Sexist Asteroids
Here is another article detailing SOME of the examples of women's and feminists' self-indulgence, delusion, hypocrisy, and misandry that I have seen in the last couple of months. I couldn't begin to talk about all of them, but I have tried here for a mix of big, medium, and small issues.
"Empowering women" seems to be a popular current catch-phrase. It is everywhere. I'm not the only one to notice this phenomenon. The topic came up in the movie, The Rewrite. In the movie, Hugh Grant plays a down-on-his-luck screenwriter who says, "Forgive me, but I'm just a little tired of female empowerment....Everything seems to be about female empowerment nowadays, you know. Any meeting I go to in Hollywood someone says 'You know what we need, a kick-ass girl. That would be a great twist.' Except every movie has a kick-ass girl, you know, some martial-arts, CGI, slow-motion woman who kicks the crap out of every man in her path." [1] In a promotion of CBS's newest kick-ass girl, Supergirl, a version of empowering women occurred at least seven times. If you have read any of the articles on this website, then you know that women have a lot of power now, probably too much. It is men who need more power. But, feminists are experts at the Big Lie---tell it often enough and people will believe it. To show the omnipresence of this phrase, I will note below how many times "empower women" or some variation appears in the indicated reference.
I think we all know that women are outperforming men in college these days. Women make up about 57% of college undergrads. A recent PEW study gives some data on this. [2] Just as elementary and secondary education seems to be more tuned to girls' learning style, college also seems to be more suited to women. For four-year graduates 50% of women, versus 37% of men, believed the college experience rated excellent or good in providing value for the money. Eighty-one percent of women and 67% of men said college increased their intellectual growth. The numbers were 73% of women and 64% of men for growth as a person, and 58% women and 52% men for job preparation. Another study by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) gives similar results. [3] It appears to me that college, in design and function, meets the needs and expectations of women more than men. And I believe feminism is responsible for chasing many men away from college. I do not see colleges doing anything to fix this problem. Instead, quite the opposite, they are focusing on increasing the number of women in science and technology, wasting resources on an overblown sexual assault hysteria, and integrating feminist ideology into all programs, further discouraging men from attending and valuing college. (I know that I am not supposed to use the word "hysteria" in reference to women as it is seen as sexist by women. But, in this case, it fits. If you must, substitute the word "frenzy.")
The PEW Survey also revealed other interesting details. Parents paid the cost of college for 40% of the women but only 29% of the men. Seventy-seven percent thought it was important for women to go to college, while the stat for men was only 68%. Apparently, parents and society value women more than men. Fifty-five percent of women and 50% of men thought women outnumbering men in college was a good thing. But oddly, for fewer men graduating, 50% of women and 43% of men thought this was a bad thing. Apparently, women were all for cheering for their sex in outnumbering men in college, but then were not happy about fewer male graduates. I bet this is due to the fact that women tend to marry up, and this won't be possible if fewer men graduate from college.
What is the White House doing to help American boys and men get a good education? Not much. The White House Council on Women and Girls has been instrumental in encouraging the current college sexual assault hysteria/frenzy. And in March, the President and First Lady initiated the Let Girls Learn Program, which encourages education and empowerment for girls, as well as preventing gender-based violence for adolescent girls around the world. Even though many of the existing programs listed in the associated Fact Sheet, [4] (Empowering women appeared 7 times) are for both boys and girls, the self-indulgent main push is to focus only on girls. It also appears awareness of gender-based violence only applies to violence against girls, even though chivalry does not allow girls to experience much of the violence perpetrated against boys. Bottom line, the President of the United States is more interested in educating and protecting girls in Bangladesh than boys in Pittsburgh.
Is there really a large discrepancy between the number of boys and girls who are not attending school? The Global Campaign for Education says in its "Back to School?" publication that, worldwide, 53% of those not attending primary school are girls, [5] (Empowering Women appeared 3 times) implying that 47% are boys. That is really not a big difference. It certainly does not justify all of the indulgent attention and material aid going to the education of girls from the White House and others. Even after revealing this statistic, "Back to School?" also focuses on girls. Boys are an afterthought, at best. It is amazing that girls and women receive so much more sympathy, attention, and aid than boys and men. And no one sees it as sexism, even when boys have a higher need.
In a recent survey/quiz by ACTA on the U.S. Constitution, [6] men answered correctly at higher percentages on all 12 questions. The range varied from 1.6% higher to 15.6% higher with an average of 8.8% higher. The results for other ACTA surveys on Abraham Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, and D-Day were similar. As David Golub has pointed out, this is odd since we hear that women are doing so much better than men in school in all areas except math and science. He also wondered why men seem to show more knowledge about government, yet do not vote in the numbers that women do. For example, in the 2012 election 9.8 million more women than men voted. [7] Some factors that contribute to this are that there are about 6.6 million fewer men of voting age, [8] and that older people, who are mostly women, tend to vote more than younger people. But Golub noted that many men are unable to vote due to imprisonment. Estimates are that 5.85 million people, mostly men, are restricted from voting because of current or previous imprisonment. [9] So, not only are men twice as likely to be imprisoned for the same crime as women, [10] but then they are denied their voting rights. This is sexism against men that needs to be addressed immediately.
I have indicated before that the application of Title IX by the Department of Education is totally sexist. It seems that it is only applied to benefit women. I showed in "Super-sensitivity and Male Cows," and "Male Control Theory," [11] that men are the victims of much violence, and often this violence has a gender component---men and women feel free to be violent against men, while chivalry restrains violence against women. Yet Title IX is only used to protect students from sexual violence, sexual harassment, stalking, domestic violence, and discrimination in STEM programs and sports---all areas where victims are assumed to be women.
Let's look at sports in more detail. Colleges offer many extra-curricular activities. Sports are generally the only ones with more male participation. Men are generally more interested in sports than women are. However, activities like Drama Club, Travel Club, Toastmasters, Dance Club, Vegan Club, Music Club, LGBT clubs, religious clubs, etc. usually are predominantly women. Yet, Title IX enforcers only go after sports when it comes to parity in participation. Men's sports teams have been eliminated to make the participation rates of men and women in sports proportional to the makeup of the student body. But, Title IX enforcers do not reduce the number of women who can be in the Drama Club to reflect the demographics of the student body. Of course, that would be stupid. But proportionality in sports is also stupid. And why is it restricted to gender? If black students make up 8% of the school's students, why not restrict the percentage of blacks who can participate in athletics to 8 percent? And if the school is 10% Asian, why not dictate that 10% of the athletes must be Asian? Why don't we force the Alabama football team to match its participants to the percentage of the student body who are Presbyterians, military veterans, and disabled? Why not force Women Studies classes to reserve 43% of class seats for men? Also, feminists are always insisting that we acknowledge more than two genders. Why don't they demand different sports teams for agender, bisexual, gender fluid, intersex, transsexual women, cis men, and neutrois persons? Of course, all of this would be dumb. And so is proportional participation of men and women in sports.
How have women gotten away with applying Title IX so that it only benefits women? I believe, among other factors, it is the difference between "separate but equal" and "equal access." Women define programs as one of these two structures always to women's benefit. Sports are defined as "separate but equal." This allows women to participate in separate sports teams. It also triggers a large jobs program for female coaches, officials, and administrators. (Of course, if sports were "equal access," few women would be good enough to participate on teams allowing both men and women.) All other extra-curricular activities are "equal access." All men and women can freely participate in the Drama Club, so there is no sexism or restriction. Women's Studies is also "equal access." Even though few men have any interest in Women's Studies courses, they are not restricted from attending, so a separate but equal Men's Studies Program is not required. Similarly, programs for sexual violence, sexual harassment, stalking, and domestic violence, are "equal access," but since these are so blatantly aimed only at women, men rarely benefit. STEM programs seem to be a combination of "separate but equal" and "equal access," whichever is needed to focus only on women. Sexist women have carefully designed these programs so that they only benefit women.
How do we fix these Title IX problems? First of all, I would make all sports teams "equal access"---just one team for each sport with the best players, whether they are male or female (or bisexual, or transsexual, or agender, or Asian, or Presbyterian.) "Separate but equal" did not work for race, and it also does not work for gender. If few women are able to win spots on these teams, well, too bad. They can play intramurals with all of the men who also are not good enough to make the intercollegiate teams. Besides, we already have this to some extent. Several women have played on men's college football teams. [12] This makes football "equal access" already, and even now we should take football out of any Title IX calculations concerning funding or number of male and female players allowed. As far as using Title IX for sexual violence, sexual harassment, domestic violence, etc., I would suggest Congress clarify the laws and make it clear that these problems should not be handled by colleges, but by the criminal justice system. If colleges have STEM programs for women, then they must also have programs to increase the number of men in nursing, psychology, sociology, gender studies, and other female-heavy disciplines.
Feminist reactions to schooling for males and females exemplify a tendency of feminism. In situations where men and women both have fairly equal advantages and disadvantages, feminists exaggerate women's disadvantages and men's advantages or just fabricate female victimhood (for example, the AAUW's report on girls' low self-esteem,) which leads to the government and society providing aid and advantages to women. Women take advantage of the extra support and clearly end up doing better than men (for example, women are now outperforming men in college.) When the new imbalance is pointed out and that it may now be time to help men, feminists cry foul, declaring that any such help for men would be sexist. Their hypocrisy is blatant. Any disadvantage for women, real or fabricated, calls for new laws and programs to help women obtain equity. Any call for help for disadvantaged men results in cries of sexism. (After I wrote this paragraph, a real-life example appeared. [13] A male member of the British Parliament suggested discussing men's issues on International Men's Day. A female MP laughed out loud and scoffed that every day is International Men's Day. Others joined her in trying to shame the male MP into silence. It appears men may be the only group for which discrimination is not only acceptable, but demanded.)
I wonder if this hypocritical tendency is now being exposed concerning Title IX and sexual abuse. The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) put out a Dear Colleague Letter in 2011. [14] This letter, under the threat of depriving schools of federal funding, forced colleges to adopt procedures unfair to men to resolve sexual abuse charges. These procedures ended much due process for the accused students. After four years of implementing these procedures, their unfairness is becoming evident. Many lawsuits are challenging their validity. So now, the OCR has come up with the Emily Litella response---"Never mind." The OCR now says that this letter was only advisory, and not binding. [15] But all of these colleges now have these unfair procedures ingrained into their systems. I doubt that they will ever be completely removed, if at all.
In this tendency of hypocrisy, feminists and women assume that any difference between women and men is due to sexism---any difference, that is, where women are inferior. (If women are superior to men in any activity, well, feminists say that that is due to women's natural superiority.) Of course, differences between men and women could be genetic. For example, consider certain physical attributes. There are obvious differences between groups in skin color, hair color, eye color, body type, etc., depending on where these groups evolved. But also consider that the fastest people seem to have an ancestry from Sub-Saharan Africa. The best long-distance runners, however, seem to be from East Africa. And the strongest people seem to be from eastern Europe. These patterns seem to hold up in Olympic events like the 100 meter dash---blacks, the 5,000 meter run---Ethiopians, and the shot put---eastern Europeans. They are also apparent in the NFL. Speed positions are predominantly held by African-Americans, while offensive lineman who require upper-body strength are mostly white. Of course, small genetic differences like these are swamped out in comparison to much larger individual variation in most of the population. But at the highest levels, these small genetic differences can be seen. Why can't small genetic differences between men and women similarly lead to more male CEOs, or more male mathematicians, or more female childcare workers, or more female psychologists? Of course, we cannot over-generalize from this and limit CEOs to only men or childcare workers to only women---wide individual differences mean that there are plenty of fantastic female CEOs and male childcare workers. But women should not immediately cry "sexism" just because the rates aren't 50/50. Men and women should have equal opportunity to do what they want, and if the rates aren't 50/50 for some activity, then cries of sexism with any related corrective actions should be avoided unless there is hard proof of sexism. The differences may be due to other factors.
Having said all of this, I wonder if the recent plunge of boys academically is due to feminists' constant demands for more aid for girls, as well as feminists' constant put-downs of men and boys (e.g. T-shirts with "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.") The decline of schooling for boys seems to jibe with the rise of feminism. The facts that boys used to dominate in school, and that they still do better on quizzes on the Constitution seem to imply that their downfall is not genetic.
Sometimes feminists are so involved in claiming victimhood, that they must twist everything into women's victimization. On the October 23rd CBS This Morning show, Gloria Steinem complained that the world now has more men than women, and that violence against women is the reason. Actually, the world should have more men since 51.7% of babies born are male. However, men have higher age-adjusted death rates in almost everything---cancer, heart disease, accidents, work, war, and violence---so women outnumber men in most nations. According to the World Bank, women outnumber men in 81 countries while there are more men in only 37. [16] The United States is 50.4% female. It is odd and self-indulgent that Steinem just assumes that women SHOULD outnumber men. It is also odd and self-indulgent that feminists do not seem to be bothered by these early deaths of men. But there are more men globally mostly because of cultures in China and India that prefer boys and participate in gender selection practices, i.e., they abort female fetuses. It is odd that feminists, who are such staunch advocates for abortion, are against it in this case, especially since the shady Steinem avoided the word "abortion" and went with "violence against women" instead.
Hillary Clinton has been a strong advocate for women and feminism. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, she seemed to tone down this advocacy, I suppose so that she did not appear too radical. But the toning down appears to be over. She appears to be balls-to-the-wall strident this time. ("Balls to the wall" is an aviation metaphor, which is not related to male anatomy.) It looks like she is going to try to take advantage of playing the gender card at every opportunity. For example, she played the gender card during the first debate when she was asked why her Presidency would not be a third Obama term. Her answer was that she is a woman. Even though few are as ingrained in Washington politics as she is, she also claimed to be an outsider because of her gender. She also claimed a lifetime of "fighting for people, fighting for kids, for women, for families." (Notice that "people" includes everybody, but she felt the need to emphasize "kids" and "women," while explicitly leaving out "men.")
And over a week after the debate Clinton accused Bernie Sanders of sexism for saying that she "shouted" about guns, implying that whenever women speak out, men denigrate them by calling it "shouting." She received thunderous applause from women in her audiences for saying this. She also received support from feminist commentators. But she was also criticized for her shameless gender exploitation. As William Saletan has pointed out, Sanders was not being sexist. Sanders had been using a turn of phrase about "shouting" concerning gun control in his speeches and answers for many months. [17] It had nothing to do with women or Hillary Clinton. Once again, super-sensitive women see sexism in everything. And Clinton tried to exploit this by twisting it into a charge of sexism. Nicholas Confessore, political reporter for the New York Times, called Clinton's act a "cheap shot." [18] Even raving feminist Mika Brzezinski used words like "pathetic" and "stupidity" in criticizing Clinton. [19] But still, feminists defended Clinton. Radical feminist Amanda Marcotte admitted that Saletan was correct that Sanders had used the "shouting" term with everyone, but then accused Sanders of being more aggressive in his "tone and amount of the force" with Clinton. [20] (When feminists are proven wrong by the facts, they often come back with vague, nebulous, and unprovable accusations.) She then said Clinton was accusing Sanders of having unconscious biases, which we all have. (Marcotte should be exploring her own unconscious biases.) Heidi Przybyla of USA Today also admitted that Sanders used "shouting" with everyone, but then said men must "adjust" their language for women. [21] Once again, men must not treat men and women equally, because women demand special treatment. I'm afraid this "shouting" controversy is predictive of Clinton's future desire to unfairly play the gender card. But I am pleasantly surprised to see that she will likely get some pushback if she does.
Jennifer Lawrence recently wrote a letter complaining about receiving lower pay for American Hustle than the men in the movie. [22] She blamed herself to some degree for not demanding more money because she didn't want to piss off anyone. But she also accused the movie industry of having a sexist double standard when it criticizes women for being difficult and spoiled for behavior that men get a pass on. She may have a point. But, maybe not. The letter is full of expletives and degrading language. This is hardly the language of a shy and demure person who does not want to "piss anyone off." It seems to be the language of someone who is difficult and spoiled. And besides, didn't she have an agent negotiating her pay for American Hustle? Wasn't the agent working hard to obtain the highest pay for Lawrence in order to increase his/her own pay? This is all kind of strange. Is Lawrence feigning sexist injury to gain sympathy and more popularity? And most strange is that she only appeared in the movie for 22 minutes compared to Christian Bale's 90 minutes. She received 7 points pay versus his 9 points. This means she received 78% of his pay for 24% of his work. And she feels cheated---again, this is the reaction of someone who is spoiled and difficult. She is demanding equal pay for unequal work.
An example of society valuing women more than men is the fact that killers are more likely to receive death sentences and be executed if their victims are female. A recent study of murders in Louisiana proves this point. [23] Women were only 19% of murder victims, yet 41% of those sentenced to death had killed women, and 60% of those executed had killed women. (As one might expect, there was also a large racial bias. Here are the rates of being executed, per 1000 murders, for killing: white women--11.52, white men--3.01, black women--2.06, and black men--0.236. That is, for every 1000 white women murdered, one can expect about 11 of the murderers to be executed, which is about 4 times the execution rate for those murdering white men and about 49 times the execution rate for those murdering black men.) Society and the justice system value women much more than men.
This devaluing of men also occurs concerning political prisoners. I have not been able to find any hard figures, but I have to believe that the vast majority of political prisoners around the world are men. United Nations Representative Samantha Powers, working through the State Department, has led the FreeThe20 Campaign, in which a female political prisoner was highlighted each business day during September. A State Department Briefing gives the details. [24] (Empowering women appeared 4 times.) In agencies that deal with this subject, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, as well as the U.S. State Department, women receive a great deal of general attention. But all three organizations also have special sections just for women. Men do not get special attention, even though they are the main victims.
As I have said before, women and girls seem to get most all charity---men apparently are undeserving of such things and devalue charity pitches. I picked up a promotional 2016 wall calendar from Habitat for Humanity which stated that "every child should have a safe home." Each month showed the picture of a cute child enjoying her new home. I say "her" because 9 of the 12 monthly pictures were of girls---there were only 3 boys. A side page showing pictures of four families showed a similar bias---all four families had a mother but only one showed a father. Habitat for Humanity also exhibits sexism in its women-only work crews. It does not offer men-only work crews. Even in the realm of charity, we must value women more, and pander to them.
Charlize Theron is another example. Her charity, which works against AIDS, focuses on women and girls. In a recent campaign blitz she repeatedly said that AIDS disproportionately affects women. This is not true. Worldwide, fifty-one percent of people living with AIDS are women. [25] In the United States, it is only 25%. [26] But once again, it appears only women are allowed to be victims. It is the old comic headline: "Asteroid to Destroy Earth, Women Affected Most."
When the Pope recently visited the United States, he met with five adults who were victims of child sexual abuse by clergy---three women and two men. This implies that the majority of victims were girls. This is not true. Eighty-one percent of the victims were boys. [27] But, once again, we are not allowed to portray boys as primary victims. Women and girls receive virtually all sympathy and compassion.
Kelly Gissendaner was recently executed in Georgia for the death of her husband. As usual, the execution of a woman brought out unusual sympathy for the accused, as well as unusual criticism of the death penalty. (And it was very unusual that Gissendaner did not claim to be a victim of battered wife syndrome.) The Pope even wrote a letter asking for mercy in this case. Like all chivalry, this is totally sexist. Fifty-seven men have been executed in Georgia since 1983. Gissendaner was the first woman executed by Georgia in 70 years. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected her requests for clemency three times. But, we are not allowed to harm women. Men, no problem---we are encouraged to harm men. It is often considered fun.
A similar example occurred concerning the loss of life in the sinking of the El Faro cargo ship. The crew was made up of 31 men and 2 women. Almost all of the human-interest and sympathetic media coverage for the crew went to one of the women, Danielle Randolph. The men just did not count.
An extreme example of the media focusing on a woman occurred when paramedic Sarah Ray rushed in her wedding dress to a car accident involving relatives just minutes after her wedding ceremony. [29] She was called a hero for her valiant effort to help. She received much media attention. But her new husband, who also is a paramedic, accompanied her but received little attention. Besides, other paramedics and emergency personnel had arrived at the scene before Ray and were handling the situation. She didn't really do anything but verify that everyone was okay. But this is all that is needed to call a woman a hero. The media is desperate to pander to women.
Another example occurred when a pregnant Syrian woman collapsed in front of Richard Engel while he was recording a report which aired in September on the NBC Nightly News. Engel produced a sympathetic follow-up report on the woman and her new baby which aired on October 13th. The odd thing about these reports is that the woman took an obvious flop, worse than most soccer flops. There will be no Academy Award for this woman. She quickly walked up to Engel and fell down between him and the camera, pretending to be overcome by tear gas. Of course, Engel milked it for all it was worth, helping her "recover" from her ordeal, and then highlighting her and her new baby in the follow-up story. Oddly, the actual flop has disappeared from the online versions of these reports. I suspect NBC realized the ridiculous flop made the dramatic and sympathetic tone of the reports look pretty silly.
Journalists do much pandering to women. The Wall Street Journal devoted a whole section of its September 30th issue to why women are not advancing in the workforce equally to men. The main focus concerned a survey of women about work titled "Women in the Workplace, 2015" [30] by LeanIn.org. The articles give the usual feminist answer as to why women hold so few positions in the executive suite compared to men: sexism. But one must be cautious of surveys. In "Self-Indulgent and Delusional" I showed that women lie in surveys about sex. I suspect that women probably were not honest in this workplace survey either, since they have been browbeaten by feminism into believing that any inequality of women is because of sexism. However, a recent study, instead, indicates that women are less likely to want the responsibility, stress, and pressure associated with high-level positions. [31] But, of course, feminists will say, as they did in "Women in the Workplace, 2015," that women have higher stress and pressure due to sexism. Feminists will not let the facts get in the way of a good victimization story.
Everybody must pander to women. Television, hospitals, advertisers, schools, the Pope, the justice system, film festivals, theaters, and magazines---all pander, pander, pander. Fortune Magazine devoted virtually the whole September 15, 2015, issue to women---50 top women CEO's, Google's tech training for women, innovative women in food and drink, and international powerful women are some of the subjects of its articles. The cover story for the October 12th Time Magazine concerned changes in attacking breast cancer. INC Magazine had an article in its October, 2015, edition on the most innovative women. The article postulated that one of these women is likely to be the next Steve Jobs. (It's possible, but not likely.) The September 28th issue of Adweek contained a roundtable interview of 6 leading women in media and business talking about leadership. [32] (Empowering women appeared 3 times) (I don't think I'm too far off by calling the article the height of self-indulgent vagina-gazing.) Backpacker Magazine took a survey on women in backpacking and gave the results in its October, 2015, issue. (I don't think I'm too far off by calling the article the height of inane triviality.) These constant attempts at special treatment of women as a group exposes the fact that women are often not competitive in these endeavors, otherwise women would just be integrated into the magazines' articles normally. Also, the fact that these magazines must highlight special sections or editions just for women shows the marketing dominance that women enjoy. Businesses believe that they must pander to women because women make most product decisions. And this also reveals women's self-indulgence, since they demand this special treatment. Women do not complain about this sexism.
On the October 13th edition of Bloomberg's With All Due Respect TV show, John Heilemann made fun of his two male guests. He introduced one by commenting on the amount of hair product he used and directed the first question to his other guest by saying "age before beauty." No one was offended. All considered it good-natured ribbing. But imagine what would happen if Heilemann did something like this to female guests. It would not be considered good-natured ribbing, but offensive sexism. Women around the world would have had a field day criticizing this sexism against women. I suppose one explanation for this difference would be that women, in their feeling of superiority, want the world to adhere to their standard---don't make fun of people. But this explanation cannot be correct since women do not complain about people making fun of men. So, the only conclusion is that this is just blatant hypocrisy and sexism against men since it is okay to make fun of men but never women. It also shows women's super-sensitivity and humorlessness. It also shows women do not want equality, but superiority.
Another example of the media's duplicity involved a man and a woman swooning over young members of the opposite sex. Jeb Bush commented that the new Supergirl was "hot." He was criticized for this by journalists who called him "awkward" and "creepy." At about the same time Gayle King on the October 23rd, CBS This Morning flirted shamelessly with Bradley Cooper saying that she was "smitten" and "available." She received no criticism.
I noted in my last article that women are more sexual in their appearance than men. A blatant example of this occurred on the September 28th Late Show. Michelle Obama, THE FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES---one would not expect her to be sexual---appeared on the show with her boobs exposed. This is a good example of the complete duplicity feminism has imposed on our society concerning sexuality: women are allowed to be very sexual, and it is considered normal. But men risk being fired, or kicked out of college, or sued if they make an unwelcome sexual comment or advance---things which in an earlier time may have been considered rude, but may now be criminal. It is so ridiculously hypocritical. And, of course, hypocrisy this strong indicates that women are in charge.
When an 8-year-old male relative enthusiastically hugged Jennifer Connell, she fell and broke her wrist. She sued the boy for $127,000. She received much attention and condemnation for this. I suppose I could attack her for her selfishness, but I believe she did it for obscure legal reasons in an attempt to collect insurance. I am going to come at this from a different angle. Many media reports on the story named the boy. I have noticed that media assertions that they never name minors only seem to be true if the minors are female. I have noticed that boys are often named. Another example occurred on the October 23rd 20/20 TV program on ABC concerning a custody case involving 3 adopted girls. The girls were not named and their faces were pixilated out. But the 3 natural sons of the parents involved were named and shown. And this inconsistency isn't restricted to minors. The media seem to go to great lengths to protect females of any age, while males get no such courtesy. Courts also hide the identity of female victims while not doing the same for male victims.
Something similar occurred when a male airline pilot and a female flight attendant both went a little crazy on flights in separate incidents a few years ago. [33] The incidents were only a few weeks apart, and quite similar. The pilot ran through the cabin ranting about terrorism and religion. During the pre-flight instructions, the flight attendant ranted about 9/11, bankruptcy, being bipolar, and that the plane would crash. In restraining the pilot a flight attendant was bruised in the ribs. In restraining the flight attendant, two other flight attendants were injured severely enough to be taken to the hospital. The reactions by the media and the authorities to these similar events were quite different. The pilot was named and was shown being strapped to a wheeled chair after being arrested. He was charged with interfering with a flight crew but was found innocent due to insanity---he had suffered a recent seizure due to a childhood head injury. He was incarcerated in a prison medical facility for seven months. He was forced to enter a treatment program for dependency. His pilot's license was revoked. The flight attendant was neither named nor arrested. Since she wasn't named, it is hard to know of any consequences to her. But hints in the coverage indicate that she may have just been put back on her bipolar medication. Treating men much more harshly for similar incidents seems to be the norm.
Other examples have also occurred on planes. A male flight attendant cursed a passenger, grabbed a beer, and slid down the emergency chute. He was named, arrested, fined $10,000, forced into counseling and substance abuse treatment, and spent a year on probation. [34] A female passenger on another flight caused a ruckus when flight attendants tried to remove her cat, which she carried on the flight in her purse. She punched a flight attendant in the face and threatened to bring down the plane. Two fighter jets were scrambled to escort the airliner to a nearby airport. Passengers cheered when she was escorted off of the plane, but the very selfish woman turned and said, "I don’t know what’s your problem, I got what I wanted." She was not named in the media, and her face was pixilated out in a video I saw. She was not arrested and the FBI spokesperson called the incident a "misunderstanding." [35] How can women get away with so much crap? How can the media and the authorities treat men and women so differently? How can women complain about sexism?
I realize that my evidence is anecdotal in these last examples, and that factors such as parental permission and whether the person is arrested can influence whether someone is named in the media, but there still appears to be a double standard and a pattern to protect women from any punishment or embarrassment.
I am a left-handed, bald, shy, fashion-conscious, tone-deaf, blue-eyed, somewhat overweight, Zoroastrian, Caucasian cis-male accountant with a master's degree in Transportation Management Systems of Chinese/Swedish/Jamaican descent with a bad knee, and I enjoy country music, bowling, woodworking, brandy, dry humor, and the history of thirteenth century Incan civilization. Because of this, I cannot find a role model. I know one guy who is close, but instead of being bald, he has a comb-over.
Of course, I am being over-the-top facetious to make a point---people do not have to match perfectly to be role models. Anyone could be my role model, even animals. I could admire the teamwork of bees, or the parenting devotion of birds, or the courage of honey badgers. Gosh, even women could be my role models. But women seem to be on this kick that only women can be role models for girls. Therefore, we must have women astronauts, women scientists, women CEOs, women Presidents, and kick-ass women in order to provide role models for girls, as if the same gender is required to be a role model. This is so self-indulgent. And the media must highlight these women at every opportunity. This is ridiculous. Men can be role models for girls.
Anyone can be a role model for girls. But do men want to be mentors to women and girls? As psychologist Kim Elsesser and others have pointed out, sexual harassment rules and prevention training are frightening men away from mentoring women. [36] A man being alone with a female co-worker, at or after work, could result in sexual harassment, false sexual harassment accusations, or rumors affecting the whole work environment. And as I have noted many times, treating men and women the same can often result in hypocritical charges of sexism against men. Once again, women are demanding to be treated better than men. As a result, many men are refusing to mentor or socialize with female co-workers. This can limit women's careers because they are removed from important networking structures. This puts men in a double bind---risk being labeled a sexist for an inadvertent comment to a female co-worker that would not bother a male co-worker, or risk being labeled a sexist for not associating with female co-workers at all. Elsesser believes we can find a happy medium. But, in the current environment where sexual harassment seems to be defined as anything unwelcome by super-sensitive women, [37] I think men are in a no-win situation. I do not believe anyone wants a gender-segregated workplace. But unless selfish women and feminists become more reasonable, we will all be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
More generally, many men (and women) are noticing the great difficulty and danger in dealing with women and girls. [38] Although not always exclusively about women, problems including seeing sexual harassment in anything unwelcome, invented rape culture, trigger warnings, political correctness, oppressive speech codes, microaggressions, accusations are proof, the demand to be protected from any discomfort, and even distorted thinking and some mental illnesses seem to have sprung from women's self-indulgence and feminism. Many men (and women) are staying as far from these things as possible. An unfortunate word or deed could result in jail, loss of employment, or expulsion from school. This has resulted in the avoidance of women by many and contributed to the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement.
When Edward O. Wilson came out with his ideas on sociobiology, postulating that society and culture evolve just like organisms, feminists strongly protested. They felt that his theory would be used to justify the tribalism and group think that leads to sexism against women. Yet, feminism is all about tribalism and group think and sexism---against men. Its purpose is to promote, glorify, and privilege the female tribe, while disparaging, discriminating against, and punishing all in the male tribe. (This gender blindness reminds me of the kids' saying: If you accuse and point a finger at someone, then three fingers point back at you.) Feminist hypocrisy knows no bounds.
It is bad enough that men have to bribe self-involved brides with diamond rings, but now the Ever Us ring has arrived, just in time for Christmas and Valentine's Day. It has TWO diamonds, one for True Love and one for Best Friend. Jewelers know just how self-indulgent women can be.
I note all of the local events and activities that are predominantly female and predominantly male. In the last year I have counted 75 for women and 5 for men. Some of the women's events have included three Downtown Girls' Night Out events, a Women's Wellness Night, performances of The Vagina Monologues, a Wear Red Heart Health luncheon, a Women in STEM luncheon, a Girls in Engineering, Math and Science Night Out, a Women's Economic Security panel discussion sponsored by the League of Women Voters, bra donation to help third world women's businesses, a travelogue for single women, a bridal show, several benefits for women's shelters, a benefit concert for female musicians, women's issues lectures and discussions, a church-sponsored vocal workshop for women only, a Feminine Energy Workshop, a Go Tech Workshop for middle-school girls, several runs for women and girls, two lectures on girls and puberty, an art sale by women artists, a Divine Feminine Workshop, five Mother's Day events, AAUW events which highlighted girls in STEM and raised scholarship money for girls, a Women in Manufacturing dinner with giveaways and scholarships, a Ladies Tea, a Wisdom of the Grandmothers' lecture, a YWCA Leadership Breakfast, an exhibit of Women Painters, a Girls' Rock Camp, a Spirit Reading for Women, a Girls' Weekend Getaway, a benefit for Planned Parenthood's early breast cancer detection, a meeting for women philanthropists, a forum for injury prevention for women runners, a women's film festival, a ladies' night at a local hardware store, as well as a weekly radio show "celebrating women," and weekly jazz performances by women's bands. Men's events were a Downtown Guy's Night Out, a Father's Day car show, a workshop for middle-school boys interested in health field careers, a prostate cancer seminar, and a memorial carving workshop for men. Men are second-class citizens, at best.
It seems like live theater is becoming more and more female-oriented. Some recent and upcoming shows in my local theater scene include: Mary Poppins, Alice in Wonderland, My Fair Lady, Cats, Madama Butterfly, The Odd Couple: The Female Version, Little Women, Menopause, and Girls Night Out. Also, local theaters seem to be putting on a lot of musicals: Legally Blonde The Musical, A Christmas Carol: The Musical, Saturday Night Fever: The Musical, Flashdance: The Musical, Baby: The Musical, Les Miserables, and Little Shop of Horrors. We must pander to women in everything.
Even Saturday Night Live is becoming more and more female-oriented. It used to be a sketch comedy show. But it is quickly becoming a frickin' musical.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with groups trying to attract more women, except that this diversification only seems to go one way. Predominately male groups and activities have been shamed and forced to open up to women. But female-only groups and activities have not only maintained their exclusivity, but the number of these groups and activities has exploded. Certainly seventy-five local women's events versus five men's events is an indication. Also, the YMCA has more women than men members, yet the YWCA does not even allow men as members. The Boys Scouts allow girls in Explorers, yet the Girl Scouts do not allow boys (unless they are transgender.) Televised sports now include female announcers and commentators, but The View, The Talk, and To The Contrary are by and for women. It seems all sports teams fight against breast cancer, but none care about prostate, or lung, or brain, or colon cancers. All action movies now include kick-ass women, but chick flicks offer little to men. Both Viagra and Premarin ads use female actors. Men's clubs like the Elks have been forced to accept women, but countless women's clubs remain women-only. Many organizations (e.g., Amnesty International, Habitat for Humanity, American Red Cross, and the ACLU) have women's subgroups but no men's subgroups. There are countless government bureaus and laws just for women but few for men. Nothing new, just women being selfish, hypocritical, and delusional victims. Watch out for that asteroid.
[1] Even the President indulged in this need for a kick-ass girl on October 27th, when he praised the U.S. women's soccer team by saying: "Playing like a girl means you're a badass." Perhaps he was referring to goalie and domestic abuser, Hope Solo.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/12976615/detailed-look-hope-solo-domestic-violence-case-includes-reports-being-belligerent-jail
[2] "Women See Value and Benefits of College" by Paul Taylor
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/08/17/women-see-value-and-benefits-of-college-men-lag-on-both-fronts-survey-finds/
[3] http://www.goacta.org/publications/college_governance_survey
[4] https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/files/let_girls_learn_fact_sheet_03032015.pdf
[5] http://www.oxfamblogs.org/eastafrica/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Global-Campaign-for-Education-report1.pdf
[6] http://www.goacta.org/images/download/Constitution_Day_Survey.pdf
[7] http://cawp.rutgers.edu/footnotes/womenvote2014-tracking-gender-gap-and-women%E2%80%99s-vote-2014
[8] Calculated from data for 2013 in The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2015, page 617
[9] Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer by the Sentencing Project
[10] "ESTIMATING GENDER DISPARITIES IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES" by Sonja B. Starr
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002
[11] http://ncfm.org/2015/09/news/discrimination-news/against-men-news/ncfm-member-jim-jackson-on-male-control-theory/
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_American_football_players
[13] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11969823/Philip-Davies-MP-Political-correctness-is-damaging-men.html
[14] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf
[15] http://www.saveservices.org/2015/10/pr-dept-of-education-sexual-assault-program-falls-into-disarray-save-calls-on-congress-to-take-action/
[16] http://qz.com/335183/heres-why-men-on-earth-outnumber-women-by-60-million/
[17] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/hillary_clinton_is_smearing_bernie_sanders_as_a_sexist_it_s_an_insult_to.html
[18] 10/27/15 Hardball on MSNBC
[19] 10/27/15 Morning Joe on MSNBC
[20] http://www.salon.com/2015/10/27/hillary_baits_bernie_beautifully_shouting_sexism_and_the_simple_sorry_that_would_make_sanders_look_less_jerky/
[21] 10/27/15 Hardball on MSNBC
[22] http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/?u=a5b04a26aae05a24bc4efb63e&id=64e6f35176&e=1ba99d671e
[23] Race-Of-Victim Discrepancies in Homicides and Executions, Louisiana 1976-2015, By Frank R. Baumgartner and Tim Lyman, Loyola University of New Orleans Journal of Public Interest Law, Fall 2015
[24] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/09/246541.htm
[25] http://kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-global-hivaids-epidemic/
[26] http://www.amfar.org/about-hiv-and-aids/facts-and-stats/statistics--women-and-hiv-aids/
[27] https://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
[28] http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/01/22/fantasy-sports-daily-games-women-customers/22198493/
[29] http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/paramedic-bride-leaves-wedding-respond-car-crash-involving/story?id=34423633
[30] http://womenintheworkplace.com/ui/pdfs/Women_in_the_Workplace_2015.pdf?v=5
[31] "Compared to men, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable" by Francesca Gino http://www.pnas.org/content/112/40/12354.full.pdf
[32] http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/how-6-powerful-women-media-and-marketing-redefined-rules-leadership-167182
[33] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/clayton-osbon-jetblue-pil_n_2101392.html
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/jetblue-pilot-clayton-osbon-sues-airline-for-21m-three-years-after-midair-meltdown/story-fnizu68q-1227290814615
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20120309-flight-attendants-rant-delays-american-airlines-flight-at-dfw.ece
[34] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jetblue-hero-attendant-steven-slater-gets-probation/
[35] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215361/FBI-investigates-international-flight-diverted.html
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/08/30/crazy-woman-causes-flight-diversion-to-dia-all-because-of-a-cat/
[36] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-elsesser-sexual-harrassment-training-20151009-story.html
http://nypost.com/2015/05/26/why-powerful-men-now-hide-behind-open-doors/
[37] http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/a-compliment-isnt-misogynistic-why-dont-feminists-understand-this/
[38] http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/06/my-title-ix-.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
“I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” by Edward Schlosser at http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
