Self-Indulgent, Delusional, and Misandrist
Self-Indulgent, Delusional and Misandrist
By James Jackson
February 3, 2015
Karen Straughan made an excellent point in the recent article, "How Some Feminist Shaming Tactics Discredit Feminist Theory."[1] She pointed out that Feminist Theory states that the patriarchy's discrimination against women and misogyny have systematically kept women down in all institutional systems of society. In this theory, this discrimination and misogyny are so pervasive and invisible that they are considered normal. Straughan noticed that reality was opposite the theory. She pointed out that misogyny is immediately noticed and shunned, while misandry and discrimination against men are shrugged off as inconsequential. Women's and feminists' concerns (e.g., sexual assault, women's health, more female representation in government, Title IX, women in STEM) are constantly in the media. Men's concerns are ignored. It appears that a harsh spotlight is immediately trained on misogyny while misandry is ignored. Men are so afraid of being called "misogynists," that the shame of the label will cause them to go to great lengths to avoid any possibility of the appellation. Meanwhile, if women are called "misandrists," if they even know what the word means, the result will most likely be laughter. Discrimination against women is considered criminal while discrimination against men is considered a joke by most people. It appears misandry, not misogyny, is the concept that is so pervasive and invisible that it is considered normal. This lie of feminist theory is consistent with women's narcissism, delusion, and hypocrisy. This lie will be a theme throughout this article which details more examples of women's self-indulgence and delusion.
I am constantly amazed at how often women show their superiority, narcissism, self-indulgence and delusion. And feminists encourage this. Of course, it is not every woman all the time, but certainly it is a lot of women a lot of the time. A major effect of their narcissism is their hypocrisy---they obviously feel that they should be treated differently than men. I gave many examples in the earlier ariticle, "Self-indulgent and Delusional." Here are some more recent examples that I have seen just from everyday observation over the last few months. I am sure everyone can find countless examples of their own.
One of the biggest hypocrisies of feminism is that women can do whatever they want and men cannot. Men are only allowed to do what women allow them to do. An example of this attitude occurred during the 8/29/14 "On Point" (NPR) radio program. The topic of the show was Beyonce---could she really be a good feminist while being so sexual? For the most part, all of the guests and callers said that Beyonce should be able to do whatever she wants even if they disagree with her actions. One guest even said that Beyonce was opening the door to a dialogue. However, the guests' attitude changed when discussing the lyrics offered by Jay Z in one of Beyonce's songs. To them, his lyrics were "appalling" and received scathing criticism. Apparently, Jay Z could not do what he wanted. And he apparently did not open the door to a dialogue. This also points to another example of a common hypocritical attitude by feminists---women are allowed to be sexual, to use their sexual power, i.e., to be sexual objects, but men are not allowed to look at women as sexual objects. So hypocritical. (I refuse to use letters that do not occur on my keyboard, but the diacritic acute mark Beyonce uses over the last e in her name, as well as the fact that she only uses one name, are other indications of her narcissism.)
Another example on this topic occurred when girls at a Devil's Lake, North Dakota high school complained about the school's strict dress code; in particular, the banning of yoga pants.[2] School administrators compared some of the clothes being worn by the girls to those worn by Julia Roberts in the movie Pretty Woman. The girls felt they were being called prostitutes. They also felt the code was duplicitous, since boys were not being criticized. This and other dress code crackdowns on girls caused girls to initiate the twitter account #iammorethanadistraction, where they complained that they should be able to wear what they want, and boys should not think of them as sex objects. One girl even complained of the double standard of the dress codes since boys wearing baggy pants were not being punished. All of the media segments I saw on this subject were sympathetic to the girls. But wow, can these girls be any more self-indulgent and clueless? These are probably the first girls to complain if a boy tells a sexual joke or makes a rude pass. It is the sexual aspect of the clothing that is the problem. If boys cannot be sexual at school, then girls cannot be sexual either. And the complaint that the dress codes are duplicitous is ridiculous---boys aren't wearing yoga pants. And a boy wearing baggy pants is not comparable to a girl wearing yoga pants, since baggy pants are not sexual. These girls are clueless. And the media is contributing to this nonsense.
Something similar happened with the media when Hollaback put out a video of a woman supposedly being sexually harassed while walking through New York City. Of course, the issues discussed were all from a feminist perspective. The 11/03/14 "On Point" radio program was an example. All the guests and all of the callers were women. One of the guests, Anna Holmes, was even from the radical feminist website, Jezebel. Men's perspectives were not presented. Usually the media love to present both sides of issues to promote drama and conflict, but apparently men's perspectives have zero credibility with the media. The lace curtain is censoring men's perspectives. As a result, distorted and ridiculous feminist perspectives went unchallenged, including examples like: sexual harassers include all men from all classes and cultures (feminists must demonize all men even though most abusers are criminals,) the woman was not dressed provocatively (she was,) the harassment is not about sex but power (it is about women flounting their sexual power,) and the catcallers believe all public space belongs to men (does anyone really believe the catcallers want the women to stay home?) Even the most obvious of men's perspectives was missing---that since women refuse to initiate, men are forced to perform this distasteful act, even to the point of being rude and callous. Perhaps if women do not like the way men initiate, women could take on the responsibility and do it themselves. Holmes even said that though she is rarely catcalled, she feels the threat constantly and she must consider it every second she is out in the world. What nonsense. What fear-mongering.
This hypocrisy is made even worse when one considers focus. When a woman is being very sexual in her dress, she is displaying this sexuality to everyone. But when a man responds and initiates, he is being very directional and focused only on her. Even though Marisa is interested in using her sexuality to attract Damon's attention, Fred, and Sam, and John, and every other guy in the vicinity sees it too. And there is no sign on the sexuality which distinguishes that it is for Damon. If Damon responds, all is well. But if Fred responds in exactly the same way, he is guilty of sexual harassment. This situation is so unfair to men. And it could easily be resolved if Marisa would get off her selfish pedestal and ask Damon out without exposing herself to every man in the county. She should save the sexuality for when she is alone with Damon. But most women are too cowardly and self-indulgent to do anything like that.
An actual example of this kind of sexual harassment came to light recently. Hillary Clinton stated that she refused Bill's marriage proposal twice before accepting it. She said, "I have a history with charismatic, attractive men. They just wear me out."[3] By standards being encouraged by today's feminists, this would be considered to be sexual harassment.
On this subject, here is something that should be obvious, but no one seems to be acknowledging. Sexual intercourse is a physical act and requires a certain amount of objectification. Sure, sex has emotional and mental aspects, but I think most people would define it in physical terms. It is objects---hands, and fingers, and mouths and sex organs touching and rubbing and pressing other objects. It is physical. It is physical objects interacting. It is objectification. When a man is fondling his wife's breast, he is not thinking how intelligent his wife is or her gardening skills. Likewise, in the throes of passion the wife is not considering how well he set up their retirement plan or the kids' swing set. They are thinking, if they are thinking at all, about body parts acting against other body parts. Sex is physical. It is objectification. People can compartmentalize. People can temporarily objectify others and still respect the whole person. (Besides, it is not unknown for women to objectify their husbands as financial objects.) So please stop this nonsense, this delusion, that men should never think of women as sex objects, or that women do not want to be sex objects on occasion. Men and women are sex objects to some degree. Sex is objectification. But, of course, there are times and places where sexuality is not appropriate.
The opening of "Law and Order: SVU" states that "In the criminal justice system, sexually-based offenses are considered especially heinous." Why is this? Could it be because of women's narcisism? I suspect that it is, because women value themselves so highly that they demand extra-strong punishments for any crimes against them. This is why there are so many ways that the justice system and the media give women special treatment. Any crimes where women are the primary victims must be considered near murder in seriousness. Even though there is a broad spectrum of sexual assault, from rape and murder to accidentally brushing up against a woman, all situations must be considered as bad as murder. We must even refer to those who have been through such an experience as "survivors." (We do not call men "survivors," even when they survive more dangerous situations. Male soldiers, miners, mugging victims, or gang members are not labeled "survivors." We must exaggerate women's victimhood.) We also have special procedures in the courts just to protect women. For example, we have rape shield laws which do not exist for other crimes. Female victims often get advocates who help them through the legal system. Also, the media do not broadcast names of sexual crime victims, again, unlike other crimes. Even women who are found to be false accusers of rape, usually have their identity protected. (The media also do not name children, and court systems also have advocates for children. Do we consider that women are like children? We often lump them together when using the phrase "women and children." Feminists do not complain of these examples of not treating women as adults.)
Why do women have to hide their sexuality behind health? There are many women's magazines (e.g., Shape, Self, and Health) that supposedly focus on women's health, but it is obvious that they are really focusing on sexual attractiveness. Some more sexually-oriented magazines (e.g., Cosmopolitan, Vogue, and Vanity Fair) also try to hide the sexuality behind good health. Are the readers of these magazines so deluded that they cannot admit the truth behind their interest in reading these magazines?
Of course, make-up is clearly very sexual. That is why we generally do not allow 5-year-old girls to wear it. But women then deny make-up is sexual when they wear it to work. Why is that men cannot tell a sexual joke or make a comment on a woman's appearance at work, but women can wear make-up and wonderbras and sexy dresses to the office? It is so hypocritical. A recent Revlon television ad makes the point. The ad's title is "Love is On." Sentences flashed on the screen include: "Love Starts Here," "Flirtation Is On," "Romance Is On," "Seduction Is On," and "Desire Is On." Clearly, these are all euphemisms for sex, but then women will deny make-up and Revlon products are sexual.
And why is it that women need mirrors taking up one whole wall when they exercise? Why do women doing pilates or aerobics or zumba or yoga need mirrors? Narcissistic women must look at themselves.
Even though men are usually thought of as being chauvinistic, women are even bigger chauvinists. Women's chauvinism showed itself concerning Julia Pierson, the former head of the Secret Service. Due to several Secret Service failings, many were calling for Pierson to be fired. But Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee on MSNBC's "Newsnation" on 10/1/14 defended Pierson. Lee said, instead, that many agents (i.e., men) needed to be fired immediately. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton also defended Pierson during a 9/30 Congressional Hearing by blaming the sequester for the Service's missteps. Defense of Pierson because of her gender was more important to these legislators than whether Pierson was competent and protecting our leaders.
Irrational defense of women also occurred when the CEO for General Motors, Mary Barra, was having difficulties justifying the company's actions during the ignition switch fiasco. More than once I heard the argument that women were often thrown into top leadership positions right before their companies were about to crash, with the implication that this was done intentionally to make women look bad. Women's delusion can be quite extreme.
Women can get quite defensive when defending women. They often immediately play the gender card and cry sexism whenever women are criticized. Women say that they want to be treated just as men are, yet they cannot handle any criticism. For example, Valerie Jarrett was criticized by several reporters for the dismal election results for Democrats in 2014, in which Republicans gained 9 Senate seats and 14 House seats. Donna Brazile immediately jumped to Jarrett's aid, claiming that the attacks on Jarrett were sexist.[4] Similarly, when 74-year-old Nancy Pelosi was asked by reporters when she would retire as minority leader, she cried sexism by asking why Mitch McConnell wasn't asked that question when the Republicans lost the Senate three times in a row. (McConnell was only 70 in 2012, when the Republicans lost only two Senate seats. Besides, I believe the question was not really about Pelosi's age, but her mental sharpness. It appears obvious to me that she is deteriorating.)
It was implied in these defenses that male politicians are never criticized, which, of course, is ridiculous. I did not hear any cries of sexism when President Obama's manhood was questioned by David Brooks (4/20/14 Meet the Press.) Or when Sarah Palin said Arizona governor Jan Brewer had more cojones than President Obama (8/1/10.) Or in 1996, when Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, insulted Fidel Castro's "cojones." Or when David Schuster on March 17, 2009, baited Karl Rove to act "like a man." (More on this topic later.) By the way, Karl Rove's nickname from President Bush was "Turd Blossom." And Governor Chris Christie was recently called a "fat ass" and a "creep" for cheering for the Dallas Cowboys. None of these examples were considered sexist. How can women be so defensive and duplicitous? How can women cry "misogyny" about everything when misandry is the real problem?
This automatic playing of the gender card can be extreme. In a guest editorial in the Oregonian on 11/14/14, middle school teacher Nikki Suydam claimed that attacking underperforming teachers is sexist since most teachers are women. She followed this with the ridiculous comparison that male-dominated professions do not receive such criticism for their failures (doctors do not get blamed for obesity, dentists do not get blamed for tooth decay, engineers do not get blamed for crumbling infrastructure). But of course, these men get blamed for their mistakes---consider how high doctors must pay for malpractice insurance. But her comparison implies that doctors encourage obesity in their patients, or that dentists demand that their patients eat candy all day, or that engineers ignore the laws of physics and that we allow them to get away with such misbehavior. Ridiculous. With logic like this, I wonder if Suydam is one of the underperforming teachers being criticized. She also claims that teachers are not allowed any input into education issues. Absurd.
-----------------------------------------
I mentioned in the original article that it seems like the media only care about women. The media seem to purposely go looking for women to present as victims and/or as superior beings. Here are a few more examples.
In general, 80% of suicides are male. The statistic is even a little higher for people in the 15-24 year-old age group. Yet, men and boys receive little, if any, media attention for suicide. Instead, most of the attention for suicide lately has been devoted to girls who have killed themselves after being bullied. Examples include Rebecca Sedwick, Rehtaeh Parsons, Hailee Lamberth, Cora Delille, Audrie Pott, and Amanda Todd. We only seem to be concerned about women, even though four times as many men kill themselves.
Assisted suicide has also received little attention even though over 750 people have used this method of death in the last few years. However, the media focused on this issue when Brittany Maynard, a young woman, expressed a desire to die before her brain cancer killed her. Young women seem to get much media attention. We sure seem to value them much more than men. Perhaps this is due to women's extreme narcissism which demands that they get all of the attention.
Another brain cancer victim is Lauren Hill whose wish was to play college basketball. Her team's first game was pushed forward two weeks to fulfill her wish and the venue was changed to accommodate the thousands of people who wanted to attend. The opposing team let her score two baskets. It was certainly a touching story, but I doubt that a man would have received similar treatment. He certainly would not have received all the media attention that she received.
The situation is similar for murder victims or missing persons. Males go missing just as often as females and over three-quarters of murder victims are men.[5] Yet, it seems only murdered or missing females get any media attention---particularly pretty white women. The most recent example of this nationally was Hannah Graham. Examples in the recent past are numerous, including Laci Peterson, Elizabeth Smart, Madeleine McCann, Tiffany Tehan, Natalee Holloway, Jennifer Wilbanks, and Audrey Seiler. But males do not count.
When a November snowstorm buried Buffalo, New York, thousands of people were stranded, and at least a dozen people were killed. But who received most of the attention?---the Niagara University women's basketball team, which waited for rescue for 26 hours on a warm bus with a bathroom.
I mentioned in my earlier article that students in a school in Nigeria were killed by Boko Haram. The students were locked in a building which was set on fire. Those students who escaped the building before burning to death were shot and had their throats cut. The media did not stress that these "students" were all boys and that the girls in the school were allowed to go home. One female reporter on NPR's February 26, 2014, "All Things Considered" was even more upset that the girls may miss out on schooling than she was about the boys being slaughtered. Of course, we all saw the media's hypocrisy a few weeks later when the kidnapping of girls by Boko Haram became a media storm. How can feminists claim that misogyny is hidden and normal?
Even when men do receive any media attention, it is not as men. Men receive other labels. A recent example of denying men as men occurred when 43 college students were murdered in Mexico. The media buried the fact that all killed were men. They were referred to as "college students." I had to dig deep into the news coverage to discover that they were all men. I would bet that if they were all women, the media would have stressed this fact. And feminists would have exploited the murders as the victimization of women by the patriarchy. But apparently society does not care about men as men, so the media had to hide the fact that all of the victims were male, hoping that people might assume "students" would include women---thereby increasing the drama and significance of the reporting, as well as our sympathy. Men do not count.
This happened again in December when the Taliban attacked a school in Peshawar, Pakistan and killed 132 students and 9 teachers. This slaughter received much media attention, but I did not see any girls in the coverage. The children killed were just referred to as "students." I became suspicious and dug deeper. Sure enough, the school attacked was a school for boys. I saw absolutely no mention of this in the vast media coverage. The only gender reference that I saw in the coverage was that female teachers were burned to death. Again, it seems a requirement that the media highlight women's victimization and ignore men's. But we do not understand that many more men are murdered for being male, because the media and feminists hide this from us.
Another example occurred during the terrorist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris in which 12 people were killed. The terrorists specifically chose men to kill, but this was not mentioned in most of the media reports, again implying that women may also have been killed. But I am sure that if some of those killed were female, the media would have said something like, "12 journalists were killed, including 5 women." To prove the point, when a police officer was killed in a separate incident nearby, most all of the media pointed out that the police officer was a woman. When four men were killed in a Jewish Deli two days later, the media again tried to hide the men's gender by referring to them as "people" or "shoppers." Why is this? Is it not easier to say "men?" Is it because self-indulgent female producers and editors do not want to show any male victimization? Incidents apparently are much more newsworthy if the victims are high-value, narcissistic women. We just do not care about men. Why do we not consider these hate crimes? Obviously, men are the hidden and pervasive victims. We should focus more on misandry, not misogyny.
(Correction: One of the 12 people killed in the Charlie Hebdo office was a woman. I apologize for the error. However, this does not significantly affect the point I was making: we do not care about men.)
When mentally unbalanced Marc Lepine purposely killed 14 women in Canada, feminists turned it into a media event and an excuse to bash all men as murderous misogynists. They did the same thing for the murderous rampage of mentally unbalanced Elliott Rodger even though he killed more men than women. Seriel killers of women such as Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, Terry Blair, and Kenneth Bianchi also had mental problems. It appears that those who kill women for being women usually have mental problems and go against the prevailing chivalrous attitude of protecting women. But those who kill men for being men are apparently sane. It seems killing women is an aberration, while killing men is "normal."
This over-valueing of self-absorbed women continues into work-related deaths. The October 31, 2014, "20/20" program on ABC, broadcast a segment on a train accident in which second camera assistant Sarah Jones was killed while filming the movie Midnight Rider. The film industry has memorialized her by putting her name on all clapperboards. Even though 6 others were hurt in the accident, only Joyce Gilliard, whose arm was broken, was interviewed extensively in the segment. Two men and two women were charged with manslaughter in the incident, but the segment only focused on director Randall Miller. Even though ninety-three percent of work deaths are male, women get all of the sympathy. Men get the blame.
On the 5/23/19 NBC Nightly News during a segment on increasing a car's gas mileage, a woman advised viewers to keep tires inflated properly. It turns out she is Audra Fortin, who runs the Great Bear Autobody Shop in Flushing, N.Y. I would bet that there are very few women running auto body shops, so it seems unlikely that NBC found her and put in the segment just by chance. It is obvious that NBC went looking for a woman for the segment. But it is worse than this. Fortin is also the founder and CEO of "Women Auto Know," which empowers women in relation to cars and car repairs. Clearly, NBC purposely highlighted a woman in a traditionally male occupation in order to pander to women.
--------------------------
This devaluing of men can also be shown in other ways, such as in the phrase "Be a Man." Women are valued just because they are women. (No one tells a woman to "Be a Woman." I do not even know what that means.) But a man is assumed to be deficient unless he first proves his manhood.
This degradation of men as men can be quite blatant. I saw a recent example on the Disney Channel with the movie Zapped. The movie is based on the book, Boys Are Dogs. In the movie, a teenage girl is upset that all males in her life are totally incompetent asses, even the dog. She downloads an app on her phone that makes her dog obey her commands. Her phone falls into water and she discovers the app now makes all boys and men obey her commands. Needless to say, she uses the phone to make all males behave like females. No one would allow any other group to be so degraded as men are in this movie. And it is a kids' movie from Disney.
Another example occurred on "CBS This Morning" on November 21, when host Gayle King asked all-around-good-guy Tom Hanks to describe the last time that he was a dick. (I am assuming the word was "dick" as it was bleeped.) Gosh, even a guy who avoids the prevalent stereotype of men being asses must respond to a question like this. But he is a guy, so he must be a dick too, just like all men, right? And since when does a morning news show need to bleep one of its interviewers?
Speaking of dicks, why is it that male genitalia are so often degraded and made fun of? On a rare occasion I hear a joke about female parts, but the jokes are constant about men's privates. Late night TV shows (especially "The Late, Late Show") and comedians and sit-coms are constantly making fun of and degrading men's private parts. This phenonemon has even crept into politics where Joni Ernst jokes about castrating pigs and implies that she will do the same in Washington. Jokes like this would not be tolerated about women. And need I remind anyone of the constant ball jokes when the New England Patriot's footballs were found to be under-inflated? This is just one more example of how men are valued so little. But narcissistic women will complain or gasp at any jokes that degrade them.
Another example occurred during Weekend Update of "Saturday Night Live" on January 17, 2014, where it was reported that a woman in China cut off her husband's penis, it was reattached, and she entered the hospital and cut it off again. The joke was that the Chinese are so industrious that we cannot compete with them. I cannot even imagine a national broadcast joking about a man cutting off his wife's breast, twice. There would be riots in the streets. But, again, violence against men is so "normal" that it is funny.
Women can get away with saying things that would ruin a man. A recent example of this occurred on November 19th, again on "CBS This Morning." While covering the announcement of Chris Hemsworth as People Magazine's Sexist Man Alive, Norah O'Donnell mentioned that she would not kick him out of bed for eating crackers. I am sure that if Charlie Rose said something like that about a beautiful woman, he would be in big trouble. Actually, Jeff Glor, who was next to O'Donnell at the time, knew his precarious position, and wisely just smiled and kept quiet.
Another example from "CBS This Morning" occurred on September 15th, during a segment on Dr. Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo, who poisoned an ex-lover's coffee with a chemical used in anti-freeze. When he questioned the strange taste, Gonzalez-Angulo told him that it was just Splenda. After the segment Norah O'Donnell wondered what he had done to prompt her to poison him. So, I guess it was his fault. I guess it is always the guy's fault. O'Donnell's comment was outrageous. And then Gayle King topped off the sexist outrageousness by jokingly asking Charlie Rose if he would like some Splenda in his coffee. Imagine the uproar if the genders had been reversed. But feminists still insist that misogyny is pervasive.
One can see the duplicity by comparing what happened to Eric Bolling of FoxNews when he jokingly asked if a female pilot fighting against ISIS would be considered "boobs on the ground?"[6] He received many angry complaints and was forced to apologize at least twice.
An unarmed black man was shot by a white policeman in Ferguson, Missouri. The racial aspects of the incident have led to many demonstrations and protests. Other similar incidents, as well as harassment by police, have stirred up a great controversy and much media attention. Of course, the racism involved should be addressed. However, gender aspects of these incidents have been completely ignored. The victims of these incidents have been almost exclusively men. But why has the fact that the victims have been men been ignored? When it comes to gender, are we only allowed to examine female victimization?
It is amazing that feminists can turn even this seemingly men's issue into a women's issue. Ismaaiyl Brinsley killed two New York City male police officers apparently in retaliation for the killing in Ferguson. He had an extensive criminal record including robbery, grand larceny, shoplifting, damaging property, obstructing a police officer, and he spent two years in prison for criminal possession of firearms. However, on December 22, Think Progress posted a story titled "The NYPD Shooter Had A History Of Mental Health Issues And Violence Against Women." Yes, the article only focused on Brinsley's violence against women, not any violence against men. This opened the door for the author, Sam P.K. Collins, to also discuss men's violence against women, in general. The author even compared Brinsley to "the cases of Adam Lanza, Elliott Rodger, and others who have carried out acts of violence against women before killing other people."[7] What is Collins talking about? Lanza and Rodger were not involved in any violence against women before their gender-inclusive rampages. Did Collins just make this up? And why ignore Brinsley's violence against men? Because it is normal?
The Senate Intelligence Committee recently released a report on CIA use of torture. I believe that all tortured were male. This proves again how little we value the lives and feelings of men. I do not think the CIA would even consider torturing women.
During his December 19th press conference, President Obama only called on female reporters. He even punctuated the slight against men by saying first that "Josh [Earnest] gave me the list of who’s been naughty and who’s been nice,”[8] before only calling on women, thus implying that all men are naughty. Of course, this blatant sexism was met with high praise in the media. I suppose this is an example of a current catch phrase of feminism: "empowering women." Much about feminism is to get more power for women, as if they have none.
Women often declare their superiority over men. One brag is that women are multi-taskers and get more accomplished. A recent example came from Gwenyth Paltrow who said that "Women in 30 minutes can get more accomplished than men in two hours."[9] Of course, these brags are ridiculous and petty. But here is a petty reply. I have noticed that when it comes to hosting awards' shows, it usually only takes one man, but it often takes two women. Here are recent examples:
Anna Faris and Allison Janney---People's Choice Awards
Stephen Colbert---Kennedy Center Honors
Seth Myers---NFL Honors
Tina Fey and Amy Poehler---Golden Globes
Neil Patrick Harris---Oscars
LL Cool J---Grammys
Michael Strahan—Critics’ Choice
Each woman probably wants the same pay as the man, too. Equal pay for less work.
Another example of this occurred after hackers recently released Sony Corporation emails. Many people were upset when an email revealed that Jennifer Lawrence made less in the movie American Hustle than her male co-stars. They thought Lawrence should have received the same compensation as the men. (The main purpose of the email seemed to be to procure more compensation for the female stars, which may have occurred.) Per the email, Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, and Jeremy Renner made 9 points, while Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Adams made 7 points. Certainly, much went into this employee compensation that I am unable to judge---talent, star power, working relationships, other compensation, audience draw, etc. But, I am certainly able to count the approximate minutes each appeared in meaningful scenes in the movie: Bale--90 minutes, Cooper--66 minutes, Adams--62 minutes, Renner--31 minutes, and Lawrence--22 minutes. (Perhaps words spoken would be a more accurate measure, since Adams was in many scenes but saying little.) If anything, Lawrence was overpaid, even at 7 points. Adams has a better argument than Lawrence. Once again, women are demanding equal pay for less work. (Another question is what was the compensation for Robert DeNiro? He was not even acknowledged in the credits.)
The Sony emails also gave another example of hypocrisy by the women-controlled media. When hackers released nude pictures of several female celebrities, the media generally refused to post them. However, the media had no trouble posting the vast amount of information of the Sony Corporation stolen by hackers (probably from North Korea.) And, of course, one of the biggest attention-getters released was one in which women may have been paid less than men. So, the media was completely inconsistent concerning dealing with hackers, but completely consistent in protecting women.
Certainly there are problems in the National Football League that need to be addressed. But feminists and the media have really gone overboard in criticizing the NFL. The Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson cases show this. The domestic violence rate for NFL players is about half the national rate for men of that age.[10] Also, children are battered at higher rates by their mothers than their fathers. Yet, the media has exploded against men and the NFL concerning these domestic violence cases. I have to believe that this is because most men enjoy football, and some feminists hate men so much that they also hate and attack anything men like. (Additional evidence of this occurred a few years ago when feminists invented and spread the falsehood that men's battering of women increased during the Superbowl.) Hypocritically, female athlete Hope Solo was not similarly punished for domestic violence against her sister and nephew. Also, the media has completely ignored that the Rice/Palmer fight was clearly mutual. Both were arrested for striking each other, and Palmer clearly lunged at Rice just as he slugged her. Also, no one is mentioning that star running back Fred Lane was killed by his abusive wife for the insurance money, or that star quarterback Steve McNair was shot and killed by a jealous girlfriend while napping on the couch. But apparently, only men can be bad. The hypocrisy is deafening.
Here's another example of just how extreme the hypocrisy can get. During the 2015 NFC championship game, nomore.org broadcast an ad called "Speechless" in which several celebrities were too choked up to talk about domestic violence. One of the celebrities presented was singer, Mary J. Blige. She is an ironic choice, since she is a domestic abuser, having punched her husband in the face during a party.[11] Hypocrisy of women knows no bounds.
Football has also received much criticism for concussions in players. Again, men's activities are unfairly being singled out for this criticism. For example, in college sports, women's ice hockey has the highest rate of concussions---0.91 per 1000 athletic exposures. The rate for fall football is only 0.37 while spring football comes in at 0.54. Even women's soccer has a rate of 0.41, while the rate for men's soccer is only 0.28. Even in basketball, women have a higher rate than men (0.22 versus 0.16.)[12] Sure, participation is generally higher in football than other sports, but still, putting all of the blame for concussions on football appears to be selectively sexist.
Australian morning news anchor, Karl Stefanovic, recently wore the same suit on the air for one year. And no one noticed. He was trying to point out the sexism concerning women's appearance. And, of course, that is what the media concluded as well. Stefanovic said, "I'm judged on my interviews, my appalling sense of humor - on how I do my job, basically. Whereas women are quite often judged on what they're wearing or how their hair is."[13] And the media joined in to express the unfairness of the sexism against women. Really? The situation appears to me to be sexism against men. It appears to me that women are getting a pass on their job performance. They can be completely incompetent as long as their hair looks good, while men are expected to actually do the job. It also says to me that men are required to wear a dark-suit uniform. Men are criticized if they vary even slightly from their required uniform. I mentioned in the original article that President Obama was criticized when he wore a tan suit. He was also criticized later for wearing a traditional Chinese outfit when he visited China. Why doesn't the media consider it sexist that men have so few fashion options and that women gain more from their appearance than from their ability?
"Triggering" has become a new fad of feminism. Warning people that something in an article, book, class, or other medium may trigger traumatic feelings is a new phenomenon. It seems to only be used to protect women. Further, triggering has also been used to eliminate from society anything that might be objectionable to women. For example, law schools are eliminating lectures on rape law from criminal coursework for fear of complaints from students.[14] Also, even though confronting your accuser has long been a principle of American jurisprudence, colleges are now keeping accuser and accused apart for fear of discomfort to the accuser.[14] How can feminists claim that misogyny is hidden when we eliminate long-held legal and teaching practices just to protect women and discriminate against men in the process?
The response by feminists to the recent Rolling Stone article concerning the gang rape of Jackie Coakley at a University of Virginia fraternity shows the depth of their delusion and denial. When the article first appeared, feminists and their comrades in the media turned it into another feminist media frenzy. They proclaimed that it was just one more example of the systemic victimization of women by men and the patriarchy. They demanded such things as the ending of fraternities and more legislation to aid women. But it soon became apparent that many details of the rape were false. We also became aware that the author violated many journalistic standards. For example, she did not interview witnesses and the accused at Coakley's request. But, feminists did not back down. There was a continous media barrage trying to explain away the inconsistencies in Coakley's story and demanding we stay on course to aid women. Even after questions about the Rolling Stone article appeared, sororities on campus barred members from attending any fraternity events and even banned members from talking to reporters about it. The truth does not seem to have any effect on some women---they must be victims. This is the second high-profile rape case in the last few years to have fallen apart when examinied more closely (Duke lacrosse team.) And there is also some doubt about the validity of Lena Dunham's rape accusation. Yet feminists insist that false accusations of rape are so rare (2%) that they can be ignored. So delusional.
A similar situation appears to have occurred with Somaly Mam, an activist fighting against the sexual slavery of women. It appears that she fabricated many stories of girls being forced into prostitution. She used these false stories to obtain sympathy and donations. Is the topic of pervasive sexual slavery another feminist-inspired exaggeration? Could Mam not find any real examples? And the gullible media, always looking for victimization of women, bought it all.
Even the recent media blitz concerning sexual assault on campus has been shown to be a delusion. The "fact" hyped by feminists is that 1 in 5 (20%) of college women are raped or sexually assaulted. The study referenced for this statistic has been shown to be quite questionable. But even the study itself[15] found that the statistic hyped should have been 13.7% completed sexual assaults. The 20% stat comes from completed OR ATTEMPTED sexual assaults. But a recent study by the Department of Justice[16] found that 1.6% of college women are raped or sexually assaulted over a four-year college period. The study found that women of the same age group but not attending college had rates 20% higher than college women. So, not only is the recent dread over the sexual assault of college women exaggerated by over a factor of 10, but it is also quite classist, since it ignored the higher rates for women who cannot afford college.
But the hyped dread continues to be used by feminists to focus on women and even install Victorian-era rules to protect women, which feminists supposedly abhor. Dartmouth College has banned hard liquor from campus[17] to protect women from sexual assault---not to stop drunk-driving deaths, not to stop alcohol poisonings, but to protect women. How can feminists say that misogyny is pervasive, hidden, and normal when women's issues receive so much attention, especially attention based on bogus information?
Feminists complain that few women who are sexually assaulted report the assaults to the police. But the studies already mentioned explain that many women do not report the incidents to the police because the women do not think they were assaulted, or that the incidents were too minor to be of concern. Instead of believing the women, dread-producing feminists insist that women do not report because the women fear that the legal system will victimize them again. Even the truth cannot overcome the delusional victimization theories of feminists.
Feminists have been telling us about a "rape culture" in which much of men's behavior leads to the rape and sexual abuse of women. But, considering the many questionable sexual incidents being exposed, is this "rape culture" another lie, and as some have wondered, do we really have a "false-accusation-of-rape culture" where self-indulgent women relate to each other by wallowing in victimhood, even if they have to fabricate their victimizations? After all, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of the Rolling Stone article, abandoned all journalistic principles in order to promote her false story of rape culture. And Lena Dunham, whose rape account also seems to have problems with the truth, seems to be jumping on the women-relating-through-victimization bandwagon.
There is much evidence that feminists are encouraging a false-accusation-of-rape culture. "Take Back The Night" events have long been a forum for women to get together to commune in their victimizations, with many of the stories shown to be false. Many women apparently have falsely accused men of sexual assault in order to bring women's sexual victimization to our attention (e.g., Mariam Kashani, Desiree Nall, Michelle Gretzinger, Tanya Borachi, Mindy Brickman, Meg Lanker-Simons, and Michaela Morales.) Again, if sexual assault is so pervasive, couldn't these women find real examples? Catherine Comins, a dean at Vassar, implied that being falsely accused of rape could be good for a man, that it could aid his "self-exploration."[18] Many college women have posted lists of innocent male students as potential rapists. Sophie Hess, general manager of a college radio station, has been quoted as saying, “Asking whether or not a (rape) victim is telling the truth is irrelevant."[19] The Department of Education's new procedures on sexual assault for colleges make it easier for women to punish men for sexual violations and reduce the due process afforded to these men. When, even under these new guidelines, Columbia University could not punish a man accused of rape by Emma Sulkowicz, she had the energy to carry a mattress with her everywhere to symbolize her victimhood. However, she did not press criminal charges because it would be too draining.[20] There is also a push by feminists that we automatically believe women's accusations. But, at the same time, feminists do not encourage victims to report sexual assaults to the police. (How can we stop rapists if they are not reported?) This all seems to point to a false-accusation-of-rape culture in which women can commune with each other in victimhood---and too bad if some innocent men are hurt in the process. I suppose the purpose of such a culture is to allow women to perpetuate the ideas that they are victims and men are pure evil---in other words, misandry. Unfortunately, actual rape victims will likely also suffer under this false-accusation-of-rape culture, since they will not be believed.
Feminist scholarship has always been suspect, but there has been pressure on academics to keep criticisms of feminist scholarship to themselves. Some feminists have declared science to be a male institution and biased against women. As a result, feminist scientists have often declared that women's ways of knowing are just as valid, if not better, than the scientific method. This has led to emotion-based feminist research, often biased against men. And there has been much pressure on all scientists to tow the feminist line. This pressure on scholars and scientists has varied from plain chivalry to political correctness to denial of grants to death threats. This aspect of women's self-indulence has led to much bad data, bad science, and bad scholarship brought to us by feminism. However, more and more scientists and academics are coming forward to expose the bias and sexism in much of feminist science and scholarship.[21] Until this bad data is cleaned up, we will continue to suffer from counterproductive solutions based on bad science. But I thank the brave scientists and scholars who are risking their careers to tell the truth.
Feminists have successfully perpetrated many Big Lies, told over and over until people believe them. These Big Lies include: Feminism strives for equality between men and women. One in five college women are sexually assaulted. Women rarely lie about being raped. Women rarely commit domestic violence. Women are victimized more than men and deserve special treatment. Men perpetuate a rape culture. Women have no power. The Men's Rights Movement is misogynist. Science is male and is biased against women. Men use the patriarchy to subjugate, abuse, rape, and murder women. Misogyny is pervasive, invisible, and normal.
However, people are starting to see that these are lies, and that misandry, instead, is the pervasive, invisible, and normal aspect of our society. And much of this hateful misandry is propagated by feminism.
Footnotes:
[1] http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/how-some-feminist-shaming-tactics-discredit-feminist-theory/
[2] http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/pretty-woman-dress-code-presentation-shows-school-fashion-25991293
[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2786861/Hillary-Clinton-makes-awkward-joke-worn-charismatic-attractive-men-like-Obama-husband.html
[4] http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/opinion/brazile-sexist-attack-on-valerie-jarrett/
[5] Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008; November, 2011, Bureau of Justice Statistics
[6] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/boobs-on-the-ground-fox-news-presenter-eric-bolling-responds-to-uaes-first-female-pilot-in-isis-air-strikes-9757201.html
[7] http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/12/22/3606322/nypd-shooter-mental-health/
[8] http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/12/19/3605918/obama-women-presser/
[9] http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/news/a12900/exclusive-sneak-peek-gwyneth-paltrow-february-cover/
[10] http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-rate-of-domestic-violence-arrests-among-nfl-players/
[11] http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/blige_hauls_off_on_husband_o32W7IKFja08UXzRipJiHI
[12] Hootman J and Agel J. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: Summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athlete Train 42: 311-319, 2007
[13] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/tv-anchor-same-suit-sexism_n_6170900.html
[14] http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6154
[15] www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf
[16] Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females 1995-2013; http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf
[17] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/29/382480700/dartmouth-bans-hard-liquor-on-campus
[18] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,157165,00.html
[19] http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2014/12/03/investigation-lena-dunhams-republican-rapist-story-falls-apart-under-scrutiny/
[20] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/nyregion/accusers-and-the-accused-crossing-paths-at-columbia.html?_r=0
[21] Here are several examples:
R. J. Gelles “The politics of research: the use, abuse and misuse of social science data: the case of intimate partner abuse” Family Court Review 45 (2007) 42-51, http://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/gells2006.pdf
M. A. Straus, “Processes Explaining the concealment and distortion of evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence” European Journal of Criminal Policy Research 13, (2007) 227-232
www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf
M.A. Straus MA, “Current Controversies and prevalence concerning female offenders of intimate partner abuse: Why the overwhelming evidence on partner physical violence by women has not been perceived and is often denied”, Jrnl of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 18 (2009) 1-19
E. Lupri “Institutional resistance to acknowledging intimate male abuse” Counter-Roundtable Conference on Domestic Violence Calgary, Canada May 7, 2004
Hit like a Girl: Women Who Batter Their Partners by Theresa Porter, http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/porterepaper.pdf
Professing Feminism by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge
http://chronicle.com/article/Persistent-Myths-in-Feminis/46965
PC, M.D. How Political Correctness is Corrupting Medicine, by Sally Satel, M.D.
