|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
Feminist Police State and the demonization of males
 Sun May 29, 2005 4:20 am
|
 |
|
The Dawn of the Feminist Police State
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
August 23, 2003
http://www.savethemales.ca/
In 1931, Clark Gable's acting career took off after he decked Barbara Stanwyck in the movie Night Nurse. He got 10,000 fan letters from breathless females.
Today male and female superheroes routinely slug it out on the big screen but if ordinary men and women so much as shove, they can be arrested for "domestic assault."
Men risk jail, legal bills, and the loss of family, house and job if they so much as argue with a woman.
This is the result of the widespread "zero tolerance" policy which defines domestic assault as any physical contact, no matter how innocuous. The charge is laid by the state even if no harm has been done.
Ostensibly this policy protects women but its real purpose is to emasculate men and persecute heterosexuals. It's another front in the Rockefeller-based elite's campaign to degrade society, destroy family and decrease population by making heterosexuality unworkable.
THE DANGER ZONE
Couples all experience stress, especially if they have children. Now a woman having a tantrum can incarcerate her husband simply by dialling 911. She can hold this threat over his head.
The policy undermines male leadership. A husband called his wife "lazy." A neighbor told her to "teach him a lesson." So she called the police and falsely charged him with slapping her.
"Now she needs help with the children and but we have to live apart," he said. "She is very upset and sorry."
"Women make false charges like crazy," a Legal Aid lawyer said. There is no penalty for doing this.
A male said his common law wife falsely charged him to get him out of the house. From the back of the police car, he saw her standing on the lawn with her boyfriend.
Another man heard the 2 a.m. "knock on the door" after he had broken up with his girlfriend earlier the same night. She charged him with holding her arms (when she was hitting him.) He had a hefty legal bill and risked losing his job.
The majority of these cases are "stayed" after many court appearances because the women won't testify or its his word against hers.
WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER
The policy accustoms people to the interference of police in their personal lives, which is the hallmark of dictatorship.
Having an argument is now a crime. "The walls are thin," one couple said. They were arrested after a neighbour heard voices raised. A witness vouched they didn't touch each other but the cops have no discretion.
People lose respect for the law. "It's supposed to be a free country but it don't seem free any more," a man told me.
The policy is a grotesque boondoggle for police, therapists, prisons, courts and lawyers. It swells the ranks of the bureaucracy which has an economic stake in the elite's new world order.
In Winnipeg where I live, half the 1200-man police force is dedicated to domestic violence. "To me that statistic is staggering," police Chief Jack Ewatski, told the Winnipeg Free Press "It puts a significant stress on our ability to police the city in other areas."
More than half the inmates at the overflowing "Remand Centre" are husbands. Special facilities have been built at a penitentiary to house 200 more "domestics." Most of these men have yet to be convicted of anything.
NINETY PER CENT TRIVIAL
I have interviewed about 65 people charged with domestic assault for my web site, www.zerotolerancesucks.com. Most of these people have limited means. Their fights are usually trivial, harmless and involve alcohol.
I met only one person who fits the profile of a "battered woman." Even she wants the choice of charging her abuser or not. She feels she can handle her situation.
A veteran lawyer who specializes in domestic violence confirmed that only 10% of his clients fit the profile of chronic wife beater.
Most people call the police to help defuse a tense situation only to be arrested, finger printed and jailed. They miss work and lose jobs.
"Sometimes I deserve a smack," one male said. "She gave me one. I pushed her out of the way and left. We're fine. We're a normal couple. We had one rough night. No one was hurt. No one charged anyone."
I do not condone or encourage domestic violence of any kind. But most of these incidents should not involve police. Police should intervene only when someone has been injured or complains. They should be given discretion over whether the complaint is serious.
When two men in a bar get into a fight, there is a mediation process. No charges are laid for a first offence. Why are lovers treated differently?
Finally, I have seen only one same-sex couple (2 lesbians) in 20 courthouse visits although domestic violence is reputed to be fairly common among homosexuals.
WOMEN FAVORED YET ALSO VICTIMIZED
"A lawyer said: "The women call the shots." Police often refuse to accept a man's charge. When a wife bit his husband's finger, the cop told him: "What was your finger doing in her mouth?" Another man was told to "take it like a man."
Yet the system is capricious. Women are often victimized. One mother of four on social assistance slapped her common-law husband when he said he didn't care about the children. He pushed her against a wall and she called police.
They arrested only her. "That's what I get for being honest," she said. "I don't know why I'm being persecuted."
Another woman slapped her boyfriend when he made light that she was pregnant with his child. He called the police and she was arrested. Legal fees: $1200.
Another woman said: "My ex boyfriend called me from jail. He was out in two days and bothering me again. What's the point of calling the police? It's not worth the trouble."
In the crush of trivial cases, women in genuine danger are overlooked. Feminist activists don't care about women who are "sleeping with the enemy." They are using endangered women to advance the elite's Communist lesbian agenda.
A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE
The zero tolerance policy makes a mockery of the principles of justice. A real crime (i.e. injury) must take place before someone is arrested and jailed. There should be a presumption of innocence. There should be evidence and not just one person's word.
Domestic violence was not a problem before feminists and their elite sponsors invented it. It isn't a problem today. For example, according to the 1999 Canadian General Social Survey, only 7% of people married or common law experienced "some type of violence" within the previous five years. These are almost evenly divided between men and women.
The rate of spousal homicide for wives is 7 per million in Canada. In the U.S., the murder rate for wives/girlfriends is between 1 and 4 /1000th of one percent depending on race.
CONCLUSION
Something fundamental has gone awry when half the police force is dedicated to marital spats.
Heterosexuals should wake up and smell the coffee. We have been under sustained attack for over 40 years. It is no accident that the roles of wife and mother have become stigmatized and men have been demonized. It's no accident that, as with people who have a terminal disease, we hear little discussion of our collective future.
Society is victim to an insidious campaign of elite social engineering and political persecution. It's time we told our Lucifer-loving financial elite, "Enough." |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sun May 29, 2005 6:00 am
|
|
|
Feminist man hating quotes..........
Collected Quotes from Feminist Man-Haters
Don't like the term 'feminist man-haters'? Well, read the quotes and come up with your own term, then.
Quotes from Robin Morgan
(current editor of MS magazine)
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
-- Robin Morgan,
From her "The Demon Lover" (NY: Norton & Co., 1989 Morgan doesn't hide her bigotry ):
* p. 138-9: The phallic malady is epidemic and systemic... each individual male in the patriarchy is aware of his relative power in the scheme of things.... He knows that his actions are supported by the twin pillars of the State of man - the brotherhood ritual of political exigency and the brotherhood ritual of a sexual thrill in dominance. As a devotee of Thanatos, he is one with the practitioner of sado-masochistic "play" between "consenting adults," as he is one with the rapist.
* p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony.
* p. 229: Sex to this point in my life has been trivial, at best a gesture of tenderness, at worst a chore. I couldn't understand the furor about it.
* p. 316: Did she die of the disease called "family" or the disease called "rehabilitation", of poverty or drugs or pornography, of economics or sexual slavery or a broken body?
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan, in 1974
...rape is the perfected act of male sexuality in a patriarchal culture-- it is the ultimate metaphor for domination, violence, subjugation, and possession. -- Robin Morgan
"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the $#@#! that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." -- Robin Morgan
"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin color or sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed f@#$% UP by being masters (racism hurts whites, sexual stereotypes are harmful to men) but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power--but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to COST men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers."
-- Robin Morgan
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
- From Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going to Far," 1974.
From Marilyn French
[The quote below is from a novel by Marilyn French. Feminists often say "it is only a quote from a fictional character. Yet this notion is seen throughout feminist so called scholarship. -AG]
"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room"
"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French, in "The Women's Room"
From Andrea Dworkin
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating.
Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love.
Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood
as it is defined by men.
...
Rape, then, is the logical consequence of a system of definitions of what is normative. Rape is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake--it embodies sexuality as the culture defines it."
Andrea Dworkin
"The Rape Atrocity and the Boy Next Door"
Our Blood
Susan Griffin
"And in the spectrum of male bahavior, rape, the perfect combination of sex and violence, is the penultimate (sic) act. Erotic pleasure cannot be separated from culture, and in our culture male eroticism is wedded to power."
Susan Griffin
Rape: The Politics of Consciousness
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
-- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"
Germain Greer
When asked: "You [Greer] were once quoted as saying your idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick. Are you still that way inclined?"
Dr Greer (denying that she said it): "I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damanged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop.
"I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for each ejaculation, most of which don't take place anywhere near an ovum. I don't know that the ecosphere can tolerate it."
- Germaine Greer, at a Hilton Hotel literary lunch, promoting her book "The Change-- Women, Aging and the Menopause". From a newsreport dated 14/11/91.
Other Assorted Quotes
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86)
"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)
"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." -- Sheila Jeffrys
Sharon Stone:
* On David Letterman presenting a top ten list of ways to keep your man.
"Number 10: Regularly beat him on the head with your shoe."
* "The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men."
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. You might think thats too broad. I'm not talking about sending all of you men to jail for that." -- Catherine MacKinnon "A Rally Against Rape" Feminism Unmodified
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. 'The first males were mutants... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.'
MAN: ... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man ...
TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning."' -- from A Feminist Dictionary", ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985
Letter to the Editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate"
"To Proud Feminist, (Herald-Sun, 7 February). Your last paragraph is shocking language from a feminist. You use the entrenched, revolting male stereotypes of women and rationalise your existence by saying you are neither "ugly" nor "manless", as though either of these male-oriented judgments matter.
"Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures.
"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down."
Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia
Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996 |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sun May 29, 2005 6:07 am
|
|
|
Feminist Fascism
**
Feminism As Fascism
http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/feminism.html
As the title of a childhood classic points out, Pigs is Pigs — and this regardless of the shape of their genitals. Ilse Koch was a Nazi, not a “sister.” Love is not hate, war is not peace, freedom is not slavery, and book-burning is not liberatory. Anti-authoritarians who would be revolutionaries confront many difficult questions. First, though, they should answer the easy ones correctly.
All hyperbole and metaphor aside, what passes for “radical feminism” is fascism. It promotes chauvinism, censorship, maternalism, pseudo-anthropology, scapegoating, mystical identification with nature, tricked-up pseudo-pagan religiosity, enforced uniformity of thought and even appearance (in some quarters, Hera help the ectomorphic or “feminine” feminist!). Here is all of the theory and too much of the practice we should all be able to recognize by now. An ominous tactical continuity with classical fascism, also, is the complementarity between private-vigilantist and statist methods of repression. Thus Open Road, the Rolling Stone of anarchism, applauded some anti-porn actions in Vancouver (not as direct action, hence understandable even if misdirected, but rather) because they encouraged lethargic prosecutors to persecute. In post-World War I Italy (the suppression of the IWW in America followed a similar pattern), fascist gangs attacked socialist and trade-union organizations with the tacit approval of the police, who never intervened except against the left. As I once wonderingly asked: “How come these women won’t get in bed with any man except the DA?”
Not that I could care less about the porn-for-profit industry, for its “rights” of free speech or property. That is beside the point, which is: why single out this species of business? To target porn bespeaks planning and priorities, not elemental anticapitalist spontaneity. Those who carry out a calculated policy can’t complain if their reasons are asked for, and questioned.
Fascist ideology always incongruously asserts to its audience, its chosen people, that they are at one and the same time oppressed and superior. The Germans didn’t really lose the First World War — how could they? ex hypothesi they are superior — therefore, they were stabbed in the back. (But how could a superior race let such a situation arise in the first place?) Men (only), we are told in a feminist/Anti-Porn Movement (APM) diatribe in Toronto’s Kick It Over, “have created the nature-destroying and woman-hating culture.” If so, then either women have contributed absolutely nothing to culture, or there is something more or something else to this culture than destroying nature and hating women.
For their own purposes (some of which are as mundane as sexual rivalry with straight men for the women they both desire), self-styled radical feminists actually reduce women to nothing but helpless, cringing near-vegetables, passive victims of male contempt and coercion. This profoundly insults women in a way which the worst patriarchal ideologies — the Jewish notion of woman as a source of pollution, for instance, or the Christian nightmare of woman as temptress and uncontrollable sexual nature-force — fell short of. They defamed woman as evil but could hardly regard her as powerless. The new woman-as-victim stereotype is not only directly traceable to nineteenth century Victorian patriarchal attitudes reducing (bourgeois) women to inert ornaments, but by denying to women the creative power inherent in everyone, it places women’s demands on a par with those advanced for, say, baby seals.
Suppose instead what only the most demented feminists and misogynists deny, that things aren’t quite that bad, that women have been subjects as well as objects of history. Then how can women — or any other subordinated group: workers, blacks, indigenous peoples — be entirely acquitted of all complicity in the arrangements which condemn them to domination? There are reasons for these accommodations. There is no excuse for denying their existence.
This isn’t sour grapes. It has never bothered me that some women dislike men, even to the point of having nothing to do with them. I don’t like most men myself, especially the archetypal “masculine” ones. I can’t help but notice, though, that the vast majority of women feel otherwise. The radical feminists have noticed it too, and it drives them to distraction. I would be the first to agree that vast majorities can be wrong. If they weren’t we would be the fringe loonies, the impotent kooks that almost everyone thinks we are. But then I criticize majorities, I don’t pretend to speak for them. Radical feminists, in contrast, are vanguardists. As such they need to rationalize their animosities, and so they have — making a dick-determinist demonology out of their prejudices. As man-haters they can’t help but be women-haters too.
To equate pornography with rape — beneath the rancorous rhetorical froth, this seems to be the core APM axiom — is presumably intended to make porn seem more serious. And yet, if men call the shots and the system’s built-in tendency (as we’re told) is to denature oppositional initiatives of which the feminists’ is the most revolutionary, then the likely result is rather to make rape seem more trivial. It’s the old story of the woman who cried wolf. (Similarly, the manipulative media line that “anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism” worked wonders to sanitize Israel until its expansionism-cum-exterminism engendered anti-Zionists who just might proceed to take the B’nai B’rith defamationists at face value.)
According to feminoid epistemology, men understand nothing of the real nature of women. One might logically suppose that the estrangement of the sexes resulting from disparate roles and discrimination would work both ways, and so most of us attending to our actual experiences reluctantly conclude. But no: men don’t understand women, but women (at any rate their radical feminist vanguard) understand men. Women — feminist experts, anyway — understand pornography and its meaning for men much better than the men who write and read it — and lesbian-separatists, who avoid men and decline to have sex with them, appreciate these verities best of all. The more remote your experience is from the real life of actual men, the better you understand it. Turning this around, isn’t the Pope, as he claims, the ultimate authority on women and sexuality?
The asserted connection of porn with rape is allegorical, not empirical. As a correlation it compares with the recently revived “reefer madness” marijuana-to-heroin Rake’s (Rapist’s?) Progress line in absurdity no less than in suitability for the state’s purposes. If feminism didn’t exist, conservative politicians would have had to invent it. (Why, pray tell, did all-male legislatures ever criminalize “obscenity” in the first place? And why do all-male courts arbitrarily exclude it from constitutional protection?) APM harpies, should they ever deal with people instead of their own fevered projections, would discover that porn is of no interest to the majority of post-pubescent males — not because they are politically correct, but just because it’s obviously gross, sleazy, and above all, inferior to the real thing.
The feminist book-burners are cowardly opportunists. If what they object to is subliminal socialization of women into subservient roles vis-a-vis men (curiously, adopting the same roles vis-a-vis butch lesbians is harmless fun), their primary, near-preemptive preoccupation would have to be Cosmopolitan, Barbara Courtland romances, and the vast crypto-pornographic pop literature written for and snapped up by women. After all, the gore and violence are derivative: only victims can be victimized in any way. Fifteen years ago, the original women’s liberationists (subsequently switched like changelings with today’s priestesses, lawyers and upscale bureaucrettes) at least lashed out at influential enemies like Hugh Hefner and Andy Warhol. Nowadays they terrorize teenage punk anarchists (this anecdote is from The Match!) whose collages insinuate that Margaret Thatcher for instance is a ruler, the “mother of a thousand dead,” not a “sister.” Such is the logic of this bizarre biological determinism: any animal equipped with a vagina is one of Us, any prick-privileged person is one of Them. One can only echo The Firesign Theatre: “Who am us, anyway?”
Male leftists, for instance, are easy and often willing yes-men to feminist aggrandizement. They combine guilt at past improprieties (by and large, those who feel guilty — toward women, blacks, foreigners, whatever — usually are) with a present ambition to get into the leftist-feminists’ pants. Thus Berkeley, California (to which I am adjacent) is crawling with male “feminists” who converted the easier to get laid. Much the same scam seems to be happening in Toronto and, doubtless, many other places. These ulterior ambitions obviously don’t, in themselves, discredit the ideologies to which they are appended — one can come to the right conclusion for the worst of reasons. But insofar as the opinions at issue certainly seem to be idiotic to anyone without extraneous interest in embracing them, otherwise inexplicable paroxysms by male intellectuals seem to be most plausibly explainable as self-interested insincere rationalizations.
Possibly the ideology I’ve excoriated is something that people had to work through in order to free themselves to the extent necessary to venture upon a project of collective liberation. Already alumnae of feminism have moved on to the common quest for freedom, and some are the better for what they’ve been through. We all have our antecedent embarrassments (Marxism, libertarianism, syndicalism, Objectivism, etc.) to put behind us: had we not thought in ideological terms it’s hard to believe we’d ever get to the point where we could think for ourselves. To be a Trotskyist or a Jesuit is, in itself, to be a believer, that is to say, a chump. And yet a rigorous romp through any system might show the way out of the master-System itself.
Not likely, however, when women critics are ostracised as renegades while male critics are ignored or defamed as a matter of principle. (A precisely parallel mechanism for maintaining a conspiracy of silence is worked by Zionists: Gentile critics are “Anti-Semites,” Jewish critics can only be consumed by “Jewish self-hatred.”) Separatism may be absurd as a social program and riddled with inconsistencies (scarcely any separatists separate from patriarchal society to anything like the extent that, say, survivalists do — and nobody intervenes more to mind other people’s business than separatists). But semi-isolation makes it easier to indoctrinate neophytes and shut out adverse evidence and argument, an insight radical feminists share with Moonies, Hare Krishna, and other cultists. It’s fortunate that their doctrines and subculture as initially encountered are so unappetizing. Indeed, I’ve noticed a graying of radical feminism: as Sixties politics and culture continue to gutter out, less and less women have had the proper pre-soak preparing them for feminist brainwashing. Radical feminists (so called) in their early 20’s are rare, and getting scarcer.
Radical feminism (no point disputing title to the phrase with its present owners), then, is a ludicrous, hate-filled, authoritarian, sexist, dogmatic construct which revolutionaries accord an unmerited legitimacy by taking it seriously at all. It is time to stop matronizing these terrorists of the trivial and hold them responsible for preaching genocidal jive and practicing every evil (even, if the truth be told, rape!) they insist has been inflicted on them (or rather, as it usually turns out, on some other suppositious “sister”: the typical radical feminist has it pretty good). How to thwart femino-fascism? That’s easy: just take feminists at face value and treat them as equals... then hear them howl! The Empress has no clothes... and that’s what I call obscene. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sun May 29, 2005 6:37 am
|
|
|
Hate Bounces
How man hating and man bashing harms women:
The making of a misogynist
Misogynists are not born they are made.
Once, a long time ago when the world was young, I loved women with all my heart and soul. I grew up among strong competent women who understood that all living things need to be taken care of and will flourish if that happens. The men I grew up with knew that as well. Everyone knew that people must live and work together and find ways to cooperate and just deal with the inevitable differences that arise and keep them in perspective. They knew that people are not perfect, but that most of them try to be as good as they can manage. They took the measure of a person in wholeness, and if there was more good than bad to a person, they accepted that person's faults as being part of the package which was still valuable, if a bit flawed. After all, nobody really is perfect. We all knew that.
Then, something happened. And that something was called feminism. I remember the early days of the movement when it was called "Women's Liberation" which was a high sounding and noble cause in a country which is founded on a document which cites liberty as one of 3 inalienable rights that every person has. No one with a sense of fairness and an understanding of civics could be against women being liberated and treated fairly. And, there was also the promise that some of the ways men were being treated unfairly would change along with it.
And, as the old joke goes: if you believe that one, then I have some lakefront property in the Mojave Desert I'd like to talk to you about.
I learned very quickly that feminism wasn't about liberating PEOPLE from their previously too restrictive roles which were assigned to them based on the plumbing they displayed at birth, but rather was founded on a number of absolute falsehoods which had nothing to do with freedom, equality, or fairness. The fundamental premise that men had MORE power, not just a different kind of power and in a different area of society as a whole, but MORE power in a complete and absolute sense was something that I vehemently disagreed with. I could come up with thousands of examples of circumstances in which women had more power than men did. And in every example they gave of where men did have any power, I could easily point out the uneven distribution of power among men, and how a few men at the top of the wealth/influence pyramid had a lot of power, but that the vast majority of men had very little.
The strangest thing was that most of the situations in which I was being told I had or was exercising "power" seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. When I was a college freshman, one day I was walking across campus toward the student union. I reached the door about a half step ahead of a female student so, as I had been brought up to do, I hastened my last couple of steps and held the door open for her. Instead of the smile and nod that I had been used to in response to such simple acts of social courtesy, she flew into a rage and started screaming at me about how what a male chauvinist PIG I was, that she was perfectly capable of opening that door for herself and didn't need any g-- damned MAN to do it for her, and kicked me in the knee.
"Shock" is a totally inadequate word to describe my response.
I was at a loss to understand any of her reaction. She couldn't have been any more totally, completely, and absolutely wrong about my motivations and purposes. I instantly assigned her to the categories of "mentally defective", "hate filled", and female. Over the next several years, a lot of women joined her company.
A couple of years later, a woman that I was dating described her feminist "consciousness raising" group as consisting of "perfectly satisfying man hating sessions." Again, I was bewildered. I asked why she found hating me(n) so "perfectly satisfying". I don't remember the answer she gave, but she soon proved to me just how true that statement was of her. Like the knee-kicker in response to having a door opened, it seemed that anything and everything I did was proof that I deserved her hatred and rancor. At least 10 years later, she called me out of the blue to apologize. She said she realized that she had just gotten swept up in a group consciousness of hatred and had finally realized what had happened and that I had not deserved the bile she had spewed on me.
It was, I suppose, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but it was too little and too late. Because, by then I had encountered so many other women who acted in pretty much the same way that it had simply become part of my view of what women were. Somewhere, deep down inside, either hidden or proudly displayed, women hated men. Women came in a variety of sizes and shapes, most had breasts and female genitals, but they all seemed to come with a hatred and fundamental contempt for men. One woman I dated while Jimmy Carter was still president, spoke of "my hatred of men" in the same mattter-of-fact tone that she might say "my nose". It was just an integral part of her.
Needless to say, this presented me with a significant paradox and source of internal conflict. Being a healthy heterosexual male, I had the natural and universal desire that men have to have a love relationship with a woman. But, how is it possible to love someone that returns hate for that love?
So, over time I began to develop a wary distrustful posture toward women. I still dated them, but I had become so conditioned to expect hatred from them that I simply accepted it as part of the price I had to pay in order to be involved with one. My desire for a relationship was still strong, but was opposed by a distrust and unwillingness to let someone who hated me get the upper hand over me. Thus, in my mind the concept of "commitment" became one and the same as "trapped in a relationship with someone who hates me." I was indeed one of those men who "wouldn't make a commitment."
The worst part of this, for me, is that it blinded me to the warning signals of some truly sick personalities. The hostility which I had become accustomed to enduring from women became only a matter of degree - greater or lesser. And, with a baseline of being kicked in the knee for the courtesy of opening a door, and learning how "satisfying" man hating is to some women, I had no yardstick to sort out the seriously sick and deranged women from any of the rest. As a result, I ended up in some relationships that were truly horrible and very damaging to me. And, of course, each of these left scars which over time built up so much emotional scar tissue that I began to lose all the positive feelings I once had for women.
That is the personal side. And, I won't bore you with the details of all the stories. But, there eventually got to be so many that I developed the attitude that the question was not "whether" a woman would burn me if let her get close enough to do so, but "when" and "how soon" it would happen.
On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started becoming the target of violent physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks by women collectively - just for being a man.
I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I knew knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing s!@# in my face, it was going to be a s!@# storm.
Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men - no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful, no matter how unfair - and that was fine, but every time I stood up to that and said "no, that is wrong, there is another point of view" I'd get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to keep women "in their place", was probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally boring by the shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks.
There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times in order for it to become binding and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more than 3 times to become true, more like 300+, but in time it did become true.
I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or any man, was to see how much they could get from the man - then when he had nothing left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with yesterday's garbage. In short - as nothing but users. Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early 1990s called "Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s." Among many other astute observations in the book was that nothing was more classically typical of the state of male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about every aspect of men, then couldn't figure out why she couldn't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded that such women were simply not very bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid that they didn't realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and hatred with anything except return animosity.
I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and put up with the bashing and would always challenge it, which ended me up in a lot of fights and added greatly the count of times that I got called "misogynist." I noticed that women seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends over and over until they learned not to do it in my presence.
And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which had been building in me over it - when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship and had been trying to harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said "I don't know why you are making such a big deal about it", I caved in and began to really hate women.
Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and for women is to keep the contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as much distance between them and myself as possible. It is rather like hanging a sign on a fence that says "Beware of VERY bad dog." Stay outside the fence, and everything is fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone.
Misogynists are not born, they are made.
I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of hatred and man bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into "love" for women and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women, simply regard it with indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out and go elsewhere.
When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethic bashing joke - "What does a ______ say instead of 'f*** you'?" answer "Trust Me."
I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old enough to have escaped being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same conditions. If I pass a woman stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will be afraid of me. That's fine. She's a fish without a bicycle - I have no place in her world, nor her in mine.
Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back - eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their men.
Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who loved women and thought they were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man who can't stand them, or anything about them.
I'm sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, I'm sick and tired of their victim games, I'm sick and tired of hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which they seem to hold me and all other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out to piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have ever known, some woman felt the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men don't ask for directions.
How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to talk, it was always with something like "Your uncle was a fine man", not "aren't men headstrong and stupid?"
Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue with me and say something like "get over it", or "why don't you take the gender out of it?" In return I ask, "why the hell don't you women get over it, and take the gender out of it?"
I would like nothing better than to be left in peace, and allow women to enjoy the absence of my company which they find so annoying and unpleasant. Every day, a few more men got through the transformation and become like me. We don't get our guns and shoot a few women; we don't beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all these years is just flat wrong. But, there's no point in trying to tell women that because they have become so certain of their superiority that the best way to deal with them is to leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sun May 29, 2005 6:42 am
|
|
|
What To Do When The Man-Bashing Starts
Six Important Rules
by Lou Owen
(from www.menweb.org)
What To Do When The Man-Bashing Starts
As extremist feminists become more boldly and openly anti-male in their attitudes, more and more men are encountering blatant man-bashing at work and in their social lives.
It's a recurring question among men: what do you do when the man-bashing starts? Some men say you should just ignore it -- take it like a man. But that might just be the worst thing you can do -- and it might just let the anti-male attitudes become so strong and entrenched that you will have to face it sooner or later. If it's "later," it might be too late.
Sociologists have studied group dynamics to see what happens when one person begins denigrating another person who is absent. It often happens that the denigration will escalate and others will join in if no one objects to it.
But if just one person speaks up -- even with a mild disagreement or a question -- then the denigration is often sidetracked. The first denigrating comment is sort of a test to see how others will react. If no one objects, then others feel free to join in the attack. If it goes on long enough, the denigrating comments become the accepted norm.
Let's say a group of coworkers start discussing Joe, who is not there. One person blames Joe for messing up a project. Everyone either nods or remains silent. The speaker then goes on to criticize Joe's handling of other assignments, getting in a few digs about his personality. It's now established that attacking Joe is not going to be met with much resistance. So someone else joins in. The attack gets reinforced, and it's obvious from the group dynamics that attacking Joe is acceptable. If this goes on long enough, attacking Joe will become the norm. In fact, people might actually feel obligated to attack Joe if they want to feel like they belong to the group.
Now let's back up to the point where the person first blamed Joe for messing up the project. Sociologists note that if just one person says something like "Maybe Joe wasn't given enough time to finish that job," the criticism might be largely defused. Often the attack will go no further -- unless someone really has a vendetta against Joe.
Many feminists are coming from environments where the criticism of men was rampant, acceptable, and expected. Feminists originally had many legitimate grievances. But they were aired in an atmosphere without any restraints on the extent that men could be bashed, blamed, denigrated, stereotyped, and hated. Bashing men became the norm. Men are like the "Joe" character. If people in the feminists' movement had regularly spoken up with statement like "I don't think we should blame men for everything, including our own choices," the man-bashing might have been muted. But instead, most feminists took the easy way out. They sat silently as the extremists bashed men, so man-bashing became the norm. If they spoke out against man-bashing, it was usually because they though man-bashing was hurting feminism's image.
Once man-bashing became the norm, we saw the next phase: many feminists felt obligated to join in the bashing just to feel like they belonged to the group. It's at this stage that we see, for example, women who invent false rape accusations so that they can feel part of the "Take Back The Night" movement.
All in all, feminist "consciousness-raising" often consists of reducing men to stereotypes. Such feminists look on men with open hostility, and still think they are being "moral" for doing so. We can't do much about the professional haters like the National Organization for Women. But what should you do when feminists start bashing men in the work place? It's a tough question, but every man has to be prepared with a plan. Otherwise you are at the mercy of a movement not noted for its mercifulness. So here are Six Rules we urge you to keep in mind.
The first two are:
I. Don't overreact.
II. Don't get angry.
Remember, women today are often consider a "protected minority" in many work places. A woman might be able to get away with calling you a "prick" or a "dickhead," but you might well be fired for replying with a similar anatomical reference. That happened in a recent case at the Miller Brewing Co., where one woman worker used gutter language to describe the male anatomy. However, when a male coworker made an oblique reference to the word "clitoris," she complained about him and he was fired. (The good news is that the man sued the company and the woman, and won. Still, losing your job is a tough way to prove a point, and most men don't have the liberty of doing this.)
The next rule:
III. Judge how serious (and how feminist) the anti-male attitude is.
If the comments involve a woman's minor irritations or good-humored grievances against men, don't let it bother you. Women will always complain about men leaving the lid up, and men will always complain about women taking so long to get ready. That's part of the age-old dance.
The comments you have to be concerned about are the ones with a political agenda behind them -- an agenda of discriminating against men. Comments like "all men are potential rapists," or "men hold too much power," or "men have screwed up the world," etc., signal to you that a feminist thinks she is morally and intellectually superior to you, or that she thinks she is "oppressed" and deserving special perks and programs at your expense.
When you see that the comments have a seriously anti-male agenda behind them, you have to be aware of the "Joe process." Remember, the first comment is sort of a test to see if the speaker can get away with bashing men. If she gets away with it, it tells her that anti-male attitudes are acceptable. Once it is established that anti-male attitudes are acceptable, they will only get bolder, uglier, and more filled with hate. We've seen how that happens in modern feminism's slide from a supposedly egalitarian movement down into stereotype-slinging, discrimination-advocating demagoguery. Anti-male attitudes are like rust. You can't hope that it's just going to get better if you ignore it.
So how do you respond? That's Rule Four:
IV. Make a calm response pointing out that anti-male attitudes are not good for the work place.
When the feminist says "Why do men think they can just go on raping the whole planet?" say to her "Stereotypes really don't help any of us get along," or "most anti-male attitudes tend to be counter-productive." Make your reply a general statement rather than a personal attack. Stress the good of the work place.
She might reply, "That's not an anti-male attitude." (Feminists do not readily admit to holding any stereotypes or anti-male attitudes.) If so, don't argue with her. Just say "Okay, I just felt that bashing any group at all doesn't help us here."
If she's spreading feminist propaganda, you don't have to debate her. Your goal is not to win an argument. Your goal it to send the message that anti-male attitudes are not going to be condoned or be met with passive acceptance. Don't be hostile, just let her know it's disruptive. You could say: "I don't think that's true. Anyway, men and women should work together, and statements like that won't help achieve that."
So Rule Five is:
V. Do not argue or debate with them.
The work place is not a debating society, and you are not going to change their cherished opinions in what little time you have. If you argue with them, you might get a reputation as being argumentative. Moreover, they might just be probing you for any statement or opinion they can take out of context or use as a weapon against you.
Do not try to appeal to the conscience of a feminist who is engaging in bigoted or demeaning behavior. If she had a conscience, she would already know these things are wrong.
You might encounter a male who is willing to condone or support anti-male attitudes. This is common in men who are women-pleasers and those who are ashamed of being male. You're not going to talk them out of their self-loathing, so don't try. But when they defend the man-bashing by saying "I wasn't offended by that remark," tell them "Let's be aware that others might be." Tell him that whether people are right or wrong about feeling offended, it's not beneficial to job performance when people feel like they're being denigrated.
Keep the goal in mind: you're not going to settle all the controversies over feminism or vanquish their arguments. You're just making sure her anti-male hatreds do not find a "safe and nurturing environment."
Remember to object to the statement rather than attack the speaker -- especially if the work place considers her a "protected minority." You can talk about anti-male attitudes, just don't call her a man-hater (even if she is.)
If you do these things well, you might even gain a reputation for good managerial skills -- someone able to defuse a difficult situation. Most people don't really like the man-hating attitudes of modern feminism. A lot of people are glad when someone sidetracks the disruptive anti-male bigot before they work up a real head of steam. You will find many people who are glad you spoke up, and they might start speaking up themselves. The situation could turn completely around from the anti-male attitude the feminist wished to create.
There will be times when nothing you say or do will be able to stem the tide of anti-male hatred in the work place. Many bureaucracies will side with a feminist no matter how abusive or disruptive she becomes -- they will protect her no matter what she does. You have to pick your battles. If you think you can set a tone in which anti-male attitudes are discouraged, then go for it. But if the feminists are already free to practice anti-male hatred with impunity, then the situation has probably already gone too far.
If that's the case, document everything. Get a notebook or set up a floppy disk you know you can keep confidential. Then whenever you experience man-bashing, write it down. Make sure that you describe the statement or action and record the speaker, the time, the date the place and anything you think is relevant. Do this religiously, whether the man-bashing occurs every day or once every six months. This is very important. In court cases, judges and juries are very respectful of documentation. When you have the anti-male actions written down, with dates and names all noted, it builds your credibility immensely. And it shows that the situation was serious enough that you felt that you had to document what was going on.
It is all the more important to do this because the news media is today so biased in favor of feminists. They run with microphones at the ready when feminists cry sexism in the work place, but they tend not to be so interested when it's feminists practicing the sexism. The news media will do the documenting for the feminists. You need to protect yourself by doing your own documentation.
And finally, never, ever, underestimate an extremist feminist's capacity and desire for revenge. There are feminists who believe that you have committed an offense simply by disagreeing with them. They are right, and if you disagree with them, you are an oppressor determined to keep women down. It does not matter if you are merely saying that you do not want to be discriminated against. In their minds, this translates to "He wants to keep women down and preserve all the male privileges of the patriarchy." (Anyone who has objected to anti-male discrimination during a Usenet discussion is familiar with this reaction.) Well, feminists who react like that are not merely on the Usenet. They are out there in the real world. They are coworkers and supervisors, they are politicians and bureaucrats and reporters. When they've decided that you are the oppressor-scum, any low blow they can aim at you will seem justified in their minds.
So when you are objecting to man-bashing, you have to watch your back. Be aware of who you are talking to. Keep your ears open for the grapevine. Many extremist feminists will practice character assassination as a way of punishing you for the sin of disagreeing with them.
So you already know that Rule Six is:
VI. Document everything.
Document, document, document. It will help protect you if any feminist decides to launch a smear campaign because you objected to man-bashing. Your documentation will help catch them in any inconsistencies they might have, and it will expose their anti-male attitudes and also point out their motive for attacking you. But more than that, by documenting anti-male biases, you are doing more than protecting yourself. You are writing the history that politically correct academia will not yet write. Someday -- perhaps not today, but someday -- the wider audience is going to finally be told the full story of extremist, hate-mongering feminists and the McCarthyesque tactics they use.
Most of all, make sure that your story is documented for the day when society is finally ready to take an honest look at the bigotry that has been hiding beneath the mask of gender equality. So remember what to do when the man-bashing starts:
1. Don't overreact.
2. Don't get angry.
3. Judge how serious (and how feminist) the anti-male attitude is.
4. Make a calm response pointing out that anti-male attitudes are not good for the work place.
5. Do not argue or debate with them
6. And most important, document everything. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sun May 29, 2005 1:02 pm
|
|
|
Henry Makow is a bonified nut case, and therefore anything coming out of his mouth is suspect.
The only thing I agree with him on is the NWO, though not in the same " Satanic Forces" are controlling everything.
This is a guy that thinks The Beatles were CIA agents, and the 60s was a "communist plot"
Makow also does not acknowledge all the wife beating that happens every year after the Super Bowl. He wants society to "return" to men being in charge.
Makow is a Disinfo provider. He agrees with Rush Limbaugh more than a Michael Parenti overall.
Makow does harm to "men's rights" movements, IMO.
The other authors make some good points, but again, it is based on Femiphobia.
I 100% support womyn being equal to males, because they are.
80% of vegetarians are females. Females live an average of 10 years longer.
History shows males have done a pretty rotten job so far of "running the world".
On the other hand, there are womyn who do hates males for no other reason, as there are males who dislike womyn for no apparent reason.
IMO, cloning will eventually balance the equation.
It all comes dowm to seeing people as individuals.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sun May 29, 2005 5:06 pm
|
|
|
I don't agree with everything that Makow says. He makes some
good points.
We DO live in a MAN-BASHING culture.
Radical feminists DO push HATRED of males.
The articles above merely point out THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN.
The CONSEQUENSES of radical feminism. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sun May 29, 2005 11:49 pm
|
|
|
I don't have issues with womyn.
I don't compete with them, and both my parents were of equal strength of character.
Feminism WAS NOT born from the CIA, like Makow deludes to.
It was born from a reaction to a male-dominated society, one in which we are rapidly de-volving back to.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon May 30, 2005 12:14 am
|
|
|
I disagree...
The future belongs to women..and men are going to be demonized even further.
And, YES it IS part of the NWO agenda.
Here is just ONE example about how much more people are concerned about womens rights than mens.
I did a google search on the following....
WOMENS RIGHTS........2,730,000 HITS
MENS RIGHTS..................37,000 HITS
CHILDREN RIGHTS.............713,000 HITS
GAY RIGHTS..................2,540,000 HITS
To me..that says it all.
Its fine if you disagree.
Men are in big trouble...period.
It doesnt matter if you have issues with women or not. It will effect you. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Mon May 30, 2005 2:34 am
|
|
|
Nope! 34 years married to the same person, AND I work with many female engineers gives me some voice in this. I just don't see some NWO fired plot with this.
So the Suffrage movement should not have happened in the 20s, because womyn wanted the vote?
We are not at the point where men and womyn are equal. Look at pay grades for the EXACT same work. Men get paid 20% more. When that equalizes, then there will be no "woman's rights" movement.
Macho, hetero-sexual men are the main perpetrators behind Gay bashing, wife beating AND WAR, NOT females.
It seems the only ones worried about this far fetched idea are people who have issues with womyn having power, such as dinosaurs like Makow, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, and GW Bush. Womyn power is as challenging to Judeo-Christian imprints as the orbiting solar system was to Inquisitors. They believe womyn should be barefoot and pregnant.
Any coincidence that most of the Pagans burned at the stake were womyn? Couldn't have challenges to the power structure.
IMO, men and womyn should open the doors for each other.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon May 30, 2005 3:15 am
|
|
|
I disagree.
I see the polarization first hand.
And its getting worse and worse.
As for me...I ve been dragged around the bend by numerous females
and they had no qualms in doing so.
Not everyone sees things the way you do..and very few men and women
stay together anymore.
I forsee these numbers..already skyrocketing to get even higher.
Again...all part of the plan.
Destroy the nuclear family...compartmentalize everyone. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon May 30, 2005 4:53 am
|
|
|
.."Macho, hetero-sexual men are the main perpetrators behind Gay bashing, wife beating AND WAR, NOT females."
Yeah...and mostly MEN...face front line combat and die in those wars. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon May 30, 2005 5:16 am
|
|
|
Equal Pay – Are Females Being Discriminated Against?
Warren Farrell
Over the last 45 years, feminists have stated that females paid less than males in the workforce. Intensive scientific research involving mathematics proves that the feminist accusation is indeed fallacious and untrue. The following is a detailed report which explains why the feminist theory is fallacious and unsubstantiated:
* Equal Pay Laws Are In Existence
* Feminist Statistics Are Fraudulent, Unsubstantiated and Not Scientifically Proven
Equal Pay Law Act
Equal Pay Law Acts were introduced as early as 1963. These law acts introduced due to a lot of debates initiated after feminists claimed female employees were being paid less than male employees. Other Equal Pay Law Acts have been passed via legislation since 1963. Since 1963 various other Equal Pay Law Acts have been passed via legislation and there are agencies that focus on ensuring that any employer who violates this Law Act is prosecuted.
Feminist Statistics Are Fraudulent, Unsubstantiated and Not Scientifically Proven
The method that feminists use to collect their data compares employees from different industries which means:
* The employees from the differing industries have different qualifications and are performing different work, and working different hours, therefore they are NOT performing the same work therefore their pay cannot be compared to each other.
Equal Pay issues can only exist if 2 employees within the same industry and same rank who work the same hours are paid differently to each other. It’s impossible to compare 2 employees from different industries and claim one is being discriminated against on a financial level.
Male vs Female: Comparison of Pay Between The Sexes
When comparing male and female employees who work in the same field, they tend to females on average can earn slightly more at times. However, females choose to work in the fields that are less hazardous, less physically demanding, and have a lesser rate of working hours.
As a result this has a huge impact on the raw average that females and males earn overall. A person who works 44 hours a week will earn nearly twice as much as a person who works 34 hours per week. Males on average work 3 hours more than females per week. This alone is responsible for 70% of the wage gap. Males also dominate 24 of the top 25 most hazardous and dangerous industries, which is why 93% of employees who die working happen to be males.
These industries tend to pay high wages to attract employees as they are dangerous and will deteriorate the physical health of an employee. This is another reason why in the Western world males tend to live on average around 5-7 years less than females. Compare that to central Africa, where the females perform the vast majority of the physical work and as a result the males tend to live a few years longer than the females.
The engineering and computer science fields which require qualification in physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics are dominated by males. These fields are among the highest paying fields in the workforce. To gain promotion in such a field, an employee must remain with the company for a long period and work long hours. Males on average work more hours per week than females, and females tend to exit the workforce during their 30’s so they can have a family. Therefore females do not obtain any where as much experience and qualification as males do which is why males tend to get the promotions.
There are over 90 fields in which females earn more than males with of those 35 large fields being. In fact in the 35 large fields were females earn more than males, the females earn more than on average 5% more than the males. Females who work part-time tend to earn 110% of what males who work part-time earn. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Mon May 30, 2005 1:22 pm
|
|
|
First off, WARS are created by Males, so as you reap so you'll sow, as the saying goes.
second, that "equal pay" article is Far Right propaganda! These are the same people who demonize environmentalists, gays, labor unions, and animal rights activists. BAD FOR BUSINESS in other words.
There are as many females as males in enginnering at my company, and they are mostly Indian and Chinese. The author is another Rush Limbaugh "fact finder" as I can see.
Males get paid higher for the same job...end of story!
As far as womyn doing that to you, we're sorry to see that happen.
Men are as responsible as womyn in the ongoing " Sex Wars"
Maybe Mrshall McCuhan, David Bowie, and Tim Leary were right about androgynous vegetarians being the first people to colonize space en masse
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood!
Last edited by Swamp Gas on Mon May 30, 2005 3:54 pm; edited 3 times in total |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Mon May 30, 2005 1:34 pm
|
|
|
Big pay gap between men, women persists
Monday, September 06, 2004
By Jim McKay, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The persistent gap between what men and women earn has been narrowing over the years, but the progress women have seen in their paychecks is too small and has come too slowly for Heather Arnet.
"We are part of a systematic problem,'' said Arnet, executive director of the Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania, a new organization that promotes equal opportunity for women and girls in 11 counties around Pittsburgh.
Although exaggerating somewhat to make her point, Arnet said at the current rate of change, it will take women another five decades to achieve pay parity with men. "It's not at all comforting to think that if we leave well enough alone, I'll make a dollar 50 years from now for every dollar my husband makes," said Arnet, whose husband, David Shumway, is an English professor at Carnegie Mellon University.
Female workers in Pennsylvania last year earned 80 cents for every dollar their male counterparts made, up from 71 cents in 1989 and 61 cents in 1979, according to a new study released yesterday by the Keystone Research Center, a labor-backed Harrisburg-based think tank.
Part of the reason for the gap's narrowing is that the median wage has fallen for men, who in general were hurt more than women by the last recession, which hit manufacturing particularly hard. But women's wages in Pennsylvania also have grown more rapidly than men's over the longer term: the median hourly wage of men in the state fell by nearly 5 percent from 1979 to 2003 as measured in 2003 dollars, while women's wages rose by nearly 25 percent the same period, the Keystone study said. The median hourly wage for men last year was $15.21, vs. $12.16 for women.
The state last year bucked the national trend, which saw the gap between what men and women earn widen a bit after declining for several years, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Women last year made about 75 cents for every dollar a man made, down from almost 77 cents in 2002. Twenty years ago, women made nearly 64 cents for every dollar earned by a man.
Data is not as fresh for the Pittsburgh region, but what numbers are available from the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Social and Urban Research paint a bleaker picture than the state and national averages.
Using data from the 2000 census, Pitt found that full-time women workers in the six-county Pittsburgh metropolitan region earned less than 70 percent of the annual earnings of full-time male workers. The 30 percent earnings gap is the seventh-largest among the nation's 50 most populated metropolitan areas, it said.
The same Pitt study found that the median earnings of part-time women workers in the Pittsburgh area are the lowest among all large urban areas in the United States -- about 20 percent below the median of the 50 largest metropolitan areas.
There are many factors that can help explain the differences between what men and women earn, including education, job training and work force experience. Women and men also tend to work in different occupations and industries, and to join unions at different rates, according to the Institute for Women's Policy Research.
"A lot of it has to do with the fact that men and women still work in different jobs and the jobs women traditionally work in pay less than the jobs men traditionally work in,'' said Vicky Lovell, who has studied the issue for the institute. "There is still a cultural devaluation of work we think of as being women's work."
Women remain grossly underrepresented in higher paying occupations such as jobs in science, engineering and mathematics, as well as in top business and civic positions -- a fact that bothers Arnet and other activists in women's issues.
Arnet said the release of the Pitt study earlier this year has galvanized women and made them take notice of the region's relatively poor performance in promoting women to positions of influence. "We are all aware of the problem ... from the women you run into on the street with kids waiting for the bus to women at the executive level in corporate Pittsburgh," Arnet said.
David Borrebach, a senior compensation consultant with Mercer Human Resource Consulting, said most large companies in Pittsburgh try to make sure their compensation programs provide equal treatment for people doing similar work -- if only to avoid government sanctions or poor publicity in the media.
"Most organizations, most smart organizations, aren't going to rate men and women differently in the same organization with the same job,'' Borrebach said. "They'll get clobbered with a big stick if they do that."
There has been an explosion of information available on rates of pay for jobs ever since the introduction of the personal computer. Borrebach said companies determine pay rates by using that information, along with job and skill evaluations. They also consider education requirements, responsibilities, production results and working conditions.
He acknowledged that jobs traditionally filled by women, such as pre-school education, are valued less in the marketplace than other occupations generally performed by men. But he said those jobs typically pay poorly no matter who holds them. "This society doesn't value pre-school,'' he said.
Some professional women argue that employers, recognizing a strict reading of the law precludes overtly paying less for equal work, are more sophisticated in their discrimination. Women, for example, may not be given equal access to clients, assignments and mentors as men. That can limit their ability to develop deep business relationships, gain experience in shaping upper management policies and obtaining levels of responsibility that command power, influence and higher salaries.
In addition, women often aren't bold enough when it comes to asking for raises and employers aren't going to pay them more if they don't have to, said human resources consultant Holly Maurer-Klein, whose Pittsburgh company, HMK Associates, works with smaller employers that typically employ less than 100.
Women, she said, are more likely than men to put their salary history on an application form. They don't talk about money as much as men do and often are so grateful for flexible hours or other family-friendly arrangements that they don't want to rock the boat by asking for more compensation.
Maurer-Klein advises women to research the going pay rates for the work that they do and to be more aggressive in negotiations, both at the start of a new job and later if they're not making as much as their peers.
"You just go in and say I'm a valued contributor and would like to be paid more money,'' Maurer-Klein said. "Women need to learn to do that more effectively."
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 4:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
