McKinney to Minions
This is another installment of my observations in my everyday life over the last few months of the self-indulgence, delusion, hypocrisy, and misandry of women and feminists.
An out-of-control policeman in McKinney, Texas, was recently filmed throwing a black teenage girl onto the grass at a pool party. This received an enormous amount of media attention and public scrutiny. But African-American men receive this kind of treatment all of the time. Rarely does it receive such media attention. This same policeman pulled his gun on two teenage boys, but the girl received all of the attention and sympathy. For another example, at about the same time, a black man was filmed repeatedly being kicked by police while sitting on a curb in Orlando, Florida. [1] This incident received little attention. We care far more for women than men.
The media tries to hide male victims. (Examples include 43 college students murdered in Mexico, the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, the Taliban attack on a school in Peshawar, Pakistan, and the murder of boys in schools in Nigeria by Boko Haram.) However, when a white man killed 9 African-Americans in a church in Charleston, SC, all the news reports pointed out that 6 of the 9 were women. Female victims get attention. Rebecca Carroll in a column in The Guardian even dared to surmise that African-American women are the real victims of racism and police violence in America. [2] She did this a few days after The Guardian released a report stating that 95 percent of people killed by police were men. [3] Carimah Townes wrote something similar at Think Progress. [42] Women cannot let the facts get in the way of highlighting and exaggerating their victimization.
Another side effect of being so self-indulgent is that we often hold women to a lower standard when it comes to accomplishments---we must indulge women even when they are mediocre. An example is a recent Claritin TV commercial in which people are allowed to focus on extraordinary things when their minds are not being fogged up by their allergy medications. [4] The extraordinary things by the men in the ad include two difficult basketball shots---one blind over the back, the other kicked in----and a skateboarder jumping over a park bench. The extraordinary thing that a woman does in the ad is catch a baseball. That's it? Catching a baseball is an example of an extraordinary thing a woman can do? Such a low standard.
Another example occurred in an article which claimed that women are braver than men. [5] (The media must always claim that women are superior.) The author's point was that if we do not limit our definition of bravery to stereotypical male actions, then we find that women are braver than men. He offered one study as evidence. Some of the things that he and the study defined as brave were "moving to a new town, switching careers, opening a business, sticking up for an underdog, deciding to have children" and "joining the Peace Corps, donating a kidney, volunteering for overseas service with Doctors of the World." What a ridiculous argument! He basically defined bravery to include activities that women are more likely to perform and then concluded that women are, therefore, braver. Well, Duh! But, of course, people who perform under a high risk of death are braver than people moving to a new town, switching careers, etc. This article and study are the kind of feminist nonsense that the media are eager to present as truth, in order to show that women are always superior to men. And it allows the media to sell more widgets to women.
Of course, the flip side of the lower standard for accomplishments is that we must also have a higher standard for women in terms of respect. President Obama was recently criticized for referring to Elizabeth Warren by her first name. National Organization of Women President Terry O'Neill called it sexist. [6] But then it was pointed out that Obama often refers to men by their first names. Also, women have had no problem with National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who continually uses the interviewer's first name while answering questions. Women are so sensitive, ready to call anything and everything sexist. The power of self-indulgent victimhood.
Another example of this higher respect for women occurred on the 5/16/15 Saturday Night Live. In the opening monologue edgy comedian, Louis CK, joked about a male neighbor molesting teenage boys. Women's super-sensitivity to being offended and eagerness to complain have conditioned us all to avoid doing anything that might even hint at offending women. So even though feminists tell us that the vast majority of sexual molestations are of girls, Louis CK could not joke about a girl being molested. This would have trivialized the sexual molestation of girls and taken away from women's victimhood. He would have been crucified. So he trivialized the molestation of boys instead with little consequence. Women's super-sensitivity has resulted in such discrimination and dehumanization of men that we can joke about their being raped.
This dehumanization of men is so severe that it even applies to mutilation. The 11/22/14 Saturday Night Live (repeated 5/30/15) joked about a monkey ripping the genitals off of a man during a children's animal show. The monkey threw the man's genitals against an EXIT sign so hard that the sign fell down. So funny. We think so little of men that this kind of thing is acceptable. But women are revered so much that any comedy about mutilation of women would never be allowed without serious protests.
Last spring, a report surfaced that U.S. military men and contractors had raped and filmed 53 girls in Melgar, Colombia. The story was picked up by several media outlets, including The Nation, Democracy Now, USA Today, and NPR's On the Media. Media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting complained that the story should have received far wider coverage. However, it was soon discovered that the story was false. It appears that it was an urban myth that was reported as true for political reasons by an anti-American professor from Colombia. [7] Of those major news outlets that had reported the original story, only On the Media later reported that the story was false. [8] Feminism's demonization of men leads us to believe the worst of men. And the media contribute to the misperception.
In another instance of false accusation of rape, as usual, the concern of the story from WMDT in Salisbury, Maryland, was on women. [9] The woman, who, of course, was not identified, made accusations against two men. One of the men was looking at a possible life sentence. Her story began to unravel, and she admitted that she made it all up. And, of course, the focus of the WMDT report was on the fear that women would now be reluctant to file rape charges, not on the fact that two innocent men could have gone to prison. The report was also concerned about the woman's welfare, by quoting the state's attorney, “This is also a person crying out for help...There’s a reason why a person does this, so another interest to the state is trying to get that person some assistance as well.” There was no mention in the report of the persecution and fear of imprisonment experienced by the two men, or any aid the men may need. The focus must always be on women, even when they do despicable things. And as usual, when women do despicable things, they are sick and need help, not punishment or exposure. But when men do despicable things, they are evil and deserve jail or death.
To see how ridiculous the situation has become, consider a report about a false rape accusation from the University of Minnesota. [10] The report cannot even state that the rape accusation was false. Euphemisms like "the case was no longer being investigated as an assault by a stranger...rape report no longer being investigated...student crisis intervention case" are used instead. And there was this quote to absolve the accuser of any responsibility, "At this time, the University's primary concern is to support the student who reported the incident and to protect her right to privacy," Again, we do not punish bad women, but instead, provide aid. Why do we treat men and women so differently? And why do feminists demand the duplicity?
Another example occurred when a model and ex-girlfriend of Gerard Butler accused a photographer of rape which resulted in her becoming pregnant. [11] Charges were dropped against the photographer when holes appeared in the story of Alesia Riabenkova---oh my gosh, they actually printed her name---and a DNA test of the aborted fetus proved that the photographer was not the father. Riabenkova will not face any criminal charges for the false accusation.
Just as Sabrina Rubin Erdely in her "A Rape On Campus" article in Rolling Stone went looking for a story to bolster her ideology of a "rape culture" in the U.S., a movie supposedly exposing an epidemic of rape on college campuses seems to have done something similar, with similar results. Erdely's story of gang rape of Jackie Coakley appears to have been completely fabricated. Erdely's advocacy for women and her desire to expose the "rape culture" encouraged her to shun all journalistic standards which allowed a false story to be published. Emily Yoffe in a Slate article [12] exposes that the makers of the documentary, The Hunting Ground, also may have allowed their zeal to dramatically present a fictional account of a college rape. The details are a little more ambiguous in the movie since the three participants in the alleged rape were highly impaired on alcohol and cocaine at the time. But the evidence against the accused man is certainly questionable. Harvard Law School's administrative hearing dismissed all charges against the man. He was then tried in criminal court in which he was exonerated on two felony charges. (He was convicted of "misdemeanor touching of a nonsexual nature" in which he received one year of probation.) His law school education had been delayed for four years. Yet, the movie presented a totally one-sided and probably fictitious account of the incident to confirm the bias of the movie makers. The movie is now being used to push for draconian laws likely to prosecute men unfairly. [13]
A series of articles recently appeared in the Claremont McKenna College's student newspaper, by women, about women and sexuality. (We must focus on women, women, women, all the time.) One of the articles, "Why Yes Can Mean No," by Jordan Bosiljevac, [14] describes how she feels that she has been socialized to say "yes," even when she means "no" concerning sex. As a woman, she feels that she is a member of a community oppressed by white male patriarchal heterosexist cis-sexists. This oppression has resulted in her inability to say "no" and therefore she is being "raped by rape culture."
I always thought one of college's main purposes was to turn teenagers into adults, and not infantilize them. Bosiljevac cannot even take responsibility for her own choices. She complains that she is pressured into saying "yes" by going to his room, fear of ruining a friendship, loneliness, alcohol, and that sex is supposed to be fun. GROW UP WOMAN! Or should I say YOU GROW GIRL! Take responsibility for yourself. This constant inability of women to take responsibility for their own actions is quite irritating. They must always blame men.
All of these examples of false accusation of rape are more evidence that there is no "rape culture" but a "false rape culture" instead. The constant hysteria over rape and sexual assault promulgated by feminists and the media is encouraging women to participate in a sisterhood of victimization and hate. This encourages women with emotional or mental problems, or women who are full of hate for men, to accuse men falsely. Besides the serious consequences of being accused of rape for men, this false rape culture is also leading to policies and legislation which discriminate against men. Examples include the loss of due process for college men accused of sexual assault, the call for the dismantling of fraternities, institution of ridiculous "affirmative consent" dating rules, and extra support services provided for women, even those falsely accusing men of rape.
To see just how far this victimization hysteria has gone, consider the Kafkaesque experience of Laura Kipnis, a feminist professor at Northwestern University. [15] After writing an essay criticizing the infantilizing of women by all of these new Title IX policies, two female students filed Title IX complaints against her. She was accused of retaliating against them even though she mentioned no names in the article. Kipnis also wondered how the complaints could be connected to Title IX, a law concerning gender discrimination. She described the resulting administrative process as a "kangaroo court." She was not told the exact charges. She learned that she would be told the charges and then immediately asked to respond to them, cold. She could not have a lawyer during her interrogation, although she was allowed a support person, who was not allowed to speak. (This support person later discussed the interrogation in general terms, and he too, received a Title IX complaint. [16]) Kipnis was cleared of all charges, but others have noted that innocent people may easily be convicted by these amateur campus tribunals. [17] And even if the accused are exonerated, the costs in money, time, and frustration can be extreme.
Kipnis also noted that professors are treading on eggshells so as not to offend anyone and must issue "trigger warnings" for anything remotely controversial. This is stifling academic freedom, free speech, and is hindering teaching. She also noted that this situation is far worse for male professors. I would also note that accusations like this have been happening to men for a long time with little media attention. But the media is abuzz now that it has happened to a woman. Men are not allowed to be victims.
Jessica Gavora has long trumpeted against the excesses of Title IX. She recently detailed how feminists have used Title IX as a weapon against men. [18] It has been used to kill athletic programs for men. It has been used to punish men for sexual assault and sexual harassment with little due process. It has been used to restrict free speech and academic freedom. It has been used to postulate a "rape crisis" and "rape culture" which has resulted in draconian dating rules. These abuses have strayed far from the original intent of Title IX.
I believe Title IX has been used to improve American women's athletic competiveness at the expense of American men's competitiveness. Title IX has increased the number of female athletes and reduced the opportunities for male athletes in order to fulfill a quota system, even though women are generally not as interested in sports as men. But it does not look like Title IX will be used to fulfill a whining quota. Even after the American soccer team recently won the World Cup, the focus of many news reports was not on the team's success, but on complaints of sexism by members of the team. Women have to complain about something. The complaint this time was that the women had to play on artificial surfaces when the men played on grass. Yes, artificial turf is generally considered to be more injury-prone than grass, but that does not appear to be true for soccer. One meta-analysis found 10-14% fewer injuries for soccer players on artificial turf than on grass. [19] So claims of sexism against women are unjustified. Women also complained that in the 2010/2011 World Cups, the women's winning team received only $1 million in prize money, while the men's winning team received 30 times more at $30 million. This sounds bad, until one examines the details. The prizes are based on revenue brought in by the World Cup competitions. The most current figures available show revenue brought in by the Women's World's Cup in 2011 was $73,000,000, while the 2010 Men's World's Cup brought in 50 times more revenue at $3,700,000,000. (The women always play a year after the men.) In total, the women players participating in the 2011 World Cup received 13 percent of the total revenue they brought in while the men in 2010 only received 9 percent. [20] But, of course, the women expect to be paid exactly the same as the men---equal pay for less production. Women must portray themselves as victims, even if they must distort the facts do so.
On June 24th, Florida State quarterback De'Andre Johnson was filmed scuffling with Abigail Husty in a bar, which resulted in Johnson being suspended from the team. She raised her fist. He held her arm. She then punched him in the face with her other fist. It appears to have been a glancing punch. He then punched her solidly in the face. End of scuffle. She suffered bruising, swelling, and a small cut. [21] Perhaps, his response was excessive under the circumstances, but the media's definitely was. The media all portrayed his behavior as unforgiveable and vicious, even though Husty clearly initiated the violence. She evidently felt that she could get away with hitting him, and either he would not hit her back, or other gallant men in the bar would prevent him from hitting her back. She probably thought she could take a free shot. But it appears Johnson is an egalitarian---he treats men and women equally. Keep in mind that Johnson was magnanimous when he did not retaliate after he stopped her first punch. But she immediately came after him with a second punch. What's he to do, let her punch him in the face? If the exact scenario had involved two men, I doubt anyone would have been concerned at all. But apparently, Husty, Johnson's coach, and the media all believe that women are allowed to hit men with impunity, while men are never allowed to hit women under any circumstances. Can't people see the hypocrisy?
Due process for men appears to be under attack by feminists. I have already examined the loss of due process for men accused of rape on college campuses. Another example is the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act which was recently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama. It allows women to petition courts to eliminate all parental rights of alleged rapists using a "clear and convincing" standard instead of the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal trials. The justification for this law was the claim that rapists were using child custody fights to further torment their rape victims. First of all, I cannot prove this, but I have to believe that rapists using child custody laws like this must be very, very rare. But I fear that this law will be used by many more women to unjustly deny access of rightful fathers to their children. We have already seen that lawyers and women's advocates for divorcing women have encouraged them to falsely accuse their husbands of domestic violence or child molestation in order to gain advantage in child custody battles. A false accusation of rape is now another way for a woman to eliminate a man from her and her children's lives. Child custody laws have long discriminated against fathers. This is a step backwards.
It seems that a much more pressing problem concerning child custody is men supporting children that are not biologically related to them. DNA testing is showing that as many as 1 in 7 children are not fathered by the men listed on their birth certificates. [22] In other words, women are cuckolding their husbands, and fooling them into raising another man's child. Many divorced men have found themselves in this situation and still are forced to pay child support for children that are not theirs. Where is the legislation to end this injustice? (Another indication of just how far society goes to protect women, when genetic counselors discover such a "non-paternity event," they usually only inform the mother.)
Josh Duggar has been in the news recently for molesting 5 girls---four of his sisters and a family babysitter---when he was 14 and 15 years old. Details are a little sketchy, but it appears he fondled breasts and genitals, both above and below clothing. Some of the girls were asleep and were unaware of being touched. (It appears the details came from a police report which may have been released illegally.) Josh and his family have been roundly condemned in the media and advertisers have dropped out of their reality show, 19 Kids and Counting. It appears the show will be cancelled. This appears to me to be another example of a sexual violation being blown out of all proportion. Of course, this behavior is unacceptable. But we must take into account that it is the behavior of a young curious teenager. No one was physically harmed. Some of the girls were unaware it happened, so could not have suffered any emotional harm. But, I suspect, even those girls aware of the molestation probably were more traumatized by adults telling them how traumatized they should be than by the actual molestation. There are degrees to sexual violations. They are not all equal to murder as feminists seem to want us to believe.
Compare the reaction to Josh Duggar to the molestations by Lena Dunham of her younger sister. In her book, Not That Kind of Girl, Dunham described spreading open her sister's vagina, [23] as well as bribing her sister to kiss her and lay on her. [24] These revelations did receive some media attention but were quickly minimized. Dunham's TV show, Girls, was never threatened with cancellation. Apparently, molestation is one more area where gender duplicity runs rampant.
When the wife of Anthony Elonis left him, he posted threatening messages on Facebook. He was fired from his job, arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 44 months in jail. He contended that his threats were not serious, but "art" and "therapeutic." The Supreme Court recently tossed out his conviction. The court ruled that it was not enough to show that a reasonable person would be frightened by his threats, but that he intended to threaten. I see great consequences from this decision. It may bring a little bit of sanity to much of feminist jurisprudence. Just a bit. Up until now, many gender laws have been based only on women's perceptions. But maybe now, intent must also be considered. For example, sexual harassment rules, which have relied on the reasonable woman standard, may now require proof that the man intended to harass. Many rape and sexual assault laws, which have been based on very broad feminist definitions which many people reject, may now require proof of intent. Affirmative consent laws, which are becoming more prevalent in colleges, could criminalize almost any intimate college relationship, may also now require proof that the man intended to violate the law, even if he just forgot to ask permission to hold her hand. Just a bit of sanity.
(By the way, I would give this advice to all college men who are subject to the insanity of affirmative consent laws: DO NOT DATE COLLEGE WOMEN. DO NOT INTERACT SOCIALLY WITH COLLEGE WOMEN IN ANY WAY. Find other women to date. The risk and cost imbedded in affirmative consent laws are too high to take the chance. Besides, college men refusing to date college women would probably go a long way toward ending these insane laws.)
I believe large groups of people---men, women, black, white, Asian---have comparable IQs. I believe any differences in groups, if they exist at all, are miniscule and probably impossible to determine due to inaccuracies in testing. And who cares, anyway? The IQ of the individual is what's important. The average IQ of a group is only good for silly, group ego-tripping.
Speaking of which, there was a recent media explosion touting that women had surpassed men in IQ. [25] James Flynn, an expert on IQ, had been interviewed concerning some of his recent research that showed women were now smarter than men. One explanation given for women's passing men in IQ was women's use of multitasking in raising families and working outside the home. Another was that women always had a higher potential IQ, but were now realizing it. The media were full of this cheerleading for women.
A later interview of James Flynn found him disappointed in the distortion of his research. [26] Yes, women had tested as many as 1.5 points higher than men in New Zealand, White South Africa, Estonia, and Argentina. But Flynn had concluded that men and women were "probably dead equal for cognitive factors" and that women tested higher for the same reason that women do better in school---they are better at taking tests. Flynn also stated that group differences are largely due to "some environmental explanations, including differences in attitudes toward academic achievement." (To prove this point, he stated that African-Americans had an average 10-point lower IQ than whites in 1972. Yet, that gap has been cut in half since then.) Flynn denied that he had said women's higher IQs were due to multitasking. He said the earlier interviewer had asked him leading questions about women and multitasking, obviously looking for this as an explanation. Women and the media continue their claim of women's superiority in everything even if they must distort to do it.
Our society seems to have a tendency to blame men for all problems and deny women any responsibility. Joyce Mitchell, a worker in a New York prison tailor shop, was arrested for aiding two murderers in their escape from the prison. She may have had sexual relations with both men. Immediately, the media began talking about how she was "manipulated" or "groomed" into her crime. Again, we have another woman who is not responsible for her bad behavior. Those evil men must have made her do it. What nonsense and hypocrisy! Of course, everyone can be influenced by others. But we must all take final responsibility for our actions. However, it seems that the media and society are quite duplicitous on culpability. I'm sure Tiger Woods was "manipulated" to some degree by the 15 or so women who wanted to be with a sports star, even a married one. But no one in the media blamed the women. The fact that all the women voluntarily came forward proves that the women were unafraid of being blamed for anything. It was all his fault---so much so, that the media could even joke about his wife retaliating against him with a golf club.
While surfing on TV, I recently came across a show on PBS called SciGirls, which promotes science for girls. Of course, this is completely sexist. Why would boys who would benefit from exposure to such a show on science be excluded? And if PBS is trying to increase the number of women in a vocation containing few women, why doesn't PBS also have shows that exclusively encourage boys into occupations in which they are under-represented? [27] But the really sexist part of the show was a cartoon in which a girl rolls her eyes and laughs at a boy whose goal is to win the "Hair-a-doo-doozie" contest, a ridiculous contest in which he must grow an outrageous hair-doo, an activity in which women would be far more likely to participate. This confirms a characteristic I have often seen of women-only groups---that a main function of these groups seems to be so women can get together and bitch about men. Women are constantly forming women-only groups. Yet, they will throw a fit if men try to form a men-only group. [28] Perhaps this is because women think that men are like them and get together to complain about the opposite sex---but men don't. If they did, there would be no need for these articles.
I complained earlier of women's illogical comparison of viagra to women's contraception in order to force insurance companies to pay for women's contraception. Well, the faulty logic continues. Now women are trying to compare viagra to flibanserin in order to get FDA approval for this libido-enhancing drug for women. [29] But again, there are so many differences between the two drugs that equating the two is just wrong. First of all, viagra does not increase libido in men. Viagra helps solve the medical problem of erectile dysfunction. Viagra increases blood flow, while flibanserin changes brain chemistry. Viagra is taken only when needed, while flibanserin is taken every day. Women taking flibanserin should not use alcohol. Flibanserin is only effective in about 10% of women. Flibanserin has already been denied twice for FDA approval, but I suspect women's illogical comparisons will force the FDA to approve this risky drug. I then wonder who women will sue when the drug causes serious problems.
I recently received in the mail a schedule of upcoming classes at a local technical college. I noticed something that I find commonly in catalogs or advertisements in the mail: most of the photos are of women. The cover of the schedule showed a woman, and two-thirds of the prominent images were of women. The men imaged were often out of focus or in the background. I'm sure you will find similar results if you check your mail. I also received a newsletter from my local public school system. It contained 6 pictures of males (2 men and 4 boys) and 26 pictures of females (8 women and 18 girls.) Even innocent boys, not yet old enough to be rapists and domestic abusers, are avoided. We value women so much more than men, that we must not let images of men ruin our message or commerce.
But this isn't a phenomenon restricted to the mailbox. TV ads also often focus on women. For example, America's Best Eyeware ads have very few men. [30] (As I noted in an earlier article, TV ads for male products usually include women, while TV ads for female products virtually never include men.) It also appears that TV news shows go looking for females to interview and highlight in victimization or human interest stories. Floods, tornados, crime, accidents, diseases---most of the victims featured are female. If there are no female victims, these shows will instead interview the wives, mothers, and sisters of the male victims. If a story needs a student, researcher, humanitarian, politician, etc. for a human interest story, the producer will usually find a female. Of course, there are exceptions. If a TV ad or news show needs a jerk, or a criminal, or an inferior, or someone to laugh at, they almost always find a male. After decades of feminist propaganda telling us that men are subhuman, men no longer get any sympathy or have any positive appeal. How can feminists claim men dominate everything with such counter-evidence?
Here's another example. The 7/14/15 Frontline program, titled "Escaping ISIS," [31] focused on the abuse of Yazidi women and children (please see my comment on women and children two paragraphs below) by ISIS over the last year. Again, the media often try to hide the victimization of men while highlighting women's victimization. Here is a program specifically focusing on women's victimization while ignoring the far greater harm done to Yazidi men. (It has been estimated that 5000 Yazidi men have been executed by ISIS while 7000 women and children have been taken hostage. [32]) We often see this kind of thing in the media, where women's victimization is explicitly separated out and focused on, while men's victimization, if reported at all, is included in a more general exposure of all victimization. Rarely will the media focus exclusively on the victimization of men as men. To prove my point, PBS's NewsHour, the following day, broadcast a segment on the abuse of women during the war in the Congo. [33] These are more examples of the dehumanization of men and the assumed higher value of women.
Another manifestation of this is the network TV program with panels of women discussing women's issues from women's perspectives. Examples include ABC's The View, CBS's The Talk, PBS's On The Contrary, and Fox's Outnumbered. There are no comparable shows for men. We must focus only on women.
Women often claim that discrimination against women is as bad as discrimination against African-Americans, which, of course, is nonsense. But women use this claim to heighten their perceived victimization and to receive more sympathy and benefits. Well, women and the media do something similar by comparing women and children. We all feel more sympathy and protective toward children since they are usually unable to fend for themselves. Women often jump onto this same sympathy and protectiveness bandwagon, as if they need as much protection as children. This is another grab by women of undeserved sympathy and benefits.
We glorify mothers on Mother's Day and are ambivalent about fathers on Father's Day. This year Angel Soft had the nerve to put out a Fathers' Day ad celebrating single mothers. [34] The Jimmy Kimmel Show gave us other examples. For Mothers' Day the show interviewed kids and asked them who they loved more, Ma or Pa. [35] All but one answered Ma. It was telling that all of the fathers reacted in good humor to this slight, but the one mother who was slighted covered her child's mouth with her hand to show her disapproval. In contrast, to celebrate Fathers' Day Kimmel asked people to prank their fathers by recording them receiving breakfast in the shower. [36] It appears all dads are Rodney Dangerfield---no respect.
Men get no respect and no justice in the media or in the courts. We all remember the firestorm in the media when football player Ray Rice punched his fiance. But when a woman abuses a man, the media is very quiet. Former baseball player and network analyst, Darryl Hamilton was killed by an ex-girlfriend in a murder-suicide, apparently in a dispute over child custody. This news item received little coverage, which is quite disturbing given the details of the case. The girlfriend, attorney Monica Jordan, earlier had poured gasoline on her husband but had failed to ignite him. She was, however, convicted of burning down their house when she thought he was cheating on her. For this, she received the punishment of community service and did not lose her law license. The double standard in the media coverage is shocking. Perhaps, more shocking, is the duplicity of the criminal justice system. In a recent study, for comparable crimes and circumstances "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and women are "twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." [37] This gender gap is six times larger than the gap between races, which gets far more attention. [38]
Women have great self-indulgence concerning their appearance. Many women ignore other characteristics to focus on their sexual appearance. Instead of developing skills, or intelligence, or careers, or working hard, many women rely on their looks. And if a woman is beautiful and sexy, she can obtain everything that a man can obtain through his intelligence, education, hard work and skill. All she has to do is get him to marry her. A recent study found that during times of recession, when people are generally limiting their spending, women increase their spending on cosmetics, clothes, etc in order to better compete for the fewer men who have financial means. [39]
And, of course, self-indulgent women blame men for this excessive attention on women's appearance. Sure, men play a part in this, but the vast majority of the responsibility for society's focus of women's appearance must be on women's bare shoulders. Men don't put guns to women's heads and force them to put on green eyeshadow, or spanx, or wonderbras, or hair color, or ultra-magenta nail polish, or spend hours a week on a dangerous tanning bed. Women do these things for their own benefit. In these times of rebellious feminism, I am sure that if women really wanted to stop this supposed "oppression by the patriarchy," that they would have done so. Women do not want to stop it. It is the base of their power. Women have demanded that men relinquish any political or economic dominance over women, while simultaneously increasing their sexual dominance over men. It is so hypocritical.
Here is a current example showing the different priorities of men and women on this subject. Bruce Jenner was a very accomplished man. He competed and won an Olympic gold medal in the decathlon, which is certainly one of the most demanding of Olympic events. And what was her accomplishment when he became a woman? She got dressed up, made up, and appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair.
Women's focus on their appearance can go to ridiculous lengths. Juvederm Voluma is an example. [40] The drug rounds out the "apples" of aging women's cheeks. This is unbelievably petty and narcissistic. I find it hard to believe that anyone would even notice such a thing. Or care. But, there we are. I wonder if Caitlyn Jenner uses the product.
Rachel Dolezal is a blond, blue-eyed white woman who apparently identifies as black. She did not receive any sympathy for this position. She was forced to resign as head of the Spokane NAACP and was roundly criticized in the media. Consider the difference in treatment between Dolezal and Jenner, who was glorified for her/his bravery for identifying as a woman. Maybe gender and race are different in this situation. Maybe not. But, I remember when there were only 2 genders. Now, with cisgenders, genderqueers, gender variants, bisexuals, non-binaries, transgenders, pangenders, two-spirits, others, etc., the number seems to be ever increasing. Facebook recently allowed 51 gender options. [41] Feminists seem to be responsible for this increase, and they demand that we accept all of these genders. Why must we accept people who change their genders, but we cannot accept someone changing her race? Is there some big difference between gender and race that allows for the different treatments? Is the difference that feminists control the media?
Bar Rescue is a television show on the Spike network in which a team of people enter a failing bar and make changes to try and save it from impending doom. It seems that in most episodes, a major goal for the team is to make the bar appealing to women. I have never seen an episode where the team has tried to make the bar attractive exclusively to men, although I did see one show where the team did try to make a sports bar appealing to both men and women. Must we always pander to women? Are men not allowed to have a bar specifically catering to them? Or why wouldn't the team always try to make the bar appeal to both men and women? Tell me women don't rule the media and world.
Another example of the way the media is pandering to and controlled by women on television is TV news. The evening news shows used to be 30 minutes (OK, really only 22 minutes) of hard news. Now we get maybe 10 minutes of hard news and the rest is human interest stories, entertainment news, gossip, and women's news. ABC's morning news program even has a reporter on the desk who is exclusively dedicated to entertainment. I am also noticing that anchors and reporters---especially females---are delivering the news with high melodramatics. They are doing this by using high-pitched voices---sometimes I think they are reading the news to infants or pet dogs. They also punch certain words for effect and are constantly moving their heads and facial expressions. The news should be read stoically. Reporters should not be adding their emotions to the readings. Listeners should be the ones to add their own emotions to the news, and should not be influenced by the biases of the reporters.
Perhaps, another example of this is female smilers. There are several women who cannot seem to appear on television without constant smiles on their faces. I suppose this has a sexual cause---women smiling to sooth the savage beasts that are men or showing that they are friendly, or maybe it is just insecurity. But it is disconcerting, especially when these women are talking about death and destruction. Examples include columnist Kathleen Parker, MSNBC host Alex Wagner, Stephanie Schriock of Emily's List, sports commentator Christine Brennan, Senator Amy Klobuchar, NBC correspondent Cynthia McFadden, columnist Melinda Henneberger, and CBS reporter Nancy Cordes. Even Hillary Clinton does this to some extent. This constant smiling raises questions of credibility and seriousness for these reporters, commentators, and politicians. It also raises questions about women's hypocrisy when women then charge men with sexual harassment who are so rude as to ask the women to smile.
The minions are a group of incompetent, bumbling, cartoon creatures whose purpose is to serve history's most villainous masters, who they often kill in their blundering. In the new movie, The Minions, these creatures serve the first female supervillain, who can wipe out the strongest, smartest male villain with a flick of her finger. Even in cartoons, women are always superior to men. But why are all of the minions male? It is because we are not allowed to make fun of women. (Consider Tim Hunt, a Nobel-Prize-winning cancer researcher, who gave a lecture in which he complained about sexism against women in science. It was taken totally out of context by women in the media in order to make it appear that he was making fun of women. He lost his job.) We must think so little of men and so much of women that goofy, dumb minions must all be male. Why don't feminists complain of this sexism? Feminists often complain of the lack of roles for women in the movies. Aren't feminists striving for equality between men and women? Well, no. Feminism is about superiority and special privileges for women. The minions fit into their ideology that males are demons and dregs and deserve to be hurt and laughed at.
[1] http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-police-kick-noel-carter-video-20150608-story.html
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/18/charleston-shooter-black-women-white-women-rape
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database#
[4] http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7eQG/claritin-24-hour-distracted-by-allergies
[5] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/significant-results/201205/women-are-braver-men
[6] http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/241845-now-president-obamas-warren-critique-sexist
[7] http://colombiareports.com/how-i-helped-a-pseudo-scholar-spread-anti-american-propaganda/
[8] http://www.onthemedia.org/story/on-the-media-2015-06-05/
[9] http://www.wmdt.com/news/more-local-news/Salisbury-false-rape-report-could-have-chilling-effect-on-victims-coming-forward/32949856
[10] http://www.twincities.com/others/education/ci_28073341/umn-police-say-dorm-rape-report-no-longer-being-investigated
[11] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3094203/Model-ex-girlfriend-Gerard-Butler-claims-photographer-got-pregnant-sexual-assault-sees-rape-charges-dropped-DNA-proved-baby-wasn-t-his.html
[12] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/doublex/2015/06/the_hunting_ground_a_closer_look_at_the_influential_documentary_reveals.html
[13] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/nyregion/cuomo-taking-aim-at-campus-sexual-assaults-calls-for-a-stricter-law.html
[14] http://cmcforum.com/opinion/04302015-why-yes-can-mean-no
[15] http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/06/my-title-ix-.html
[16] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/06/01/the-endless-questions-a-northwestern-professor-faced-in-her-title-ix-inquisition/
[17] https://www.the-newshub.com/us-politics/mandatory-sentencing-for-college-infractions-is-violation-of-due-process
[18] "How Title IX Became a Political Weapon" by Jessica Gavora, Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2015, page A13
[19] http://www.scienceofsocceronline.com/2013/06/injury-risk-artificial-turf-vs-natural.html
[20] http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/77-patients-confront-doctor-who-falsely-diagnosed-them-with-cancer-why-fifa-gives-women-less-prize-money-than-men/
[21] http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/florida-state-university-qb-suspended/index.html
[22] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/who-s-your-daddy/305969/
[23] Not That Kind of Girl by Lena Dunham, page 121
[24] ibid., page 150
[25] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9401241/IQ-tests-women-score-higher-than-men.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173808/Women-overtake-men-IQ-tests-time-100-years-multitasking.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/women-have-higher-iq-scores-than-men-james-flynn_n_1677963.html
[26] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight
[27] For more evidence of sexism in public broadcasting see http://ncfm.org/2014/08/action/ncfm-member-ray-licht-response-from-npr-ombudsman-adds-more-evidence-of-sexism/
[28] For another example of women forming groups but not allowing men to do the same, see http://ncfm.org/2013/08/action/ncfm-member-anonymous-writes-about-sexism-in-the-great-outdoors/
[29] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/15/pink-pill-viagra-female-fibanserin/71011832/
[30] http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7jcF/americas-best-contacts-and-eyeglasses-designer-sale
[31] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/escaping-isis/
[32] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792552/full-horror-yazidis-didn-t-escape-mount-sinjar-confirms-5-000-men-executed-7-000-women-kept-sex-slaves.html
[33] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/pain-stigma-little-justice-victims-sexual-violence-democratic-republic-congo/
[34] http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2015/06/22/heartfelt-commercial-wishes-moms-happy-fathers-day
[35] http://www.inquisitr.com/2079823/jimmy-kimmel-asks-kids-who-do-you-love-more-mom-or-dad-for-mothers-day-video/
[36] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/19/jimmy-kimmel-fathers-day_n_7624856.html
[37] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002; ESTIMATING GENDER DISPARITIES IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES by Sonja B. Starr
[38] https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
[39] Boosting Beauty in an Economic Decline: Mating, Spending, and the Lipstick Effect by Sarah E. Hill and Christopher D. Rodeheffer
[40] http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7G69/juvederm-xc-apples
[41] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/15/the-complete-glossary-of-facebook-s-51-gender-options.html
[42] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/17/3681752/sandra-bland-say-her-name/
