Truth Needs To Keep Its Pants On

Here are more examples of women's self-indulgence, delusion, hypocrisy, and misandry.

During the recent refugee crisis of Syria, many shouted that only women and children refugees should be allowed into the United States. Single men should definitely be barred. This sexism was based on the assumption that only men are evil terrorists. Of course, these sexist demands were immediately stifled when a woman was involved in the San Bernardino terrorist attacks. But, of course, women have always been involved in terrorist attacks. Many people seem to have such an ingrained prejudice against men that reality can be a shock.

In an earlier piece I referenced another article showing that National Public Radio is quite sexist. [1] Well, the public radio channel is at it again. During October, NPR broadcast a series of segments concerning how 15-year-old girls are coping around the world. [2] The series included reports on surviving in San Salvador, paying for school, playing soccer, menstruation, girl labor, child brides, emigrating, living in the U.S.A., and teaching boys to respect women. Why must the media constantly focus on women and girls? Why couldn't the experiences of 15-year-old boys have been included in the series---well, other than teaching them to respect girls and women.

Others have noticed the bias inherent in NPR reporting. Chris Mumford explored the tags associated with NPR stories. [3] Though not a rigorous scientific examination of NPR programming, Mumford found that there were 2.25 more stories about girls than boys, 2.84 times as many stories on female than male cancers, and 7.8 times as many stories about women than men when youth and cancer stories were removed. I would guess that the bias against men on NPR is even stronger than indicated by these figures since many more of the female tags counted contain a political element not present in many of the male tags. For example, female tags like "Pink ribbon breast cancer awareness," "Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead," "American Association of University Women," "most powerful women," "women in tech," and "feminism" have a much more political and women-as-a-group meaning than male tags like "10-year-old boy," "Balloon boy," or "Yukon men." Mumford also noticed that many male tags but no female tags had negative connotations associated with them, e.g. "creepy men on motorcycles," "yes men," and "fat boys." Why is the media so sexist? This is especially troubling considering that NPR does not have to bow to the sexism forced on advertising media. (Women make most product purchases, so advertisers and advertising media must aim at women.) Also, since NPR receives government aid, it should not discriminate.

During the second Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton once again played the gender card, pandering to women. After practically shushing Bernie Sanders, she stated that 60 percent of her donors are women, which resulted in thunderous applause. She also claimed that a major breakthrough of the Affordable Care Act was that it ended discrimination against women in healthcare. In the Democratic Debate from Charleston, South Carolina, Clinton again played several woman cards. She said she would enforce equal pay for women while ignoring the fact that there is little evidence that the discrepancy between men’s' and women’s' pay is due to discrimination. She also decried the discrimination against black men in our justice system compared to white men, while ignoring the fact that the discrimination against men compared to women is far worse. [4] She also praised the Affordable Care Act for equalizing health insurance premiums paid by men and women, while ignoring the continuing higher premiums men must pay for car insurance. This is more evidence that Clinton would not be a President for the whole country, but would discriminate against half of its population. But the really strange thing about this debate was that she shouted almost all the way through it. This was odd considering that she accused Bernie Sanders of being sexist for saying that she "shouted" about guns in the first debate. I wonder if this shouting is a trick to make her look victimized and angry about it.

I also wonder if this tactic of Clinton's of trying to exploit gender is working. It doesn't seem to be working with women 18-25 years old. Bernie Sanders recently had a 19-point lead over Clinton among Democratic and independent women in this age group. [5]

Feminists have a knack for twisting almost anything into oppression of women. On the January 7th Daily Show, Dahlia Mogahed countered the feminist claim that the hijab worn by Muslim women is an example of oppression of women. She explained that she wears the head covering as an act of devotion to her religion, that she is following a commandment of her faith, and that it privatizes her sexuality. She then explained that inherent in oppression is the idea of taking away one's power, and that this implies that feminists' complaint against the hijab is that it takes away women's power, i.e., women's public sexual power. So, even though feminists often complain about women being sexualized by society, here is an example of feminists complaining about women not being sexualized and losing their sexual power. Everything is oppression of women.

While discussing women's sexual power, let's discuss the recent State of the Union address. I noticed afterward that the big topic of conversation for women was not politics or government or the national debt, but Michelle Obama's "sleeveless banded-bodice marigold-colored wool crepe midi dress from the Fall 2015 Narciso Rodriguez ready-to-wear collection." [6] Women like to blame men for the over-sexualization of women and ignore the fact that women are to blame for most of it themselves. Women want and need to be sexualized. It is their main power. I believe that women would be very upset if they actually got their insincere wish to not be treated sexually by men. Then women would have to initiate, pay for their own meals, open their own doors, buy their own wedding rings, pay him alimony, etc. Women would probably complain then, too. Everything is oppression of women.

The Ad Council recently launched a new campaign called #TeachEarly to encourage men to stop violence against women. The press release for the launch [7] uses phrases such as "pivotal role that men play in preventing domestic and sexual violence," "it’s important for men to talk to boys about violence against women and girls," "engage boys in a discussion about relationships, respecting women, and preventing violence," "violence against women is never acceptable," and "change the way that young men think about how to treat women." This is odd considering that men are victims of violence far more often than women. As I have mentioned before, chivalry often stops violence against women, but violence against men has few restrictions. This is just one more example of society valuing women more than men. And, of course, everything is oppression of women.

The word "survivor" is used liberally by feminists, exclusively for women. It is used to describe, among others, female rape victims, female domestic violence victims, and female breast cancer victims. Of course, the implication in this word is that these victims usually die. Is there any justification for this, or is its use a shameless, bathetic demand for sympathy for women? Consider the statistics. Over 200,000 women each year get breast cancer, and about 40,000 die. [8] Of the roughly 80,000 rape victims in the U.S. each year, about 200 of them are murdered. [9] There are roughly 800,000 incidents annually of intimate partner violence, roughly half of which involve female victims. In 2007, there were 2,340 deaths from intimate partner violence---about 70% were women, or roughly 1638 deaths. [10] The use of the word "survivor" in these instances is quite hyperbolic. But also consider the following facts. In 2014, there were 4,679 work-related deaths (92% were men.) [11] Yet, we do not refer to all male job-holders as "survivors." In 2013, there were 32,706 motor vehicle deaths (71% were men.) [12] Yet, we do not refer to all male automobile drivers or passengers as "survivors." Home fires killed about 2,750 people in 2013. [13] Yet, we do not refer to all those who live in houses as "survivors." Not to belabor this point any longer, but we are all survivors in some sense, and feminists' brazen exploitation of the word is the sexist demand that we value and pity women more than men. Its use demands that women be seen as victimized and oppressed. It is sexist as hell. Knock it off.

The assumptions in the previous paragraph that rape, domestic violence, and cancer have predominantly female victims is wrong. Cancer kills about 10% more men than women in the United States. [14] There is even evidence that rape and domestic violence are also problems that victimize men to about the same degree as women. A website [15] run by Martin Fiebert of Cal State, Long Beach, gives a comprehensive bibliography of studies showing that men are victims of domestic violence about as often as women. As far as deaths from domestic violence are concerned, a study by Richard Davis has shown that deaths of men outnumber those of women if suicides from domestic violence are included. Estimates from the study are that nationwide "7,832 male and 1,958 female suicides were precipitated by intimate partner problems." [16] Also consider that 70% of parents killing their children are mothers, and 60% of those children killed are sons. [17] Studies also indicate that when men who are "made to penetrate" and prisoners are included, men are raped as often as women. An analysis by Lara Stemple [18] found that 1.3 million women were raped, and 1.3 million men were raped or "made to penetrate" in a recent year. Stemple points out that FBI definitions did not even consider that men could be raped until 2012. But the new definitions are probably still greatly undercounting male rape victims. [19]

In a recent Ken Burns documentary on cancer, "The Emperor of All Maladies," Mary Lasker went to President Lyndon Johnson to ask for money for cancer research. Johnson said he couldn't do it. Lasker insisted. Johnson put his hand on her knee and asked her just how bad did she want the money. She removed his hand and threatened to tell Lady Bird. She got the money. I have noted before that many powerful male politicians have risked everything for illicit sex. I have also noted before how so much of the government focuses on and panders to women. I believe these are connected. These lecherous politicians seem to be the same men who fight for women's causes and give feminists everything they demand. Johnson, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, Bob Packwood, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Brock Adams quickly come to mind. This group includes Democrats and Republicans. I suspect women have blackmailed these men into fighting for legislation benefitting women or the men risk being exposed. These male officials, in an attempt to satisfy their base sexual needs, have sold out all other men. Even if the dalliances are exposed, women still take advantage of these situations. For example, Patty Murray (voted "dimmest bulb" by Senate staffers [20]) was elected to replace the disgraced Brock Adams. And when Dominique Strauss-Kahn of the International Monetary Fund was suspected of bad behavior, he was replaced by Christine Lagarde. (He was later exonerated of all charges.) I suspect this blackmailing of men has played a large part in establishing the great imbalance in government services between men and women. I would recommend ending the employment of these lecherous men, as well as the women politicians who take advantage of these situations to cheat their male constituents out of equal benefits. And then perhaps both could be brought up on quid pro quo sexual harassment charges.

(Update: This idea of exposing men's bad behavior in order to replace them with women is getting quite blatant. When Joe Biden was accused of being awkward and creepy by Lucy Flores and Amy Lappos, the two women were a bit creepy and sexist in explaining their motivations for exposing Biden: "One (woman), who has supported a political competitor to Biden, acknowledges that she is speaking because Biden is considering entering the primaries; the other says that if Biden really respects women, he should not run and clear the field for the capable women candidates.” [47] Women are using sexual accusations to defeat political rivals.)

Recently, several students at Utah's Canon City High School were caught taking and passing around sexually explicit photos of themselves and other students. This caused a big outcry in the media. And even though girls were participating as well as boys, the major focus was on punishing boys on the football team. There was much talk of charging the boys with felony child pornography, something which would have ruined their lives. Obviously, exaggerating this minor childhood indiscretion into a major crime would have been devastating. But the current hatred of all-things-boys, and all-things-football (i.e., all-things-that-boys-like) nearly resulted in a tragedy. But calmer heads prevailed and no one was charged. [21] But this shows how women and girls are always seen as victims of boys and men, and that men are treated more harshly and unfairly.

In "Men Give, Women Take" I noted the sexism against men that occurred when women in Sweden obtained political power. Well, the women of Sweden are at it again. The Swedish Women's Lobby is distributing the book We Should All Be Feminists to all 16 year-olds throughout Sweden's high schools. Feminism is an ideology, and as such, should not be promoted by government. Government-based high schools should not be involved in promoting this ideology. No one would allow other ideologies to be so brazenly promoted by government. Imagine the uproar if some group used public high schools to promote Stalinism, atheism, Neo-liberalism, Paleoconservativism, fascism, Mormonism, or even Anarcho-syndicalism. Why is feminism allowed to be so self-indulgent?

This promotion of feminism also occurs in most colleges with their Women's Studies Programs. (Women's Studies is now often called Gender Studies. I suppose this is an attempt to make it look less sexist, but there isn't a flea's eyelash of difference.) Women's Studies is considered the academic arm of feminism. [22] As such, feminism has no business promoting its ideology in our colleges, especially public colleges. And the promotion is often quite strong and nefarious. The teaching is often more like indoctrination. The scholarship is dubious at best. Any dissent is silenced. Hostility toward and hatred of men is blatant. Science is rejected. And proponents attempt to integrate the ideology into all other disciplines. It is a scourge on our college campuses.

Women's Studies Programs may also have some problems with math. Feminists claim that 20% of college women are sexually assaulted. (Actually, the study that feminists are quoting---incorrectly---says that 13.7% of college women are sexually assaulted. The figure rises to 19% when attempted sexual assaults are added. [23]) Twenty percent of the 12 million college women implies that 2.4 million female college students are sexually assaulted. Feminists also claim that only 12% of sexual assaults are reported to police, [24] which would imply that 288,000 college women report their assaults to police. Another option for victims is to report assaults to their universities, which is far easier than reporting to police. So the number of college women reporting assaults to their universities should be far higher than 288,000. However, the number who actually reported to their universities in 2012 was 3,900. [25] Four years in college implies 15,600 total victims. This is only 5% of the minimum 288,000. These numbers just do not add up. They are not even close. Once again, feminists make up facts to fit their ideology, ignoring the truth.

United Educators, which insures colleges against sexual assault charges, released a report [26] in which it revealed that 72% of payments in legal fees and payouts to claimants were for claims brought by the men accused of sexual assault. Only 28% of losses were incurred for claims brought by accusers. It appears that a large number of the accusations brought by women are false. And this was for the period of 2006 to 2010, before the Dear Colleague Letter of 2011, which severely limited the due process available to men accused of sexual assault on college campuses. (The Department of Education continues to say that this letter is only advisory, [27] but the Department's actions still appear to threaten federal funding to colleges if the "advice" isn't strictly followed. [28]) I have to assume a large increase in the payouts to falsely accused men since the 2011 Letter.

The United Educators report also revealed that in 92% of claims involving losses, the accuser was intoxicated with drugs or alcohol, so intoxicated, in fact, that in 63% of the cases the accuser had no clear memory of the incident. But feminists continue their totally unreasonable demand that women bear absolutely no responsibility or need to change their behavior---women should wear what they want to wear no matter how sexual, women should go where they want to go no matter how dangerous, and women should drink as much as they want. Feminists say that it is men, and not just sexual offenders, but all men who need to change their behavior. Men must end the so-called "Patriarchy," change rape culture, receive affirmative consent for all sexual activities, and be responsible for their alcohol consumption. According to feminism, women can always do what they want with no responsibility, and men are always responsible for any bad outcomes. Feminists continue to insist that if we tell women not to drink to excess, that we are "victim-blaming" women. And we are not allowed to do this. Because it is always men's fault. Of course, this attitude is ridiculous. One argument that I have heard that counters this attitude uses burglary---of course burglars should be held responsible for their crimes, yet we still lock our doors. Of course, we should hold rapists responsible for their actions, yet we can still inconvenience women (and men) to do what they can to prevent rape. As well as encouraging women to go to parties with friends, or not walk alone at night, we can also encourage them not to drink to excess in risky situations. This is not victim-blaming. We often sacrifice in order to protect ourselves. For example, even if we do not like the restrictions of seat belts or motorcycle helmets, we still wear them. Even if we hate the inconvenience and loss of sensation of condoms, we put them on for the protection of ourselves and others. But, of course, women are so extremely self-indulgent and selfish, that they feel they shouldn't have to deal with any such inconveniences. (This demand that women cannot bear any initiative or responsibility reached ridiculous heights a while back, when feminists criticized a nail polish that detected rape drugs in drinks as putting too much expectation on women.)

The report from United Educators also noted that 63% of accusers were freshmen. I suppose feminists would explain this by declaring that men get together in their "Patriarchy" classes and exchange notes on how to inebriate naive and vulnerable freshmen women so that they can easily be raped. Of course, this is absurd. Sophomore/Junior/Senior women drink too. A more reasonable explanation is that male and female freshmen, who are often inexperienced in sexual relations and alcohol use, arrive at college to find that they are now free from parental restrictions. Throw in some bad judgement and the result is a perfect storm of miscommunication and unintended consequences. This seems to be the recipe of the alleged college rapes that I have seen details for. The men involved are completely surprised when they are accused of rape. Even the women often do not call it rape until they meet with feminist "counselors" who convince them that almost anything should be considered rape, even regret. [29] But feminists have twisted these complicated and ambiguous situations and turned them all into heinous cases of rape. And then they complain of an epidemic of rape on our campuses. This outcry has caused questionable administrative and legal procedures to punish men and infantilize women.

Lawyers are also having trouble with the current witch hunt concerning sexual assault on campuses. Speakers at a panel discussion, "Grappling With Campus Rape," at a recent meeting of the American Association of Law Schools [30] were critical of current procedures. Criticisms included: focusing too much on campus rape which is less frequent than rape outside of campus, students filing charges after talking to "counselors," sexual assault and gender-based discrimination have no business being lumped together, "Dear Colleague" letters have no legal backing, David Lisak’s serial predator theory which demands strong punishment for offenders is not valid, current solutions are often quite severe for mild offenses, and the lack of due process in the procedures. It seems feminists have taken to heart the saying by Winston Churchill, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Feminists often seem to raise a big stink full of dubious accusations, and demand immediate action to fix any alleged victimization of women. It is only later that we realize we have been duped. But, the laws and procedures put in place to remedy their bogus or exaggerated problems remain in place.

The current hysteria over sexual assault in college is an example of not inconveniencing women or giving them any responsibility. Women found it too difficult to be responsible and go through the hassle and embarrassment of going to police and reporting a rape. So feminists, with the help of the Office for Civil Rights for the Department of Education and odd interpretations of Title IX, instituted this work-around where women could much more easily punish men for sexual violations by going to their university. This solution is not only sexist since it removes much due-process for accused men, but it is also quite classist, since it is an avenue only available to those who can afford to go to college. Poor women not in college still have to go to the police. This solution also has many other problems. Self-indulgent women can more easily consider themselves victims and deny any culpability. As Carol Tavis put it: "It’s so much easier to be a victim than to admit culpability, admit your own involvement, admit that you made a mistake.” [31] Because of the lack of due process and the fact that these programs are often run by misandrist feminists who are encouraging women to see rape in any and all situations, many innocent men are being accused and punished. And guilty men are not being imprisoned, and are free to rape again. But, I guess these are the costs of not inconveniencing women or asking them to perform their civic duty.

The current hysteria over sexual assault in college is also an example of women's power. Women get a lot of power from sex. And they do whatever they can to protect that power. So, even while women have demanded that men give up their economic and political power, women are still working to preserve their sexual power. The ever-increasing sexuality of women's appearance is an example, e.g., cosmetics, tanning, spanx, skin exposure, breast implants, lipo-suction, butt lifts or a "sleeveless banded-bodice marigold-colored wool crepe midi dress." Increasing the scopes and punishments for sexual violations are other examples. Sexual jokes have become sexual harassment. No one is allowed to belittle women's sexual power by making jokes about it. (Yet, we are quite free to make economic or political jokes any time we want.) And any sexual mistakes or violations in college have become rape, no matter how minor. If she has been drinking, she has been raped. If he has been drinking, she has been raped. If he didn't receive permission for every motion, she has been raped. If these men are not punished by their colleges, they will lose their federal funds. It is getting pretty ridiculous. But there are many ways women demand special treatment to protect their sexual power. Other laws and customs in this category include restrictions on pornography, restrictions on prostitution, men must initiate, men must pay for dinner---which is an acceptable form of prostitution, men must present diamonds, "no" means "no," "yes" means "yes," alimony---which is another acceptable form of prostitution, media not identifying accusers of sexual crimes, and advisors walking accusers of sexual crimes through the legal system.

It almost seems like men are not welcome in our universities. I can expand on this idea by examining a university that I am somewhat familiar with: Western Washington University. It is a state university in Bellingham, Washington. The university is known for its emphasis on racial, ethnic and gender diversity. (The President of the school caused a stir recently when he said “If we are as white in 10 years as we are today, Western will have failed as a university.” Oddly, the school is only 73% white [32] while the population of the state of Washington is 81% white. [33]) It has 26% more women than men, [34] but does not seem eager to fix this lack of diversity. It panders to women. The school paper constantly has articles about women's issues. The school has a Women's Studies Program, a Women's Center, numerous women's groups and clubs, and special activities for women including STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) programs. An extreme example of this is that the school continues to sponsor an Elect Her Program even though almost all of its student government is female. Comparable considerations and services for men are few and are usually degrading to men. For example, the only club for men is the Western Men Against Violence Club, which strives to end men's violence against women. There is also a Men's Violence Prevention/Mental Health Promotion Service---apparently men at Western are required to be full of guilt, shame, and self-hatred. Oh, and the school has eliminated its football and baseball teams.

Here are other examples of the school's attitude toward men. "The goal with our GEMS programs is to provide a safe and empowering space for girls to explore STEM fields and meet other girls that share those interests. We will not turn away any identity, but would like to respect the focus of this program." [35] In other words, the program does not discriminate (legally, it can't), but boys are not welcome. Also, the school's Viking mascot caused a stir. A professor called it "hyper masculine, hyper violent." [36] I guess the professor equates masculinity and violence. Faulty equipment at a poetry recital sponsored by the Women's Center sparked this joke: “This mic is like an ex-boyfriend, it just doesn’t want to work.” [37] Everybody laughed. I cannot imagine the school or students allowing any other group to be disparaged like this. While promoting the poetry recital, the Women's Center Coordinator explained that the Women's Center was working on changing its name to make it more inclusive. "This space is definitely for people of all marginalized gender identities." [38] Wow, care to guess which group is not included in the new inclusiveness? No need. The Coordinator told us in the very next sentence. "That doesn't mean that [cis-gendered men] can't come to the event though." Well, gee, thanks. (Again, barring men would be illegal.) It is pretty obvious that men are not welcome at Western.

All this talk of all the gender identities reminds me of another hypocrisy of feminism. Feminists constantly point out that there are many, many genders. They will even correct you if you use "he" or "she" pronouns. However, it is amazing how quickly they can revert to binary gender thinking when discussing topics like equal pay, reproductive rights, domestic violence, Title IX, stalking, sexual violence, sexual harassment, etc. In these cases, it is women good, men bad.

I have remarked before that women cannot allow men to get more attention than women. Originally, Movember was a movement to raise awareness of men's health issues. This was facilitated by beard and mustache growing contests during November. Even though women had countless similar vehicles to raise awareness of women's health concerns, women could not handle men having Movember all to themselves. So now, women also participate in Movember by not shaving their legs during November, and the focus has moved to preventing all cancers. Meanwhile, all of the events and programs focused on women's health still are for women only. So self-indulgent.

I have noted before that there is a lot of hatred of men out there in the world. With the constant drone of feminism and the media pushing this misandry, it is no surprise that this hatred can spring up in strange places. One example was on the November 6th Jimmy Kimmel Show. The show did a take-off on the Jay Z song, "99 Problems." They asked 99 people, 54 women and 45 men, on the streets of New York "What's your problem?" Some of the answers were gender-related and exposed a hatred of men. Although three men gave answers of women---"my daughter," "my nagging girlfriend," "my mother-in-law"---please notice that all three complaints are of specific women. (Seven percent of the men commented about women.) Women gave four answers complaining of specific men---"my boyfriend's attitude," "my husband has expensive tastes," "ex son-in-law," "my boyfriend has never seen Grease"--- but women also gave five answers about men in general, including "boyfriend problems as usual," "I hate when men spread their legs on the subway," "men over 40," and "broke-ass men." But the most telling comment was "loser men who come into your life and suck out all the energy, steal your joy." (Seventeen percent of the women commented about men.) Obviously, this little comic survey exposes a vast difference in how men and women view each other. It also shows the self-indulgence of women who feel justified and safe in expressing their hatred of men. Examples of misandry are everywhere.

Other examples of misandry and sexism are the many groups that blatantly focus on women and girls. I have listed many examples in previous articles. Here are a few new ones. Celebrity couple, Sacha Cohen and Isla Fisher, recently donated $1 million to "Save the Children" with a special emphasis on women and girls in Syria. (I guess the men and boys in Syria are having a party.) KeyBank has many programs just for women. [39] (If you do business with KeyBank, please consider moving that business elsewhere.) Lawrence O'Donnell's KIND Fund originally built desks for school kids in Africa, but has now expanded to furnishing scholarships for girls. In a TV ad for Global Citizen, Michelle Obama says "Poverty hits women and girls the hardest." I have been unable to find any justification for such ridiculousness. The Gates Foundation, led by CEO Sue Desmond-Hellmann, has the "Putting Women and Girls at the Center of Development Initiative." (I think I'll delete Windows from my computer and install Linux.) The Giving Pledge is a group of billionaires who pledge to give at least half of their money to charity. Sara Blakely, of Spanx fame, has promised her Giving Pledge money toward "helping women." Many institutions (and Carly Fiorina) provide microloans for women only, even though there is little evidence that these loans help in bringing people out of poverty. [40] It is amazing to me that sexism, or racism, or any other "ism" is so categorically condemned except sexism against men. This is the one "ism" that is not only not condemned, but it is encouraged. It is stylish, popular, and en vogue. You are so 1960s if you do not discriminate against men. Everybody does it and no one feels the slightest guilt or fear of being exposed.

I have commented before on women's hypocrisy and sensitivity toward their appearance, especially female politicians. We are not allowed to comment about their hair or clothes or anything without risking the wrath of the feminist community crying sexism. (The only exception to this that I can think of is Hillary Clinton's pant suits.) But we are allowed to insult and make fun of male politicians' appearance. On the 12/1/14 Daily Show, Jon Stewart called Chris Christie a pig. On the 3/16/15 Morning Joe, Senator Claire McCaskill made fun of Joe Scarborough's pants. The 8/4/15 Daily Show said Bernie Sander's messy hair resulted when he stuck his dick in an electric socket. On the 8/16/15 The View, Michelle Collins made fun of Chris Christie's junk and "balls" in tight pants. Marco Rubio was criticized for wearing stylish boots with thick heels. No one complained of the sexism of these comments. How can we not see that women are really in charge when we can insult and make fun of men all we want, but we cannot do anything like that to women? Oh, and everything is oppression of women.

Many have commented on the duplicity of using derogatory terms for men’s' and women’s' body parts. Except in very formal situations, words like "dick," "prick," and "ball," are usually acceptable for male body parts or even invectives---a woman can usually get away with calling a man a "dick." But words like "cunt," "clit," and "tit," are not acceptable under any circumstances---a man cannot get away with calling a woman a "cunt." At first blush, I thought the difference may be due to the fact that the "male" words have perfectly acceptable alternative uses. (George Carlin noted the multiple meanings by saying one can "prick a finger," but can't "finger a prick.") Meanwhile, the "female" words do not have any acceptable alternative meanings and therefore are never acceptable. Upon further reflection, I believe the difference is pure sexism and misandry. I came to this conclusion because late night shows and daytime talk shows can joke about a woman cutting off a man's part whether it is called a "penis" or a "dick," but it is never acceptable to joke about a man cutting out a woman's part whether it is called a "vagina" or a "cunt" or a "cookie."

A further example of this kind of hypocrisy concerns statutory rape. Saturday Night Live has broadcast two comedy skits (10/10/15 and 1/23/16) concerning a student raped by teachers. Of course, there is no way they could do this with female students and male teachers, so the genders were reversed. Raping girls is horrific, but raping boys is funny. Both skits showed a boy testifying in court and bragging about having sex with teachers. The judge joined in on the celebration. Such hypocrisy.

There was another large outcry recently when the Academy Awards again had no nominations for blacks. The outcry was certainly justified. What was odd, however, is that in many news reports which explained that the Academy is 96% white, the fact that the Academy is 73% male also appeared. [41] Why was this last statistic added? It had nothing to do with the story. Plenty of women were nominated. They have their own categories. (Why do we have separate male and female categories?) Was it added to criticize men, particularly white men? Our society has such a low opinion of white men, was this statistic added to further demonize the Academy? Cheap shot.

Speaking of movies, I remarked in "Sexist Asteroids" that movies and TV programs all seem to require kick-ass women now. It would be nice if they could find women that are actually somewhat athletic for these roles. So many of them are just plain dorky. For example, Daisy Ridley in the new Star Wars movie has a dorky running style, and she runs through the whole movie. Do we really want a dorky Jedi? But, at least they let her run. Other kick-ass women have to be extremely edited to hide their dorkiness. And it isn't always that successful. For example, Agent Carter's fight scenes are so chopped up that a two-second clip might be 7 snippets spliced together, all from different angles, all to try to hide her dorkiness. But it is still obvious. Aren't there any actresses out there who played sports?

On the 1/12/16 airing of the Late Show, three female artists appeared on the show wearing gorilla masks. They are called the Guerrilla Girls and have long protested the dominance of men in the art world. One complaint during their segment was that in the displays of the Metropolitan Museum in New York, 85% of the nudes were of women while only 5% of the artists were women. As far as the 85% nudes being women is concerned, this is no surprise since our society does not think that the male body is beautiful. Why would artists try to sell anything involving the ugly male body? We should probably work on this sexism and change thinking so that the male form is considered just as beautiful as the female, but it isn't right now. These three artists also complained that billionaire male collectors were running the art scene, and therefore, selecting the art work of male artists. In particular, they complained about four New York art exhibitors: the Guggenheim, the Modern, the Met, and the Whitney. But the boards of these exhibitors are hardly only men. The Guggenheim board is about one-quarter female. [42] The MOMA [43] and Whitney boards [44] are about one-third female. The Met board is about 38% female. [45] And the New York State Council for the Arts is made up of 8 men and 12 women. [46] Many of these women have money. So the charge that men rule the art world is completely false. Is it possible that the male artists are better? Of course not, because everything is oppression of women.

[1] http://ncfm.org/2014/08/action/ncfm-member-ray-licht-response-from-npr-ombudsman-adds-more-evidence-of-sexism/

[2] http://www.npr.org/about-npr/446068521/how-15girls-are-changing-their-future-a-new-npr-series-begins-today

[3] http://chrismumford.blogspot.com/2015/12/sexism-at-npr.html

[4] Crime and Delinquency, 1989, v 35, pp 136-168 found men receive harsher sentences than women even after accounting for age, race, priors, family situation, and other factors. A 1986 Justice Quarterly article stated men are 165% more likely than women to be imprisoned for the same felony while the difference for blacks over whites is only 19%.

[5] http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266090-sanders-winning-millennial-women-from-clinton

[6] http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-michelle-obama-wears-narciso-rodriguez-20160113-story.html

[7] http://www.adcouncil.org/News-Events/Press-Releases/Ad-Council-and-Futures-Without-Violence-Launch-New-Campaign-to-Engage-Men-in-the-Effort-to-Prevent-Violence-Against-Women

[8] The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2015, page 160

[9] The Victimization and Exploitation of Women and Children: A Study of Physical, Mental, and Sexual Maltreatment in the United States by Ronald Flowers found 127 women were murdered in 1992 during a rape. The Encyclopedia of Rape by Merril D. Smith, page 130, says “Between 1976 and 1994, approximately 1.5 percent of all murder cases in the United States involved sexual assault or rape.” This would imply about 225 rape victims who are murdered each year, some of whom may be men.

[10] "Understanding Intimate Partner Violence" http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/IPV_factsheet-a.pdf

[11] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm

[12] http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/gender

[13] The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2015, page 178

[14] The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2015, page 160

[15] http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

[16] http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Davis-DomesticViolenceRelatedDeaths.pdf

[17] http://www.breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.php

[18] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/violence-crime/the-sexual-victimization-of-men-in-america-new-data-challenge-old-assumptions/ http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

[19] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946

[20] "Sugar and Spice" by Michelle Cottle, New Republic, January, 2001

[21] http://www.westword.com/news/no-charges-in-sexting-scandal-where-pics-were-traded-like-pokemon-cards-7317669

[22] http://www.highpoint.edu/womenandgender/files/2012/10/Feminist-Theory-and-Praxis-.pdf

[23] www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf

[24] RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT: A RENEWED CALL TO ACTION, The White House Council on Women and Girls

[25] http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html

[26] http://contentz.mkt5031.com/lp/37886/394531/Student%20Sexual%20Assault_Weathering%20the%20Perfect%20Storm.pdf

Student Sexual Assault: Weathering the Perfect Storm

[27] https://www.thefire.org/second-department-of-education-official-in-eight-days-tells-congress-guidance-is-not-binding/

[28] https://www.thefire.org/federal-government-attacks-students-due-process-rights-at-tufts-university/

[29] http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/john-doe-washington-lee-university-declaration-kimberly-lau-memorandum-protective-order-and-pseudonym.pdf

[30] http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/14/law-professors-against-title-ix-faculty

http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-real-dialogue-for-a-change/article/2000597

[31] http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html

[32] http://www.wwu.edu/diversity/stats.shtml

[33] http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/population/fig306.asp

[34] http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/population/fig306.asp

[35] http://www.wwu.edu/ee/youth/gems/

[36] http://www.westernfrontonline.com/2015/11/19/vikings-no-more-survey-to-be-created-to-question-western-mascot/

[37] http://www.westernfrontonline.com/2015/05/29/spoken-word-poet-draws-crowd-of-about-150/

[38] "I Prefer My Poetry With Milk and Honey," in the 5/26/15 Associated Students Review

[39] http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/11/11/beth-mooney-keybank-women-banking/18864299/

https://www.key.com/business/key4women/women-owned-business.jsp

[40] http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-05-30/new-research-indicates-microloans-dont-solve-poverty

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2013/02/14/carly-fiorinas-new-gig-changing-the-world-one-microloan-and-woman-at-a-time/#2715e4857a0b4096457f1926

[41] http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/oscars/board-behind-oscars-white-male-article-1.2504899

[42] http://www.guggenheim.org/guggenheim-foundation/trustees

[43] http://www.moma.org/about/trustees

[44] http://whitney.org/About/Trustees

[45] http://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-museum/annual-reports/~/media/Files/About/Annual%20Reports/2012_2013/board%20of%20trustees.pdf

[46] https://www.nysca.org/public/about/council_bios.html

[47] http://www.calbuzz.com/2019/04/joe-biden-and-the-folly-of-the-pitchfork-brigade/