FEMINISM IS AUTHORITARIAN
Here are more examples of women's self-indulgence, delusion, hypocrisy, and misandry, as well as authoritarianism.
Let's start off with a rather cute delusion. The tag line for Nice and Easy hair coloring is "Color as real as you are." Wow! That says a lot.
Why are men not allowed to have opinions about gender issues? We are half of the population, yet our opinions are ignored. In news reports, magazine articles, TV and radio talk shows, and current event shows it seems only women---particularly feminists---are allowed to discuss gender issues. It appears men's opinions are absolutely not wanted and ignored and disregarded. Men are not respected.
Even worse than this, feminists often disrupt or prevent men (and women) who oppose feminist ideology from speaking. Recent victims of this censorship have included Warren Farrell, Milo Yiannopoulos, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Janice Fiamengo. [1]
Even worse than this, feminists want to integrate feminism into everything. So even on non-gender issues, feminists want to take over. This is especially true in our colleges. Feminism is creeping into coursework not usually associated with gender. Biased and faulty feminist scholarship and attitudes are invading sociology, psychology, chemistry, economics, English, philosophy, math, physics, political science---i.e., all disciplines. It appears feminism is not liberal, but authoritarian.
But this is happening outside academia, as well. A recent TED radio program [2] is an example. The topic of the program was courage. All of the heroes celebrated in the program were women. And, for the most part, these women fought against evil men. Women celebrated in the program were a woman who fought against the asbestos industry, a female journalist who documented the horrors of war, a female lawyer who fought for women and girls in Afghanistan, and a female ER doctor whose mother's experience with breast cancer inspired her to fight against doctors' cozy relationship with Big Pharma. Only women are heroes now, and only men are villains.
Melissa Overmyer pointed out another way we disrespect men---in marriage. [3] We are all told that marriage and relationships are all about "unconditional love." But what we do not know, is that this is more what women want in relationships. (This is one more example of women ruling the world. Their wants and needs have become society's wants and needs.) Of course, men want love too, but probably more important for men is "unconditional respect." But society mostly ignores this basic requirement of men, and you can bet that the respect of men is very conditional. There is no push for women to respect their husbands like the push for men to always love their wives. As a result, women can freely nag and put down their husbands and wives receive little social condemnation for this. Wives are not required to say "I respect you" everyday to their husbands. It's a woman's world.
The U.S. has many accents. Some are regional, like Boston, Southern, Texan, and Chicago accents. There are also African-American and gay accents. And America seems full of British accents whenever sophistication or sexiness is desired. And, of course, broadcasters usually settle on a Midwestern accent. But I am also noticing a distinct female accent, especially from young women. It has some aspects of "valley girl," like ending a statement with rising pitch as if asking a question. But I am also hearing a lot of vocal frying. I realize that languages are always changing, but I find this change quite irritating. It sounds very affected to my ears. It also makes speech harder to understand as it turns into a growl. And I hear it everywhere, from NPR to conversations. Of course, any male accent is made fun of, like in the Geico TV ad with the two males in the gym---"broheem." [4] We must always pander to women.
A common belief nowadays is that corporations perform better and have higher profits if they have women on their boards of directors. This appears to be a myth. [5] Psychology Professor Alice Eagly points out that studies have given conflicting information on this subject; some studies supporting women on boards contributing to better performance, while some studies finding reduced performance with women. A meta-analysis of all of the studies results in a wash---women on boards of directors has virtually no effect on performance. But, of course, women's advocates have selectively pointed to the studies showing increased productivity. This is just one more example of feminists distorting the evidence to brag about women's superiority, while social scientists are reticent to correct the distortion because they have been bullied into silence. This is very authoritarian.
A recent current events show [6] discussed some of the good and bad of modern dating---i.e., tinder, OK Cupid, etc. Several of the women pointed out the crushing rejection that they were experiencing with these online apps. They would swipe right on guys only to find that the guys would not reciprocate. One woman even suggested therapy while using these sites to help with the rejection. Women were also devastated when a guy they had dated would continue using the dating sites. Well, golly gee gals. Welcome to the club. Men have been receiving far worse rejection from women for eons. It is nice to see women finally experiencing some of what they have been dishing out forever. But, once again, this show was only concerned about women. There was no discussion of men and rejection. The show had little discussion of men at all. The media and women only care about women.
Hillary Clinton has recently been criticized for not smiling enough and for yelling. She claims that this criticism is sexist. The less smiling may be long overdue. As I noted in "McKinney to Minions," some women smile a lot, probably to appear friendly and to manipulate men. I also noted that Clinton, like many women, often smiled inappropriately, while talking about death and destruction. I find it good that she has toned down the smiling. However, she was criticized for not smiling after an electoral victory, a time when smiling is completely normal and anticipated. And she continues to smile (and giggle) in response to Bernie Sanders' answers in debates. This is very condescending and disrespectful, as well as awkward.
As well as working on making her smiling more natural, Clinton could also work on her exaggerated, wide-open-mouth guffaw, which she often breaks into inappropriately at the smallest hint of humor.
As far as her new-found yelling, maybe some people are just not used to it and it seems odd. But I do not think this is the problem. I think her yelling sounds odd to people because she does not do it very well. She has noted that she is not the politician that her husband is, and maybe this is an indication of that. Her yelling is awkward and sounds unnatural. Even Ruth Sherman, a public speaking coach agrees that Clinton needs to work on her delivery. [7] I do not think I am being sexist about this, because I get the same feeling whenever Trevor Noah of The Daily Show does an impression. His impressions also sound awkward and unnatural. He just is not very good at them. I wish he would stop. My problem with Clinton's yelling is not due to sexism but to her awkward performance. Being awkward does not eliminate her from being President. George W. Bush was pretty awkward. But he didn't try to blame it on sexism.
And what about Howard Dean's awkward scream during the 2004 campaign. That scream ended his campaign, yet no one suggested that criticism of the scream was sexist. But Clinton seems to blame all criticism against her on sexism.
Using the sexism card to counter criticism of female politicians is not restricted to Clinton. Dilma Rousseff is the president of Brazil. She is currently involved in a controversy involving alleged graft and bribery. Sixty-eight percent of voters want her impeached. [8] But the United Nations has let its very feminist leanings overpower its ideology of justice, and has said that Rousseff is the victim of sexism. Nadine Gasman, head of UN Women in Brazil, has said "As a defender of women's and girls' rights around the world, UN Women condemns all forms of violence against women, including the political violence of a sexist nature directed against President Dilma Rousseff." [9] So, apparently demanding the ouster of a crooked female politician is violence against women.
People continue to play the misogyny card against Donald Trump, selectively picking out his rude and mean behavior toward women and ignoring the same toward men. Trump is not sexist. He treats women and men equally badly. The sexists are the women (and men) who get upset with his rudeness toward women but then have no problem with his rudeness toward men. They obviously have women up on a pedestal and men in a pond of scum. I would bet this misandry will continue and heighten when and if Trump and Clinton are the nominees. Cathy Young gives an excellent rundown of the problem. [10]
Another alleged victim of Trump's rude behavior toward women was reporter Michelle Fields. [11] She accused Donald Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski of grabbing her, bruising her arm, and throwing her to the ground. But video showed that Lewandowski grabbed her and pulled her away from Trump after she approached and touched him after being warned to stay away by the Secret Service. Charges were dropped against Lewandowski. But women automatically believe in their own victimhood.
Last summer, the U.S. women's soccer team complained of sexism concerning the turf they played on and the pay they received. These were totally bogus complaints. (See "McKinney to Minions.") Well, the women are at it again, and are totally distorting the facts. This time they have complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that they "earned four times less than the men while performing demonstrably better.” [12] First of all, let's deal with the semantic problem. I'm sure they meant that they earned one-quarter of what the men earned. It is impossible to earn four times less without getting into negative numbers. (Maybe they took too many headers.) I will concede that the men earned more than the women. But it's complicated. The women negotiated a guaranteed salary with more benefits, including severance pay and healthcare, and could earn as much as $99,000. The men negotiated a riskier pay-for-play model, and could make up to $263,320. Did the men "deserve" more than the women? Consider this. From 2011 through 2015, which includes a World Cup for both the men and the women, the men averaged 29,751 paying customers per match, while the women only averaged 16,229. [13]
The women also said that they brought in $20 million more in revenue than the U.S. men's team in 2015, the year that the women won the Women's World Cup. [14] This is a pretty sleazy "fact" since the Men's World Cup was in 2014. Of course the women will bring in more revenue during years of the Women's World Cup. But, looking at the most recent four-year period that includes both World Cups, the men brought in $60 million compared to the women's $51 million. [15]
The women state that they work just as hard and are "performing demonstrably better" than the men. Yes, the women have won three World Cups and four Olympic gold medals. The U.S. men---nothing. (I suspect the women are winning because Title IX has poured a vast amount of money and attention into American women's athletics so that American women dominate the women of other countries. But this has been at the expense of American men's athletics.) Are the women better soccer players, or do they have weaker competition? There is an easy way to tell. Ask the women soccer team members if they would end the gendered teams and just have one team with the best players, male or female. After all, men's extra upper-body strength is of little advantage in soccer. I'm betting that the women would not agree to one team, because they know that few women, if any, would make that team. They know the men are better players. This is also borne out by the spectators. The women brag that they had the largest number of American TV viewers of any soccer match during their winning World Cup final match in 2015---26.7 million viewers. But the second largest number was the 2014 Men's World Cup final match with 26.5 million viewers---virtually equal. [13] Oddly, the men's match was between Germany and Argentina, yet it still brought in nearly the same number of American viewers as the women's final which involved the U.S. women's team. Obviously, a large number of the American viewers for the women's match were only there to see the American team, while all of the viewers for the men's match were there for the soccer. Men's soccer is better. But the women want more money.
The women seem to be arguing that they "deserve" more money than the men because they work just as hard and they win. Extending this argument, then all hard-working and winning soccer teams "deserve" more money than the U.S. men's soccer team. This would include winning soccer teams in college and high school, and adult weekend and pee wee leagues. It is a ridiculous argument.
The media, for the most part, have not presented any context for this soccer debate. The media have just presented the arguments put forth by the women soccer players as the truth, and as another story of women's victimization. One news outlet even noted in its article on the soccer pay gap, that there also exists a pay gap in basketball, with the average WNBA player making $75,000, versus the average NBA player making $4.9 million. [12] Again, no context. Let me add some context. NBA teams play 82 games, half at home, half away, and possibly 28 more games in the playoffs. WNBA teams play 34 games with 12 more possible in the playoffs. NBA games are 48 minutes, while WBNA games are 40 minutes long. The NBA average attendance is 17,844 per game, [16] while WNBA games have reached a record low of 7,318. [17] NBA games on ABC averaged 3.59 million viewers and NBA games on cable averaged over 1.5 million viewers. [18] WNBA games on ESPN averaged only 202,000 viewers. [17] The men are far more athletic. For example, most NBA players can dunk. (Spud Webb won the 1986 Slam Dunk Contest at 5 feet, 7 inches tall.) Very few WNBA players can dunk and they are often discouraged from even trying due to fear of injury. [19] Obviously, the men's game is better than the women's and the men "deserve" more money. This higher level of men's sports was especially apparent during the recent March Madness. The college men's basketball games played at a much faster pace and the players showed much more athleticism than the women's players. In fact, I would speculate that WNBA teams would have trouble winning against most high school boys' basketball teams. Yet, women want equal pay for inferior play.
This makes the comments about tennis by Raymond Moore quite accurate---that women's tennis "rides on the coattails" of the men. [20] But the feminist police were on patrol and forced him to apologize. Again, men are not allowed to speak about gender issues, unless they agree with the women. Women tennis players are not as athletic as male players, and there is more to the difference than men's stronger upper-body. [21] Speaking for myself, the only reason I watch women's tennis is to see fit, young women bouncing around in skimpy outfits. It isn't for the tennis. The tennis is boring. (Besides, I can't handle all the strange grunting.) And I suppose the women know their game is more about sex appeal than tennis. Check out the cover of Sports Illustrated's "Sportsperson of the Year" issue for December 31, 2015. [22] The cover shows Serena Williams, half-naked and in a very suggestive---sexual---pose. Would Roger Federer have posed like this? How can we take seriously Williams as a tennis player or Sports Illustrated as a sports magazine? Obviously, in this case SI has traded it's sports credibility to sell magazines, just as it does in its swimsuit issue.
Compare sports to modeling. Female models make much more money than male models for the same work. [23] In 2013, the top 10 female models made about 10 times more than the top 10 male models. The top female model, Gisele Bundchen, made $42 million, while the top male model, Sean O'Pry, only made $1.5 million. Obviously, this is because women are much more interested in fashion than men are. O'Pry understands this. He has not demanded equal pay. But, even though men show much more interest and accomplishment in sports than women do, women think they deserve equal pay. Why must self-indulgent women always consider themselves victims?
This highlights another inconsistency of women. Occasionally, men will call out women on their self-indulgence and sexism. But women always respond that it isn't sexism, and that men are free to be just as self-indulgent. For example, some men have complained about the extreme focus put on breast cancer. There are pink ribbons on everything, from products to sports teams to bumper stickers. There are fun runs and countless other activities drawing attention and money to fighting breast cancer. Meanwhile, other cancers are ignored, including prostate cancer. Women respond that they did the work to bring this focus to breast cancer and men could do the same for prostate cancer. (Of course, men do not receive the sympathy that women get, so fighting for prostate cancer awareness gets little attention.) In sports the situation is reversed, and so are women's opinions. Women are obviously not as athletic as men, and maybe never will be. Yet, women want equal pay without developing to the same level.
Even if the public showers much more money, attention, and sympathy on breast cancer victims, the U.S. government should not. The Centers For Disease Control budget [24] in 2016 for breast and cervical cancer activities is $210 million. The proposed budget for 2017 is $169 million. The reduction is due to the fact that ObamaCare has now taken over some cancer screening services. Even though deaths of men from prostate cancer are almost as numerous as deaths of women from breast cancer, the money for CDC activities is much smaller. The CDC 2016 budget for prostate cancer activities is $13 million. The proposed budget for 2017 is $0. The reason for eliminating budgeting for prostate cancer is a bit confusing: "While the evidence on prostate cancer screening remains unclear, CDC has conducted extensive research and developed materials to help doctors better communicate with their patients about informed decision making related to prostate cancer screening and treatment." [25] I would think that "evidence on prostate cancer screening remains unclear" would be an excuse to greatly increase the budgeting for prostate cancer, not eliminate it.
I have noted that our society seems to be more and more feminized. Along with this feminization, there also seems to be a noticeable dumbing down. The TLC (The Learning Channel) cable channel used to broadcast college lectures. But lately, it has given us "Jon and Kate Plus 8," "Say Yes To the Dress," "Toddlers and Tiaras," and Honey Boo Boo. HLN used to give us 24 hours of news. Now we get Nancy Grace, "Forensic Files," and Dr. Drew. PBS has shown a similar dumbing down with questionable programming such as "Aging Backwards With Miranda," "Easy Yoga For Diabetes," "Wheat Belly Total Health," and "Eat Fat, Get Thin." PBS has also pandered to women with female-centric programming like "Women, War and Peace," "Unleash the Power of the Female Brain," "Glorious Women Never Age," and "Women Who Rock." Psychology Today used to be a scientific journal. Now it borders on a tabloid publication. Even Scientific American has fallen from its scientific journal roots. It is now edited by a woman. The articles are now often written by journalists and editors, not scientists. Many of the articles have strayed from hard science into social issues, health, and gossip. Recent articles have covered such topics as curing bad breath, using smartphones while walking, banishing online ads, weird ideas that can lead to jail, and asking if animals know where babies come from. Many articles also have a decidedly feminist slant. Examples include articles that explore unconscious gender bias in science, women withdrawing from science jobs, empowering women to stop the population boom in Africa, and "Mustaches outnumber women in med school leadership positions." In the special issue of Scientific American MIND titled "His Brain, Her Brain," (May/June 2010) of the six main articles, five were written by women. The sixth article, written by a man, concerned transsexuality. Even the article on fatherhood, which contained a gratuitous beefcake picture of a shirtless hunk, was written by a woman. Yet once again, men are not allowed to discuss gender issues.
I have to wonder if this feminization and dumbing down of the media haven't led to the current political situation, where "compromise" and "civility" seem to be bad words. Have "The Jerry Springer Show," "The Maury Povich Show," "The Real Housewives," "Judge Judy," and "The Kardashians" encouraged politicians to behave badly?
Humor nowadays seems to be very anti-male. TV sit-coms, advertisements, movies, stand-up comics, etc., all seem to lean heavily toward making fun of men. There seems to be a meanness to it all too---from kicks in the groin, to dick jokes, to rape jokes, to castration, to cheering women who cut off penises---these kinds of things seem to be funny if aimed at men. But this mean kind of humor would not be tolerated if aimed at women. I've noticed that jokes that make fun of women often result in gasps instead of laughs. Also, it seems female stand-up comics almost exclusively focus on anti-male humor. Sure, male comics sometimes make fun of women, but this doesn't seem to be their main focus. They often make fun of themselves and men. But women comics seem to be stuck on making fun of men. For example, Kristen Schaal, the Senior Women's Correspondent on The Daily Show always viciously makes fun of men. Also, women have complained that all the late-night hosts are male. Well, Samantha Bee now hosts Full Frontal, and her constant, strident, purply feminist, anti-male humor has taken it to another level.
I recently noticed an odd but telling example of this tendency of women's humor in the writing of Neil Simon. The original version of his The Odd Couple came out in 1965. Even though the play is about men and divorce and takes place before feminists made it difficult to make fun of women, there are still very few jokes in the play poking fun at women. There are a few. Simon makes fun of women's nagging, their hysterical nature, how they can aggravate, and how one wife's weight is due to fat, not pregnancy. All in all, pretty mild and infrequent jokes on women. The rest of the jokes were on men. Simon wrote a female version of The Odd Couple which came out in 1984. I guess he knows his audience, because this version also has an avalanche of comic attacks on men. He compares men to penguins who have sex once a year. The women in the play say men look like frogs and English sheepdogs. A man is called a "dirty bastard" and another a "short hairless cowboy." Men boil lamb chops, and put so much grease in their hair that they need a hammer and chisel to comb their hair in cold weather. They cheat and lose her life savings at the track. They are children and need 2 phonebooks to sit at the bar. The attacks on men are constant. The women in the play even complain about unequal pay and that men have it easy and can meet women everywhere. Women's hypocrisy even shows up in the play, although probably unintentionally. At one point, the women criticize a divorced woman who sends money to her ex. But later on, a divorcing woman who wants to be independent is encouraged to demand money from her husband. As I said, Simon knows his audience. Meanwhile, two TV series and a movie based on the play have made fun of men almost exclusively.
On the March 6th 60 Minutes program, there was a segment on the mine explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine that killed 29---all men. This was another extreme example of the media specifically looking for women to highlight. The mine had only one female miner, and of course, she was interviewed for this segment. (She did not work the day of the explosion. A male miner, who barely escaped the explosion, was also interviewed.) But this is further proof that the media and the world value women more than men and expect us to sympathize more with women---the segment showed her crying during the interview. But this wasn't the only example of this in the segment. The producers seemed to go looking for female relatives of those killed and female jurors to highlight as well. It's a woman's world, even when men are killed providing for their wives and families.
60 Minutes continued this sexism the following week in a segment on assisted suicide. Over 1000 people have used assisted suicide in the United States in the last few years. I suspect the vast majority have been elderly. Yet 60 Minutes chose to highlight and show interviews of three young women for this segment.
Another example of this occurred when soccer player Brandi Chastain announced that she would donate her brain after death for examination for chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a condition similar to dementia affecting people who have suffered many concussions. This condition has been in the news lately concerning NFL football players. The difference in the media coverage between Chastain and NFL players is stark. The pretty Chastain admitted that she has had no symptoms of CTE, but suffered two concussions and headed the ball countless times in her soccer career. Her media coverage on this subject has been very sympathetic and highlighted her bravery and concern. But the coverage for football players has had a much more negative tone. There has been little concern for the players. Most of the coverage has been critical of the NFL and football in general. Not allowing boys to play football has been a major theme in the coverage. (As I noted in "Self-Indulgent, Delusional, and Misandrist," women's hockey has over twice the concussion rate of football while women's soccer has a comparable rate with football, yet there have been no calls to stop these sports. [26] I can only assume that this is due to sexist hatred of men and everything they like.)
Sex robots are becoming a reality. Men may soon be able to buy a robot that will satisfy their sexual needs. Some women do not seem to be too happy about this. They claim that this could instigate sexism against women, that men will dehumanize women, that men will turn women into sex objects, and men will turn into "misogynistic monsters." [27] These women want to stop the development of these sex robots. Of course, what these women miss, is that women have long had sex robots. Dildos and vibrators have long substituted for men sexually. Have these sex toys instigated sexism against men, dehumanized men, turned men into sex objects and women into misandrist monsters? The hypocrisy is amazing. By the way, "hypocrisy" in Spanish (hipocresia), Italian (ipocrisia), French (hypocrisie), German (Heuchelei), and Portuguese (hipocrisia), are all feminine nouns.
Madonna brought us more hypocrisy. She brought a 17-year old girl on stage and exposed the girl's breast. The 17-year-old said it was "no big deal." [28] Big deal or not, if a man had done the same thing to a 17-year-old girl, he would be in jail for a very long time. And he would never be allowed to give another concert. But, if a woman does it, no big deal.
More hypocrisy appeared in women's attitudes toward single sex activities. A spokesman for The Porcellian Club, a private all-male club near Harvard University proclaimed that admitting women to the club would likely increase the chances of sexual misconduct. He was roundly criticized for this statement. One female student at Harvard said "I think it’s a really dangerous idea that men- and women-identified people can’t be in the same space and behave with equal respect and regard for one another." [29] Oddly, women seem to have different views when it comes to women-only taxis. Several female-only cab companies are forming. "Chariot for Women said it aims to ensure the safety of both riders and drivers by leaving adult men out of the equation..." [30] Apparently female single-sex activities are fine, but male single-sex groups aren't. This is very authoritarian.
Are women justified in fearing cab rides? The yellow cabs in New York City make 175 million trips per year, with about 34% of passengers being women. [31] There were 14 rapes in cabs in 2015 in NYC. [32] Assuming one person per cab ride, this implies that the chance of a woman being raped in a cab are once in every 4.25 million trips. The chances are actually even much smaller than this since this figure only accounts for yellow cabs and women are alone in cabs only a small percentage of the time. Of course, one rape is too many, yet how far should we go to prevent an event which is very unlikely already? But, women are so self-indulgent that we must demonize all men and violate the Constitution in order to protect women from rare dangers. Women will do anything to promote the idea of women's victimization.
Another example of obscene self-indulgence in women is the fact that the Ryerson University Student Union (RSU) refuses to approve a men's group (Men's Issues Awareness Society) as a legitimate student group. The reasons for this refusal from the student union are that the MIAS "'cannot force the RSU to give them students' money' if the groups values run contrary to the ethics of the student body" and "the group would open the door for anti-feminist dialogue on campus." [33] I guess only feminist groups are allowed to talk on campus and receive student fees. It is shocking to me that the representatives from the student union can think and say such outrageous things. And get away with saying them. Feminism is not liberal, but authoritarian.
To be petty for a moment: what has happened to women's eyebrows? What genetic mutation has occurred that women's eyebrows have migrated from the brow ridge (supraorbital margin) to where their eyebrows now creep up women's foreheads, even when they aren't raised?
Recently, Donald Trump made the HUUUUUGE mistake of saying that if abortion becomes illegal, women who get abortions should be punished. [34] Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates attacked Trump. All agreed that women are the VICTIMS of abortion just as much as the aborted fetuses are, and that abortion doctors (mostly men) should be the only ones punished with fines and jail time for any illegal abortions. Once again, we are not allowed to hold women responsible for their actions. We must always assume that if they do anything bad, they are victims, and therefore, we cannot hold them responsible. I suppose this applies to abortion nurses as well. All fault belongs to the (mostly male) abortion doctors. The biggest inconsistency in this is that the mantra of the pro-choice movement is that women should decide with their doctors whether to have an abortion. No fathers, or clergy, or government should be involved. But then if anything illegal happens, the doctor assumes all responsibility and the women are free and clear. Women are the deciders but bear no responsibility for their decisions.
This lack of responsibility for women is similar in the Swedish model of prostitution which is becoming popular, where we only put johns in jail for prostitution while we give aid and assistance to the prostitutes who must be victims of the patriarchy. France has just adopted this model. [35] Women, apparently, are not responsible for anything bad. But then, of course, feminists tell us that all goodness emanates from the feminine. If women do not abort and give birth, we must call this a miracle of the creation and goodness of the Goddess, of mother nature, of mother earth, of woman. In feminism women are praised for all virtue and men are to blame for all evil.
I have noted before that women often demand special treatment from the legal system. Examples include rape shield laws, prostitution, pornography and sexual harassment laws that single out men, alimony, child custody, and restraining orders used to get an advantage in divorce. I have also discussed recently instituted sexual assault procedures in colleges that end due process for accused men. A new "Blueprint for Campus Police: Responding to Sexual Assault," put out by the University of Texas adds to this unfairness to men. [36] The Blueprint demands that police disregard procedures developed over centuries to ensure justice, and instead, favor alleged victims in sexual assault cases. The Blueprint does this by proclaiming that standard police assumptions are myths. For example, "a rape accusation may be revenge against a man" is considered a myth. [37] Also, the blueprint demands that police not document alleged victims statements, in case the statements are later shown to be inconsistent. These procedures are ridiculously unfair to accused men. These procedures would never be proposed for any other crime. Once again, women are demanding different legal standards for themselves.
Another example of women demanding special treatment is sexual assault on college campuses. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has recently provided a draft proposal [38] complaining of the complete overreach of Title IX concerning sexual assault on college campuses. The AAUP complains that the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education has instituted rules that reduce due process protections for those accused, as well as undermine academic freedom and freedom of speech. By conflating conduct and speech in overly broad definitions of hostile environments, universities are impinging on freedom of speech and creating "a seemingly limitless definition of harassment." The AAUP also complains that, rather than cooperating with colleges to solve sexual violence and harassment issues, the OCR has been punitive in its approach. The AAUP also objects to professors being forced to report possible violations given to them in confidence by students, even students involved as research participants. The AAUP is also wary of the OCR enforcing rules in students' social media posts, and handing out penalties from secret Star Chamber-like panels. This reaction by the AAUP is way overdue. But I have to point out that the AAUP did not come out with this criticism of the OCR until women began being caught in its net. The proposal gives five examples of female professors who were charged under the OCR's expansive rules. I have to wonder if the AAUP is as concerned with all of the men who have been unjustly punished by the OCR.
I have given several examples of just how ridiculously sexual assault is being handled on college campuses. Here is another example. [39] John and Jane, students at the University of Southern California, (a private school) met at an off-campus fraternity party. John was with 2 male friends from another university. After dancing together John had a vaginal sex with Jane while she gave oral sex to one of his friends. All three later got together again. John’s friend got a little too rough and Jane started to cry. They all stopped and went their separate ways. Jane texted John that she had a good time with him. After receiving counselling months later, Jane decided that she was sexually assaulted. Even though Jane said the sex with John was consensual, USC suspended him for 2.5 years for sexual misconduct. On appeal USC decided instead to suspend him for not stopping his friend sooner. John took USC to court where it was determined that USC did not give John a fair hearing. The OCR is forcing colleges to punish innocent men in these matters, for fear of losing their federal funding.
Another example of women demanding special treatment is in domestic violence law. A recent change in DV procedures instructs police to arrest the predominant aggressor in domestic disputes. Police are instructed to consider the bigger and stronger person as the predominant aggressor. Police are also told to consider the person who is less fearful as the predominant aggressor. These criteria are totally sexist, ensuring that virtually only men are arrested for DV, since men are usually bigger and stronger than women, and men are trained not to show fear. A judge in Montana finally noted the injustice in these procedures. A woman recorded on her phone a fight with her husband. She punched her husband several times and grabbed his testicles. He responded by pulling her hair and biting her face. He was arrested as the dominant aggressor even though his response was defensive. The judge ruled that the dominant aggressor criteria are “gender-biased, subjective and vague.” [40] Charges against the man were dropped.
Another way feminism tries to stack the deck against men is the abandonment of logic and common sense. I have mentioned before that feminists do not like logic. They find that logic is male-oriented and therefore, invalid. They instead focus on female "ways of knowing," i.e., subjective and spiritual and anti-scientific outlooks on the world. This attitude allows feminists to deny long-established and verified ways of discovery and truth-finding. Concerning sexual assault, feminists also deny logic and common sense. They perform outlandish logical contortions to show that women who have been raped will often behave strangely. Rape victims may send friendly text messages to their rapist after being raped. Or have sex with them again. Or wait months or years to file charges. Consider the situation with Jack Montague, the former Yale basketball captain who was expelled for sexual assault. He had consensual sex with a woman on three different occasions. The woman claims, counter to Montague's assertion, that on the fourth time, she did not give consent. On the evening in question, she reportedly removed all of her clothes. They had sex. She then went to a bar with another man, but voluntarily returned to spend the night with Montague. [41] It defies all common sense that this should be considered a rape. Also note, that the alleged victim waited a year to report the incident. (It has also been reported that she tried to recant her claim, but that the school would not let her.) But in the bizarre world feminism gives us, this kind of behavior is normal for rape victims. And in this feminist world, men should be expelled from school or go to jail if they don't follow and completely accept subjective and unreasonable rules, whatever they may be this week.
One of these completely unreasonable rules is affirmative consent or "yes means yes" concerning sex. We used to follow "no means no," whereby if a man did something or was about to do something sexually that a woman did not want him to do, she would say "no" or push him away to stop him. Frankly, I have never known a woman who was not skilled at saying "no." Some women have been downright amazing at flirting with me to get what they wanted, but then shut me down when I tried to get what I wanted. Also, there is evidence that women sometimes say "no" when they mean "yes." [42] So even though there were some problems with "no means no," it still seemed to work fairly well. But this was not good enough for feminists. They said women were sometimes too shy or confused to say "no." So instead of encouraging or teaching these few women to say "no," feminists gave us "yes means yes" instead, relieving women of all responsibility, and opening up all men to possible charges of sexual assault. Now men must get a clear "yes" for every sexual move. This is totally awkward, unromantic, and unworkable. And it is one more example of society punishing all men so that a few women are not uncomfortable. Affirmative consent may work when a couple is just getting to know each other. But at some point, couples learn what their partners like, and asking for permission every time will stop. A man will be at a woman's mercy from this point forward. And we all know women can be quite vengeful---that whole "woman scorned" thing. [43] Perhaps, this is what happened to Jack Montague.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has come out against affirmative consent laws, calling them "vague and ambiguous." [44]
Many feminists have shown a pathological dislike for men and heterosexual sex. Catherine MacKinnon and Marilyn French have compared heterosexual sex to rape. [45] Perhaps all of these new feminist laws and rules are just part of a radical-lesbian-feminist attempt to outlaw all heterosexual sex and all heterosexual men. Oddly, women seem to be going along with all of this. There has been no large revolt by women to stop these outrageous feminist laws. And, once again, men's opinions on gender issues are completely disparaged and ignored. So these feminist laws and rules are continually creeping into the legal system and societal norms. Maybe it is time for men to get themselves sexual robots and just forget about selfish women.
[1] http://ndsuspectrum.com/the-feminist-cult-will-brook-no-dissent/
[2] https://www.podcastpedia.org/podcasts/1183/NPR-TED-Radio-Hour-Podcast/episodes/300/Courage
[3] http://www.lifezette.com/momzette/why-husbands-need-respect/
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIqGRMf3LYc
[5] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sound-science-sound-policy/201603/when-good-intentions-arent-supported-evidence
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.12163/epdf
[6] http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/02/12/tinder-ok-cupid-dating-apps-valentines-day
[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-sexism.html?_r=0
[8] http://thinkprogress.org/world/2016/03/25/3763266/whats-going-on-brazils-president/
[9] http://news.yahoo.com/un-women-condemns-sexism-against-brazils-president-212745604.html
[10] http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/donald-trump-doesn-t-hate-women-he-s-just-a-narcissist-1.11627810
[11] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/14/prosecutor_declines_to_charge_trumps_lewandowski_michelle_fields_was_told_to_stay_back.html
[12] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/data-how-does-the-u-s-womens-soccer-team-pay-compare-to-the-men/
[13] http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2016/03/31/things-to-know-about-the-us-womens-soccer-teams-complaint/82500706/
[14] http://www.thenation.com/article/us-womens-soccer-is-more-popular-than-mens-but-the-players-are-still-paid-less/
[15] http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/04/04/us-soccer-uswnt-lawsuit-red-bulls-revolution/
[16] http://www.insidehoops.com/attendance.shtml
[17] http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/09/21/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/WNBA.aspx
[18] http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2015/04/22/Media/NBA-audience.aspx
[19] http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/explainer/2012/03/brittney_griner_dunk_why_are_there_so_few_jams_in_women_s_basketball_.html
[20] http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/21/novak-djokovic-indian-wells-equal-prize-money-tennis?
[21] http://www.topendsports.com/sport/tennis/men-v-women.htm
[22] http://www.si.com/more-sports/photos/2015/01/06/si-covers-2015/2
[23] http://abcnews.go.com/Business/female-models-make-male-models/story?id=20534067
[24] http://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2017/fy-2017-cdc-congressional-justification.pdf
[25] ibid.
[26] Hootman J and Agel J. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: Summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athlete Train 42: 311-319, 2007
[27] http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/sex-robots-sexist-feminist-says-7373559
[28] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3498861/PIERS-MORGAN-dirty-old-woman-Madonna-man-just-pariah.html
[29] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/us/social-club-at-harvard-rejects-calls-to-admit-women-citing-risk-of-sexual-misconduct.html?r=_0&_r=0
[30] https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/03/28/uber-but-for-women-probably-illegal-experts-say/QP5fYbQfvXUnKcEs0BqhEP/story.html
[31] http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/2014_taxicab_fact_book.pdf
[32] http://www.wsj.com/articles/rise-in-sexual-assaults-reported-by-taxi-passengers-1452476904
[33] http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/a-toronto-mens-rights-group-says-its-being-discriminated-against-in-lawsuit-against-university-student-union
[34] http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/donald-trump-abortion-town-hall/
[35] http://www.pulseheadlines.com/france-bands-paying-sex-penalize-selling/24695/
[36] https://www.thefire.org/university-of-texas-blueprint-for-campus-police-raises-fairness-concerns/
[37] ibid.
[38] http://www.aaup.org/file/TitleIX-Report.pdf
[39] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/15/feds-fuel-anti-sex-inquisition-on-campus.html
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B262917.PDF
[40] http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/crime/gallatin-county-judge-rules-domestic-violence-law-discriminates-against-men/article_5961828c-01ca-5662-bff8-b4a6cd201011.html
[41] http://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-yale-jack-montague-20160314-story.html
http://newbostonpost.com/2016/03/18/yale-may-have-prevented-accuser-from-recanting-claim-that-got-hoops-star-expelled/
[42] Muehlenhard, Charlene L., and Hollabaugh, Lisa C. "Do Women Sometimes Say No When They Mean Yes? The Prevalence and Correlates of Women's Token
Resistance to Sex." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 5 (1988), pp 872-879.
[43] "Heav'n has no rage, like love to hatred turn'd, Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn'd." From The Mourning Bride by William Congreve (1697), III.viii
[44] http://www.saveservices.org/2016/03/pr-affirmative-consent-for-sex-gets-thumbs-down-from-lawmakers-legal-defense-group-and-harvard-professors/
[45] http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html
