, compared to 3,608 men on 125 ice hockey teams. (1)
Equal number of male and female lacrosse and skiing teams exist, 182 teams each for lacrosse with 5,705 male athletes and 4,068 female athletes and 40 skiing teams each with 455 female athletes and 575 male athletes. (1)
More female teams than male teams exist for cross country (838 versus 792), fencing (42 versus 36), gymnastics (91 versus 28), soccer (691 versus 681), squash (26 versus 25), swimming (432 versus 368), tennis (859 versus 776), track indoor (528 versus 512), track outdoor (644 versus versus 625), and volleyball (923 versus 74). (1)
High school participation:
From 1971 to 1998 the number of girl participating in sports has increased from 294,105 to 2,570,333, while male participation has practically stayed the same from 3,666,917 to 3,763,120. (2)
16,428 schools have female basketball teams, which have 454,000 athletes, compared to 16,617 schools that have male basketball teams, which have 544,463 athletes. (2)
7,468 schools have female soccer teams with 246,687 athletes, compared to 8,859 schools with male soccer teams with 309,484 athletes. (2)
9,297 schools have female tennis teams with 151,539 athletes, compared to 9,364 schools with male tennis teams with 137,827 athletes. (2)
14,284 schools have female outdoor track & field teams with 395,955 athletes, compared to 14,612 schools with male outdoor track & field teams with 471,175 athletes. (2)
5,360 schools have female swimming & diving teams with 126,062 athletes, compared to 5,098 schools with male swimming & diving teams with 83,781 athletes. (2)
11,097 schools have female cross country teams with 150,846 athletes, compared to 11,693 school with male cross country teams with 178,672 athletes. (2)
12,326 schools have softball with 333,374 athletes, compared to 14,407 schools have baseball teams with 449,897 athletes. (2)
The ten most popular sports for high school boys by participation:
1. football, 2. basketball, 3. outdoor track & field, 4. baseball, 5. soccer, 6. wrestling, 7. cross country, 8. golf, 9. tennis, 10. swimming & diving. (2)
The ten most popular sports for high school girls by participation:
1. basketball, 2. outdoor track & field, 3. volleyball, 4. softball fast pitch, 5. soccer, 6. tennis, 7. cross country, 8. swimming & diving, 9. competitive spirit squads, 10. field hockey. (2)
General adult population:
35 percent of women play sports, compared to 56 percent of men. (3)
Women and the purchase of sporting goods:
7 percent of hunting equipment sales. (4)
14 percent of fishing tackle sales. (4)
16 percent of golf equipment sales. (4)
32 percent of camping equipment sales. (4)
56 percent of exercise equipment sales. (4)
1- The National Collegiate Athletic Association, (NCAA), 1996-1997 Participation Study.
2- National Federation of State High School Associations, 1997 High School Athletics Participations Survey.
3- U.S. National Endowment for the Arts, 1997 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, Research Division Report #39, December 1998.
4- National Sporting Goods Association, Mt. Prospect, Ill. The Sporting Goods Market in 1998.
Gender and Health
Gender and Health
In 1995 the life expectancy for women stood at 79 years; for men, it was 73 years. Projections for 2010 show life expectancy will be 81 years and 74 years, respectively. (1)
27 percent of men smoke, compared to 22.6 percent of women. (11)
20.3 percent of men participate in regular sustained activity, compared to 18.9 percent of women. (13)
14 percent of women participate in regular vigorous activity, compared to 11.6 percent of men. (13)
31.5 percent of women do not participate in physical activity, compared to 27.3 percent of men. (13)
25.6 percent of women 20 to 34 years old are overweight, compared to 25.4 percent of men. (12)
36.8 percent of women 35 to 44 years old are overweight, compared to 34.9 percent of men. (12)
45.4 percent of women 45 to 54 years old are overweight, compared to 37.7 percent of men. (12)
48.2 percent of women 55 to 64 years old are overweight, compared to 43.7 percent of men. (12)
42.9 percent of men 65 to 74 years old are overweight, compared to 42.3 percent of women. (12)
35.1 percent of women 75 years old and over are overweight, compared to 27.7 percent of men. (12)
Men under the age 65 are less likely to be covered under any insurance plan than women. (9)
The National Institute of Health spends 10 percent of its budget on women's health issues and 5 percent on men's health issues. (1)
190,000 more men are diagnosed with a cancer than women each year. (10)
29,000 more men died of cancer in 1992 than women. (2)
Prostate cancer is almost as serious for men as breast cancer is for women. 44,000 women die of breast cancer while 41,000 men die of prostate cancer each year. (3)
Every twelve minutes a man died of prostate cancer in 1997. (4)
334,500 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1997. (4)
"Since 1992, the number of American men diagnosed with prostate cancer has risen from 132,000 to 317,000." (3)
"The National Cancer Institute directed $1.8 billion toward breast cancer research and $376 million to prostate cancer research projects." (3)
"The government spends $250 for each man diagnosed with prostate cancer and about $2,000 for each death, according to the American Foundation for Urologic Disease. It spends $3,000 on every woman diagnosed with breast cancer and $12,000 for each death." (3)
The Department of Defense spent "about $20 million for prostate cancer research and $455 million on breast cancer research from 1993 through 1996." (3)
Males are at least four times more likely to die from suicide than are females. However, females are more likely to attempt suicide than are males. Statistically, every twenty minutes a man commits suicide. (5)
Men accounted for 81 percent of suicides from 1980-1992 among persons aged 65 years and older. From 1980-1992, the rate for men in this age group increased 10 percent. The rate for women was unchanged. (5)
Men will comprise of 86 percent of all deaths from AIDS-related symptoms during the mid-1990's. (6)
AIDS is the leading cause of death for men between the ages of 25-44.
AIDS is the third leading cause of death for women between the ages of 25-44. (6)
66 percent of Americans who experience heart attacks are men. (7)
Men between the ages 29-44 have a 41 times higher chance of having a heart attack than women. (7)
Men still have a higher chance of having heart attack than women between the ages 45-64. That chance is three times higher than women. Only until men and women turn 65 and older women have about equal number of heart attacks. The difference is a 15 percent lower rate for women. (7)
54 percent of Americans who experience a stroke are men. (8)
1- US Census Bureau.
2- National Center for Health Statistics and the American Heart Association.
3- Special Report- "Dying for Dollars," Harry Jaffe, Men's Health, September 1997.
4- American Cancer Society.
5- National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
6- "Where Women Stand: An International Report on the Status of Women in 140 Countries 1997-1998" by Naiomi Neft and Ann D. Levine.
7- American Heart Association and Framingham Study, 26-year follow-up.
8- American Heart Association and Framingham Study, 24-year follow-up.
9- National Health Statistics and US Census Bureau.
10- American Cancer Society.
11- Survey done in 1995. U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Health United States, 1996-97 and Injury Chartbook, 1997, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 46, No. 51, Dec. 26, 1997.
12- The study, which excludes pregnant women, represents the years 1988-1994. U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 1996-1997.
13- U.S. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1996. Sustained activity is any type of activity that occurs five times or more per week and 30 minutes or more per occasion. Vigorous activity is rhythmic contraction of large muscle groups performed at 50 percent or more of estimated age- and sex-specific maximum cardiorespiratory capacity, three times per week or more for at least 20 minutes per occasion.
|Operation Gender War Chapter 24 |
Lash - Page 1 of 8
page 2 >> This Information Age is full of newspeak-tacts,
Tactical lies spread as facts.
These lies grow and spread,
Affect social interaction and what is said,
They deny much satisfaction that could exist,
If only the spin doctors, propaganda would desist.
The males take a great thumping
From all the gender feminist dumping,
Hitlers provocative propaganda was read:
Its lies brought death by those who were led.
Did believing ears
Wipe away fears
To be politically correct, thought right,
Carrying out vile persecutions, as though
SLEEPWALKING at night?
Whats really in the present economy, the one the media often exults as magnificent, robust? This economy and it's teeming stock prices is leading what is called the Information Age. While the average Joe and Jill make less in real dollars in 2004 than they did in 1973, the "facts" blink otherwise in the "free" press and much of the media.
But like Homer and Bart in The Simpsons - who can get a handle on all the destructive spins ripping in the wind? Homer is lazy, incompetent, and Bart, his son, is doomed to failure at school. They are modern, dysfunctional dumb-assed males, and devoid of high-level creativity or intellectual pursuits. In The Simpsons, it's mother and daughter that get special treatment, and it's the daughter, Lisa, alone, who surely has hope for a sunny future. And Homer? He is a borderline drug addict, which means he is handicapped from the start. Aren't this father and son just like the modern men vilified in the mainstream media in America every day? It's everywhere.
Any man who stood up to the spin about the economic numbers presented as truth would be politically incorrect. Political correctness is in part the result of female paranoia about the truth being told rather than feelings being protected. Now females serve under market capitalism and it's capitalist governments, many of them buying right into the phoney numbers - after all, they've had little experience running the show. They support government and corporations instinctively, because that's where they think the power is. And they are buying into ideology about equality and into information that paints men as self-destructive goofs and annoying boneheads - men who they learn to call acute brutalizers and bullies.
Attack of the Gender Feminists
So much has been written and produced on the American campaign trail by anti-male gender feminists that the growing-up Lisa's of America are so rad brainwashed about men, so coerced into the sisterhood that they support anything female. With so much nodding approval of any feminist stance, young women could be todays somnambulists, programmed to OK any feminist rant. A psycho-socio-pathology is thus to be expected. Sickness in both sexes often equates these days to a sexless sickness. It pervades, and the boys are being set up. Will they have to cop out, deny their testosterone-based leadership and then admit to corruption?
As the hard drives purr he's sinking through the guilt
Like a cat stretching on a quilt,
And the nation, he thinks, will benefit in mysterious ways.
Meanwhile Ms. America is scheming
As the males are flick-dreaming.
On the internet sexual images reap the highest business profit. And half the revenue for hotel pay-per-view movies in the United States is earned from "adult entertainment".1
The bottom is fast approaching for this soap opera as boys consider going into denial in order to be seen as worthy of a girl's love (sex). The picture solutions almost work but can't replace a real female, and if guilt arises from addiction to quick fixes, then bad attitude will only serve to bring on neurotic insurance, cynicism. The pictures become prisons for the alienated and the angry.
The ubiquitous indulgence of the male gaze without organic contact and reassurances from humans in the flesh puts a zone resembling sleep around so many, and allows the agendas of those that are more alert to persevere. And trapping any beauty, habitually using beauty to blot the pain, the ugly and mundane parts of life, will in time make the mind insensitive. Social programs and social responsibility aren't foremost in souls always showered in sexual images, satisfied to some degree but lacking human touch. There is frustration, anger and confusion all around the guys. They are hostages all right, to their sexual addictions and their desire for beauty, but also to the gender feminists.
The gender feminists have risen in the ranks, and politicians feed funds to help these "oppressed" gender whiners in exchange for their scheduled delivery of votes. Well, these man-haters now control universities, school boards and city councils. They have taken control it seems, almost everywhere. It's obnoxious and it's repugnant, and most of the older men are missing in action. Are they sleeping? Their sons are rebuked, whereas he himself is vilified. And now many a husband has become afraid to confront his wife. She has got hold of him, and he's been driving her to new and various destinations (malls) for as long as he can remember. He's got to keep the waves smooth; she's the boss and hostility means his orgasm and emotional life could be turned into horror, it could be lost. He thinks he could lose.
Today the boys are getting weird views of themselves, and with just a few more decades of female deprecation, the little boys will dance for the male-bashing misandrists in circles, like cute Harry Potter elves.
Because we were told that we are in this Information Age, we believed the polls and studies that got our attention through the media pimps and dealers. But there is now a substantial history of false information, particularly studies and polls from feminist-affiliated bodies. Here information promotes lies as truth, "tacts" - here information disguises a biased study, poll or research method. Many research studies have the names of universities or established media behind them. But they are better called what they are - advocacy research - that is, facts gathered to make slanted or partisan conclusions believable.
|Women live six years longer than men, but that isn't enough, |
For gender fems without fail,
Are out to get the male!
And with spin and lies
They data-rape the guys.
Its the big rebuff! God damn lies are spread to further elevate these gender feminists and to further promote them with all the other females as goodness incarnate. It's so common, the womanly propaganda, that it's become accepted as true, and our sons are being captured by it's guilt glue. The creative tissues of their male brains are now virtually in jail.
Truth about Single Motherhood
The facts do not support any idea that women raise children better than men. Stuart Miller and Rich Zubaty in the December 19, 1995, Washington Times stated:
"Eighty-five percent of prisoners, 78 percent of high school dropouts, 82 percent of teenage girls who become pregnant, the majority of drug and alcohol abusers all come from single mother-headed households. Less than 19 percent of any of these categories come from single father-headed households".2
Worthy food for thought, but the court systems in the US and Canada line up to support women, the gender that is supposed to be so good at nurturing, or at least used to be. Today women have become the "oppressed" ones, when women claim to be hindered and discriminated against like the handicapped, the disabled, the racial minorities and homosexuals. They are bailing out to the woe-and-blue tune of the oppressed, while the eyes of the court reify validation to the spoof, supporting these women's sin, making reality fit the spin.
Getting market savvy, moms need to review the "inner mother" badly. Is their natural frustration now acute, and motherhood a curse? According to the US National Center for Health Statistics, a child living with his or her divorced mother, as compared with a child living with both parents, is:
Three hundred and seventy-five percent more likely to need professional treatment for emotional or behavioral problems and is almost twice as likely to repeat a grade of school, is more likely to suffer [from] chronic asthma, frequent headaches, and/or bedwetting, develop a stammer or speech defect, suffer from anxiety or depression, and be diagnosed as hyperactive.3
But these afflictions were surprisingly uncommon in the 15 percent of single-parent households headed by men. Miller and Zubaty, using data from the Children's Rights Coalition, also state that biological mothers are found to physically abuse their children at twice the rate of biological fathers.4
Up to approximately the end of World War I, men used to be given the children when divorce occurred. Was this the right course of action? With data showing that placing children with single- parent mothers is likely to be detrimental to both the children and society, the tradition of placing children with their fathers is exonerated.
Today a feminized society that knows not what it does, or rather, a politically run society that is in basic denial, follows the trend of catering to females because of their votes, and approves transfers of money to them. With the propaganda emitting from their perfumed cloud of female protection and privilege, and with the smoke and mirrors of their innate dissimulation technique, gender feminists hypnotize and hijack both the male desire for procreation and the male urge to save and protect.
As long as the gender feminists are winning the spin thing, then a frenzied, frantic and awful rendezvous is being set up through collective guilt and it's neurosis. Women as a group may relish men suffering. Many see female gain coming only at male expense. There's security in a group, any group. But winning against an enemy that doesnt exist is impossible. Most of the feminist propaganda assaults may only show the men how unprincipled many women have become. And then hatred will grow. In the US, 38 percent of men that the court has ordered to pay child support may not have either visitation or custodial rights.5
Children are often abused because of their single-mothers poor choices in men that she brings into her life. Some of them will see the children as competitors for the womans attention. And the level of crisis escalates if the boyfriend-lover deliberately seeks to undermine the children. The physical danger to children living with stepfathers has been documented. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson of McMaster University studied how stepchildren are abused by their surrogate fathers: Such children are sixty to one hundred times more likely to be beaten and eleven times more likely to be killed than children living with their natural parents.6 But Miller and Zubaty say that, "incidences of abuse were almost non-existent in single-father-headed households". 7
|Backlash against the woman's Movement |
In 1991, Susan Faludi's Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women solidified impressions around the subject of men's and woman's power.8 That it coincided with Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against a man nominated to be a judge on the Supreme Court is relevant. Because here was a high-ranking member of the patriarchy.
Clarence Thomas fit Faludi and her followers picture of a male out to restrict woman's participation in society. Thomas was eventually appointed to the Supreme Court. But sexual harassment charges then exploded across the country. In 1992, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 45 percent more allegations were received, compared with the one-year period before Hills accusations.9 Clarence Thomas had been previously the Chairman of the EEOC!
Soon thereafter Bill Clinton began making the news, first as a presidential contender, then as a sexual disaster area. But even before his election, beginning even before Gennifer Flowers, the bimbo eruptions tracked this Bill Clintons trail. Clinton's problems only helped Faludis' case against the shortcomings of a society she saw as supporting male privilege.
Clinton, the Big Kahuna, Mr. Large, was a Federal Reserve Bank connection for his favorite free-loading feminist-flunkey sponges. Faludi and rage-feminism lucked out with Bill Clinton. Here was a guy obsessed with women, a slave to his attraction, with sex scandals flushing out all about. Here the gender feminists had a male to ridicule. So in general, the reactive female camp did well with this Bill. Without their support he would lose his job. They had him in a testosterone basket. So the elitist feminazis types, the grudge-bearing bunch, began to try to take over America! And up front and center, soon they are going to produce the next president of the United States, they think. Why it's going to be none other than Bill Clintons cuckolded wife, Hillary, the super-victim!
Patriarchal Conspiracy. Faludi talks about war against women. She says that the media lies and misrepresents women, as well as brainwashes them into traditional marriage-oriented lifestyles. The media desire to take back what women had gained in society, she says. Her book pretends to be scholarly, although it is thinly veiled propaganda. It promotes a widespread conspiracy against women.
Similarly, in The Beauty Myth (1992), Naomi Wolf alerts women that they are pawns of a widespread brainwashing conspiracy. This time the conspiracy is to keep them neurologically obsessed with beauty. Women are the victims, this time from society's expectation for women to be beautiful. This expectation forces females into "a secret 'underlife' poisoning our freedom; infused with notions of beauty, it is a dark vein of self-hatred, physical obsession, terror of aging, and dread of lost control".10 This beauty myth is promoted by the evil patriarchal society to wear down and weaken women and also to remove the gains they had made, says Wolf.
The patriarchy is also out to pressure women to diet, buy clothes, use cosmetics and hit the gyms in ways that are "destroying women physically and depleting us psychologically".11 Wolf sounds alarm bells, incites fear and promotes anger: "We are in the midst of a civil war over gender... It is also a war against men".12
Faludi claims the formula of the beauty industry is to aggravate women's low self-esteem and high anxiety about a "feminine" appearance. Naomi Wolf claims it was the success of the women's movement that brought out deliberate male antagonism and the conspiracy of the beauty myth to checkmate power at all levels in women's lives.
Faludi's focus is on the slant of news coverage in the media as being distinctly anti-female. But Faludi skews data, according to Time magazine. Forbes magazine judged Faludi's book a "labyrinth of nonsense followed by eight pages of footnotes". Ironically, Faludi is guilty of exactly what she accuses the American media of - slanted and deceptive reports to warp, coax and influence the understanding of society's present gender conflict.
Faludi rails on about women being severely punished economically for the social gains that they made in civil politics prior to the 80s. Both Faludi and Wolf agree that it is an economic backlash that is keeping females from getting more power. But they both misuse facts to incite rage, cynicism, hatred and conspiratorial paranoia within the woman's community. This misuse of facts could backfire if their victims realize the spin tact's aren't really the true facts. And then, sooner or later, there may be a real backlash. Both Wolf and Faludi must recognize the potential for a whipsaw to their intentions, because recently they have taken more supportive, motherly positions towards men. Can they sense the destruction they have wrought? Or is it more cunning and wiles, dressed as sympathy for men, an act to deflect responsibility for their outrageous intention to render men as women's enemies?
Consequences of gender feminist fabrication. The influence of Faludi and Wolf is real; their books are best sellers. They've been assimilated, and it's too late. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card here. The price society is paying for Wolf's, Faludi's and many other gender feminist's fabrications will last for generations. These generations have had their guts ripped out of them and live today in stunned ignorance. All the while our educational institutions functioning in this Information Age misrepresent the stupefaction that has inundated mass culture.
Political correctness (PC) is stupidness, and "stupid is as stupid does". Society in general is becoming stupider by allowing superficial manners to protect feelings rather than promoting truth. It is also becoming more elitist, more separated and more divided into cliques. Specialization in occupations and fields of study has meant exclusion and separation for most. Increased immigration is a catalyst for social distancing. With gender warfare, male and female are further apart. Their isolation aids in the dumbing-down of the nation through spin and political correctness.
On Absorbing Patriarchal Rules. When Wolf and Faludi assume that women must defend themselves from an enemy who is waging an undeclared war against them, they mean patriarchal society. But because this conspiracy against women's progress clearly could not be witnessed on the streets, they've got an internal, cerebral solution. The women, they say, are being persecuted from within, by internalizing rules and discipline taught by modern bureaucratic institutions such as the schools, military, workplace and hospitals.
In contemporary society, Faludi and Wolf claim that patriarchal direction of the media brings an all-pervasive domination over citizens. They say this control of society becomes omnipresent. So the modern citizen in front of the television continues to internalize patriarchal disciplines and becomes self-policing. Thus indoctrinated, subjects keep themselves in check.
The self-surveillance of the beauty myth, and the heat behind Faludis' Backlash derive from woman's sense of victimhood. Wolf and Faludi believe that the women's movement is undermined when woman's internal self (psyche) is socialized and conditioned by a patriarchal society's propaganda and guilt. Thus they complain that the system is aiming at turning women into docile and compliant escorts of men, in an oppressive position of subordination. The gender feminists fear that controlling the internal dynamics of the individual is the speculative plan to get the woman carrying out the wishes of the patriarchy.
Feminist Advocacy "Research"
Mainstream heavyweight support for the victim-spin came from the Ford Foundation, a supporter of much feminist advocacy (sell cars). For example the Ford Foundation picked up expenses for the 1992 Radcliffe College conference: In the Eye of the Storm: Feminist Research and Action in the 90's. Here it is stated that the "backlash" against the woman's movement, against woman's research and against woman's studies is to be explored by the sponsor, the National Council for Research on Women. This organization represents over seventy woman's groups, including Wellesley College Center for Research on Women and the 140,000 strong American Association of University Women (AAUW). Here the gender feminists would set ablaze the meme - an idea that wants to knock out the competition - that an undeclared war was being waged against women and is spreading all over the nation and the world! Well, the gender feminists are right about a conspiracy to cripple a gender, but their perception is self-deceptive. Maybe their claim of a gender war against themselves as unjustified and immoral continues to heat up because of anger from neurotic guilt, the guilt of those who have falsely, but knowingly, portrayed a merciless campaign as being against women. Because what is going on is a lambasting of men by those who seek female-gender power and privilege. World War II brought the oppressed into public consciousness as the good guys, the bad guys being the oppressors. So to portray men as oppressing women automatically garners sympathetic response, if believed. And the media bleeds dollar support for women to rise up from this "oppression". It's the lesson-addiction around civil rights and democracy that many editors and producers feed robust propaganda into.
Many in the media may be victims of the people they publish. It seems the lies and spin of many feminist wagers of the gender war are the only "reasoning of the facts" that most editors have understood. But on a higher, more-powerful level:
This gender bias and gender war is used to keep
serfs toiling in distraction,
Not capable of any concerted major action.
Gender antagonism is promoted in mainstream media; here it's so sublime. Innocents of the Information Age are incited into rage, as these consumers, thinking to kick back and unwind, huddle around their television sets, but get instead the anchor-parrot quarterbacks instruction - an incision - in prime time!
Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., has seen the enemy and writes:
Activist organizations like the National Organization of Women, the Ms. Foundation for Women, and the American Association of University Women, strive constantly to persuade the wider public that women are urgently in need of the protections they will help to provide. These organizations rely on a pool of academic feminists to faithfully produce books, data, and studies that demonstrate alarming amounts of sexism, discrimination, and gender bias.13
History of Thought on Female Instincts
The cunning of the gender feminist is nothing new. Male philosophers and thinkers throughout history have commented on this instinct in women. Arthur Schopenhauer and Immanuel Kant , top thinkers of their times, cautioned about the deceptive nature of women. Schopenhauer, a philosopher of merit and contemporary of feminism's mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, wrote in an era when woman's rights were increasing. To Schopenhauer (1788-1860), women:
"...are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants with boors and tusks, bulls with horns, and the cuttle fish with it's cloud of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defense and protection, with the arts of dissimulation."14
Like animals when they defend, women use this clouding dissimulation whenever they please, and feel that doing so is perfectly within their rights, says Schopenhauer. He felt women never got beyond a subjective point of view, that women were "thorough-going philistines, and quite incurable". The way Europeans were treating women at the beginning of the nineteenth century, with reverence and notions of gallantry, irked Schopenhauer. Elevating women, and calling only those who were aristocratically bred, "ladies", only made less-fortunate women unhappy, he says. It caused something he called the "lady-nuisance". And to Schopenhauer:
[the] innate rule that governs woman's conduct, though it is secret and unformulated, nay unconscious in it's working is this: We are justified in deceiving those who think they have acquired rights over the species by paying little attention to the individual, that is, to us.... But women have no abstract knowledge of this leading principle; they are conscious of it only as a concrete fact.15
Notice how, to Schopenhauer, it is women who are identified with the concept of the "individual". Finally, women are described as having no sense of justice. Thus, their character, "gives rise to falsity, faithlessness, treachery, ingratitude, and so on".16
Schopenhauer wrote in the first half of the nineteenth century, whereas things are supposed to have moved on today. However, the word dissimulation is so cosmetically apt that it grabs out and pulls the present so-called male oppressors right back into the need for a respect for something that is like magic. It's what the up there and at a distance respect for the natural awesome talents of these "oppressed" is really about. Dissimulation gives a reinstated warning about the power of cosmetics and fashion to manipulate male desire today. Masks aid dissimulation.
Feminine pretenses include notions like the divine mother and the exaltation of female nurturing, compassion and vulnerability. These images are ever-shifting, superimposed over woman's choreographed sexual presentations - this, from the sweet gender, the one who needs protection for her inability to resist caring-sharing, the gentle approach... But the deal can be closed through dissimulation and through sex signals - lipstick beauty and other premeditated applications camouflaging true intention. Her aim is power, control, and she will shift the psychological sands between herself and the opposite sex until she has her way.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) also comments on the ways of women, in his essay on the interrelations of the two sexes. Acting morally would be difficult for a woman, says Kant, because women are in service of emotion and are reactive, having "very delicate feelings in regard to the least offense, and are exceedingly precise to notice the most trifling lack of attention and respect toward them".17 Kant says women are motivated by the beautiful; men are motivated by the noble. "Her philosophy is not to reason, but to sense".
"[And] women will avoid the wicked not because it is unright, but because it is ugly; and virtuous actions mean to them such as are morally beautiful."18
To Kant, woman's morality arises not from principle but from their emotional response to situations. It was the male of the species, he thinks, who could best use reason to decipher duty. And moral action is determined by duty, says Kant. Dissimulation makes it's appearance in Kant as well, as he writes: "and not forgetting, what one must reckon as a secret magic with which she makes our passion inclined to judgements favorable to her...making her known by the mark of the beautiful."19
About education and the professions, Kant says, "Laborious learning or painful pondering, even if a woman should greatly succeed in it, destroy the merits that are proper to her sex and...will weaken the charms with which she exercises her great power over the other sex."20
To Immanuel Kant, women who chose a healthy, but pale, facial color possessed a disposition of "more inward feeling and delicate sensation, which belongs to the quality of the sublime; whereas the rosy and blooming complexion proclaims more of the joyful and merry disposition - but it is more suitable to vanity to move and to arrest, than to charm and to attract."21
Writing in the mid-1700s, Kant declares that marriage had to be based on "the understanding of the man and the taste of the wife". Thus in marriage the right of the husband is to command in matters of understanding, and the wife to command in matters of taste. If these areas come under question and attack, then the whole union becomes undermined. Marriage will then become "duller" and can "degenerate into familiar love". Then feelings of "indifference and satiety" can put an end to happiness in marriage, because "all those niceties and delicacies of feeling have their whole strength only at the beginning."22
Female Influence Today. Today women have become excellent students, and by the twenty-first century they outnumbered men in college and university enrollment. So have they become less powerful in their charms over males, as Kant predicted? Definitely yes, but pornography, miniskirts and strip bars keep the hard-wired at least salivating and humbled to the female form. And the government-as-husband keeps female interests front and center today, as male concerns are buried underneath the assault of "womens rights".
Feminine charm, beyond the sexual, may not even be much known or appreciated these days. The property of the female that the male jumps to protect is the person of the different sex whom he loves for that very difference. In the past, man approached woman with both fear and sympathy. Though not often seen out in the open, on occasion men glimpsed womans innate wildness, her cunning flexibility and the incomprehensibility of her desires and virtues. And this scared men. They could not grok it all; her nature was a somewhat fearful mystery. But he also found her suffering, discouraged and in need of love. When she yielded to her sensitivity, man found his meaning; his sympathy was excited. The display of the feminine, it's plea, spurs a man to heroism, but that is going to rapidly evaporate if female sensitiveness and the dynamic influence of the sensitive queen bee dies on the vine.
And many ladies live on their own. A female body with an animus mentality wont do much "soul-attracting" of the normal testosterone male. Females will have some success grinding on some of the new-age feminized guys whose egos have never really been allowed far off the ground. Also females will make inroads with men who have internalized feminist rules and discipline. There are men who produce the touchy-feely words that bring subservience to her territory, who now await her instruction because he's given up his masculine judgment. But the way the gender feminists have set up the gender-distraction, many more women will now need an extra income, or think that they do, to procreate and set up home for their children.
Other Historical Views on Women. Historically, other philosophers and thinkers have doubted womans rational powers. Plato (427-347 BC) writes in the Symposium that the love of a man for other men, the commitment and trust between the male "brothers", is superior to the male love for a woman. And Plato actually implies in the Timaeus that women are closer to animals than men.
According to Aristotle (384-322 BC) and St. Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274), a woman is a "misbegotten male". Aristotle, writing over three hundred years before Christ, claims the female does not share the rational capability of men. And Schopenhauer, of course, would much later claim that these inferior rational powers cause problems concerning woman's ability to be moral. St. Augustine (AD 354-430) defines wisdom as masculine and knowledge as feminine, and the image of God is to be found in the masculine.
Tertullian, AD (160-220), one of the fathers of the Latin church, writing about AD 200, connects the fall from grace, the biblical expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, with the sensuality of Eve. The objects that glamorize a womans body would have been coveted by Eve, says Tertullian. Thus, it follows that the life of spirit would be expected to be destroyed through cosmetics, sexy adornment and the sexual dress of women. (Tammy Baker is Eve?) And it wasn't enough to avoid sexual impropriety and sexual subversion in ones conduct if one still dressed as a sex object. Tertullian asks that "the pageantry of fictitious and elaborate beauty be rejected". Why "excite toward yourself that evil passion, the lust of others, he asks?"23 Even woman's natural beauty should be concealed because it is so distracting to men, he says. As well, the female must try not to lead others into temptation.
The Dominican Fathers, responsible for the Malleus Maleficarum, portray the female concern with procreation in terms of her sexuality and this, to them, left woman with close to an insatiable sensuality and close to being in the hands of the devil. Women are constantly identified with nature and men with reason, and this male reason is said to give a shape to the shapeless procreating matter of women.
Rousseau (1712-1778) and Hegel (1770-1831) also equate the masculine aspects as connected to reason and the female aspects as connected to the fecundity of nature. Here a womans basic concern is reproduction, and thus she is defined in terms of her sexuality.
In the twentieth century, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) also ties the physical, the body, into identity, saying ones biological functions determine ones destiny. In the late nineteenth century, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) wrote seriously about "the fundamental problem of man and woman" and sent up his written warning flares so that the significance of the vexation, this "most abysmal antagonism", would be taken seriously. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche testifies that womans "great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty," and that "woman would not have the genius for finery if she did not have an instinct for a secondary role."24 Nietzsche says feminism will lead it's followers away from truthful insight, and he also claims that a woman wanting enlightenment about herself may only be in search of a "new adornment for herself". Woman "does not want truth: what is truth to a woman? From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to women than the truth". But women want to become self-reliant, says Nietzsche, and are "beginning to enlighten men about women as such: this is one of the worst developments of the general uglification of Europe".25 Nietzsche said woman ventures forth:
"when the man in man is no longer desired...and as she thus takes possessions of new rights, aspires to become master and writes the progress of woman upon her standards and banners, the opposite development is taking place with terrible clarity: woman is retrogressing."
Since the French Revolution, Nietzsche felt that woman's influence had diminished in Europe because women were weakening and dulling their most feminine instincts. The "idea" of feminism concealed an "immense stupidity" that could carry Europe away, thought Nietzsche. And he said:
"Certainly, there are enough of idiotic friends and corrupters of woman among the learned asses of the masculine sex, who advise woman to defeminize herself in this manner, and to imitate all the stupidities from which man in Europe, European manliness, suffers, who would like to lower women to general culture, indeed even to newspaper reading and meddling with politics."26
He warned women not to follow the feminist insurgents of their time who advised a woman to "defeminize" herself. "There is stupidity in this movement, an almost masculine stupidity of which a woman who had turned out well - and such women are always prudent - would have to be thoroughly ashamed". Fredrich Nietzsche finished these words back in 1895.26
Modern Ambiguity about Women. Modern ambiguity in understanding women has fit nicely in with political correctness; indeed, this confusion is the basis of political correctness.
Off-balance, modern Jill and Joe are educated into
being frozen frigid,
When it comes to knowing their sex roles,
all some can do is nervously fidget.
The female gender feminists try to be philosophers too, but they get stuck in retaliating because of the emotionally subjective attraction of the rage glue. Thus they react, attacking often without reasonable objective analysis. Philosophers who seem to support much that gender feminists agree with are attacked ad hominem over details encountered with distaste in other areas the feminists find displeasing to their conception of the feminist agenda. So, to align with the feminist agenda: always support women; never publicly show outrage to women; always talk about the unity of purpose for women; don't get caught defending anything but woman's advance in society; and continually point to abuse of women, blacks, homosexuals and the disabled. Try to carry it off with the righteousness of a woman who has been abused for centuries.
Its the drive for a feminist utopia by some of the female intellectuals that is holding various notions of females hostage. These are the true believers stuck in the word glue. They are telling the young girls and older women that they are missing out on a full life, that they are slaves, that they are persecuted, that they are victims of a misogynist philosophical tradition.
In the twentieth century, the famous psychologist Carl Jung (1875-1961), in Aspects of the Feminine, states that modern women were being given the feeling of missing the boat, made to think that too much of life would not be lived in the traditional role as mother and wife, the "...secretaries, typists, shop-girls, all are agents of this process and through a million subterranean channels creeps the influence that is undermining marriage".27 But, there is another agenda, as Jung continues: "For the desire of all these women is not to have sexual adventures, - only the stupid would believe that - but to get married. The possessors of that bliss must be ousted, not as a rule by naked force, but by that silent, obstinate desire which, as we know, has magical effects, like the fixed stare of a snake. This was ever the way of women...no woman can escape the secret, compelling atmosphere with which her own sister, perhaps, is enveloping her, the stifling atmosphere of a life that has never been lived."28 Jung thought this out back in 1927.
|Spin Salon Mind Make-up |
Purviewing some of the lies and the propaganda used by the "oppressed" today, out of a sheer reactive temper to get "power", it becomes one to consider Nietzsche's statement that man might be evil, but woman is bad. Circulating in contemporary rhetoric, claims of female abuse swarm, no matter the facts being trumped up, not built upon any reliable, provable ground.
Domestic Violence and Women. Time magazine reports that "between 22 percent and 35 percent of all visits by females to emergency rooms are for injuries from domestic assaults."29 This statistic turns up everywhere, used to bang the anti-male marching drum. But the numbers are contradicting the Family Violence Prevention Fund and the findings of Richard Gelles and Murray Straus (1991), two university researchers working for over a quarter of a century on the subject of domestic violence.30 They are finding that in the area of domestic violence men and women batter each other in the same amount.
The source for the misinformation in Time is, in part, an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1984, whose authors had already informed the public that their sample group was not representative of Americas population as a whole. Ninety percent of the respondents to their questionnaire on domestic violence lived in inner-city Detroit. Sixty percent of them were unemployed. Also, the 22-percent figure covered both women and men, and 38 percent of men in the survey were themselves complaining of abuse. But into the 1990s, other newspaper articles and media reports still irresponsibly misuse the numbers from the flawed 1984 Detroit study.
The gender feminist believes that the average man is a potential batterer. To gender warriors like Gloria Steinem, it is a sales job, this snow job, this characterization of men as idiots, buffoons, mental cases that live to beat and batter girls, women. Steinem, founder of Ms. Magazine, is at war. Her strategy is to disseminate rhetorical shock tactics (memes), to confuse, overpower and humiliate adversaries. The gender feminists are committed to the doctrine that the vast majority of batterers or rapists are not fringe characters but men whom society regards as normal — sports fans, career employees, former fraternity brothers, pillars of the community. For these normal men, it's said, women are not so much persons as objects. In the gender feminist view, once a woman is objectified she is therefore no longer human, thence battering is simply the next logical step. Of course the guys are rapists, brutes....
In the media it is the gender feminists' propaganda war. And it's made even more palatable in today's world, where coercion is accepted as "normal" — as only the desire to gain power through any means. For example, the White House under Clintonism became a 24-hour-a-day makeover center, employing professional doctors of distortion, circumlocution traveling in the speed of warp, doing the business of spin. Thus all can take shelter in committing some sin? Can society believe that some women are adept at making the phoney look so real?
Feminist activists have a large stake in exaggerating battery and abuse, and they have virtually no conscience in doing so. The plight of the fair sex is the subject area where the spin-as-facts "tact's" — statistics and studies on provocative issues like rape, battery, wage differences, eating disorders — promote women as victims of the oppressive patriarchal system. Their facts may not be true at all, but the gender feminists use this activist research for recruiting. They say men are a physical menace to women. End of story. That's the agenda and feminist norm!
Gloria Steinem, long time spinster, in 1992 published Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem, which says patriarchy requires violence and "the most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home".
Super Bowl Sunday. It is 1993, the year the military hammers out the politically correct "dont-ask, dont-tell" policy allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces. In 1993, more danger to women from their live-in "soul mates" was hyped by the disseminators of the anti-male hate hearsay. They planned to get em in front of the male refuge of competitive sporting events. Call em brutes, bastards that beat the innocent, dirty alley cats that rip bird flesh. It's the mean men menace, those who use the exorcizing force over a physically weaker sex and claim it as a right. But here testosterone gets mixed up with psychologys take on power, and women are being taught to see male energy as dangerous. The money that men earn through aggressive action, it's just fine to all these women. But after receiving their money, then the men can be painted into a corner as simply violent.
So it goes, as Super Bowl Sunday was proclaimed as the biggest day of the year for violence against women by a coalition of women's groups. A large media mailing warned women: "Dont remain at home with him during the game". The New York Times refers to the big game as the "Abuse Bowl". And as soon as it's in newspapers around the country, it's like a flash-fire burned into everyones perceptions. And then just before the game, NBC broadcasts a warning to all the men in America that domestic violence is a crime.
Lenore Walker, the author of The Battered Woman, claims she had a ten-year record showing a sharp increase in violent incidents against women on Super Bowl Sundays.31 It was reported that woman's shelters and hotlines are inundated by more calls for help from victims than on any other day of the year. According to much of the media, boy friends, husbands and fathers are explosive devices on this day. They will beat wives, girlfriends and children. Another number circulating in this myth are that hospital admissions rise 40 percent after Super Bowl games. As soon as the untruths are believed the believer lives in a false-consciousness. Falsehood and fiction get a big boost, and brains are changing, causing women and men to revile the imagined batterers, the guys. The bomb is dropped that men are very cruel and dangerous in their homes. Like the clouds of smoke that rise from a bomb site, so the false-consciousness grows, spreads, and with enough of an offensive repetition these attacks could replace truth entirely.
But Janet Katz, the author of the original Super Bowl study, says what was really found was no connection between violence and football games, and admission to emergency rooms was not associated with football games.32 All down the line, the authorities for the Super Bowl brainwash deny stating the "facts" that turn up everywhere in the media. There is no evidence that a link exists between football and wife-beating, but the general consensus has been colored. And the gender feminists have won a battle in characterizing men as freaks in the home. False, but effective, like masking with Blush-on. Those who know better turn the feminist cheek. No evidence is found but the damage is done. The misquotes and faulty reporting have brought a huge propaganda victory for the enemies of men!
History of Wife-beating: Rule of Thumb. The "rule of thumb" further portrays men as abusers. It's in the muster melody of the gender feminist army. There is an actual myth about where the saying "rule of thumb" came from. It's part of the collective hallucination of history the gender feminists are promoting. And they want to rewrite all the school textbooks too, to give an appropriate and slanted view of history and women. The expression "rule of thumb" is flogged to the public as originating in an English common law that allowed a husband to beat his wife with a whip or stick if it were no bigger than the diameter of his thumb. The "rule" was supposed to have been incorporated into American law. The gender feminists say this gave the husband the right to beat his wife without interference from the courts.
The system tolerates violence of men against women? It's feminist fiction, but soon the media is again ablaze, and from Time and the Washington Post to small local rags, the spin tact's become the facts. American law predating the revolution prohibits wife-beating. But a writer, a coordinator of the NOW Task Force on Battered Women, began the creation of the myth as fact. She says the law "explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes" and did allow the husband "the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb."33 The spin got official status when lawyers and biased academics embraced the rule of thumb as fact. Many, of course, were misled and assumed the "tact's" as actual truth.
Piles of propaganda placed perniciously between the genders, keeps reality at bay and lovers away, the distance getting wider as the sexes become snider, contemptuous of each other.
The deception may serve sadomasochistic females, those who sense they cannot compete with their healthy, effectual sisters, the vital, coherent and centered feminine incarnations. It's the sadomasochists who will decide to take everything down if they can't at least get revenge for their seemingly faulty, imperfect incarnation and their converts are increasing as their propaganda is now taught in public education, meaning that a neurotic, collective insurance is growing.
The repressed guilt from the gender feminists' active persecution of males, combined with the rage from their victims — men — probably guarantees exploding neuroses. Over time cynical personalities will emerge in the people who have accepted life as bad and people as evil, as each successive brutal and sadistic act towards fellow humans gets absorbed into their world view. Collective insurance brings an eerie calm towards barbaric proposals and actions. This is because of the security people feel in a large group that is either suffering or causing others to suffer. Thus deranged solutions have a growing, accepted place in everyones mind. So the future is somewhat guaranteed — terror, persecution, cruelty and smart missiles — to come!
Neurotic insurance and it's guilt is like being in a trap. It is evident when women flaunt the physical — sex as the escape, and male passion is bedeviled. So if even this cruelty makes her sexy, then there's applause for more of the same. In the cycle, it's more neurosis, more insurance. See, the frustration in contemporary society can be sold as rewarding if one can ride the sex neurosis, go with the psychotic flow and call orgasm the denouement, the resolution of hang-ups. Here the environment that counts is interior. Women live in the psyche, and here her eros demands company. She gets the power here. The argument is that sex is needed to calm and heal the moderns alienated torment that's over the edge, almost. But sex is easily used for power, not for healing. And each manipulation carries some weight of guilt, some inferiority. Negativity is being raised up. Soon the witch could rule! Power bought with guilt, in each instance, increases the insurance. This self-centered and exploitative world view fosters the perplexing perception that the world must be dominated by some kind of darkened predator.
But the gender feminist conspiracy is real and if it continues to control public policy, it will lead men into a living death, spiritually bludgeoned. They will be mere shadows of men, without social purpose, withdrawn from public life and living in redundant isolation, no longer needed. Is that the feminist utopia? It is getting closer day by day. There never, ever was a rule-of-thumb law, and wife-beating has always been a crime and a sin. So it's just more violent feminist fiction used to create a false consensus about themselves, to set the stage for the completion of their takeover of society.
Filthy lies, like the "rule of thumb", promote an ignorant and deadly hatred, and women it is you who will be despised in the future for forgetting your men, dumping them, hoping for their ultimate defeat. Many women are afraid in the main to even criticize anything another "sister" says.
Anorexia. To get government funding, some feminist leaders produce reports and surveys that bring on the favorite wounded-bird trepidity. The female feathered in this fiction shows up again as the super-victim. Anorexia, an eating disorder for some women, is painted as the inevitable consequence of a misogynist society that demeans women by objectifying their bodies.34 It becomes men's fault these that women are so unbalanced, mentally ill and masochistic that they won't eat food.
It's 1992, and Gloria Steinem (spinster) squeezes out a pungent "tact", no matter that it's so totally false, a blatant untruth: "in this country alone...about 150,000 females die of anorexia each year."35 Then Ann Landers flogs this meme "tact". And another "tact" disturber, Naomi Wolf, barks out the same lie, then states that these anorexics are starved not by nature but by men. She and her gender feminist co-conspirators say that the sick women are only trying to live up to the thin look that men demand in America! It's evidence of the patriarchal society's intimidation of women, and it is killing these innocent women, they say. Professor Joan Brumberg, former Director of Women's Studies at Cornell University, was Naomi Wolf's source. But the American Anorexia Bulimia Association said that they were misquoted — the 150,000 number was not dead girls. No, it was the number of females that suffer from anorexia nervosa. But the "boomer bitches" spread the hate-inducing meme and false figures. The virulent propaganda rages — it's destructive force poisons the mind, spawning the development of more and more false-consciousness, as millions of lives are ushered into misery as a result of the misinformation.
The nation gets instructed — yes, the women as victims, the men as villains. The cup of arsenic called the truth of woman's abuse is being drunk from the brim down to the very last drop. The true victims, those inhaling the meme-virus disease, are being devastated. The dead-in-the-head walk pathetically in circles, spun into a politically correct denial. Increasingly their needs are subverted, ignored or perverted into more alienation. This propaganda will hurt and is hazardous to both genders. But the gender feminists, those disciples of misandrist dogma, are scratching, screaming and using fudged numbers to rock any boat that tries to set sail, not powered by them — these princesses that model clenched fists and wail.
Battery of Pregnant Women. it's 1993 and Bill Clinton, the man without a father, the guy brought up in a matriarchy, is the front man for the USA. It's the year Lorena Bobbitt uses an eight-inch carving knife and cuts off her sleeping husbands penis — and is later acquitted! This was a year after Gloria Steinem wrote that the most hazardous situation for a woman was being with her husband in her own home. Patricia Ireland, the bi-sexual president of NOW, speaks to the nation on PBS: "Battery of pregnant women is the number one cause of birth defects in this country."36 That's her message. That's her statement of truth, of the facts, as one of the most powerful leaders of modern American women. Thats her leadership and guiding voice, her voice of responsibility concerning how to lead the masses on her watch.
Another female, president of the woman's Studies Association, had earlier posted a message on an electronic bulletin board about the March of Dimes. Apparently the March of Dimes reported that domestic violence against pregnant women was responsible for more birth defects than all other causes combined. The report was circulating all around the country. It was in the Chicago Tribune (April 18, 1993), Arizona Republic (March 21, 1993), and Time magazine (January 18, 1993). But the March of Dimes denied any knowledge of the report and asked Time magazine for a retraction. The author of the Time article, Jeanne McDowell, said she just didn't check her sources. She said the San Francisco Family Violence Prevention Fund gave it to her, and they in turn received the "tact" from Sarah Buel, a director of a domestic abuse project in Massachusetts and a founder of the domestic violence advocacy project at Harvard Law School.
It's up at the top and in the establishment; production
of the inexact,
" Information raked across the male to constrain,
to impel and to infract —
It's in the system, this control and tact,
Lies twisted to excite, and then to attract
A target for true believers, those setting up the men
Eventually, on December 6, 1993, Time magazine retracted. The thought that domestic battery could cause more birth defects than all other causes combined is hyperbole for sadists. All the young minds that assimilate this meme — what will their future love life now be? Voltaire left us with: "if we believe absurdities we will commit atrocities".
Rape by Numbers. Naomi Wolf, in The Beauty Myth, cites a Ms. Magazine survey that claims that one in four women respondents had had an experience that met the American legal definition of rape or attempted rape. "One in Four" became the media headline that soon had found a home in people's heads. Wolf and Ms. claim that women may not even know they are raped. So they are helping them realize their raped condition in a society where "sexual violence is seen as normal by young women as well as young men."37 A woman or girl who feels "regret" after sex, or feels somehow "violated", can qualify as a rape victim — even if she went through the sexual intercourse without any complaint! Weeks, months, years later she can charge her male sexual partner with rape. And it has become popular, this whipsaw surprise that today's "princess" can present to her contemporary "beastly" male partner. And some serious college students believe that the number of young women raped is actually closer to one in two. It seems America is a "rape culture".
Rape serves the gender feminists because it gets sympathy and support for females. By fudging the numbers through their unaccountable advocacy research, a huge political victory is won by these self-interested enemies of men. Many gender feminists seem to carry utopian visions of sexual relations, where there is sex without power, sex without persuasion and sex without pursuit. This is unrealistic, but "reality" is not their interest. Power is, and it seems there are no rules in their pursuit of power.
Certain studies have demonstrated that up to half of all rape allegations are untrue. And 50-percent of rape fraud is based on women who have actually admitted to lying!38 So the real numbers must be even higher.
As Hugh Nations has stated: "Rape is frequently described as a crime of violence, not of sex. Yet a woman 16-19 years old, the age of greatest sexual attractiveness, is more than 84 times more likely to be raped than a woman 50 or older."39 Nations summary of facts about rape has led to more insights into the truth about rape in America. A survey of 610 female college students whose average age was 19 years found that 39 percent said they had said no to sex when they meant yes, and 69 percent said that they had said no when they meant maybe. Of sexually experienced women, 61 percent had engaged in token resistance. And in a survey of 507 male and 486 female college students, 63 percent of the males and 46 percent of the females said they engaged in unwanted sexual intercourse.
A Purdue University study reported in 1994 that false rape allegations provided three major functions for the complainants: an alibi, a means of revenge and a platform for seeking attention or sympathy.40 Students who recanted their claim of rape admitted to these motives. From the accumulated data, the study concludes "false rape accusations are not uncommon". The Purdue study also states that "university women, when filing a rape complaint, were as likely to file a false charge as a valid charge".41
The one-in-four rape figure is based on the Ms. Magazine Campus Project on Sexual Assault, conducted by Mary Koss. She had once stated that rape is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture.42 Gloria Steinem takes her to lunch, and Koss is chosen to do the Ms. Magazine national survey on rape. The one in four rape probability is now history. It became virtually the official figure used in woman's studies programs, rape crisis centers and in woman's magazines. Susan Faludi supported the survey. Naomi Wolf uses it's findings.
"One in Four" is chanted during all the Take Back the Night spectacles and processions that keep young college girls and their mothers alerted to a threat that isn't there. Politicians jump through hoops railing against imaginary criminals. And large sums of money come from public funds to combat rape on campuses. But the majority of women Koss had classified as having been raped did not believe they had been raped; 73 percent did not say that they had been raped, only 27 percent thought they had been.43 And 42 percent of those included as raped women went on to have sex with their "attackers" on a later occasion.44
Female Click Experience. At another time the women of America are asked by Ms. Magazine to try and locate their own personal "click experience". Thats when a light "clicked" on in her head at the moment of her epiphany — when she first realized her society, her culture, cheats her in favor of men! So, it is taken for granted that men have cheated her. She is made now to see: men are self-serving and dangerous; men dominate and oppress; men write official versions of history; men have designed the whole of the college curriculum to focus on men's aptitudes and perceptions. In a single "click" the game is considered over! Men are castigated, the woman now to burst out, having had her flash, re: being cheated, re: being in danger from her culture. And now she's supposedly ready to create a society to serve herself.
Believing in female oppression is what the zap is about. Ms. Magazine makes it a contest of sorts. Have you realized the truth? Seen the light? Reached a level of consciousness that can handle reality, actually had a click experience? And are you now totally anchored in the knowledge you have been cheated, silenced?
Revisionist History. Filler feminism is now filling school textbooks with herstory, this pat-on-the-back crony feminism creating fantasy history.
This non-sexist history teaches lessons many
feminists wish to impart,
Even though the facts just aren't there from the start.
Some states in the US are demanding "gender-fair" history be taught, insisting the women be given 50 percent of textbook content for their female contributions. Albeit this dishonest approach focuses on notions of fairness —that is an equal numbers of pages, equal ink going to the genders — more than on historical accuracy or faith in historical truth. It's politically correct. What many education departments around the land of the free are instituting today is a force-fed feminist revision of history. It will obviously bolster the false-consciousness already filling the students cranial cavities, and raise embarrassingly to the fore the fantastic cultural illiteracy being championed all over the country.
The idea is to elevate some female creations so as to give a democratic-egalitarian representation in textbooks — for example, to bring some female work of art into art history so that the masterpieces by men are offset by something, anything, from the female. It could be a leap into mediocrity at the expense of the genius of another work by a male, a work that may be just short of being an accepted masterpiece. So the male work is trashed, turned out, so a female can have an equal quantity of representations — quantity perhaps devoid of comparative quality. Here today's society is cutting it's own throat. Women have been freed up from many of yesterday's tasks through inventions that have made her life easier. Name one invention that has helped liberate her labors produced by a female....?
Self-esteem Propaganda. One area in which the gender feminists propaganda shows it's deplorable and vicious agenda is in self-esteem studies about girls. The evidence actually shows that it's boys and not the girls who are losing voice and declining in self-esteem.
Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America — that's the title of the American Association of University Women's (AAUW), report in the early 90s.45 The AAUW report claims that girls aura of self-esteem descends between the ages eleven to sixteen, which hinders the girls learning and achievement. This report caused headlines around the country and provoked hundreds of conferences and regional group responses. The AAUW then got politicians, business leaders and the media on board. Fifty US congresspersons sponsored a $360-million bill, as bleeding hearts ran to nurture the "shortchanged girls". The young girls, according to some, "no longer like themselves", doubt themselves and, of course, now needed to learn "that their lives are valuable at the same time that they learn their ABCs".
An enormous impact, this self-esteem propaganda had, but it's methods, analysis and conclusions once again get the verdict: "tact"! The 140,000-member strong AAUW promoted it's report through press conferences and thousands of "calls to action" brochures distributed to it's membership, to politicians and to journalists. And the AAUW made a polished media documentary to show all over America.
Their tale: the torture, defeat and deprecation of America's young females. The AAUW documentary claims that eating disorders, depression and dislocation result from "undervaluing" girls. Everyone bought right in, freaking from these gender feminist "tact's". From schoolboard bureaucrats to politicians and the media, all focused on addressing the needs of the girls.
The devil and all went right along believing the AAUW because of it's prominence as a major group, and therefore as credible. No journalists ever got to the nuts and bolts of the report. And like the seemingly low-IQ people today hired to read the official network news, the dummy reporters go flat straight ahead and report the spin as news. They simply print the news releases handed them by the AAUW!
A National Council for Self-Esteem was soon established as the nation chased it's tail, scampering to help the girls feel like they do belong, and like they are competent, that they have possibilities and that they, indeed, are a somebody. It's like the elevation given women in the nineteenth century, so much time and attention focused on women having it all go so right for them.
According to Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D., when the self-esteem report was being flogged all through the 90s, the leadership of the AAUW made: "the association into an activist arm of gender feminism. It's current group of officers — Executive Director Ann Bryant, President Sharon Schuster, and Alice McKee, President of the AAUW's educational foundation — are committed gender feminists who had expectations of what they would find when they initiated the self-esteem study".46
Carol Gilligan, Professor of Gender Studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, and her theories had been behind the AAUW self-esteem survey that she helped design. Gilligan claims that during adolescence females are pushed aside and are kept in the background by society — girls are silenced and go underground not knowing what they know.
Girls, to Gilligan, are silenced by a "male-voiced" culture, the patriarchy, and she claims that she has the evidence. It's not puberty that brings on female turmoil; oh no, instead it's a girl-destroying society that is at fault. In 1990, the New York Times ran the Gilligan story of girls' self-esteem being shredded. Next it was Gilligan working with Ms. Magazine, alerting the world to the plight of the girls, who are confident at eleven but just plain confused at sixteen, or so the story goes. Girls are portrayed as coming up against the wall of a culture that values women less than men.
As Hoff Sommers summarizes: "The gloomy picture of adolescent girls that she [Gilligan] presented to Ms., the AAUW, and a concerned public is every bit as distorted as any ever presented by social scientists using (in Gilligans words) androcentric and patriarchal norms."47 The AAUW report stands as a classic example of advocacy research. The artful way in which the questions were asked and the answers were marked got the conclusion that the AAUW wanted: fear of a national crisis in the self-esteem of adolescent girls. Once the "tact's" were out in the public domain, as one researcher said: "the whole thing is being carried on in the court of the media".
Soon after the AAUW's report was released in 1993, the Ms. Foundation for Women declared a Take Our Daughters to Work day. A great success, more than half a million daughters went to work with their mothers and fathers. The teachers guide handed out by the Ms. Foundation reiterated: recent studies point to adolescence as a time of crisis and loss for girls. While most girls are outspoken and self-confident at the age of nine, their level of self-esteem plummeted by the time they reach high school. Gloria Steinem was involved in Take Our Daughters to Work Day, saying the young girls, when they must take on their feminine role at age twelve or thirteen, will have to go underground, making them vulnerable to depression, pregnancy and eating disorders. But what about the boys left behind? Why arent they being catered to, encouraged to be visible, valuable and heard, and taken to work by a parent? Well, the Ms. Foundation proposed that the boys spend the day doing exercises to help them understand how our society shortchanges women.
The AAUW then gave money to Wellesley College, and it produces another report that dramatically buttressed the AAUW report on self-esteem. The Wellesley Report, "How Schools Shortchange Girls", rants on about a "wealth of statistical evidence" that shows girls are persecuted in school. The media again buys right in, reproduces most of the propaganda verbatim. Christina Hoff Sommers states: "What is highly questionable is the value and integrity of the research and the way the advocates have deployed the findings to activate the United States Congress."48
The Press Buys In. Just how do the nations reporters and news anchors allow this merde to pad their promotions? Except when in the cameras eye, they are so often beyond any pretense of professionalism. Do many graduates of journalism regularly check sources, or has the truth imprisoned them instead of setting them free? Chirpy, lean male and female script-reader television mouthpieces mouth the flow of words. They are getting paid to say anything that is written and stands in front of them.
Messy major issues are diced through,
These obvious orators haven't a clue,
Or give a damn
If their spiel is totally untrue.
Spin, "tacts", private agendas, created mass consensus, ownership of all major media by the few — and the talking heads fall into line. They read the word prompter scripts prepared to induce mass hypnosis, and apathy about neuroses. Jill and Joe public are forced at odds, off-balance, able only to work and then flake out after all the meme assault.
|New Feminism and Academia |
Testy and unpredictable, the new feminism has renovated the university of today. A huge victory for the gender feminists as the male professors and university deans have more than accommodated these "oppressed" females.
Some of the males are sincerely affected by the tacts;
Others following the political denial of the times
see all creatures in abstracts.
It will only get worse as the women outnumber the men in the universities. This is a done deal. And as females support anything "female" today many feminist types, a number of them male bunglers, are in large part controlling the educational system. Perhaps they will rewrite all of history.
Female Gender Bias. Evidence of female gender bias is witnessed in politics in the United States of America. In elections, women of the Democratic and Republican parties will never run against each other on the same ballot. To them it is more important to have any women in power, no matter her party affiliation.
Its for the nations future that this skullduggery is believed to be able to bring such wonders, along with ideas like marketing, cheating and painting illusions. It shows the agitation around control that is going to have to be squarely faced. What a scene this propaganda culture is: sirens, cruel postmodern meme-warriors ride roughshod, thinking to get their licks in and, like rock stars, dig the revolt. But they may as well be riding broomsticks. They are as unaccountable as phantom market forces. They may claim unconscious reasons as excuse for their behavior. Humans are reeling under a witches spell and the power of a witches spell — the Great Gender Conspiracy Theory.
Psychology departments today brim with females. It's she, the psychic, emotive one, in relationships all over the map, looking basically for more sympathy, a misplaced sympathy perhaps, and that unfortunately could become the end in itself; it's addicting. Psychotherapy may encourage many to blame forces outside their control as responsible for their disturbances within.
Magic, tarot card readers on TV, the Potter books for the kids a rave, as the mystical feminine is disseminated into the young souls. Enchantment, dissimulation, fantasy and faulty facts fixed, made over and dished up as the rational.
Replacing Males. The simply rational itself is now called reason, and then logic as well. Soon the will of the human hammers it into some seductive sales pitch or law. Is justifying the nuking of enemies that difficult? And just what could getting the government off of peoples backs actually do, if not to give people less protection, less security from corporate greed? Mussolini, the leader of the Italian fascist party beginning in the 1920s, held power promising an anti-government government. He was the first of the anti-government political leaders, promising less government in peoples lives. The fascists are corporatists, and enable big businesss profits to grow. Removing governments role must remove peoples participation in democracy as well. So who will keep the corporations in line, if not the government? The Green Party and Ralph Nader point out the insanity of many of our rationally portrayed solutions. But who's listening?
Can innocent plebs be forgiven if they don't have a clue?
Is their role to buy and die all that they are asked to do?
Never matter children the name, sorrows showers surround the gratifiers, the shoppers reaching for answers, searching with wry grins. It's more their thoughts of self-improvement that they really like, thoughts of themselves, featuring them becoming salaciously improved so to speak, and their self-respect going up. Envy is the main motivator.
Envy also leads the conspiracy to take over what is seen as the power positions of men. The gender feminists have taken over the universities without braving any eye-burning mace. They are succeeding at control of the schools and all workplace environments, and soon society may just more or less replace men as gender feminists further win their case.
Boys Lose Out
In reality, boys are in the pits compared to girls in the school system. Twice as many girls as boys are involved in student government, drama, band and orchestra and service clubs. More females intend to go to college, with a tripling of women focusing on higher degrees in less than twenty-five years. More boys cut classes, fail to do homework, have discipline problems, have been suspended and have been in police trouble. And boys drop out of school more often. Boys are more likely to be victims of violence in and out of school, be robbed or be threatened. Almost every syndrome, including alcoholism and drug abuse, hits boys harder.49
Data on suicide during adolescence is also skewed by the gender feminists. The Wellesley Report states that "adolescent girls are four to five times more likely than boys to attempt suicide". And according to clinical psychologist Mary Pipher, clinics are inundated with girls who try to kill themselves. Pipher says: "The Center for Disease Control in Atlanta reports that the suicide rate among children age ten to fourteen rose 75 percent between 1979 and 1988. Something dramatic is happening to adolescent girls in America, something unnoticed by those not on the front lines".50
But the Center for Disease Controls suicide statistics about children show that for boys aged ten to fourteen, the suicide rate had increased 71 percent between 1979 and 1988. For girls the increase was just 27 percent! But Mary Pipher says girls are terminating hope and their lives in America. Is an increase in suicides by girls from 48 in 1979 to 61 in 1988, an increase of thirteen out of a population of nine million girls between age ten and fourteen, evidence of a "girl-destroying culture"? On the other hand, the boys suicide numbers go from 103 in 1979 to 176 in 1988, an increase of seventy-three. The fact: five times as many boys as girls killed themselves. This is close to the adult ratio for suicide and gender as well.51
And who cares about the boys anyway...or the real facts? it's like hearing Immanuel Kant again, this time on the loudspeaker coming from the school principals office: "Nothing of duty, nothing of compulsion, nothing of obligation! Woman is intolerable of all commands, and all morose constraint. They do something only because it pleases them, and the art consists in making only that please them which is good. I hardly believe the fair sex is capable of principles...."52
The gender feminists have been busy trying to socialize boys. Carol Gilligan calls for "a new and healing pedagogy to free boys from an errant masculinity that is endangering civilization". Society, she claims, needs to free boys from "cultures that value or valorize heroism, honor, war, competition — the culture of the warrior, the economy of capitalism."53 But a big problem to Gilligan is that in western culture the boys are separated from their moms! She wants to reconstruct boys "imprisoned by masculinity", and feminize them. Her main fault lies around the fact that she's visioning a future by ignoring the biological factors that distinguish the genders. Her word glue will emotionally hook many, but she's speculating without much common sense. Gilligans "buddies" can be found in the departments of education where her propaganda has been disseminated to the school boards, and where they are using it to construct the new learning curves. With 73 percent of teachers being female, the curves demanded by Gilligans ideology are basically in the hands of the gender of curves. As Hoff Sommers says:
"Her ideas were successful in the sense that they inspired activists in organizations such as the AAUW and the Ms. Foundation to go on the red alert in an effort to save the nations drowning and disappearing daughters. But all their activism was based on a false premise: that girls were subdued, neglected, and diminished. In fact, the opposite was true: girls were moving ahead of boys in most of the ways that count. Gilligans powerful myth of the incredible shrinking girl did far more harm than good. It patronized girls, portraying them as victims of the culture. It diverted attention from the academic deficits of boys. It also gave urgency and credibility to a specious self-esteem movement that wasted everybody's time".54
Now Gilligan promotes an aggressive re-socialization of boys, a feminization to save them from the patriarchy. Some say boys already express themselves verbally like girls. Just listen to their intonation and speech rhythm, it's become like the females, they say. But Gilligan must be a control freak. She, too, has got the girls up there and at a distance, idealized and polished in mind. Now she's going to box in the boys? How square. Have people accepted all the trash about woman's victimization that the media brainwashes them with? Is anybody listening?
Meanwhile, over and above the propaganda and pathetic claims, all bow and heed the transcendent, all-powerful God Market (GM), the voice of the people reduced to what can be bought or sold, how much, when and where. Shopping perhaps, the body to adorn; searching for all types of improvement, the plebs are out of the way, programmed to pursue anything to stop them from seeing things as they really are.
Effect of Affirmative Action
Are there problems in education for the saintly gender? Females have flooded the university campuses and are the majority there today. The governments Affirmative Action (AA) policy will keep it that way, even though the intent of AA was to get African-American and other minorities some support in the US — rather than the dominant class of white women. Will women identify with anything, to get free rides? Masters degrees at the universities — currently 61 percent of those enrolled in these superior degree programs are females. In the social and psychological sciences, and in the humanities in general, women receive approximately 55 percent of doctoral degrees. At Yale Medical School, in 1996, women were 54 percent of the entering class. Half the law degrees awarded in the US go to women. And at Harvard Law School female enrollment has jumped from 18 percent in 1975 to 42 percent in 1997.55 The trend grows for higher admissions. The proportion of women physicians has tripled in the last twenty-five years, and women have become the majority in pharmacy and veterinary medicine.56
Legal policies snuck in by the feminist camp through Affirmative Action favor women in employment. And so police and fire departments and the military are forced to hire both sexes; they have to meet quotas in spite of the quality of the candidates. The new elite members of the foreign office in Great Britain are predominately women. In the US, 30 percent of senior officials are women.
Portraying the man as a violent low-life really has worked wonders for the feminists, getting money from taxpayers to protect against claimed male furor and the male tearing up of the earth. And men have lost jobs while their image as provider has been demeaned. It's everyman the gender feminists are after, not just the criminal ones who break laws and commit aggressive assault. No, not just the fringe characters, but men society regards as normal; these men are the focus of the anger of the gender-benders who see women "objectified" and thus soon to be battered. Some say that to people like Gloria Steinem and her group, the task is to "persuade the public that the so-called normal man is a morally defective human being who gets off on hurting women."57 And women are having tremendous success using this type of assault. They ridicule all men for crimes some criminals commit. By lumping all men into the garbage can as criminals, all males are made to wear the same outfit.
|Domestic Violence Again |
Memes of rage, memes of hate,
Paint the male into corners, and there is no escape.
The propaganda war has been won, and the guys
The males tarred and feathered with numbers,
No matter they are untrue....
Published figures of battering and abuse result in an arson on the living minds of readers, as the whole of society seems held hostage by men's physical torture and scorching cruelty to the female. It's all about domestic beatings, battery. The number of women beaten varies with these studies, but the studies get prime-time coverage. And thus the message gets out, even if false. It would seem men are pounding women, wives, at an awesome rate. Time, in 1983, said some 6 million women will be abused by their husbands each year in the US. The New York Times, in 1993, said every fifteen seconds an American woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend.58
And on and on the numbers go, painting the picture
of the woman's foe.
But responsible research shows that women and men batter each other about equally. Murray Straus and Richard Gelles find women were just as likely to engage in it as men. But what is not promoted or appreciated in their professional studies and results is the fact that 84 percent of families are not violent. Of the 16 percent of families who are violent, approximately half the violence is perpetrated by women, according to Straus and Gelles.59
Martin Fiebert of California State University produced a bibliography that shows that violence is an equal gender issue. The collection covers 117 scholarly investigations, 94 empirical studies, and 23 reviews or analysis which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationship with their spouses or male partners.60
It is more than foolish to skew some of the numbers, as some surveys do — considering an insult or swearing at a spouse as domestic abuse. Or if a spouse was pushed, grabbed, shoved or slapped, it is automatically considered domestic violence, without regard to whether the aggression was natural or whether it was harmful or seriously intimidating. Or induced. Minor and severely violent acts are all blended to give high numbers. If a spouse stomped out of a room or the house or the yard, this has been — yes, indeed — hallucinated as more domestic abuse!
Thirty-four percent of women in the 1993 Commonwealth Fund telephone survey, designed and carried out by Lou Harris and Associates, answered "yes" to the question of whether in the past twelve months your partner has ever: (1) insulted you or sworn at you, or (2) stomped out of the room or house or yard. All 34 percent of women who answered yes are classified as victims of emotional and verbal abuse. The numbers are used like recipe ingredients, thoughtfully added to the stew that the gender cannibals prepare — male stew with baked numbers, the spicier the better.
Although Time reports 6 million wives were abused, Straus and Gelles, in Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, report 1.8 million women assaulted each year by husbands and boyfriends. But then the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence reports that 50 percent of all women would experience violence from their spouses, and that one-third of all women are battered each year. The "facts" can also be measured in assaults per second. For example, Brother Peace, in 1993, said 6.5 million women are annually assaulted by their partners, one every five seconds. As stated, the New York Times (1993) had a woman beaten by her husband or boyfriend every 15 seconds. The Annals of Emergency Medicine claim that every 7.4 seconds a women is beaten by her husband. But, Straus and Gelles state that fewer than 1 percent of women experience severe violence.61
Entertainment and Sex as Escape
In our cynical age of accepted cruelty, journalists and the media seek the sensational, the sadistic and hyper-realities to attract the piranha-souls seeking reassurances that, yes, everything is more or less a total mess, totally sick, violent, perverted and shocking. Thus everyone's own personal living mess can be accepted as not so bad, etc. It's the insurance neurotics need to maintain their addictions to low expectations, escapist solutions and Hollywood distractions. And it keeps lasciviousness and copulation, the sexual, up there and ranked as a premier method to flaunt ones full life of alienated stress. Randy and musty, the carnal as a means to ride the stress. But will it also guarantee the Nuclear Bomb?
Many begin to relate to sex as an escape from all their frustrations, as a focal point to obsess upon and as a detour when life gets strained or uncontrollable. Orgasm could be a violent cleansing of all the "freedom of speech" that's got the plebs in a titillated but neurotic condition. The worlds been screwed over anyway; it says so on the news!
Unfortunately, many escape from the reality of contemporary society and it's lunacy through an entertainment world thats obsessed with hyper-cruel and sadomasochistic sexual themes. civilian's brains are figuratively blown out reveling in Hollywood productions about the violent, brutal, unredeemable world they themselves are increasingly shrinking away from having anything much to do with. The peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians — it too can be fixed by a big explosion.
Everybody's stressed. Most can barely deal with all the bits and pieces of the transmitted signals flying through the air. So for personal escape, entertainment, a modern woman or man can sit and just watch, go blank, and leave their need for peace to those on the screen. But reading newspapers and watching TV doesnt guarantee the truth, and our controlled contemporary compatriots brain is maybe going to rot, struggling to get the reasons about why were all so fagged out.
Insurance is the neurosis that is in part due to the group allowing life to be controlled by the sadistic, negative spins and propaganda. It can be propaganda so false it's psychotic — denying compassion — this seen in the worship of a brutal impersonal God Market. People endure all the lies, cruelty and the phoney sanctimoniousness of hired actors and the politicians. They endure the trashing of the human soul by the greedy beings in charge. Huge anxiety, shock and guilt force the brain into overdrive.
The tension swells bringing on desperation for release. Welcome in! Sex has become the ride of the century, the neurotic express that stretches over the mundane cemented structures of modern civilization. It's the muscle used to cope with all the neuroses everyone is coming around to expect and take for granted: man as an evil failure.
Sex has got the serfs obsessed,
And starting to itch and pull at their flesh.
Alone, with the TV
Or with some body,
Sex is the simple way to get to free?
This society can be counted on to make everyone sick. The moderns are infected from ingesting society's psychoses. And they use this sickness as their guiding weight, mesmerized like selfish dogs in heat, affected without concern for the future. Or for others. The moderns will even consume sex toys and orgy videos to help boost this neurotic guiding principle, to break any outside demands while working so diligently, trying for sex that can supposedly take them out of this world.
Unfortunately, much of today's wholesale sickness and sadism is directed at males. Punishing them is popular. They are criticized and blamed for virtually all of society's problems. They are forced onto the altar of modern sacrifice, as cruelly they are hurt, regardless of innocence. The abomination of sacrificing males brings on more belief (insurance) that darkness rules, as the moderns now tilt toward their masochistic side — and take their government's mistreatment as if deserved!
But the escape into sadism and masochism leaves guys as the scapegoat; the real victim here is the man who is taking it in the ear, painted as the one to fear! America and western civilization has always had a lower esteem for the males. It is males who in war have been slaughtered by the hundreds of millions. Our society is used to depriving boys and men of dignity, but it respects women openly. There are virtually no support agencies for men like there are for women. And so, in divorce today, the money and the children are taken from the men, given to the women. We are used to ignoring the humanity of the men; it's been that way in our history. So today we let the gender feminists torture the men.
In North American culture there is isn't as much respect for young men, nor does society promote anything near the caring or catering that is given to the girls. For example, in the movie Fight Club, the guys are left alone, many without the father that his mother may have deemed disposable, and then they resort to the crudest male stereotypes. They escape their boring jobs and their educated public-school dysfunction by beating up each other in the secret surroundings where they meet each week. These guys, while typifying the male jockeying for a dominant role through physical challenge, are not emotionally well. The fights serve a modern inner cruelty, a sadomasochism derived from the male-trashing going on.
Playing smash face at college or school is one thing, in front of audiences and under game rules. There the boys rip and tear, physically confront their "buddies" for glory and girls. Sure the boys are thus being trained to identify other boys as enemies, but they have been trained for many centuries to sacrifice their bodies for society and to protect the females.
If the enemy would become "girls", then what? In Fight Club, there is no big audience, but it's the competitive market-economics society in microcosm, and like the corporations themselves the boys have rights, but they might not have dads. Desperate for the bottom line, they are brave enough to seek solutions. Children of the single momhood — they are a big part of the nations future.
Social Consequences of Single Motherhood
Is a woman better off without a man, going it alone, even to the extent of withdrawing a mans biological child from him? That is what the newly minted feminist calls for reproductive freedom could end up being about.
Divorce casino. Divorce is today initiated by women at twice the rate that it is initiated by men. Our society actually gives women incentive to divorce! Women get benefits from divorce. They usually will get the children, child support and the family home if there is one. Research shows that about 50 percent of mothers see no value in a fathers contact with his children and try to sabotage it, or resent the fathers contact.62 Both tax-free child support and dependent exemptions go to the mother in the US. With the help of feminist organizations, many city agencies and even bar associations give free legal aid to women in order to take children away from men.63 Society gives women emotional and financial reward to divorce.
A divorce can mean a mans loss of his job as a father. But he is forced to pay for his "firing" by subsidizing his own removal through money given for child support — a mother subsidy. Today many biological moms think that they can be fathers too, and the government is supporting them to think so. In 1960, there were 5.1 million single moms in the US. By 1996, it was 16 million.64In 1970, about one in ninety homes in the US were mother-only homes. By 2000, it was 22 percent.65
Divorce can leave men in big trouble. They can end up alone: no family, no one needing them, no hero role to give superior meaning to their lives. They are often rebuked as if they are the problem itself. Then money is expected and that helps his ex-wife fulfilling her "psychic" life with his children. It's a special hell, for men only, and it's brought to them by that extra-special somebody — the wife he married. In fact, after a divorce, a mans risk of suicide rises to ten times greater than that of a divorced woman's.66
men's needs as fathers are ignored. One Alley McBeal TV show had a mother offer to sell "her" baby to it's unwed biological father for five million dollars! Our society is programmed to disregard, pass over the men. When a woman with children takes the notion to divorce and to dabble in different lifestyle choices available only to her, she receives support from the government and from the ex-husband, and often from her parents. But the man, the father, is virtually ignored — except for his wallet. His children are taken from him in most cases, and the woman gets custody. But the loss of his children is like a death to the man. In Father and Child Reunion, Warren Farrell, Ph.D., elaborates:
"When we demand a dad give child support and wife support, then take away his children and home, we kill his soul, his reason for earning, his reason for living when we drive him into a deadend, he becomes a deadbeat, dead broke, or just dead.67 When a dad's child is dead to him, but still alive, he can never begin the process of mourning; he can never heal. We feel this unhealed hurt and bitterness when we meet dads who are denied their children".68
Many women have off-chucked their childrens fathers. Our society rewards them, really — for this. The woman's network, when working for woman's needs, encourages psychic relationship, both intimate and emotional. Women need this psychic relationship; it's something they are simply unable to run away from. It's available with their children. So if it isn't working out well in the psychic relationship that she married her husband to get, she eliminates him. He may have become an insensitive boor, an emotionally crippled failure in her eyes. This may become his described identity and it's promotion may help build the story of her claimed demise. But her psychic relationship continues as she feeds off the kids. With his children she approximates emotional health! He usually pays, may get some visitation privileges, but his needs are simply not a big part of any solution in our society. Today, it is all set up for moms to live somewhat happily, and without husbands. The law forces large numbers of men to pay more money than the mother does for children they cannot see as often as she does. As Farrell states: "In the case of fathers, economic hurt and emotional rejection are joined by a sense of legal injustice".69
The single, unmarried mom phenomenon. Climbing through the inferno of men's anguish brought on by their separation from their children, there seems to be never-ending evidence of women further corralling-in their children. In the US, in 1960, only 5 percent of births were outside marriage. By 1990, the national number had increased to 24 percent.70 But it was estimated that this number would increase dramatically in the new millennium to more than one in three births. This trend towards unmarried single-parent homemakers is a major social phenomena.
In 1993: single women accounted for 71 percent of births in Detroit, 65 percent in Washington, D.C. and 45.2 percent in New York.71 The stigma around an unmarried parent has receded. The popular idea of the day implies that the modern woman is a self-sufficient, resourceful type that can, and maybe should, go it alone. Governments back her up with public money, and the courts back her up by taking what they can get from the childrens biological dad. Unwed mothers used to be shamed, their children called bastards and illegitimate. Now the gender feminists rally call is woman's reproductive freedom. And like the pro-life and right-to-choose debates, neither side in the debate of whether women shall have exclusive control of any pregnancy is really interested in involving many dads in the discussion. It's the postmodern obsession with separate power.
Pregnancy yields a solution for a female sensing that the new globalized economy and it's low-paying service-industry jobs arent really going to solve her needs. Only one-tenth, in percentage, of unwed mothers now put up their children for adoption than they used to just thirty years ago. Getting pregnant is a way out, a way to get money from relatives and welfare benefits. Originally these welfare benefits had been put in place for widows with dependent children, to get them funds. But today they subsidize lives of single and divorced moms, giving them a more cozy lifestyle than that of a "free-market" warrior slugging it out in the unstable, poorly paid service industries. Pregnancy gives status as an adult, gives an object, a child, for women to project their emotions on, helps women get subsidized apartments and gives women a sense of purpose, a reason to live. They can dodge depression, low self-esteem and ugly work. They can find a purpose, a calling in life. They are needed! As Tiger states:
"In one pleasurable act and then in the rewarding process of pregnancy, these young women achieve both productive and reproductive success at once. Whatever other people may think, from their standpoint they have achieved an upgrade. They have aced an unpromising system."72
In the African-American community 62 percent of births were to unmarried women in 1989. In some areas it's as high as 80 percent! In Great Britain, among fifteen- to nineteen-year-old white women 87 percent of births are to single moms, and in the US 62 percent of teen births are to single moms. And even with all these births to unmarried women, an expert had testified that the national average would rise to at least 40 percent by the year 2000.73
Reproductive Freedom for Whom? Does the future hold a place for husbands as fathers anymore? Some activist females have been planning for years to eliminate men, as well as woman's dependence on men for anything. Reproductive freedom means women choose again; the men will be without rights, even to their own children. Women's claims of our bodies - our business can leave men working and paying for the children produced through his "business" with her body. She can do what she pleases with his child - abort it, or keep it. For her it can mean freedom through reproduction, this the reproduction-freedom anthem. He may never know that she had his child, or he may be told the news years later, told that he is a real daddy all right - just send his money, be a good fellow, it's his duty, etc. And it seems that males were mistreated by society for ages. The men have been sacrificed, sent to war to protect women and his children.
Today we still ignore men and their humanity; we are used to it. Now we allow their children to be taken away, or for men to just be wallets for biological moms who have got the children under control, sometimes covertly. But this lack of respect for men and their needs really hits home when it's realized that 15 to 20 percent of dads may be unknowingly raising one or more children that are not even their own!74
Marginalizing Men. The future for men is frightening. They are marginalized and are being pushed off the stage of our communal life. Watch virtually any Hollywood movie and you won't find any single dad raising kids, unless his wife in the movie is dead. This role, the male as caregiver, is not given much support in our pro-female culture. Even when a man and a woman create an embryo in a petri dish, it's the woman who will get custody or legal benefits in lawsuits over their embryo.75 women's rights are much more important than men's rights today, and the law is designed to protect women more than men.
Single Parenthood. In 1996 in Canada, 826,000 children under age 15 lived with single moms; 117,000 lived with single fathers.76 And with over 80 percent of US single-parent homes being controlled by the childrens mother, it is obvious that the future adults of North America will have to deal with the influence that these single moms will have on the future generations. Male single- parent controlled homes have risen from 10.2 percent in 1980 to 18.9 percent in 1998.77 This is almost a doubling of single-parent fathers in a short time. As Warren Farrell states: Moms moving out of the home has been a headline-creating revolution, dads moving into the home has been the quietest revolution.78
What does all this single parenting reveal today? What types of people are being raised in these homes, and can society feel positive about a future for the children of single parents? The evidence points to a crisis ahead, for parents, children and the whole of society. Objectives and intentions for our children need to be made clear. In a society where employment income is steadily falling, with take-home pay declining, many single parents are under a lot of pressure. Women, traditional at-home parents, now attempt to be both provider and protector as well. The well-being of her children, and that of the nation, will depend on the woman's ability to cope in society today. But the picture looks bleak, if it is health, well-being and holistic integrity that is being looked for in these single-mother households.
A Case for Single Fatherhood. With regard to domestic violence against children, single-mother households account for 43 percent of all abused children.79 The mother in control of a household is one of the most important single predictors of a battered baby — a more important predictor than poverty, illegitimacy, and almost all of twenty-nine family characteristics.
A 1999 US Department of Health and Human Services report showed that almost two-thirds of parents who kill their children are mothers. And almost two-thirds of those killed between the ages of eight and fifteen are boys. Children are also twice as likely to be victims of neglect by their mothers as by their fathers. Children are 88 percent more likely to be seriously injured from child abuse or neglect by their mothers than by their fathers. People living in a feminized culture may have trouble believing these statements about females. But ignorance about females will only set up ones life for disaster. And single moms are twenty-four times as likely to kill children as are single dads.
Here are some facts about schooling a child.80 Elementary- school children living without their dads did worse on twenty-one of twenty-seven social competence measures and eight out of nine academic measures. They were more likely to repeat grades, had higher absentee records and were less popular than their peers. Another study shows boys living at least six years with their single mothers scored low on ten social and ten academic measures. First-grade black and white children without fathers in the home recorded lower IQ scores than those with fathers present. Fathers improve their childrens mathematics and science ability. By the third grade, boys scored higher on every achievement test and received higher grades — if they had fathers present in the home. A child living with both biological parents has a one in nine chance of repeating a grade; living with a single mother the chance increases to one in four. And the more years a child spends with a single mother, the fewer years of school are completed. As well, living without a dad doubles a childs chances of dropping out of high school. In a study, students from father-absent homes scored much lower on college entrance exams.
A psychoanalytic study by Pruett and Litzenberger published in 1977 found positive benefits from males raising their own children. The study, over an eight-year period, showed that children nurtured by their fathers were normal, actually smarter than average and secure in their gender.81
But the popular consensus is the opposite. Why?
The media is awash with misinformation. Those who gather statistics can be biased or irresponsible or both. Why does the US census bureau ask only women about support payments, how much was paid, or why it wasn't paid? The census bureau doesn't ask only men why the mothers of their children deny or block access to their children.
The bias towards protecting and elevating the female takes place behind what Farrell calls the "lace curtain". Farrell describes the lace curtain as "the tendency of government, the media, academia, and the helping professions not to print anything that makes a woman look like less of a victim than the public consciousness holds her to be."82 Socializing our citizens with female values has helped bring this protective but artificial bias. The lace curtain keeps public understanding away from the truth, while it promotes female-only agendas that will result in increased social and emotional illness. How can healthy solutions result for a society if people are left wallowing in the denial, lies and dysfunction found behind the "lace curtain"?
In 1995, in Denmark, a study was made of one-quarter of all three- to five-year-old children who lived only with their single biological fathers. They were compared to an equal number of children who were living only with their single biological mothers. The information from the study presented to the Social Research Institute in Stockholm, found that children living with their dads were much less likely to experience problems of feeling like victims. They were half as likely to have frequent nightmares, feelings of low self-esteem, and lonesomeness; they were one-third as likely to feel victimized by other children and one-quarter as likely to experience frequent seizures of fear. Can living with the gender who has been educated to see herself as a victim rub off on the children? Obviously, yes.
The children living with their fathers were only half as likely to experience problems with concentration.83 This resonates loudly for many fatherless boys put on medication for Attention Deficit Disorder in North America. Males are increasingly being raised in a society that exclusively applauds female values. Young boys are receiving a female socialization, and those boys from single-mom homes are over 300 percent more likely to see themselves as victims of other children. Farrell: "when female values are so dominant in raising boys, I believe it leads to boys not feeling lovable for their core energy, thus tempting feelings that they must perform to be loved rather than love to be loved".84
Undermining Males. Sexual Abuse and Propaganda. President Bill Clinton was a useful male for the gender feminists to debase, ridicule and squeeze money out of. His political life counted heavily on female and feminist support. Even though, in general, he stood for an attitude toward women that they hated, the gender feminists found his sexual scandals opportune. His numerous disgraces painted the male as a sexual pervert, and this was useful to those determined to destroy the "patriarchy".
Clinton was just another mentally challenged sex addict to them, perhaps just how they see most American men. He used women as sexual objects, mere receptacles. He was rude, gruff and perhaps violent with them. The focus the gender feminists promote is men as molesters rather than men as caregivers for their children. As long as males can be hung out to dry, seen as sexually dangerous predators, then women can control and keep the children to themselves. An irresponsible sex-crazy male is useful. He allows feminazi propaganda to grow. He is evidence of the warts covering the patriarchy. So Clinton was the gender feminists meal ticket. He sold the nation on a much lower standard for the man at the top. And during his term of office the feminists have taken control of much of the working apparatus of the government itself.
A psycho sex maniac as the highest male in the land, this image produced a gift-wrapped white-hot meme, used to assault male integrity and accountability. Male sexuality became more debased than was usual when Clinton incarnated as the feminazis patsy. They made the President into their talisman, leading the nation toward the visioned feminine oasis: reproductive rights, selling their eggs among themselves, government subsidies for moms only, housing for women only — for women and children only. It helps for the radicals to have men presumed to be perverts. The presumption of perversion keeps the female elevated above the male, enables women to get privileges and protections denied the men. And it gets children separated from men, and may keep men in a self-doubting and confused state of mind.
Men may feel unworthy of becoming caregivers, that is if they believe the lies told today as truth, that paint men as perverted sexual beings. At present, the Boy Scouts of America's national policy bans any scout leader from being alone with a boy! But in Canada, a public school district employs full-time a self-outed lesbian to teach a woman's studies course to grade eleven girls. Go figure.
Sexual abuse of children has been headline news for decades. But it seems that it is always men's fault. With biased judges and increasing credibility for accusations from females, men are being sketched as sexual criminals. There is a 2,000 percent increase in sex-abuse allegations in the past ten years.85 Scores of men are being falsely accused of child sex-abuse, and many men lose their jobs even if they are eventually found innocent. During a divorce it has been found that up to 94 percent of those who make false accusations of child sexual abuse are women, and 96 percent of those falsely accused are men.86 Mothers making these false accusations are characterized by their anger. Interestingly, 80 percent of all child sex-abuse allegations are found to be without foundation.87 Lying, fabrication and character assassination surround much that some women claim as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Men don't defend their sexuality. They've been made guilty; they just take abuse. Ridiculing men and their sexuality as dangerous to society gives the females unopposed grounds upon which to build their version of the female alternative to their spun perversion of males. In New York City, unfounded child sexual-abuse allegations against men increased from more than a half to more than three-quarters from 1989 to 1993.88 The evidence shows false claims of sexual abuse and assault are so high that these claims are unprincipled attacks on men, used to gain rewards — money, child custody — and to punish men. Whether they did anything or not! Our society is letting men take the rap, even if they are innocent.
A study of male sexual offenders found that 30 percent had themselves been sexually abused as children. Of these, 78 percent had been abused by a woman.89 Shocking. But can our society cope with this and other information that doesnt bolster the consensus image of women as caring, innocent victims? Nearly 60 percent of convicted rapists were sexually abused as children by women. 90
Child Custody. When mothers have custody, their childrens relationship with their father deteriorates. When children live with only their mothers, their parents are nine times as likely to have conflict as they do when children live with their fathers.91 In the US, it has been found that 42 percent of all children living with their single moms reported that their moms tried to stop them from seeing their fathers.92 Results from interviews with children on average of eight years after their parents divorced showed the following: 54 percent of the children said that only their mothers spoke badly of their fathers in front of them; 12 percent said that only their fathers spoke badly of their mothers.93 In the Danish study it was found that when mothers had custody the children were more than twice as likely to have no contact with the other parent; and that in part must be due to moms being almost five times as likely to bad-mouth dads as dads are to bad-mouth moms.94
Child Support. Even though 75 percent of custodial mothers will likely move at least once in four years, 54 percent of separated dads see their kids weekly.95 And 85 percent of fathers with shared parent time (joint custody) pay child support on time. When mothers have custody but are open to fathers seeing their children, 79 percent of these fathers pay in full and on time. 96
The Reality for Children with Single Mothers. For children living in a single-mom home their future is warily confronted by the facts:97
65 percent of juveniles and young adults in state-operated institutions come from father-absent homes.
80 percent of pre-school children admitted as psychiatric patients in two New Orleans hospitals came from homes without fathers. Similar percentages are found in Canada
90 percent of homeless or runaway children are from fatherless homes.
A close relationship with dad is the most important factor in preventing
73 percent of adolescent murderers come from mother-only homes.
80 percent of rapists who rape out of anger and rage came from father-absent homes.
90 percent of young repeat arsonists lived with only their mothers.
Daughters of single moms are 92 percent more likely to divorce than
daughters of two-parent families.
In Baltimore, a study found one-third of daughters of teenage single moms also became teenage moms. No daughter with a good relationship with her father had a baby before age nineteen.
Students without fathers at home are 1.5 times more likely to be unemployed
in their teens through their mid-twenties.
Being with their fathers has proved to help children manage their emotions, develop intelligence and attain better grades in school. These children are socially better adapted and have better relationships with the parent they aren't living with than the children who live only with their biological mothers.
|Domestic Violence and Murder in Canada |
In Canada, the Vancouver Sun, a newspaper servicing a community and province with two and a half million people, on December 6, 1999, published a front-page story written by two women, stating: "In 1999 Canadian women constituted 98 percent of the victims of spousal violence, kidnapping and sexual assault". The editor himself, when confronted with this misrepresentation of the truth, was not swayed at first. Maybe men didn't report many assaults on themselves, he said. But after seeing some seventy studies on domestic violence he began to understand the picture, see the abuse of facts. Otherwise male editors probably want to give women the benefit of the doubt because, after all, it is what they were probably raised to do.
Even at Statistics Canada, it's found that whoever compiles the data can determine what is seen in the numbers. Much of the statistics are incomplete, based on samples that can't be taken as representing anything like the true picture. Gender-benders are getting into the research and the data banks, and some numbers are going to have had their face put on. Believe it or suffer the consequences!
"Statistics Canada has not been a reliable source for information in the past. As F.A.C.T. (Fathers Are Capable Too) has stated:Statistics Canada, one of the worlds leaders in producing one-sided gender-specific statistics in their 1993 report on Violence Against Women has been largely panned, criticized throughout the world for their politics over real analysis".98
After much criticism, however, by 2000 even Statistics Canada produced a 1:1 ratio of violence between the genders. This time they asked both men and women the same questions!99
And the Fathers Canada web page states: Men and Women are Equals in Violence. In Canada, 400 publicly funded shelters exist for battered women, but not one single one has been established to help battered men. "Researchers without a feminist axe to grind have long recognized that about half of domestic violence is a two-way street — with both men and women doing the shoving, pushing, and throwing".100
Without surveillance, the feminazis are free to get away with info-murder. Imagine, 98 percent of spousal violence being initiated by males! Front-page power — for who? Every young boy who reads this is now not only armed with false-consciousness but also must become somewhat self-hating and self-deprecating. Just as the gender feminists want them? These "tacts" just bring more ammunition to coax money, support, protection and favored status from society at large. Maybe milking the cash cow of woman's victimhood should be a degree program at university? Or is it already? Check out some woman's studies programs! That our western society fails to apply characterizations of women as evil, as criminal, as violent — like it does for the men — is an area where inequality is rampant.
According to Statistics Canada, 8,389 men and 4,475 women were victims of homicide between 1978 and 1997. The 1998 Canadian Crime Statistics showed that: for every female victim of an attempt/conspire to murder there were 2.7 male victims. For every female victim of aggravated assault there were 3.7 male victims. For every female assault with a weapon causing bodily harm there were two male victims. For every female victim of discharge of a firearm with intent there were 3.4 male victims.101 Even from these statistics it's obvious that women, far from being the victimized gender, are actually avoiding a great deal of the violence in Canadian society.
In a letter to his union newspaper, Keith Harris writes in response to "discriminatory lies" and this official scapegoating and marginalization of men in the media. Here Harris reports that: "the majority of homicides of children under the age of one year are committed by their mothers; that mothers kill more male children than female children; that siblings of both sexes kill their brothers more often than their sisters". And in British Columbia where Harris lives, he reports that the 125 workers killed on the job in 1998 were all men!102
In the US, Harris points out that the FBI Uniform Crime Report on Murder and Non-negligent Manslaughter in 1998 reveals 3.1 male victims for every female victim of murder, and that females perpetrated homicide at a rate of 3.3 male victims for every female victim.
Next, in his letter to the newspaper, Harris offers some reality therapy. The "sugar-and-spice" gender, these so-called nurturers, do possess a mean streak, relatively unknown to the public. Harris printed some woman's names who our society does not want to recall: Susan Eubanks, 1999, stalked and murdered her four sons by shooting them in the head. Aileen Wuornos, 1992, stalked, shot and killed seven men — all strangers. Dorthea Puente, 1990, murdered eight men and women in her boarding house. Gwen Graham and Cathy Wood, 1988, suffocated six patients. Marybeth Tining, 1987, suffocated nine of her children. Velma Barfield, 1987, was executed for poisoning five people. Carol Bunday, 1980, shot and killed seven women and a man, whose head she sawed off with a boning knife. Delfine and Maria Gonzales, 1964, murdered eighty women and eleven men.
And on the list goes, way back: Susanna Fazekas, 1929, involved in the murder of as many as 200 hundred men and women. Amy Archer-Gilligan, 1916, murdered forty-eight people. Belle Guinness, 1908, murdered sixty-seven people. Then leaping centuries back to around 1615 reveals the mass-murdering celebrity of the fragile gender, Countess Elisabeth Bathory, who beat, tortured and bled to death some 650 women.103
The media tend to jump all over the news about a man murdering a woman. The respected image bestowed on women in our present society, and our dedication to woman's protection, can inhibit focus on female dysfunction. But men are fair game. Husbands who become victims when their wives kill their children, like Rusty Yates (five dead children) and David Smith (two dead children), what sympathy is their for them? David Smith found out the unbelievable truth on the television! The police had not even told him. And many seem bent, against all evidence, to finger Rusty Yates as the cause of the murder of his children. For murders within the family, 54.5 percent of victims (including children) are male.104
According to Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families (Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz, 1980), out of every 100 families, 3.8 percent experience severe husband-to-wife violence, but 4.5 percent experience severe wife-to-husband violence.105 In Canada, the Canadian Journal of Sociology (1988) reports that the rate of severe husband-to-wife violence was 4.8 percent, while severe wife-to-husband violence was 10 percent. To some researchers the most unreported crime is not wife-beating — it's husband-beating.106
The US Congress is to spend billions in it's crime bills to combat violence against women. Most of the money will go to advocacy groups, to sensitivity training, to educational programs for everyone from judges to school children and to shelters and publications. The issue of domestic violence is a political football, used to keep the female voter onside, while more serious study and comprehension are ignored. Politicians again mouth the words, and the female responds to those who will give them protection, status and money.
So women are courted through scare tactics and
While politicians get elected as this confusion distracts,
But misrepresentation is being loaded onto
Over and Out
Guys are being pushed out of reach. Through advocacy research and lies, and through government courting of the authority-accepting female, the nation will be made weaker and less intent on bringing out it's competitive excellence, genius and inspired insight. This could effectively kill the impetus for those who would take issue, stand up and fight the perpetuation of the false, politically correct consciousness and official versions, those who would persist in hounding the criminals till they are run right out of sight.
But the real news about a mans changing role in society is shocking. Lionel Tiger in the The Decline of Males states: "In 1955, in some 60 percent of American families, Dad worked, Mom stayed at home, and there were two to three children. Thirty-one years later barely 4 percent of families boast this form".107
The False-consciousness of Pipher and Giligan
Mary Pipher, Ph.D., clinical psychologist, drives girls crazy cramming the false-consciousness down their throats. She is so far out there, hallucinating about a land scarred by permanent warfare against females. In her book Reviving Ophelia, 1994, she followed up on Carol Gilligans scare tactics, and she has used fear to market her writing.
Her claims made one wonder Mary Pipher,
The living truth can she decipher?
How can she equate females with the disabled or the "slave" minorities — with all those possessing todays criteria for Affirmative Action jobs and money? But this professional psychologist has marketed a hyena rage and spread hate memes. What did the Nazis tell their people about the Jews? And Pipher, where did she get her information that she uses to brainwash society? She spreads the false-consciousness and promotes the persecution of males — thats the gist of her drama, the results of the spin.
Why do so many girls hate their parents? Many are the victims of sexual violence ... Girls are less protected ...Girls today are much more oppressed ... I was struck by what a girl-poisoning culture it is ... America today limits girls development, truncates their wholeness and leaves many of them traumatized ... Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, Janet Reno and many others are sounding the alarm...Adolescence is when girls experience social pressure to put aside their authentic selves ... adolescent girls are saplings in a hurricane ... Girls are expected to distance from parents just at a time when they most need their support ... American culture has always smacked girls on the head in early adolescence ...
Simone de Beauvoir believed adolescence is when girls realize that men have the power, and that their only power comes from consenting to become submissive adored objects. They do not suffer from the penis envy Freud postulated, but from power envy...
Guys would grab me in the halls... Later I got used to it...
A health department study showed that 40 percent of all girls in my midwestern city considered suicide last year
It was impossible to score [on a test] as both a healthy adult and a healthy woman...
Girls who speak frankly are labelled as bitches...The rules are enforced by the labelling of a woman like Hillary Rodham Clinton as a 'bitch' simply because she's a competent, healthy adult... Girls come of age in a misogynistic culture...they make less money baby sitting than their brothers do mowing lawns...108
So this Mary is a raver too, throwing flaming hate-memes and bags of the tact glue.
Anti-male Media Propaganda. It's war and propaganda against the man. Well, what is a victim left to do when their true selves are under attack? When: everywhere girls are encouraged to sacrifice their true selves in a culture that is all too happy to use them for it's purposes. But it's Pipher who is doing the victimization of the girls through her lies and emotionally-charged accusations against the male.
She isn't really worthy of a doctoral degree because
she is sinking so low,
Mixing fact and fiction to give the men a licking,
Thinking to give all of America a knockout blow.
"America today is a girl-destroying place", so says Mary Pipher, Ph.D., as the scholarly community now neurotically — (Yes! it's more insurance for to grow the blackness the future is sure to bring.) — must duck out, somehow from her work, trying to save some face. Most just keep quiet. Professors tell the truth? Power privileges female aspiration, and the academic staff fall in line. Many teaching brains working in universities must feel like cowards. But there are others who must also be appalled, observing how the feminist spin "tacts" encourage so many to settle-in, and sink in the poisonous tact-ful muck like pigs in mud. Real knowledge decreases with their politically correct silence.
Its so unprofessional, this Pipher-type research. When Faludi and Wolf and the rest wrote of the backlash, they contended that the patriarchy-controlled media itself printed lies and broadcasted misinformation to stop feminist liberation. The media was identified as the problem, and the gender feminists set about screaming loudly to get attention. It has worked, and the media is now their acolyte and pimps their "tacts".
The gender feminists have assimilated behavior they say they hate — media control of "tacts" — and have proven themselves very adept at the subterfuge of truth. Pipher has a large, willingly victim-oriented and victim-educated audience, and she is filling their boots with postmodern sadomasochism, as crisis is created, but the facts, ma'am, aren't really there.
Pipher and Gilligan want to assume society is unsympathetic to women, and to feed their psych-out victimization claims to women looking for something or someone to blame for their personal predicaments.
The church found a devil to blame,
Gender feminists have the men to shame.
The Plight That Does Not Exist. Gilligan and Pipher may get on the lecture circuit, sell books and become important today. No doubt the judges of the future will have even more to say and will take no mercy in exposing their aggressive, hurtful agendas. For example, Gilligan is doing more of this "research" about the development of girls and how they are drowning in the sea of western culture. But she lumps the girls in with people of color, gays and lesbians, the poor and the disabled. Although American culture is where girls are the most outspoken, to Gilligan, it is in America that girls are silenced.
A lot of research contrary to Gilligans is available. Material that shows no evidence of loss of voice in girls. Perhaps Gilligan is only a developer of pathological science, the science of things that arent. Her work has convinced many educators of a plight suffered by girls alone, a plight that does not exist.
Andrea Dworkin, a college lecturer, has helped make up many of todays female minds. She has probably been studied in most woman's studies departments in universities and has had a profound affect-effect upon contemporary society.
Propaganda and Inequality. To Dworkin it is: "a woman-hating society where women are sex and dirt in one human body; the screwed one: passive, inert, and open...."109
Andrea Dworkin feels somehow that equality between the sexes is reality, and that there is abuse going on, abuse of this equality. Dworkin was educated in a proudly "democratic" society that claims to possess: civil equality, human rights and freedom of speech.
The two-party system, and the other grand narratives and "enduring truths" about Americas mission to protect the world from evil and to raise up the Holy Grail of democracy and market economics were all included in the common public fare served up to the equals of Dworkins time. It's been called the rant of the mediocre, these claims of rights and privileges, the tunes that indoctrinate those in the land of the free. Dworkin wails and bitches at the males, who she says are running the show and ruining the realizing of all these normative assumptions - equality, civil rights, freedom, etc. She says the men dictate to women just where they can go, what they can be.
But Dworkins anger is overly reactive, simply more of the victimization siren song. Wanting the world to be like sugar and spice is useless; the real world needs attending, and Andrea — democrat, egalitarian, gender feminist — into hell many a young lady is sending. Like countless new-ager chicks, Dworkin has gotten matronly make-believe, wish-thinking fab phrases (advertisement socialization) and government propaganda all mixed in a deceptive brew. Here the hungry heart is an organ of compassion, tenderness, heavenly and brotherly love — the chaste forms of love.
On Sexuality. Of course Andrea, who tries to force a warm heart-centered equality between the sexes, seeks to find a level ground where this can exist. But virginity for women, chastity for men may be the only level upon which her idealism can avoid broad neurotic chagrin. She has told Jewish women to betray their husbands.
Sex must be like some smut to Andrea, with men trained to initiate this dirt. Of course, Dworkin reads, as a college English teacher, and then the fiction she's perused gives her a third-party mental picture of emotional, moral and sexual themes. She then uses this fiction as a backdrop to do her male rape, the assault upon gender. She paints males as cruel, violent, suffering a loneliness they cant endure. They are alienated, she says, because of their own detachment or abstraction, and they are self-obsessed and in need of women to help them cope with their male nakedness which is loathsome to them. "For men, the meaning of a womans naked body is life itself", says Andrea.110
Numbed abstraction — that is what Dworkin calls male sexual desire, a desire of watching, displacement. Does she, through this reading, studying, analyzing, through her appropriation of meaning from fictionalized dramas and characters, become like the men she terms prisoners of a numbed abstraction? Or does she have a life that supplies her the answers? Neurotic feelings of victimization inhibit the heart. The heart shrunken by lust or hate could go for actions violent. And swiftly.
Is it sad that Andrea will never get her wish, to live in a permanent fantasyland where all are equal and able to do as they please — just like her grade-school teachers storybooks pretended it to be?
The Female "Antibeing". But when a male can slice into female flesh, well, equality to Dworkin just disappears: "Male authority, religious authority, and civic authority all converged, indistinguishable, at the point of entry into a womans body...."111 Ms. Dworkin thinks being inside a womans genitals is ownership, possession: "deeper, more intimate, than any other kind of possession". To her having sex and being owned are inseparately the same, they are sex for women under male domination as a social system. A womans insides, her sex, become part of the males domain and, he can thus possess her as an individual — be her lord and master. Andrea Dworkin even declares that to most men most women are not considered private, distinct individuals. Then strangely Dworkin goes on to claim that females have to learn to respond to male touch, as sex, as love! But this ability to even feel sexual pleasure is learned, she says, within the narrow confines of male sexual domination.112
All women know, says Ms. Dworkin, is they are to restrict pleasure to being owned.112 This pleasure will become an erosion of the self and the erosion of her physical reality, according to Ms. Dworkin, as well as a psychological possession and domination. This possession is so severe that it's described as antibeing for the women — her body used, her will raped. Sexual intercourse means the disappearance of the woman as an individual, because the individual is possessed and
"ceases to exist as a discrete individual; is taken over.... Being
owned and being fucked are or have been virtually synonymous experiences in the lives of women. He owns you; he fucks you".
Natural intercourse seems to amount to some notion of trespass to Andrea Dworkin, since she describes intercourse as turning a female's insides into part of a man's domain, over which he asserts a feudal dominance. And her "insides are worn away over time, and she, possessed, becomes weak, depleted, usurped in all her mental and physical energies and capacities by the one who has taken her over". To Dworkin this amounts to the stunning logic of male supremacy. Sticking things into others is bad, bad, bad! Or penis envy is now for real? Will Andreas lack of personal fulfillment be analysed as a repressed sexual desire, and will this be said to be stimulating her anger?
Men as Beasts. To this feminist icon, Andrea Dworkin, whose writings are now being taught to millions and millions of teenagers and university women, men are the beasts, the users and conscious abusers. Men she degrades as unmotivated, even by beauty, quoting Lenny Bruce: "You put guys on a desert island and they'll do it to the mud".
The way Dworkin pictures the male sex drive, full of neurosis, hysterics and reactive inferiority brings a view of the male sex drive as something akin to the insurance of neurotic collective guilt. She perceives males as the cause of society's self-destructive behavior and helplessness. Dworkin, along with Pipher, Gilligan, Faludi, Wolf and Steinem, and their numerous gender feminist followers are responsible for many women forsaking marriage and relationships with men; and for the ever-increasing and wide-open lesbianism that is becoming a symbol of American culture.
Ever listen, men, to Eve Ensler, writer of the Vagina Monologues, talking about the vagina brain, a separate brain where knowledge of the world comes through the body? And the reason the earths in so much trouble is because the vagina intelligence has been damaged. By rape, battery, sexual abuse and terror.
So all you western feminized guys, are you now alerted and with chagrin making moves to protect yourselves from this scathing rebuke and insult? You are demeaned as dog-men — dangerous, violent and ignorant abusers of the female. You are scum to be stepped over, ground from society and kicked about — this the message, what it's about. The women have organized, and theyll take all you have got, your job, your kids and your future.
And youll be further taught! That is why Feminist Expo 2000 came! Expo 2000 was to ignite...fighting for woman's empowerment, expanding feminism globally, promoting a gender perspective...and the rights of women, lesbians.... Any clue guys?
Most of you have been raised by females. The first seven years always mold the person, and elementary teachers have always been mainly female, and thus feminism has flushed all around our western society for over 200 years.
Your "truth" came from mommy and from teachers
And have you bought in, been washed away in their tears?
1 Lionel Tiger, The Decline of Males (New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1999), pp. 200-201.
2 Stuart Miller and Rich Zubaty, "Reuniting Fathers with their Families," Washington Times, December 19, 1995, p. A19. 3 Ibid., p. A19. 4 Ibid., p. A19. 5 Lionel Tiger, The Decline of Males, p. 23. 6 Ibid., p. 166. 7 Miller and Zubaty, "Reuniting Fathers with their Families," p. A19. 8 Susan Faludi, Backlash: the Undeclared War Against American Women (New York: Crown, 1991). 9 James Petersen, The Century of Sex (New York: Grove Press, 1999), p. 442. 10 Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992). 11 Ibid. 12 Naomi Wolf, Fire with Fire: The New Female Power and How it Will Change the 21st Century (London: Chatto & Windus, 1993), p. 14. 13 Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism? (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 136. 14 Arthur Schopenhauer, "On Women." In D.H. Parker, ed., Schopenhauer Selections (New York, Charles Scribner, 1928). 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Immanuel Kant, "Observations on the Beautiful and Sublime." J.T. Goldthwait, ed., (University of California Press, 1960). 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Rev. S. Thelwall, translator, The Writings of Tertullian (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869), vol. 1, chp. 2. 24 Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. Quoted by Arkada Plotnitsky, "The Medusa's Ears: the Quest of Nietzsche, the Question of Gender, and Transformations of Theory." In Peter Burgard, ed., Nietzsche and the Feminine (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), p. 244. 25 Ibid., p. 244. 26 Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. Translated by Helen Zimmern (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1977), p.104. Also: Walter Kaufmann, Basic Writings of Nietzsche (New York: Random House, 1966), 1992 edition, p. 358. 27 C.G. Jung, Aspects of the Feminine (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1982), p. 63. 28 Ibid., p. 64. 29 Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, p. 201. 30 Murray Straus and Richard Gelles, Physical Violence in America (New Bruinswick, NJ: Transaction Publications, 1991). 30a. Journal of the Americn Medical Association, June 22-29, 1984 31 Lenore Walker, The Battered Woman (New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1979). 32 Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, p. 190. 33 Ibid., p. 207. 34 Ibid., p. 12. 35 Ibid., p. 11. 36 Ibid., p. 13. 37 Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 166. 38 Michael Rivero, "Scholarly Articles about Husband Abuse." Jan. 12, 2000 (firstname.lastname@example.org). 39 Hugh Nations, "Some Facts about Rape and Accusations of Rape." Transitions: Journal of Men's Perspectives, November-December 1994 (published by National Coalition of Free Men, PO Box 129, Manhasset, NY 11030). The data in this paragraph all come from Nation's article. 40 Purdue University study, 1994. 41 Ibid. 42 Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, p. 210. 43 Ibid., p. 213 44 Ibid., p. 214 45 American Association of University Women (AAUW), "Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America." (Washington, DC: AAUW Foundation, 1991). 46 Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, p. 141. 47 Christina Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), p. 111. 48 Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, pp. 154-155, 160. Data and quotes in this and the following paragraph. 49 Ibid., p. 161. 50 Mary Pipher, Reviving Ophelia (New York: Ballantine Books, 1995), p. 27. 51 Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, p. 161. 52 Kant, "Observations on the Feeling of the Place of the Beautiful and Sublime." 53 Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys, p. 128. 54 Ibid., p. 137. 55 Tiger, The Decline of Males, p. 248. 56 Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, p.239. 57 Ibid., p. 199. 58 Ibid., p. 191. 59 Ibid., p. 195. 60 See "Domestic Violence" on F.A.C.T. (Fathers Are Capable Too) Canadian web page [www. Fact.on.cal] 61 Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, p. 197. 62 Warren Farrell, Father and Child Reunion (New York: Tarcher Putnam, 2001), p. 104. 63 Ibid., p. 171. 64 Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys, p. 129. 65 Farrell, Father and Child Reunion, pp. 29, 85. 66 Ibid., p. 192. 67 Ibid., p. 174. 68 Ibid., p. 198. 69 Ibid., p. 12. 70 Tiger, The Decline of Males, p. 161. 71 Ibid., p. 161. 72 Ibid., p. 172. 73 Ibid., p. 161. 74 Farrell, Father and Child Reunion, p. 242. 75 Ibid., p. 134. 76 Tasker and Boswell, Ottawa Citizen, February 4, 1999. 77 Farrell, Father and Child Reunion, pp. 10, 259. 78 Ibid., p.10. 79 Ibid., p. 76-77. (Source of facts and quotation in this paragraph and facts in the following paragraph.) 80 Ibid., p. 32-33. (Source of facts in this paragraph.) 81 K.D. Pruett and R. Litzenberger, "Latency of Children Nurtured by Fathers," Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1997. 82 Farrell, Father and Child Reunion, p. 180. 83 Ibid., p. 144. 84 Ibid., p. 100. 85 Ibid., p. 201. 86 Ibid., p. 79. 87 Ibid., p. 200. 88 Ibid., p. 79. 89 Ibid., p. 83. 90 Ibid., p. 78. 91 Ibid., p. 48. 92 Ibid., p. 72. 93 Ibid., p. 106. 94 Ibid., p. 48. 95 Ibid., p. 72. 96 Ibid., p. 61. 97 Ibid., p. 33-37. 98 See "Domestic Violence" on F.A.C.T. (Fathers Are Capable Too) Canadian web page [www. Fact.on.cal] 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid. 101 personal communication. Keith Harris, Dec. 31, 1999 (email@example.com). "Family Homicide: Family Violence in Canada." Statistics Canada, Cat. No. 85-224. 102 personal communication. Keith Harris, Dec. 31, 1999 (firstname.lastname@example.org). 103 Stuart Miller. American Fathers Coalition web page, September 1997. His sources: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports 1994-1995; Murder in Families, Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice, July 1994; Warren Farrell, Myth of Male Power (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), p. 281. 104 Ibid. 105 Murray Straus, Richard Gelles and Suzanne Steinmetz, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, (Garden City, NY: Anchor Doubleday, 1980). 106 M. Brinkerhoff and E. Lupri, "Interspousal Violence," Canadian Journal of Sociology 13, no.4 (1988):407-434. 107 Tiger, The Decline of Males, p. 3. 108 Pipher, Reviving Ophelia, pp. 17-44. 109 Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse (London: Arrow Books, 1987), p.182. 110 Ibid., p. 33 111 Ibid., p. 71. 112 Ibid., pp. 66-67.