My Radio

masculinisme.blog-city.com

masculinisme.blog-city.com

mensNEWSdaily: 1deAs are c0ntagiOns

Congress Should Kill Discriminatory Domestic Violence Act

"I hope VAWA becomes the Titanic of the legislative approach to social problems. I hope it sinks spectacularly."

June 29, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Wendy McElroy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) will expire this September if it is not reauthorized by Congress. Largely viewed as an anti-domestic violence measure, VAWA has become a flashpoint for the men's rights advocates who see it instead as the living symbol of anti-male bias in law.
Although a significant number of domestic violence victims are male, VAWA defines victims as female. As one result, tax-funded domestic violence shelters and services assist women and routinely turn away men, often including older male children.

Estimates vary on the prevalence of male victims. Professor Martin Fiebert of California State University at Long Beach offers a bibliography that "summarizes 170 scholarly investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews."

It indicates that men and women are victimized at much the same rate. A lower-bound figure is provided by a recent DOJ study: Men constituted 27 percent of the victims of family violence between 1998 and 2002.

Accordingly, men's rights activists not only accuse the VAWA of not merely being unconstitutional for excluding men but also of dismissing the existence of one-quarter to one-half of domestic violence victims.

The criticism should go deeper. In many ways, VAWA typifies the legislative approach to social problems, which arose over the past few decades and peaked during the Clinton years.

The legislative approach follows a pattern: public furor stirs over a social problem; Congress is pressured to "do something"; remedial bureaucracy arises, often with scant planning; the problem remains; more money and bureaucracy is demanded; those who object are called hostile to "victims."

VAWA arose largely from the concern stirred by feminists in the '80s. They quite properly focused on domestic violence as a neglected and misunderstood social problem. But their analysis went to extremes and seemed tailor-made to create public furor.

As an example, consider a widely circulated claim: "a woman is beaten every 15 seconds." The statistic is sometimes attributed to the FBI, other times to a 1983 report by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. But neither the FBI nor the DOJ sites seems to include that statement or a similar one.

Men's rights activists contend that the elusive statistic derives from the book "Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family" (1980) by Murray Straus, Richard J. Gelles and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. The book was based on the first National Family Violence Survey (1975), from which the FBI and other federal agencies drew.

The survey does support the claim that a woman is battered every 15 seconds but also indicates men are also victims. By omitting male victims from their efforts, however, domestic violence activists create the impression of a national epidemic that uniquely victimizes women who require unique protection.

In response to public outcry, Congress was pressured to "do something." It passed VAWA 1994, granting $1.6 billion to create a bureaucracy of researchers, advocates, experts, and victim assistants, which some collectively call "the domestic violence industry."

Reauthorized in 2000, VAWA's funding rose to $3.33 billion to be expended over five years. Now, VAWA 2005 seeks more money.

Voices like the National Organization for Women insist that "the problem" remains. To argue for the "growing problem of gender-based violence," however, NOW reaches beyond traditionally defined violence against women and seeks to protect high school girls from abusive dating experiences. NOW states, "Nearly one in three high-school-age women experience some type of abuse -- whether physical, sexual or psychological -- in their dating relationships."

Without expanding the definition in such a manner, it would be difficult to argue for more funding.

Data indicates that traditionally defined violence against women has declined sharply. The rate of family violence reportedly "fell from about 5.4 victims per 1,000 to 2.1 victims per 1,000 people 12 and older," according to DOJ statistics.

VAWA 2005 faces much more opposition than its earlier incarnations. One reason is that men's rights activists have been presenting counter-data and arguments for over 10 years.

Advocates of VAWA 2005 have responded with pre-emptive accusations that paint opponents as anti-victim: for example, "If Congress does not act quickly to reauthorize the legislation, they are putting women's and children's lives at risk."

But most of the anti-VAWA arguments are not anti-victim. Many are anti-bureaucracy and could apply to any of the so-called "industries" created by the legislative approach to social problems. (The Child Protective Services is another example.)

Some anti-bureaucracy objections focus on the billions of dollars transferred into programs, often with little oversight or accountability attached.

Other objections point to those dollars being used for political purposes rather than clear and immediate assistance to victims. The misuse of tax dollars is most often alleged on the grassroots level, where men's rights activists often face VAWA-funded opposition to political measures, especially on father's rights issues.

One incident in New Hampshire illustrates the point. Earlier this year, The Presumption of Shared Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act was defeated by vehement opposition from the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. The coalition both wrote to and spoke before the Legislature. Accordingly, father's rights advocates in New Hampshire are seeking language in VAWA 2005 to prohibit any VAWA-funded agency from "legislative lobbying, advertising, or otherwise supporting the endorsement of, or opposition to, any state proposed legislation" which is not explicitly related to the prevention of domestic violence.

I think they should seek to kill the act entirely. I believe VAWA is not only ideologically inspired and discriminatory, it is also an example of why bureaucracy-driven solutions to human problems do not work.

I hope VAWA becomes the Titanic of the legislative approach to social problems. I hope it sinks spectacularly.

Wendy McElroy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not the Era of the Deadbeat Dad but the Era of the Hero Father - Jeffrey Leving - Glenn Sacks - MensNewsDaily.com�

Not the Era of the Deadbeat Dad but the Era of the Hero Father

June 24, 2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fatherhood has changed dramatically in the era of divorce and out of wedlock births, and much attention has been paid to two unfortunate products of this era—the absent father and the deadbeat dad. However, there is another type of father this era has produced, one which has received very little attention—the hero father.

According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington-based advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or blocked by custodial parents. Behind that statistic are legions of heroic divorced or separated fathers who fight a long, hard but generally unrecognized battle to remain a meaningful part of the lives of the children who love them and need them.>

Some hero fathers move repeatedly to be near their children. In the controversial case of DeBrenes v. Traub, Eric Traub had already moved to new cities twice in order to be near his daughter when he was forced to conduct a lengthy and expensive legal struggle to prevent her from being moved to Costa Rica. As is typical, the court allowed the move. Traub’s determination paid off, however, as the now teenaged girl became so set against the move that her mother, to her credit, dropped the request.

Most fathers are not so fortunate. In a recent California Supreme Court case, Gary LaMusga, who operates a business in Northern California, fought for eight years to prevent his two young sons from being moved to Ohio, 2,000 miles away. He eventually won, but his victory was a pyrrhic one because his children had already been moved out of state in violation of court orders. In the strange world of modern family law, even with the new decision his children will not be moved back.

While divorced dads are unfairly stigmatized as stingy, some noncustodial fathers raise their children in their homes but still pay child support to the children’s mothers. Many others never ask for child support. In the face of a family court system which usually grants mothers a monopoly of power over children, these fathers must buy or rent their children back. When mothers allow their children to live with their fathers—or send them there because they’ve become unruly or inconvenient—fathers often won’t challenge custodial and financial arrangements because they fear doing so will mean they’ll be pushed out of their children’s lives.

Other fathers endure physical abuse at the hands of their wives but remain in the relationships because they know that divorce will leave their children alone in the custody—usually sole custody—of an abuser. Decades of research show that women are as likely to abuse their male partners as vice versa, and that heterosexual men make up a significant minority of those suffering injuries in domestic assaults. However, gender politics has kept this research from influencing government and law enforcement policies. Many men know that revealing their wives’ violence usually means the wife will claim that she was abused, and the system will side with her. Fathers are commonly arrested, punished or slapped with custody sanctions for their wives’ violence.

In one highly publicized case, Dr. Xavier Caro, a Northridge, California rheumatologist, endured years of physical abuse at the hands of his wife Socorro, who once assaulted him so badly he had to have surgery to regain his sight in one eye. Xavier stayed in the relationship for the sake of his kids but his efforts failed, as Socorro later shot and killed three of their four children.

Some fathers face false charges of domestic violence or sexual abuse, which are commonly used as custody maneuvers in divorce. Those most vulnerable to these charges are dads who are their children’s primary caregivers. Such charges are often made to separate these dads from their children so a new custody precedent can be set with mothers as the primary caregivers.

Falsely accused men often bankrupt themselves fighting to regain access to their children. Meanwhile, many can only see their children in nightmarish visitation centers where fathers are treated like criminals.

Over the past several decades the love and devotion of millions of fathers has been tested in ways few in previous generations experienced. This Father’s Day, let’s honor the hero father.

This column was first published in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (6/19/05).
Jeffrey Leving & Glenn Sacks

VAWA Law Polarizes The Sexes, Weakens The Family

VAWA Law Polarizes The Sexes, Weakens The Family

May 19, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his book, Our Dance Has Turned to Death, sociologist Carl Wilson traces the seven steps of societies in decline. Near the end, the country reaches Stage Five where the affection between husbands and wives is replaced by suspicion and hostility. Stage Six is marked by selfish individualism that fragments society into warring factions.

If Mr. Wilson’s analysis is correct, then American society is closer to anarchy than most people realize.

That process of family and social disintegration is spurred by the Violence Against Women Act – VAWA for short -- the $1 billion-dollar-a-year law that was passed five years ago at the behest of the radical feminists. VAWA comes up for renewal later this year in Congress.

When you look closely, it becomes clear that VAWA has an agenda that reaches far beyond the protection of women.

VAWA-funded educational programs push the time-worn storyline of the violent man and a brutalized woman. But that stereotype is false. The truth is, members of the fairer sex are just as likely to commit domestic violence as men.

But once society comes to believe that members of the male sex are a menace to women, it becomes easy to enact laws that strip men of their Constitutional rights of due process and equal treatment under the law.

Again, that’s where VAWA steps in.

One of the tools promoted by VAWA is the use of restraining orders. At first blush, the idea sounds common-sensical: a woman who is being abused should be able to get her husband removed from the house.

But in many states, judges crank out restraining orders like Confederate one-dollar bills, not pausing to verify the woman’s claims or even to hear the man’s side of the story.

A 1995 Massachusetts study found that 60,000 restraining orders were issued each year. In fewer than half of those cases was there even an allegation of physical violence. In the other cases, the woman simply claimed she felt afraid, or maybe there had been a marital spat.

Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court became concerned that this epidemic of restraining orders was fraying the fabric of judicial impartiality. The Court opined that judges must “resist a culture of summarily issuing and extending these orders.”

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, was even more candid: “Restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply…In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.”

Tactical advantage? Ms. Epstein was referring to the fact that while hubby is barred from the house, the wife quickly files for a divorce, and cleverly requests temporary custody of the kids. That paves the way for near-automatic award of sole custody once the divorce is finalized.

So careful about raising your voice, Pop, or you might be thrown out on your ear -- and end up losing your kids for good measure.

Is this beginning to sound like Carl Wilson’s Stage Five of societal dissolution? In fact, has anyone noticed that Constitutional protections of due process are being shredded by this near-hysteria over domestic violence?

And there’s more to the story.

Columnist Phyllis Schlafly recently probed the financial incentives that drive our nation’s child support system: “Follow the money,” she warned. “The less time that noncustodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they are required to pay into the state fund.”

So last month, family advocates in California set out to challenge these perverse incentives by introducing the Shared Parenting Bill. Their aim was to encourage equal participation of fathers by granting them joint custody of their children in the event of divorce. [http://cspaonline.org/index.php]

Who could ever be against that?

The ladies from NOW, that’s who. Their argument? Changing the practice of awarding sole custody to mothers would expose the kids to all manner of abusive dads.

That smear conveniently ignored an interesting fact: it’s mothers, not fathers who are far more likely to abuse and neglect their children, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

So two weeks ago, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee killed the Shared Parenting Bill. And divorced children were rendered fatherless by a spiteful gender stereotype.

The fragmentation of society into warring factions – shades of Mr. Wilson’s Stage Six.

The Violence Against Women Act represents a frontal assault on both fatherhood and on the integrity of the traditional family. That’s a troubling harbinger for the dissolution of democratic society.


Carey Roberts

Patschef

It is important for us in order to fight collectivism to alert the interntional community about the true situation in France. The administration being chiefly an auxilliary to the collectivists, the press and the justice being largely controlled by them, it is pointless to try and change the state of public opinion in France. Just like you can't fight the Gulag by sending a letter to the Pravda. We must follow the steps of Havel, Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, and have the courage to constantly inform the rest of the world about the daily oppression that we live. People have to stop waking up every morning with the (implicit) idea that France is "OK". They have to keep in mind that France is a "problem", just like North Korea or Cuba are a problem.

Are there concentration camps in France? There aren't any formal concentration camps but life in certain areas increasingly resemble life in concentration camps. People are victimized (robbed, assaulted, raped, tortured) by mobs of (typically) ethnic youth under the complete passivity of the "police". Their crimes? It varies. Resisting racket. Not being a drug addict. Not being a drug dealer. Not being a muslim. Being a muslim girl who does not wear a veil. Working at school. Being an easy prey (elderly). Having refused to give a cigarette. Having filed a complaint with the police following an act of vandalism. People can't escape these neighborhood for economic reasons and they are totally let down by the police. So, what's the difference between that and a concentration camp?

Fair enough, but what does that have to do with collectivism? Well, a basic premise of collectivism is that, in a free society, it is impossible for individuals to improve their lot by hard work and voluntary exchange. Once this premise is gone, so is collectivism. Therefore, when the collectivists get in power, they make it impossible for poor people to escape poverty by their own individual effort. Hence the importance of letting violent predators victimize these people. If law and order were maintained in these neighborhoods, some people would make it, and the whole theory that they are helpless and that the state should take care of them would entirely collapse. Let's put them in a nightmarish concentration camp in order to make sure they won't succeed. A incorrect theory should never be put to empirical test. The Gulag is the secret place where those who jeopardize the theory end up.

Collectivism has produced a new kind of human being. In my French Blog I call him Homo Collectivus Gallus. What is he? A frustrated, impotent loser who blames others for his own failures. A guy who only knows how to deploy energy in order to destroy. A guy whose main feeling, by far, is envy. Who only shows "courage" when in a crowd against a weaker party. A lot of such people have invaded the ministry of education. They penalize brilliant children by imposing on them a feeling of guilt. They block any conceivable evolution. They lobby for further funding which eventually funds their lazy absenteeism. They don't mind to spoil the future of children by sabotaging an entire trimester with a strike. For these people, the ministry of education is meant to provide services to them. And the children are just hostages; to make sure they can grab enough from society. Their most important choice in life was made not on the basis of positive considerations (what am I going to do for a living?), but on the basis of negative ones (when shall I retire? When is the next vacation? How about sickness benefits?). The job is of interest to them not because of what you do in the job but because of what you don't do. And in the process, they train more Homines
Collectivi Galli.

Among the traditional values that the collectivists virtually abolished, one is individual responsibility. A prerequisite for individual responsibility is freedom. If you are not free to act, why should you be liable for your actions? But, conversely, a prerequisite for freedom is responsibility. If you are not held responsible for your acts, why should you abstain from infringing on other's freedom? So if we manage to convince people that people should not be accountable for the consequences of their acts upon others because it is "too tough", then you have won. Especially if at the same time, building on feelings of anger, you maintain that somebody is responsible. You're going to substitute prevention for punishment. You're going to transfer responsibility from the individual to other connected individuals or to society as a whole. I'm not going to sell you a knife because you could use it as a weapon -- but trust me, I won't do it -- I can't trust you, if you kill somebody with it, people say you aren't really responsible and they might even say I'm responsible. We don't want such bad social outcomes, do we? We want a nice and peaceful society. How do we get it when we are so nice we can't punish criminals. Well, let's be precautionary. Let's avoid trouble. Let's prohibit the sale of knives altogether.

So let's reduce the freedom of non-criminals to avoid crime caused by criminals.
Let's reduce the freedom of good drivers to avoid accidents caused by bad drivers.
Let's prohibit bathing in that river because careless people might hurt themselves.

Bernard Chapin

Mutilating Masculinity



by Bernard Chapin

“The academic Left is so eager to get their hooks into our kids that they start before classes even begin. Colleges across the country assign books to be read by incoming freshmen who should be ready to discuss the important socialist messages in the selected tomes. The stated goal is to encourage critical thinking and spark debate, yet the choice of books reflects little in way of debate and much in the manner of indoctrination.”
-Kimberly Schuld.
I read that quote this morning and realized that my obligation to the outside world concerning the practices of today’s universities has not yet been fulfilled. Last week I addressed the fact that college textbooks are often contaminated with radical feminist ideology. From the numerous responses I received, it seems likely that much of the general population is in need of further illumination regarding the fabrications that are being passed off as scholarship today. Therefore, I will return to my source from last week and display even more repugnant material.
As stated previously, I teach a course on development and use John Santrock’s Adolescence [2003] as a resource. The average person would not suppose a topic like child development would be political, but they’d be very wrong. Unfortunately, it provides the (soon-to-be) teachers I instruct with a political “teach in” every time they open its pages.
I realized that our readers would be interested in a couple of the informational sections within the textbook’s chapter on gender, and it would be short-sighted of me not to make more contents of the chapter public. The theme of the chapter can be summed up succinctly. It is, “women are goddesses and men need to improve or get back into the brush.”
Allow me to justify my statement by examining it’s treatment of masculinity. Basically, the book is against it. Indeed, Santrock makes a devout attempt to dissuade his captive audience from ever embracing it. Masculinity is depicted as a pathogen that must be eradicated and the author is pleased to refer to another academic to show you how:
“To reconstruct their masculinity in more positive ways, Ron Levant (1995) believes, every man should (1) reexamine his beliefs about manhood, (2) separate out the valuable aspects of the male roles, and (3) get rid of those parts of the masculine role that are destructive. All of this involves becoming more ‘emotionally intelligent’–that is, becoming more emotionally self-aware, managing emotions more effectively, reading emotions better (one’s own emotions and others’), and being motivated to improve those relationships. The hope is that if adult males can make these changes, they will serve as better role models for adolescent males.” [p.335]
In the spirit of the text, I’m going to reexamine my beliefs about manhood for the reader at present…Ah, now I’m finished and ready to bare my soul. Here it is: “I’m proud to be a man and I’d have it no other way.” Thank you, Mr. Levant, I’m glad you asked me to reflect. I would also like to thank the colleges and universities for encouraging students to perform this act of self-reflection when they should be trying to learn something (rather than practice scenes from “The Donohue Show”).
As for separating out the valuable male roles…Well, I’ve missed twelve days of work in nine years so I’ll keep that role. Hmm, I like reading better than talking so I’ll keep that one. Oh here’s a keeper, I find women who are physically repulsive and mentally stimulating worthy of friendship. I’d never have any romantic interest in them because they’re– that’s right– physically repulsive. That’s actually quite deep of me because physical fitness is indicative of health and youth is indicative of fertility; which means if I didn’t have that outlook I’d never reproduce. Let’s see, what role should I eliminate? None.
Actually, in my mind, this passage is an example of hate speech and it no more belongs in a university than in a Department of Necrophilia. When I read it, I was reminded of Andrea Dworkin’s housemate who once instructed his male brothers to join him in becoming “sissies.”
I guess the obvious question I have is, if men took their advice seriously and spent our time self-obsessing and gabbing, then who would do all of the work? I’m not, of course, referring to conferencing, consensus building, petition signing or syllabus writing. I am referring to the individuals who actually tend to the infrastructure of civilization. These tenders of the earth are mostly found in male dominated professions. What would happen to society if plumbers, brick layers, welders, pipe fitters, iron workers, coal miners, mill workers, teamsters, exterminators, and carpenters disappeared or tried to get jobs in the social services or hung out with Dr. Phil? We’d be in big trouble to be sure. Ironically, I’m sure the corpulent “obesity is beautiful” feministas would be the first to protest over the disappearance of electricity and sub-zero freezers.
I suppose that my analysis concerning who provides us with food and shelter is far too realistic for any academic to acknowledge. They can’t be bothered to show any respect for the diversity of those who actually make a positive contribution to their existence (rather than those who get paid 80 grand a year to strike an adolescent pose of rebellion).
I recall my old academic advisor in college once complaining to me that autoworkers made more than he did. My answer, if I could go back in time with the knowledge I’ve acquired since, would be, “the autoworker does a whole lot more good for our nation than you ever will.”
Furthermore, the author of Adolescence would be greatly pleased with my effective management of my own emotions after I read his slander of men. I calmly wrote “F---
Y--” in the margin which, in retrospect, was a most peaceful thing to do. I did not to attack or threaten anyone. Yet, I fear he may not be pleased with the way my keyboard is presently elaborating on this curse.
Next, the book wants to make clear, just in case any graduate students avoided their undergraduate indoctrinations, that men are not just to blame for any problems women experience but also for whatever setbacks men experience (gymnastics worthy of Mary Lou Retton). It seems that, “the male role has included the view that women should not be considered equal to men in work, earnings, and many other aspects of life…And the male role emphasizes competition rather than cooperation. All of these aspects of the male role have left men with inadequate positive connections with other males.” [p. 335]
Well, it’s not easy where to begin with such a passage. I have to say that the only area of radical feminism that continues to astound me is their practice of maintaining that men do not have close friendships. I have news for these gender elitists: we do. One of my favorite sayings is from Rich Zupaty, “Women have emotions; men have deeper feelings.” Deep feelings are not readily expressed in shallow, hyper-verbal sentences. How could they be?
Honestly, I’ll defer to the readers on this one if you disagree with me, but throughout my entire life, I’ve always had strong and rewarding relationships with my fellow men. Few gifts last longer or give more than Platonic friendship. Just because my friends and I don’t sit on the phone and chat all night does not mean that we don’t have “positive connections.” In fact, I’d say the fact that we don’t call each other or talk as if powered by crystal meth is one of the reasons why we have positive connections in the first place.
Even from this website, I’ve had positive interactions with men who live continents away and with whom I’ll probably never meet in person. From these pages, a powerful brotherhood has been scrolled, and, based on the preponderance of the evidence, I’ll vouch that Mike LaSalle, Angry Harry, Gus Owens, Darren Blacksmith, Steve Deluca, Mark Sobolewski, and Eric Ericson are all rock solid guys. Our internet example is quite telling as positive regard was formed without chatter, fluff, or eye contact. It is a testament to how much good will can exist among men.
I am certain that the last heavy-handed maneuver sited will flabbergast the reader. As a prelude to a scandalous argument of New York Times proportions, our author first tries some major distortion as a means to soften us up for the fable that will follow: “In the 1970s, as both males and females became dissatisfied with the burdens imposed by their stereotyped roles, alternatives to ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ were explored.” [p.331]
Did you see those scare quotes? They suggest that masculinity and femininity are not real concepts. The implication is that ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ are slang accidentally spoken too much. We are to assume that they are just “social constructs” as opposed to flesh and blood reality.
The book’s, not so hidden, agenda is to encourage men to become metrosexuals and to encourage women to become butch. Observe the way the author defines androgyny: “the presence of a high degree of desirable [italics and emphasis mine] masculine and feminine characteristics in the same individual.” [p.331-332] This definition could not be more biased. Webster’s defines androgyny as “having the characteristics or nature of both male and female.” Assuming this is desirable and sticking it into a definition is an act worthy of Goebbels. What’s especially unfortunate is that even though I personally jumped and down like someone on ecstasy at a rave party over this passage, I guarantee you that no one else teaching the course did.
The book won’t stop there with only mis-definition though. It has to give androgyny a plug of which Pravda would have approved: “Androgynous individuals are described as more flexible and more mentally healthy than either masculine or feminine individuals.” Therefore, if you act like a man or act like a women, you are more likely to be mentally unhealthy. Somebody ought to forward this to Natan Sharansky because the GULAG is once again singing its evil song.
Yet, what is most offensive is that there is no validity to such a statement. Success in love, regardless of whether you’re a man or woman, is one of the most important things in our lives. The book advocates androgyny for males but are androgynous males attractive to most women? Certainly not.
Oh, they may befriend feminine males, they get their nails done with them, and they might secretly envy their Saks Fifth Avenue wardrobes; but I am certain that they rarely sleep with them. Although, they may just ask one of them to chaperone when they go on dates with real men.
Honestly, I’ve met quite a few of these androgynous guys. From what I’ve seen they’re a deluded lot. I even knew one who used to brag about how he had an immediate “in” with women because he liked soap operas. I told him, “Not only does that suggest you’re a
p-ssy, but it also suggests that you’re unemployed as well.” He thought I had it all wrong. In the three years I knew him he’d occasionally get a few bases on balls, but his batting average was zero.
If the reader, like this writer, accepts that there is a biological and genetic basis behind sexual desire, then it becomes perplexing what an “expressive” and emotion-driveling male could ever offer a woman. For 200,000 years in the wild the answer was zero. Males like that offered only death and decay. An androgynous man would have been of little help in the case of rape or abduction (other than to commiserate with the woman and cry by her side while she was being violated). Perhaps he could have endlessly discussed with her that he liked weaving better than hunting, so it was to be expected that there’d be no food on the fire that night or any other. Then he could observe that hiding in a grassy blind waiting for game would have a unsightly effect on his recently cut bangs so it wouldn’t be worth his time to even attempt it.
Certainly, the textbook writers needn’t have even included this passage because androgyny is spreading faster than microbials in a bathhouse. We know it from the increased sightings of metrosexuals in our cities, and we also know it from the amount of dominant, aggressive females that prowl our restaurants, stores, and places of employment.
The biggest of the big lies is in reference to these dominant women. It is preposterous that women who give androgynous or butch signals are even remotely attractive to heterosexual men. Such a belief is grounded in hallucination and has no relationship with actual desire. Yes, it’s true that women rate dominance as being a desirable trait in men, but most men are alienated by dominant women [yes, I’ll concede there are men who pay for a dominatrix but they’re freaks and outside of normal considerations]. The feminist take, and also the take of most domineering women, is that we as males are too insecure to handle them and that’s why we avoid them. This is just plain ridiculous. Most of these women are far too self-absorbed to ever ask basic questions about male motivations.
Throughout our history, what on earth did a dominant, bossy woman ever offer a man? Absolutely nothing. Was she going to fight the bear for you? Hell no. At best she’d criticize the way you were fighting the bear before the two of you got eaten. Even more likely, her personality would have got you into the fight with the bear in the first place. Not to mention all the altercations she would have managed to get you into within your own tribe.
God enjoys challenging us and for this reason I’ve always been cursed with dealing with dominant women. I remember telling one, “Look, I’m the wrong guy for you. You need a sycophant.” She responded by telling me that she could never respect a man she could boss around. Here we see how some pathological relationships are formed. She enjoyed the constant arguments she started; whereas, I just wanted to lose her phone number.
The mistake that so many people make today is to confuse “dominance” with “independence.” The independent person is never dominant. They have lives of their own. They have independent interests and hobbies. Independent people are self-stimulated and not chronically bored. The dominant person, on the other hand, cannot mind their own business because they have no business with which to attend. They exist to dominate and control others. If they don’t influence their associates’ decisions and opinions each day, it’s like a day spent in prison. I’ve met some really manipulative and dominating women in my life and they all described themselves as being independent. Nonsense. When you hear this, it’s always best to break out that beautiful old Scottish saying: “It’s better to have a lazy bossy than a bossy lassie.” Hurrah!
It could have been a textbook like this one that prompted Grover Norquist to say our universities were no longer serious places. What must be added is that even if we see our colleges as being infested with games theorists and oppression mongers, most of the students that go there still see it as a place to learn. And, if during this most sensitive of periods, they internalize the message of this author then it would have been better for their futures not to have gone to school at all.

Bruce Walker

Films We Will Never See


by Bruce Walker

While CBS produced a mediocre and crude caricature of the greatest American president in the last century, indicating that the entertainment industry is desperate for material, there are a number of films which tell a thrilling and compelling story, but which we will never see. Here is a small sample of the best stories never told by the Leftist elites in the entertainment industry.
Wilson the Rat. No man in American history has caused so much unnecessary human misery as Woodrow Wilson. If America had stayed out of the Great War insured, two equally culpable coalitions would have eventually reached a genuine peace. America had a vital role to play in that ghastly conflict, but that role was as a mediator.
The Great War led directly to Bolshevism, Fascism, National Socialism and a more strident Japanese Imperialism. Because of Wilson, the word endured a second terrible war, several holocausts around the globe, and the invention of fission and fusion bombs. Even worse, our brief participation in the Great War cost our nation an enormous number of casualties.
Venona and McCarthy. Venona decrypts are only part of the mountains of independent, growing and mutually supporting evidence that Senator Joseph McCarthy was more accurate than any of his critics about the extent and seriousness of communist penetration of America. Leftists have yet to find a single true innocent slandered by McCarthy, which would make his persecution a great story of courage in the face of evil.
Moreover, we now we know how close to the precipice America had come under FDR: Vice President Henry Wallace almost became president. If he had, a significant part of the cabinet would have been filled by people who were not just sympathetic to communism, as Wallace was, but who were agents of the Soviet Union with code names, assignments and coordination.
The True Story of the Death of Reverend King. This fictional account of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. would have shown that this deeply Christian man had served his usefulness to the Left. His continued leadership of the civil rights movement would have kept it from evolving into a giant hate group.
Read the words of Reverend King and see how out of step his would be with the vipers of black Leftism today. How often people who walked with Reverend King said that civil rights leaders are not acting as he would at all?
In a cauldron of nutty conspiracy theories, here is one conspiracy theory that made sense: secular Leftists saw much more value in the bloodied body of this black minister than in him continuing to remind us that Jesus loves us all.
The Hive. How many people do we see on the news who are married to someone making policies? How quickly does a catch phrase like “gravitas” travel through the roads of elitism to become suddenly important concepts? How narrow are the minds of the insulated Leftists who inhabit a surreal world in which people honestly believe that President Reagan did not carry forty-nine of fifty states in 1984 because “No one I know voted for him”?
What lunacy comes out of that mockery of intellectual activity which we generously call our “educational system”? How can putatively bright people “discover” in the 21st Century such profound insights as “men and women think differently”? What sort of news anchor can ignore a congressman who appears to have murdered his mistress - because it might cost Democrats a seat in Congress?
Gulag. Hollywood has never gotten around to taking a book called by many respected people the most important book of the 20th Century, The Gulag Archipelago, and made it into an epic or a series. One hundred million souls entered that Hell on Earth, and many died there. It is the biggest story of our age.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for Literature. He wrote some of the greatest fictional works in history. Hollywood has adapted many lesser novels into films, so why has it never then made a film based upon the chilling story of The First Circle? Solzhenitsyn recorded a thousand personal tales of intense and real drama, but except for a short film based upon A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, none of these many stories has ever made its way into film.
There will be no Spielberg movie about the greatest mass extermination in history, no Oliver Stone tales of Leftists shooting a black minister who had become inconvenient, no expose of the elitist Leftist bigotry in the institutions of society, no condemnation of a Leftist icon like Wilson, who life seems to look uglier every year. There are great stories that Hollywood will never make into films.
Bruce Walker

The Australian

Y bother: men are doomed after all
From The Sunday Times
August 18, 2003

MEN are doomed to extinction, victims of the decaying human Y-chromosome, the only piece of DNA men possess and women do not.

So says Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, in a book that envisages the "Sapphic reproduction" of women by genetic manipulation.
A "genetic ruin littered with molecular damage", the Y-chromosome cannot repair itself, nor arrest the steadily accumulating damage, he reports in Adam's Curse.
"Like the face of the moon, still pitted by all the craters from all the meteors that have ever fallen onto its surface, Y-chromosomes cannot heal their own scars. It is a dying chromosome and one day it will become extinct."
The decline of the Y-chromosome has been well chronicled. What is new is Professor Sykes's description of the implications and the stark choices for the human race.
He says that because the chromosome's main function is switching on male embryos in the womb, its demise means the final curtain for men.
By his estimate, the male will go belly-up in about 125,000 years.
But he cautions ultra-feminists against rejoicing too soon.
"Destroying the male sex would be a very short-lived victory. Men are still required for breeding, if nothing else."
But not for much longer, if Professor Sykes's radical solution is adopted - abandon men altogether.
"From the genetic point of view, very little stands in its way," he says.
His strategy for perpetuating a new female race depends on tweaking the proven technique of injecting sperm into eggs. Instead, the nucleus from a second egg would be injected.
The only difference from any other birth would be that the baby would always be a girl. "The entire process has been accomplished without sperm, without Y-chromosomes and without men," Professor Sykes says.
The girls would not be clones, but would comprise the same mixture of their parents' genes, shuffled by recombination, as today's children. But there would be one major difference: both parents would be women.
It is almost bound to happen, says the professor, who can find no moral objection. "Men are now on notice," he says.
However, Professor Sykes does not speculate on what would pass for sex once men disappear.

The Australian

Gay Marriage movement

Why FATHERS MUST FIGHT the Gay Marriage movement...
Dear Editor:
Certainly at first this next statement will sound a bit strange, but the gay marriage movement is MORE dangerous to fathers than the current horrendous custody bias in family courts. Over the years I have watched law review articles as a "harbinger" of things to come. In the last 3 or 4 years, there has been a HUGE amount of legal writing on the issue of "gay rights" and homosexual marriage. And about the same time, the number of articles on THIRD PARTY "parental involvement" has also increased.

With the advent of "gay" marriage, the issue of custody must eventually be dealt with. Whether by adoption, or by lesbian lovers where one partner has their own biological child, these relationships will end up in the "marriage" dissolution family "gas chambers." With homosexual marriage, NON-BIOLOGICAL THIRD PARTIES WILL BE GIVEN THE SAME "FUNDAMENTAL PARENTAL RIGHTS" AS BIOLOGICAL PARENTS! The case law will be made to UNDERMINE biological parental rights. And then the floodgates to more and more litigation and destruction of fathers is WIDE OPEN!

DADS BETTER WAKE UP!!

This is the most dangerous development in family law in its entire history. It is WORSE than the tender years doctrine or the current bias in the family courts. What a wonderful way for the family butcher lawyers to get rich promoting legal warfare between stepparents who will be placed on the SAME LEGAL FOOTING as biological parents! And just wait dads, how long do you think it'll be before you have NO rights to your own children, and those rights will be LEGALLY GIVEN to the third party stepparent and you'll STILL have to pay child support or go to jail! So far judges have just shafted dads by giving custody to mom, wait till they start giving custody to mom AND STEPDAD and you have NO RIGHTS (even less than you think you have now!)

Do a Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis search at your nearest college on homosexual marriage, and gay marriage and you'll see what has been leading up to the most recent debacle. Then do a FRIGHTENING search on third party custody, and on feminism and you'll receive the shock of your life. THAT'S COMING NEXT FOLKS!! And since the law on "fundamental parental rights" is so solid, they have to DESTROY that by undermining the biology issue to bring in third parties.

You thought it was bad before? Family Butcher Lawyers, working with their Family Executioner Judges, in their family gas chamber courts are about to ratchet it up several notches! And just like the frog boiling slowly to death as the heat is slowly raised, this won't happen in a day or two, but one day dads will wake up and realize that the mess today is paradise compared to the gulags that are coming.

Carey Roberts

The Radical Feminist Take-Over at the U.N.

September 20, 2003

by Carey Roberts


The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll released this past week reveals that Americans believe the United Nations is performing poorly as a world peace organization. And 37% want the U.S. to slash its financial backing, which may exceed a mind-boggling $1.6 billion this year.
And once Americans find out how much the gender feminist agenda now pervades the UN, public support will continue to plummet. This is the alphabet soup of radical feminist thinking at the UN:
1. DAW: The Division for the Advancement of Women oversees and coordinates the integration of the feminist "gender perspective" into the various UN agencies.
2. CEDAW: The Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women consists of 30 articles that cover such areas as Education, Health, Employment, Law, and many others. US Senate ratification of CEDAW was blocked last summer by a vocal coalition of women's, conservative, religious, and men's rights organizations.
3. UNICEF: Thanks to director Carol Bellamy, UNICEF now promotes an agenda that places the needs of women above the needs of children. A recent report criticized the UNICEF Go Girls! campaign in unusually blunt language: "However, some observers do not believe such information leads inexorably to the conclusion that girls should be favored in international programming (and that boys should be entirely excluded)". (page 74)
4. UNIFEM: The UN Development Fund for Women, known as UNIFEM, works for "women's empowerment and gender equality." To find out exactly what this euphemistic phrase means, visit the UNIFEM website at http://unifem.org/.
5. WHO: The World Health Organization has a Department of Women's Health and a Global Commission on Women's Health, but no corresponding programs for men.
6. ILO: The International Labor Organization has recently issued a report, "Time for Equality at Work." The report argues that women should be paid the same as men, regardless of the difficulty of their work or their job qualifications.
7. UNAIDS: Female liberation ideology has even gained a foothold at the United Nations AIDS Program. Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS states, "...Gender equality and the empowerment of women are fundamental elements in the reduction of the vulnerability of women and girls to HIV/AIDS."
8. Security Council: In 1990, the UN Security Council passed Resolution Number 1325. This Resolution unfairly stereotypes men as the cause of war.
The recent exposé by the International Organizations Research Group, documents how many of these feminist-inspired programs are now consolidating their grip by forging strategic alliances.
For example, next month the Division for the Advancement of Women will collaborate with the ILO and UNAIDS to sponsor a meeting on "The Role of Men and Boys in Achieving Gender Equality". But don't expect to hear much discussion how gender equality might improve the health of men, which lags behind women in every country around the world.
The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits any form of sex discrimination. But you won't hear much about that from the feminist apparatchiks at the UN.
Because to a radical feminist, gender equality can only be a one-way street.

The male sex drive

The male sex drive is uncomplicated and honest. Men are visual. The hot-blooded sexual response to the sight of a good-looking young woman has been hard-wired into the male brain thanks to millions of years of evolution -- the average guy can no more stop ogling, lusting and urging to merge than he can stop eating or sleeping.
But what about women? Just what do they find attractive about men? Read any typical survey and you'll be informed that what really turns them on is a sense of humor, confidence, consideration of others, etc. In other words, according to women, all you have to do is to be a nice guy and they'll come running.

Never listen to what a woman says -- always pay attention to what she actually does instead. The two are quite frequently worlds apart, because women are masters at self-deceit and equally adept at lying to themselves about their own behavior.
Cross-cultural evidence from different societies consistently reveals that what women really want from men are economic resources. Studies with college coeds show that when shown photographs of men dressed in high-status uniforms (suits, ties, expensive watches, etc.) and low-status uniforms, these women would be significantly more willing to enter into relationships with the more expensively-attired males regardless of the man's physical appearance.
To a woman, attraction is simple: green is very good-looking. And these same studies found that college men were convinced that magnifying their status (implying greater earning power) would lead to increased sexual activity.
Thus men were forced to rely on such attraction tactics as driving expensive cars, bragging about accomplishments, and emphasizing present or future earning power, while women, on the other hand, packaged themselves as commodities with make-up, jewelry, hairstyles, and shape-revealing clothing.
Evolution says women want more sex, not money…
Evolutionary psychologists like Dr. David Buss believe that present-day mate selection behaviors were founded in the Stone Age. Buss' recent survey of over 10,000 people in 37 countries, on six continents, reports that men consistently prize physical attraction and youth in their potential mates, while women value ambition, status, and financial resources.
In evolutionary terms, men seek out sexually desirable females whose youthful features indicate good health and the ability to bear children, while women look for mates with abundant enough resources to provide for their children.
So does this mean that women are genetically programmed to seek out only high-status men with lots of money and resources, and to disdain more average guys with lesser earning power -- that what women really go for is that big bulge in a man's pants (his wallet)?
women want sex too


Enter Dr. Tim Birkhead of the University of Sheffield (England), author of the ground-breaking Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition. With research spanning the broad spectrum of the animal kingdom, Birkhead discovered that female promiscuity -- that is, females having sex with multiple partners, sometimes regardless of their resources or status -- is the norm rather than the exception.
In fact, females of most species, from damselflies to penguins, routinely copulate with several different mates. And this is especially true among the higher mammals, such as chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom humans share approximately 99% of DNA.
According to Jane Goodall (The Chimpanzees of Gombe), a female chimp may mate with different males of her group as many as 50 times a day, and will actively seek out low-status chimps from other bands for even more sexual encounters.
And bonobos, who act and appear even more similar to humans than chimps, are the real swingers of the animal kingdom -- they participate in virtual gang-bangs and sex (even lesbian sex) solely for the sake of pleasure.
so why the money angle?


Of course, for women the implications are staggering. According to Birkhead, human females are genetically programmed to be promiscuous. And if Birkhead is right -- that we share common evolutionary behavior with chimps and bonobos -- this means that women should be attracted to and willing to have sex with men regardless of status. Women should not be using dating and marriage as a business.
Yet in human society, women are still selling it and men are still forced to pay for it.
Why?
Because women think with their vaginas -- that is, they use their awesome sexual power to control, manipulate, and get what they want from men. And men let them get away with it.
But in this day and age of equal rights, when women are earning excellent incomes and claim that they have no need for men to support them any more (but still hypocritically expect men to pay for them), maybe it's time for women to finally be honest.
Maybe it's time for women to jettison the manipulative greed, which so characterizes their gender, and seek out men of any status, as apparently nature has intended. Maybe it's time for women to start having sex for the sake of enjoyment instead of cold-bloodedly using it as a tool to feather their own nests.
the choice is yours


Men, you have two choices: either continue on as financial slaves and sacrifice your manhood on the altar of female greed; or stand up for yourselves right now -- refuse to be sex-ploited any longer.
Then maybe, just maybe, women can be as nature intended: sexually honest, like men.

Marc H. Rudov

Five Myths About Women

January 7, 2004

by Marc H. Rudov


Putting a woman on a pedestal is bad for your health—and hers. It has the unintended, reverse effect of reducing her to second-class citizen and elevating you to potentate. True mutual respect derives only from a peer relationship. Yet, many men still engage in such deferential behavior, and just as many women demand it. Why? They have been conditioned to believe and accept the interminable myths about women that still pervade our supposedly advanced culture.
I’ve recently published a book about women and know them well. My true education in all things feminine began almost 12 years ago, when I became reimmersed in the single world after my divorce. During this post-marriage odyssey with the “opposite” sex, I learned that women are not so opposite and are, in fact, much like men. To me, this is no longer a debate; it is fact.
Now, we hear almost daily from anthropologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed psychotherapists, so-called life coaches, movies, books, magazines, TV, radio, parents, friends, lovers, and standup comics that men and women are wired differently and hopelessly incompatible. We are coached to accept, embrace, and gingerly navigate these differences. Nonsense, I say. If you believe this propaganda, you are part of the problem.
Many children grow up hearing repeatedly from their parents and teachers that they are unalterably shy. Then, these children internalize the negative message and often remain shy until death—having lived a self-fulfilling prophecy. This same phenomenon occurs with the barrage of myths we hear about women’s limitations, passed down from generation to generation. From the long list, I have identified five, counterproductive relationship myths that our society continues to propagate and reinforce about femmes. They are totally absurd and untrue. Yet, if men and women don’t stop indulging in these myths, we will never find the harmony we mutually seek and need. Once we destroy these myths, however, men and women will realize, at last, how similar they really are.
Myth #1: Women don’t like or need sex as much as men do.
It is laughable how many men and women actually believe this myth. Worse is when they insist on clinging to it. Let me tell you that healthy women—those without emotional hangups or medical problems—definitely like and need sex as much as their male counterparts; often their cravings supersede those of men. On one hand, many demonstrative women have told me that men they had dated rejected them for being too sexually expressive. Wow, these men are morons! Unfortunately, sexually uninhibited women threaten insecure men, who need to be in charge, and old-fashioned men, who believe such women are sluts and not the marrying kind. In turn, a spurned, frustrated woman typically reacts by toning down her sexuality for the next guy. She conditions herself to believe that her unreserved style is wrong. What a waste of spirit. She should instead look for a better mate. Why doesn’t she? Usually it’s because her sexually frustrated mother and girlfriends force on her their repressive credo: great sex isn’t as important as his ability to provide for you—make it work.
On the other hand is the woman involved with a secure man, who encourages her, perhaps for the first time in her life, to be as free as she wants to be—emotionally and physically. Frequently, this woman was raised to be sexually passive or even to believe that sex is bad, and she expends a lot of energy in the act of self-repression. After behaving uninhibitedly, “like a man,” she almost cannot believe the difference and is never again the same. Numerous times I have witnessed this sudden metamorphosis first-hand, usually hearing the refrain: “Yes, my mother was definitely wrong! Why did I wait so many years to experience this?”
Myth #2: Women aren’t as visually stimulated or obsessed with looks as men are.
How many times do you hear this line? Give me a break. More nonsense. Part of the argument for this myth is that the majority of porn addicts are men. Porn addiction is a sickness that has little to do with visual stimulation and a lot to do with intimacy dysfunction. As an aside, a recent feature article in the San Jose Mercury News revealed a dirty, little secret: that porn is becoming increasingly popular amongst women of all socioeconomic stripes.
In the mating game, if she has the choice, a woman always will seek the best-looking guy. Isn’t this how many women choose presidential candidates? Despite Bill Clinton’s record of abusing females, many women continue to give him a pass because of his looks, and they have said this to my face. Beware women who deny their preoccupations with looks.
I remember watching a Fox TV show called Mr. Personality, hosted by Monica Lewinsky. A beautiful, sophisticated, well-spoken girl named Haley had to choose one man from a group of 25 masked, unnamed suitors¾each week further winnowing the group by a few men, based on their incompatible personality traits. Haley never saw the face of each suitor until she selected him to leave the group. And, every time she unmasked a handsome man whom she otherwise found unacceptable, she was disappointed. Sounds like the MO of a stereotypical guy, doesn’t it? On the final show, she narrowed the field to the last contestant—her new beau. Monica announced that he had done well financially in real estate, but Haley’s biggest question still remained unanswered: Is he gorgeous? Finally, he unmasked himself. Her relief was palpable.
Myth #3: Women are more faithful than men.
Recently, on The Radio Factor, host Bill O’Reilly said that men cheat more than women because their DNA renders them unable to be happy with one mate. In other words, they can’t help themselves. What nonsense! Normally, I agree with Bill O’Reilly, but I knew, based on my own experience, that he was dead wrong! Every time I go to a party, I see women cheating on their boyfriends. Every time I visit a dating Website, I find women cheating on their boyfriends. Wives who cheat on their husbands, however, are more discreet than their single sisters. But they still cheat. Why? For the same reasons men cheat: insecurity, immaturity, lack of commitment, lack of character, opportunity, boredom, duplicity, lousy sex at home, communications gap at home, etc.
I searched “female infidelity” on Amazon.com and saw at least 10 books on the subject, including one by Susan Shapiro Barash called A Passion for More: Wives Reveal the Affairs That Make or Break Their Marriages. In writing her book, Author Barash interviewed many cheating wives as well as psychotherapists. When asked on ABC’s Good Morning America about how much guilt these cheating wives must be feeling for their transgressions, Barash said she believes most of them don’t struggle with guilt. Nice. Once again, we see women exhibiting behavior typically associated with men. No surprise to me. Another myth shattered.
Myth #4: Women are more relationship-oriented than men.
Men like to date; women like to settle down. Sex, for men, is physical; for women, it is emotional. Men have trouble making commitments, but women are always ready for romance. Right? Wrong! Yet another unfounded myth about women as the nurturing creatures of the human race. But, isn’t this what we always hear?
Have you ever met a woman freshly separated from her husband and headed to divorce court? Sometimes, she wants to barricade herself in obscurity while she heals and deals with her lawyer. Other times, though, she wants to have as much sex as possible, with no attachments, ridding herself of the man she now despises. But wait, I thought this is the way men are supposed to behave!
In fact, there are men who crave being in relationships and women who avoid them at all costs, and vice-versa. Both men and women have had good and bad experiences with their counterparts. Some are dedicated to heal themselves and move forward; others feel permanently burned and live in avoidance for many years. Gender, once again, plays no role here. This myth is ridiculous.
Myth #5: Women are kinder, gentler, and more romantic than men.
Please, give me a break. I always knew that, like men, women have the capacity for brutality. My male friends confirmed this with their mindnumbing stories from divorce court. More telling is the number of women who explained to me just how brutal women can be! What happened to sugar and spice and everything nice? This truth became further evident when my young daughters came home from school, crying about the abuse they suffered on the proverbial playground from girls who one day welcomed them into the inner circle and the next day rejected them. And, society has the audacity to treat men like troglodytes incapable of empathy!
After you’ve been around the block a few times, usually when you hit 40, you start to realize that there are men and women of all stripes: generous, stingy, romantic, cold, demanding, appreciative, kind, and vicious. There are men who can write effusive, heartfelt love-letters, and there are women who are completely incapable of communicating their feelings, either verbally or in writing. I’ve been with sweet, loving, caring women whose ex-husbands are insensitive, dense, unromantic blokes—but excellent providers, dare we forget. So, again, another gender-based myth dispelled.
Myth-Busting
If you’re honest with yourself, you cannot find many real differences between men and women. The differences you’ve always thought about are socialized differences based on myths. If women were as different and mythical as the so-called experts would have you believe, they’d never be able to run major corporations, cities, states, and nations. When we stop behaving according to our socialized programming, our stereotypical roles, we are surprisingly similar. This behavioral shift is the solution for making our romances more harmonious and successful.

Eric Pistol

Notes From The Feminazi Underground
Watch Your Backs Boys

October 26, 2003

by Eric Pistol

Rarely do we see the feminists at work encouraging false accusations. These ploys are usually kept under wraps, but today I can show you one.
I have changed the names to protect the innocent. I will call her Joanne in this article and him Mr. Thomson.
The facts are straightforward, SHE asks a mutual friend for his address and e-mail. A week later at 9.12am on the 6th August, SHE writes him an e-mail complaining that HE has turned HER down. These are her words.
Within the following 12 hours Joanne is busy seeing her shrink and the local feminists groups. They promptly arm her with false accusations, and below is a copy of the feminists letter to Joanne which she sends to Mr Thomson. Their opening salvo is a warning of the false accusations that are encouraged even when the Facts state that he declined her!
Feminists Opening Salvo at 9.01pm on 6th August.
From: *** Feminists Group
To: Joanne
Joanne:
Thank you for contacting our office about your concerns in regard to internet stalking. After reading the email correspondence you provided between "Larry" and you I conjecture that he is of the secret admirer type and an infatuated mentally unstable individual. I also suspect that he could be very dangerous if you were to come into his physical presence. His writing style indicates that he has been practiced his "skill" for quite awhile and has mastered how to cover up and side step most objections that his victims might have to keep his sick game going. His email to you suggests that he has put long hours and lots of thought into how to present himself in a "false" safe light. He has sent to you prepared perfected copies of his previous attempts to stalk others on the internet. He has a very disciplined routine and is very methodical in his advances toward his victims, which is one of the foremost indicators of a seasoned and highly skilled stalker with severe emotional problems. He has been doing this for a long time and has it down to a science.
Stalking is about domination. Stalkers become obsessive investigators, interrogators, intimidators and terrorists. According to current statistics, almost a million and a half people are being stalked by an ex-boyfriend, ex-girlfriend, ex-husband, ex-wife, estranged husband, estranged wife, secret admirer, or an infatuated mentally unstable individual. The sick person stalking you falls into the last two classifications of stalkers. Celebrities and everyday people are potential victims of the stalker. Stalking is when someone contacts you when you request that they do not. They watch, follow, call, email, fax or continually send mail to you after you request they do not. Stalking is simply put as psychological terror. They try to make you a prisoner in your own life and your stalker has done just that to you because he now has you confused and fearful and preoccupied with what he will do next. You have done the right thing by contacting me at this office.
Red Flags, signs that you are being stalked include; an obsessive relationship that continues after the victim requests it does not, which includes; contact with you, your friends, family or work, following, threats, vandalism, dead or missing pets or an assault on the victim. Tell all you friends he is stalking you and ask them not to talk to him about you. Ask them to tell you if he does talk to them about you and get a written statement from them to that effect and then let me know immediately. &nbs
Warning Signals; when your intuition is telling you something is wrong immediately respond. The moment things start to go wrong respond with stated boundaries and call it quits. I saw in your last email to him that you requested he not contact you. I see that he did contact you again after that request. Send him a copy of this letter to let him know you are serious and that you have contacted law enforcement and notified friends, etc.
Ending a relationship; most stalkers have had some form of an emotional relationship with the victim. When the victim requests that the relationship must end, do it sternly and efficiently and make your feelings known. Stringing the stalker along only gives them hope and sends mixed signals. They will misconstrue your words and find hope in their meaning. Your stalker is in love with you according to his sick sense of romance and that is why he bombarded you with letters and cards when all you wanted was a chance to meet for coffee or something. He considers himself to be God?s gift to women when most women of any intelligence find him repulsive, belligerent and contemptible. Your stalker is rude, crude, selfish and of lower intelligence and that makes him a very serious threat.
Final Words; once you have ended the relationship and the stalker continues to make contact, under no circumstances do you respond. Emotions can eventually fade away, however, if you respond after a month of being contacted, you give the stalker their emotional fix and then they want more. More is never enough for the this sick stalker.
Do by all means warn your friends that he is stalking you and make it known where he is stalking other women victims. Most victims of stalkers do not realize they are being stalked until it is to late. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure when it comes to these sick individuals. They know what the law is far better then you will ever know it because they practice their shadowy activities day in and day out constantly searching for new victims to play their depraved and sick emotional games with. "Larry" is one of those.
After you have informed him DO NOT CONTACT ME OR ANY OF MY FRIENDS AGAIN make a copy of the letter and file it away for safe keeping. Simply by making that request to him you are positioned as a victim. If he contacts you again he has made his position known as a criminal stalker. If he then contacts you again you will have solid grounds for criminal prosecution. Do not change your email address, he wins if you do.
If and when he contacts you or any of your friends again notify our office and we will launch an immediate investigation and prosecute him to the full extent of the law on a local, state or federal level depending on the laws most applicable to his offense. Since he lives in our jurisdiction and you live in Missouri it would most likely be a federal offense. The federal laws have more teeth and are very victim friendly as compared to our local and state laws at this time. We are working to get them updated to reflect our times.
We have created a file on Mr. Thomson and if you know of other victims please have them contact me at this office. In cases like these when one comes forward there are usually ten more out there who have been victimized and just do not know what to do. We want to stop these stalkers before they hurt someone. This stalker looks as if from his emails to be getting close to acting out on his social frustrations. Right now it is you against him but with one or two more victims coming forward we can stop him forever.
I want to thank you for contacting this office and we will do everything within our power to stop him from harassing and stalking you and other women. Please thank Dr. Glasser for referring you to me. She has done more in this city single handily to educate and treat women for abuses by men then any other organization in the country. She is a real leader in the fight for the rights of abused women and I take her referrals very seriously.
Joyce XXXXXX - Battered Women's Shelter
__________________________________
And the entire above missive is sent, because he declined to form a relationship with her. Within 12 hours of her last email to him, in which Joanne complained that HE turned HER down, Joanne visits a feminist group, and their opening salvo is the fabrication of fact we see above.
Watch your backs boys. He declined her, and the Feminists claim that makes him a pervert.

Eric Pistol

Note: Mr Thomson contacted us immediately after receiving the above communication (and others) from the feminists group. He was astounded at how the feminists could fabricate the above based on the written facts. In future articles I will relate how further attacks by the feminists groups followed.

Alberta survey

Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey
67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts

by Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone

This article appeared in the National Post (Toronto, Ontario) on 10 July 1999.

This item may be cited as Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone, Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey, National Post (online edition), July 10, 1999.

Copyright © 1999, Southam Inc. Reproduced with permission.






OTTAWA - Women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and women are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship, according to a new Canadian study that deals a blow to the image of the male as the traditional domestic aggressor.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the study, however, is the source of the data -- a 1987 survey of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses.

Although the original researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now.

When the original Alberta study was published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science in 1989, it was taken up by feminist groups as evidence of the epidemic of violence against women.

The researchers, Leslie Kennedy and Donald Dutton, say they were primarily interested in male-to-female violence at the time.

In any case, the one-sided Kennedy-Dutton study was cited extensively in a 1990 House of Commons committee report The War Against Women, which ultimately led Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister, to call a two-year, $10-million national inquiry into violence against women. The inquiry's 460-page report made 494 recommendations aimed at changing attitudes in governments, police departments, courts, hospitals and churches. It also led to a torrent of lurid news features about battered women.

The current study, which will appear this week -- again, in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science -- says that while the need to stop violence against women is obvious, violence against men is being ignored.

"Our society seems to harbour an implicit acceptance of women's violence as relatively harmless," writes Marilyn Kwong, the Simon Fraser University researcher who led this study.

"Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge the possibility of women's violence . . . jeopardizes the credibility of all theory and research directed toward ending violence against women."

The study shows roughly that 10.8% of men in the survey pushed, grabbed or threw objects at their spouses in the previous year, while 2.5% committed more severe acts, such as choking, kicking or using a weapon.

By contrast, 12.4% of women committed acts of minor violence and 4.7% committed severe violence.

The violence is seldom one-sided. Of those surveyed, 52% of women and 62% of men reported that both partners were violent.

When questioned about who initiated the most severe conflicts, 67% of women believed they had started it; only 26% believed it was their male spouse.

Regardless of who started it, women appear to end up the losers in the struggle. A major U.S. study on the topic shows 3% of women suffer injuries in spousal violence, while only 0.4% of males were hurt badly enough to seek medical care.

Publication of the "other side" of the violence study provides a sharp illustration of how social science is manipulated to fit a particular agenda.

"It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story," says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research shows similar patterns of violence against men.

"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.

"As some feminists say, it's counter-intuitive. We would not expect that to be true; and if things are not expected to be true, for some people they are not true."

Even the federal government appears to turn a blind eye. In 1993, Statistics Canada began to keep track of assaults by men on women in its Violence Against Women survey. But it does not measure the female-to-male violence. "At the time, it was decided that since violence against women was more prevalent, we would only keep track of that," explains spokesperson Shelley Crego.

Ms.Crego said this decision was based on police reports, noting women complain more frequently of assault by men than vice versa.

In her article, Dr. Kwong implies this creates an incorrect picture. "It is important to keep in mind that, within the criminal justice system, any of the physical acts endorsed by these respondents would constitute assault," she writes.

Nor does it appear that violence is confined to married or common-law relationships.

In a separate study to be published this week, researchers from the University of Regina and Wilfrid Laurier University report that 39% of males surveyed said they suffered violence while on a date, compared with 26% of females.

"This sex difference has been found in other studies of physical and psychological dating violence," report researchers Donald Sharpe and Janelle Taylor.

[masculinisme.blog-city.com] Administration

Is Male Passivity on the Wane?


by Roger F. Gay

For decades, the feminist vision of the new man dominated the tabloid social revolution in America. The demure male was thought to be a progressive response to modern women who could no longer tolerate enslavement by automatic washing machines, streamlined mega-stores, and frumpy year-old family cars. Fashions change and stable child nurturing wives an old idea.
If your grandfather was divorced, he could probably tell you about the forerunner to the feminist model. Divorced men lost their families, homes, and much of the fruit of their life's work and were expected to keep quiet about it. Before the female male, was the macho man who took it on the chin with silent resignation to the honorable course no matter how much it hurt. It's doubtful anyone knows exactly when it became honorable for men to step aside and continue paying the bills, but it probably had something to do with the age in which our male ancestors worked for money while the women-folk took care of hearth and home.
Despite the fact that a well-adjusted heterosexual male can't catch a break with the old media, the new man is emerging as something other than what was planned. It isn't grandpa's divorce anymore. Decades of political manipulation opened the door to social engineering and not unexpectedly, corruption. Today, fathers aren't expected to take it on the chin. They get rammed with bureaucratic bull dozers and flattened by the government's multi-billion dollar child support megalith. Family law is just generous enough to keep them alive so they can feel red-hot pokers jabbed into their eyes by politicians on the take.
Not surprisingly, the new man is for the most part, extremely angry. Not the least bit surprisingly, political spin-doctors who cultivated this new era, list that as the primary reason this real new man should be ignored. In my opinion, there is no magic in the dynamics of the situation; ignoring his complaints and protests is making the new man angrier still. Consider, logically if you can, the consequences of ignoring all but his most dramatic protests. When the protests are necessary, the drama will rise to the occasion.
It's not that we actually had a period of male passivity. In the early 1990s, when some of the most dramatic family reforms went into effect in the USA, news reports were regularly cluttered with murders of lawyers and judges, followed by a rash of armed police sieges surrounding the homes of fathers who didn't return their children from their visitation period on time. Amidst regular armed police raids all across the country on the homes of fathers who are behind in child support payments, we occasionally read a story about a man who resists.
But early news reports were too cluttered with the truth about family law reforms. The image of fathers was not yet evil enough and some of these men, especially the ones who didn't hurt anyone, were too easily seen as victims and their protests as reactions to intolerable circumstances. Feminists objected to reporting of the reasons men were being driven to desperate behavior, calling it "negotiating with terrorists." The men of the old media, who have fashioned themselves on the feminist's demure male model, quickly obeyed with a moratorium.
Objective reporting out of the way, the intense propaganda campaign that followed deserves a permanent place in history books. Journalists, political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, and probably every high school graduate should know what political manipulation looks like when all the stops are out. By the mid-1990s, the image of fathers (along with all men generally) was so evil that young school boys couldn't tease girls without getting arrested. Men considered formulating contracts to protect themselves against date-rape allegations. Movement of jobs to liberal countries came under consideration because employers feared the outbreak of frivolous sexual harassment lawsuits in which defense was quite intentionally difficult and expensive. Any reasonable social expectation of honorable male behavior that once existed has been replaced by systematic institutional abuse. Shut up and pay up or else!
Against a backdrop of outrageous anti-father propaganda and state sponsored opposition, fathers are cut-off from normal means of addressing grievances. Courts have become so corrupt that they no longer serve their function. The old media either spins every story against them or refuses to cover it.
Humans adapt. In England, Fathers 4 Justice has staged a number of protests that found the best balance between making a point and behaving within social norms. They have scaled court buildings and construction cranes in super-hero costumes, causing just enough disruption to get attention. Their protests are perhaps more effective given the reaction of the London mayor, who likened a recent protest on a crane near the Tower of London, which slowed traffic in the area for a few days, to a terrorist action. A couple of weeks later, the same mayor welcomed as many anti-Bush demonstraters to London as cared to come, calling it an exercise in democracy – no matter the major disruption to London traffic and the millions of pounds spent to maintain peace and order.
A group of angry fathers "took over an office of the Dutch child protection agency" in Zutphen on November 20th, the U.N. designated International Day of the Child. (expatia.com) The men seized control of the building and effectively "imprisoned" five staff members. They demanded a meeting with the Justice Minister, the mayor of Zutphen, and the child protection agency director. An agency spokeswoman reported at the time that the staff members who were being held did not appear to be in any danger and that remaining staff were continuing with their work. Police were not called to the scene.
I have a sense that it isn't just that men are more willing to take action today. They have been willing and have taken action in the past. But today, there are more people who are interested in their message, more people who understand that there are serious problems that need to be exposed and dealt with. We are also reaching a stage in which the thought behind the style of protest is much more sophisticated than ever before.
Still, it does seem naïve to think that men have not adjusted their behavior in other ways, and not to wonder what the future of mankind might look like, at least in the near term. I was not surprised by a response I got from a recent article entitled, "Fathers Not Guilty of Child Abuse." The article was triggered by the recent discovery that many fathers have been convicted of child abuse when there was no evidence that abuse had occurred.
One man responded with a story about his treatment by medical personnel when he took his young daughter for treatment for a fractured shoulder. They were not satisfied with his explanation and in effect held him for questioning. Once they talked with the girl's mother, who placed no blame on the father, they laughed the situation off and let him and his daughter go. In a way, it's everyman's story, although it's played out in many different ways each and every day. I can't imagine that our grandfathers would have put up with such disrespectful behavior.

Rudy Takala: The Spectacles of Feminism

The Spectacles of Feminism
Violence against women is plaguing the United States today. According to liberals, pornography and public vulgarity appear to be the answer. I will forewarn readers that the following is a discussion of feminists and liberals, some of whom are adolescents attending public high schools. As such, parts of the discussion are, to use a liberal buzzword, "inappropriate."

Carrie Rethlefsen attends Winona High School in Minnesota. She recently watched the play, "The Vagina Monologues." Its proponents allege that the play raises awareness to violence against women. After watching the play, Carrie Rethlefsen and a friend wore "I [heart] My Vagina" buttons to school. School administrators have called the pins "inappropriate" and threatened expulsion.

Unfortunately, Carrie Rethlefsen "can't really find out what is inappropriate about it." She doesn't "think banning things like this is appropriate." She said the buttons raise awareness to women's issues, whatever those may be.

That Rethlefsen can't see anything "inappropriate" about it isn't particularly surprising to me. In that she's referencing genitalia with something other than slang when most residents of the public schools don't know anything but slang, she is an anomaly. Relative to her peers, she's being conservative.

The Minnesota American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently became involved and called the buttons political speech. If they are taken as political speech, rather than as simply obscene speech, Supreme Court precedent seems to suggest that they can't be prohibited.

In a show of support, more than 100 students have ordered T-shirts displaying "I (heart) My Vagina" for girls and "I Support Your Vagina" for boys. Many things could be said of this fascinating exhibition, but it will suffice to let readers find their own humor in the matter.

As traditionally liberal issues evaporate and the case for government action in certain areas begins to dwindle, liberals contrive new ways to incite controversy, associate the controversies with older issues, and claim that they're the same thing. Feminism, for example, began as a women’s rights movement. As time went on, socialists saw an opportunity to hijack the movement and took it. By the 1970s, feminism was no longer about equal rights. It was about passing socialist legislation and requiring employers to consider non-economic factors in operating their businesses.

Socialism today has made considerable economic advances, disproportionate to its social agenda. Its adherents have realized this, and liberal feminists are acting accordingly. Feminism is now being utilized as a means to promoting pornography and cultural debasement. It has nothing to do with equal rights, of course, and the freedom to partake in such debasement generally isn't disputed. Nonetheless, they claim that not just poor taste, but flamboyant, public vulgarity is necessary to the advancement of "women's rights."

That the ACLU would call the buttons political speech is indicative of the fact that the real issue isn't about women's rights or violence against women. No one publicly advocates for violence against women. It isn't a political issue. If The Vagina Monologues were truly about violence against women, it wouldn't be a political issue, either. It's a political issue because it advocates public obscenity and nothing else.

Perhaps Carrie Rethlefsen doesn't perceive this and is simply an unwitting pawn in the agenda of "feminism." Or perhaps she does perceive it, and understands her unique position to aid in their degenerate cause.

On a point that I find amusing, I must speak to the situation as it exists within the context of a public school. The buttons in question are undoubtedly among the least offensive of things available for viewing in the Winona High School during the course of an average school day. Such is the nature of public schools. It is extremely improbable that any of the students are witnessing anything they haven't been witnessing since the sixth grade. If they were truly offended by such things, they wouldn't be in attendance at a government high school.

But the most compelling question at hand in this, and all other controversies of the sort, is to what degree the citizens of a nation may be coerced into attending government institutions and forced to coexist with their fellow attendees. To what extent must their coexistence be compelled? To what extent can it be? When one party views a second as the licentious manifestation of spiritual darkness, and the second party views the first as primitive, stupid and superstitious, reconciliation is a not a realistic objective.

Two observations should be made of this debacle. The first is of the public schools. As segments of American culture become more contrasted, the continuation of forced congregation will be made more difficult. Individuals must possess the freedom to act as they wish, or certain factions will inevitably come to express hegemony over the others. Individual autonomy was disposed of long ago, and we are currently experiencing the consequences of that action.

The second observation must be made of feminism. Feminists don't advocate for rights. The contemplation of violence against women plays no role in their considerations; if it did, they would display their love for genitals in the nations of the Middle East and Africa, where human rights violations tend to be more egregious than in the United States. But rights aren’t what they’re concerned with. All they’re concerned with is transforming American culture to better match their values; to do this, they must redefine their gender as one characterized by depraved perverts.

It will be interesting to view the outcome of these matters. They are the evolving face of our culture, and they may be an interesting portrayal of things to come.

Rudy Takala is 16 years old and enjoys freelance writing as a hobby. His columns have appeared on more than twenty Websites across the Internet. He can be contacted at RudyTakala@Yahoo.com.

Notre beau r�ve europ�en est-il utilis� pour affaiblir la d�mocratie

Une mauvaise constitution
qui révèle un secret cancer de notre démocratie

Chers collègues et amis,

Après six mois de réflexion intense, se cristallise une argumentation autour du "traité constitutionnel", à partir de lui mais au-delà de lui, une argumentation qui n’est ni de droite ni de gauche, et qui montre un danger historique pour nous tous, au-dessus de la politique. Pour ces raisons, cette courte argumentation devrait intéresser les citoyens de tous bords.

Il y a six mois, en septembre 2004, j’étais, comme tout le monde, favorable à ce texte sans l’avoir lu, par principe, "pour avancer", même si je savais bien que les institutions étaient très imparfaites. Je ne voulais pas être de ceux qui freinent l’Europe. Je crois vraiment que l’immense majorité des Européens, au-delà des clivages gauche/droite, aiment cette belle idée d’une Europe unie, plus fraternelle, plus forte. C’est un rêve de paix, consensuel, très majoritaire.

Je n’avais pas lu le texte et je n’avais absolument pas le temps : trop de travail… Et puis l’Europe c’est loin, et puis avec tous ces hommes politiques, je me sentais protégé par le nombre : en cas de dérive, il allait bien y en avoir quelques-uns pour nous défendre… et je me dispensais de "faire de la politique", c’est-à-dire que je me dispensais de m’occuper de mes propres affaires.

Déjà des appels s’élevaient contre le traité, mais ils venaient des extrêmes de l’échiquier politique et pour cette simple raison, je ne commençais même pas à lire leurs arguments, restant en confiance dans le flot de l’avis du plus grand nombre sans vérifier par moi-même la force des idées en présence.

Et puis soudain, des appels sont venus de personnes non suspectes d’être antieuropéennes. J’ai alors lu leurs appels, sans souci des étiquettes, et j’ai trouvé les arguments très forts. Je me suis mis à lire, beaucoup, des livres entiers, de tous bords, Fabius, Strauss-Khan, Giscard, Jennar, Fitoussi, Généreux, etc. et beaucoup plus d’articles des partisans du traité parce que je voulais être sûr de ne pas me tromper. Et plus je lis, plus je suis inquiet. Finalement, aujourd’hui, je ne pense plus qu’à ça, je ne dors presque plus, j’ai peur, simplement, de perdre l’essentiel : la protection contre l’arbitraire.

Je continue aujourd’hui à lire toutes les interventions, ceux qui sont pour, ceux qui sont contre, je continue à chercher où est la faille dans mon raisonnement et le présent texte est un appel à réfléchir et à progresser : si vous sentez une faille, parlons-en, s’il vous plaît, tranquillement, honnêtement, c’est très important. Je peux me tromper, je cherche sincèrement à l’éviter, réfléchissons ensemble, si vous le voulez bien.

Je sens que c’est ma mission de professeur de droit d’en parler un peu plus que les autres, d’en parler à mes collègues, mais aussi à mes élèves, aussi aux journalistes. Je serais complice si je restais coi.

J’ai ainsi trouvé plus de dix raisons graves de s’opposer à ce texte extrêmement dangereux, et encore dix autres raisons de rejeter un texte désagréable, pas fraternel du tout en réalité. Mais les cinq raisons les plus fortes, les plus convaincantes, celles qui traversent toutes les opinions politiques parce qu’elles remettent en cause carrément la possibilité d’avoir une réflexion politique, me sont apparues tardivement car il faut beaucoup travailler pour les mettre en évidence. Ce sont ces raisons-là, les cinq plus importantes, sur lesquelles je voudrais attirer votre attention et solliciter votre avis pour que nous en parlions ensemble, puisque les journalistes nous privent de débats publics.

Dans cette affaire d'État, les fondements du droit constitutionnel sont bafoués, ce qui rappelle au premier plan cinq principes transmis par nos aïeux. Les principes 4 et 5 sont les plus importants.

1. Une Constitution doit être lisible pour permettre un vote populaire : ce texte-là est illisible.

2. Une Constitution doit être politiquement neutre : ce texte-là est partisan.

3. Une Constitution est révisable : ce texte-là est verrouillé par une exigence de double unanimité.

4. Une Constitution protège de la tyrannie par la séparation des pouvoirs et par le contrôle des pouvoirs : ce texte-là organise un Parlement sans pouvoir face à un exécutif tout puissant et largement irresponsable.

5. Une Constitution n’est pas octroyée par les puissants, elle est établie par le peuple lui-même, précisément pour se protéger de l’arbitraire des puissants, à travers une assemblée constituante, indépendante, élue pour ça et révoquée après : ce texte-là entérine des institutions européennes qui ont été écrites depuis cinquante ans par les hommes au pouvoir, à la fois juges et parties.

Premier principe de droit constitutionnel : une Constitution est un texte lisible.
Le "traité constitutionnel" est beaucoup trop long[1] : 852 pages A4, une ramette et demie. Cette longueur est unique au monde pour une Constitution, ce qui la rend simplement illisible.

Cette longueur interdit la critique. C’est tout sauf un détail.

Les 75% d’Espagnols votants qui ont approuvé ce texte, comme les 60% qui se sont abstenus, ne l'ont probablement pas lu : ni les ministres, ni les parlementaires, ni les professeurs, ni les journalistes, ni les citoyens, qui ont tous autre chose à faire : qui a le temps matériel de lire 850 pages A4 ? Il suffit de se poser la question pour soi-même : ce n’est pas différent pour les autres.

Ces citoyens prennent ainsi le risque majeur, pour eux, mais aussi pour leurs enfants et leurs petits-enfants, de découvrir trop tard ce qu'ils ne pourront plus changer.

Il faut évidemment lire et comprendre ce que l'on signe. Ou bien, on refuse de signer.

Même s'il était simple (et il ne l'est pas), un texte aussi long ne permet pas de le juger avec discernement.

Et pourtant, il faut bien avoir un avis. Comment faire pour avoir un avis sur un texte qu'on ne peut pas lire ? En s’alignant sur "les autres", on se rassure, comme les moutons de Panurge.

Cette longueur extravagante est, par elle-même, non démocratique : on éloigne ainsi les curieux. On observe ces temps-ci comme cette vieille technique obscurantiste marche bien : l’unanimisme ambiant repose sur des malentendus rendus possibles par un texte illisible.

Une Constitution est la loi fondamentale, elle est "le droit du droit", elle doit pouvoir être lue par tous, pour être approuvée ou rejetée en connaissance de cause.

N’est-ce pas une mission des professeurs de droit, mais aussi des journalistes, de l'expliquer aux citoyens ?

Deuxième principe de droit constitutionnel : une Constitution est un texte neutre,
elle permet le débat politique sans en imposer l'issue
Une Constitution démocratique n'est pas de droite ou de gauche, elle n'est pas socialiste ou libérale, une Constitution n'est pas partisane : elle rend possible le débat politique, elle est au-dessus du débat politique.

À l’inverse, ce "traité constitutionnel", en plus de fixer la règle du jeu politique, voudrait fixer le jeu lui-même !

En imposant dans toutes ses parties[2] (I, II et surtout III) des contraintes et références libérales, ce texte n'est pas neutre politiquement, il impose pour toujours des choix de politique économique qui doivent évidemment dépendre du débat politique quotidien, variable selon la conjoncture.

Notamment, ce texte confirme pour toujours que l’Europe se prive elle-même des trois principaux leviers économiques qui permettent à tous les États du monde de gouverner : pas de politique monétaire (banque centrale indépendante, n’ayant comme seule mission, constitutionnelle, intangible, que la lutte contre l’inflation et aucunement l’emploi ou la croissance[3]), pas de politique budgétaire (pacte de stabilité[4]) et pas de politique industrielle (interdiction de toute entrave à la concurrence[5], donc interdiction d’aider certains acteurs nationaux).

C’est une politique de l’impuissance économique[6] qui est ainsi institutionnalisée, imposée pour longtemps.

Ce texte infantilise les citoyens d'Europe : il nous prive tous de l'intérêt de réfléchir à des alternatives. À quoi bon continuer le débat politique, en effet, puisque toute alternative réelle est expressément interdite dans le texte suprême ?

Mise à part la constitution soviétique (qui imposait, elle aussi, une politique, le collectivisme), cette constitution partisane serait un cas unique au monde.

N’est-ce pas une mission des professeurs de droit, mais aussi des journalistes, de l'expliquer aux citoyens ?

Troisième principe de droit constitutionnel : une Constitution démocratique est révisable
Le "traité constitutionnel" est beaucoup trop difficilement révisable[7] : pour changer une virgule à ce texte, il faut d'abord l'unanimité des gouvernements pour tomber d'accord sur un projet de révision, puis il faut l'unanimité des peuples (parlements ou référendums) pour le ratifier.

Avec 25 États, cette procédure de double unanimité est une vraie garantie d'intangibilité pour les partisans de l'immobilisme. Ce texte est pétrifié dès sa naissance.

Concrètement, si une large majorité d’Européens souhaitent modifier leur loi fondamentale, ils ne le pourront pas.

C'est inacceptable pour une Constitution[8] et ce serait, là encore, un cas unique au monde.

On me répond en mettant en avant le mot "traité" pour prétendre que l'unanimité est normale (ce qui est vrai en matière de traités), mais ça ne tient pas : ce texte, à l’évidence, joue le rôle d’une constitution et l'oxymore "Traité constitutionnel" (assemblage de mots contradictoires) conduit, en jouant sur les mots, à créer une nouvelle norme suprême beaucoup trop rigide, trop difficile à réviser.

Le "traité constitutionnel" est exécutoire sans limitation de durée[9], il s’impose sur presque tous les sujets essentiels à la vie des gens, sa force juridique est supérieure à toutes nos normes nationales (règlements, lois, Constitution), et même à tous nos traités, il met en place les grands pouvoirs (exécutif, législatif, judiciaire) et il en règle les équilibres.

Avec le "traité constitutionnel", notre Constitution nationale devient un texte de rang inférieur au moindre petit règlement européen (souvent directement exécutoire dans notre droit positif) et ne nous protège donc plus de rien dans tous les domaines où l'Europe prend le pouvoir, c’est-à-dire presque partout[10].

Le TCE est donc manifestement, par nature, une Constitution, il fixe le droit du droit.

De nombreux professeurs de droit public l’analysent comme tel, de la même façon qu’ils analysent la nouvelle Union comme un État, avec tous ses composants fondamentaux.[11]

En établissant une Constitution par voie de traité, procédure beaucoup moins contraignante qu’une lourde assemblée constituante, (publique, contradictoire et validée directement par le peuple), les parlements et gouvernements, de droite comme de gauche, ont fait comme s’ils étaient propriétaires de la souveraineté populaire, et ce traité, comme les précédents, peut s’analyser comme un abus de pouvoir : nos élus, tout élus qu’ils sont, n’ont pas reçu le mandat d’abdiquer notre souveraineté. C’est au peuple, directement, de contrôler que les conditions de ce transfert, (à mon avis souhaitable pour construire une Europe forte et pacifiée), sont acceptables. Comme le suggère Christian Darlot, on devrait parler de « traité anti-constitutionnel ».

Pour l'entrée d'un nouvel État dans l'UE, la règle de l’unanimité est une protection, mais ce n'est pas l'unanimité des peuples consultés par référendum qui est requise : c'est d’abord l’unanimité des 25 représentants des gouvernements (dont beaucoup ne sont pas élus, et dont aucun ne l'est avec le mandat de décider sur ce point essentiel), puis l’unanimité des États selon leur procédure nationale de ratification[12]. Seuls les pays qui ont une procédure référendaire, et la France en fait partie, verront donc leur peuple directement consulté.

Tout indique que la volonté des peuples compte de moins en moins pour ceux qui les gouvernent.

N’est-ce pas une mission des professeurs de droit, mais aussi des journalistes, de l'expliquer aux citoyens ?

Quatrième principe de droit constitutionnel :
une Constitution démocratique garantit contre l'arbi­traire
en assurant à la fois la séparation des pouvoirs et le contrôle des pouvoirs
L'esprit des lois décrit par Montesquieu est sans doute la meilleure idée de toute l'histoire de l'Humanité : tous les pouvoirs tendent naturellement, mécaniquement, à l'abus de pouvoir. Il est donc essentiel, pour protéger les humains contre la tyrannie, d'abord de séparer les pouvoirs, et ensuite d'organiser le contrôle des pouvoirs : pas de confusion des pouvoirs, et pas de pouvoir sans contre-pouvoirs.



Ainsi le peuple dit : « Toi, le Parlement, tu fais les lois, mais tu ne les exécutes pas. Et toi, le Gouvernement, tu exécutes les lois, mais tu ne peux pas les écrire toi-même. » Ainsi, aucun pouvoir n’a, à lui seul, les moyens de devenir un tyran.

« D’autre part, si l’un des pouvoirs estime que l’autre a un comportement inacceptable, il peut le révoquer : l’assemblée peut renverser le gouvernement, et le gouvernement peut dissoudre l’assemblée. Dans les deux cas, on en appelle alors à l’arbitrage (élection) du peuple qui doit rester la source unique de tous les pouvoirs. »

C’est ça, la meilleure idée du monde, la source profonde de notre quiétude quotidienne.

Foulant aux pieds ces principes fondateurs de la démocratie, le "traité constitutionnel" entérine au contraire l'attribution de tous les pouvoirs au couple exécutif Conseil des ministres + Commission : c’est ainsi que le pouvoir législatif (l’exécutif européen a l’exclusivité de l'initiative des lois ![13], et il peut par ailleurs créer toutes sortes de règles contraignantes supérieures à toutes les normes nationales[14]) et le pouvoir exécutif sont dans les mêmes mains !

Avec la confusion des pouvoirs, c’est un premier rempart essentiel contre la tyrannie qui nous échappe !

Avec une certaine cohérence, ce texte prive aussi le Parlement européen des pouvoirs élémentaires et essentiels que lui confère pourtant traditionnellement son élection au suffrage universel direct : pour commencer, le parlement européen n'a pas l'initiative des lois.

Ceci est un vice rédhibitoire, absolument pas négociable. Si on laisse passer ça, on est fous.

Le Parlement européen n'a également aucun moyen sérieux de contrôler et d'infléchir la politique menée par l'exécutif. Dans le meilleur des cas, il légifère selon un mécanisme humiliant appelé codécision[15]. Il y a même une série de sujets qui lui échappent totalement ![16]

On a mis le Parlement en tutelle, en cage : le Parlement ne peut légiférer seul sur rien, il ne peut même rien initier. C’est exactement une tutelle…

C’est d’autant plus choquant que l’exécutif, lui, au contraire, a ses quelques domaines absolument réservés, bien à l’abri des contrôles tatillons, et comme par hasard ce sont les domaines économiques essentiels… (Art. III-130 : marché intérieur et Art. III-163 et III-165 : règles de la concurrence). Pour un citoyen qui débarque là sans avoir été conditionné psychologiquement au préalable, c’est choquant. Mais peut-être que je me trompe. Peut-on m’expliquer cet étrange « équilibre » des pouvoirs ? Pour qui a-t-on écrit ce texte ?

L’argument selon lequel "c’est partout pareil" ne me rassure pas mais m’inquiète plus encore : pendant que la plupart des citoyens négligent la démocratie, hypnotisés par la pub, le foot et la télé, d’autres s’en occupent activement, et discrètement, on voit comment.

Continuons : nombreux sont les "responsables" de l'exécutif européen, à commencer par les commissaires[17], mais surtout le Conseil des ministres, qui créent des normes contraignantes et n'ont pourtant de comptes à rendre à personne au Parlement. Un pouvoir immense sans contre-pouvoirs.

Le Parlement européen ne peut pas mettre en cause un commissaire, il ne peut que révoquer en bloc la commission, à la majorité des deux tiers, ce qui signifie que la Commission peut gouverner 450 millions de personnes avec l’accord d’un tiers seulement du Parlement.

Le Parlement européen ne peut pas renverser le Conseil des Ministres qui est donc absolument irresponsable.

La Commission, qui est l’émanation du Conseil, sa « chose », sert donc de « fusible » politique face au Parlement, faisant écran aux Conseils qui ne risquent rien.

On aurait voulu organiser l’irresponsabilité générale qu’on ne s’y serait pas pris autrement.

Exemple de la toute-puissance des commissaires : le commissaire chargé du commerce international est le représentant unique de l’Union dans toutes les négociations internationales (OMC et autres). À lui seul, cet homme concentre donc un pouvoir vertigineux. C’est à ce titre qu’il négocie l’AGCS (Accord général sur les services, version mondiale de la directive Bolkestein) au nom de tous les Européens, mais dans le plus grand secret : il ne rend aucun compte au Parlement des négociations qu’il mène sur un accord qui va pourtant profondément changer la vie de tous les Européens, et le Parlement ne peut pas lui imposer de rendre des comptes[18].

On peut donc déjà observer des signes tangibles d’une dérive de type tyrannique. Et le "traité constitutionnel" verrouille pour longtemps un déséquilibre institutionnel qui le permet.

L’affaiblissement du contrôle parlementaire, c’est un deuxième rempart essentiel contre la tyrannie qui disparaît.

C'est ce que, depuis vingt ans, les manuels scolaires des étudiants en sciences politiques appellent pudiquement le "déficit démocratique" de l'UE. Un terme bien anodin pour désigner en fait une trahison des peuples, trop confiants en ceux qu'ils ont désignés pour les défendre.

Toutes les conversations des citoyens devraient analyser ce recul historique, ce cancer de la démocratie : dans les institutions européennes, le Parlement, seule instance porteuse de la souveraineté populaire par le jeu du suffrage universel direct, est privé à la fois de son pouvoir normatif et de son pouvoir de contrôle, pendant que la confusion des pouvoirs la plus dangereuse est réalisée dans les mains d'un exécutif largement irresponsable.



C'est la porte grande ouverte à l'arbitraire.

Comment les analystes et commentateurs peuvent-ils glisser là-dessus comme si c'était secondaire ? C'est l'Europe à tout prix ? N'importe quelle Europe ? Même non démocratique ?! On n'a pas le droit d'en parler sans être qualifié d’antieuro­péen ?

On nous dit : « ce texte est meilleur qu’avant, il faudrait être idiot pour refuser de progresser ». C’est masquer qu’avec ce texte, on ne ferait pas que progresser : on figerait, on bloquerait, on entérinerait, on renforcerait, on donnerait pour la première fois une caution populaire aux auteurs du texte qui s’en sont dispensés jusque-là, on voit pour quel résultat.

Même mieux qu’avant, le texte proposé est absolument inacceptable, très dangereux.

Montesquieu doit se retourner dans sa tombe.

Les partisans du traité présentent comme une avancée majeure le fait que désormais, avec ce texte, le Parlement votera le budget[19]. Est-ce qu'on se rend compte de la gravité de la situation ? Aujourd'hui, le Parlement européen ne vote même pas le budget ! Il faut garder à l’esprit que, si le Parlement est faible, ce sont les citoyens qui sont faibles.

L'avancée (réelle) sur le budget est une manœuvre qui ne doit pas masquer l'inacceptable faiblesse : si les citoyens valident eux-mêmes que leur Parlement n'ait définitivement pas l'initiative des lois, ils se font politiquement hara-kiri.

Triste paradoxe que ces peuples, mal informés, qui accepteraient eux-mêmes le recul du contrôle parlementaire, c’est-à-dire du principal rempart qui les protège de l’injuste loi du plus fort.

Il deviendrait alors inutile, pour les citoyens, d'avoir une réflexion et une opinion politique dès lors que disparaîtrait la courroie de transmission du Parlement (la seule qui transforme nos opinions politiques individuelles en décisions et en normes juridiques générales).

Ceux qui claironnent la naissance d'un référendum d'initiative populaire à l'initiative d'un million de citoyens[20] n’ont pas bien lu : le traité ne définit qu'un misérable droit de pétition sans aucune force contraignante pour la Commission qui n'est qu'invitée à réfléchir et qui peut parfaitement jeter la proposition à la poubelle sans même devoir se justifier[21].

De la même façon, les beaux principes généraux et généreux, claironnés partout, sur toutes les radios, les télés, les journaux, tout au long des spots officiels, n'ont explicitement aucune force contraignante et font ainsi illusion : Art. II-111-2 : « La présente Charte n'étend pas le champ d'application du droit de l'Union au-delà des compétences de l'Union, ni ne crée aucune compétence ni aucune tâche nouvelles pour l'Union et ne modifie pas les compétences et tâches définies dans les autres parties de la Constitution. »

On ne peut pas être plus clair que cet article : la partie II est stérilisée, vidée de son sens par l’article 111-2, cette charte fait illusion.



Partout, ce texte est en trompe-l'œil pour masquer une maladie mortelle pour la démocratie : progressivement et subrepticement, en affirmant le contraire sans vergogne, les exécutifs nationaux, de droite comme de gauche, à l'occasion de la naissance de l'Europe, sont en train, en cinquante ans, de s'affranchir du contrôle parlementaire.

Je le répète parce que c’est absolument fondamental, les hommes politiques au pouvoir ne sont pas propriétaires de la souveraineté populaire qu'ils n’incarnent que temporairement : ni le gouvernement ni le parlement ne peuvent l'abdiquer (ou la confisquer) ; seul le peuple, lui-même, directement et en connaissance de cause, le peut.

De ce point de vue, les nombreux gouvernements qui ont fait ratifier ce texte par leur Parlement national[22], plutôt que par leur peuple (référendum), signent une véritable forfaiture : les peuples de ces pays sont ainsi privés à la fois du débat et de l’expression directe qui leur aurait permis de résister au recul du contrôle parlementaire qui les expose immanquablement aux tyrans à venir.



Quel moyen reste-t-il à ces citoyens pour résister à cette confiscation de leur souveraineté ?[23].

Ce mépris des peuples et de leurs choix réels est très révélateur du danger qui grandit dans la plus grande discrétion : nos élites, de droite comme de gauche, se méfient de la démocratie et nous en privent délibérément, progressivement et insidieusement.

N’est-ce pas une mission des professeurs de droit, mais aussi des journalistes, de l'expliquer aux citoyens ?

Cinquième principe de droit constitutionnel : une Constitution démocratique est
forcément établie par une assemblée indépendante des pouvoirs en place
Une Constitution n’est pas octroyée au peuple par les puissants. Elle est définie par le peuple lui-même, précisément pour se protéger de l’arbitraire des puissants.

À l’inverse, les institutions européennes ont été écrites (depuis cinquante ans) par les hommes politiques au pouvoir qui sont donc évidemment juges et parties : de droite comme de gauche, en fixant eux-mêmes les contraintes qui allaient les gêner tous les jours, ces responsables ont été conduits, c'est humain mais c'est aussi prévisible, à une dangereuse partialité.

C'est, là encore, un cas unique au monde, pour une démocratie.

Et on observe les résultats comme une caricature de ce qu'il faut éviter : un exécutif tout-puissant et un Parlement fantoche, une apparence de démocratie avec des trompe-l'œil partout, de petits progrès montés en épingle, mais un recul réel et profond du contrôle parlementaire, de la souveraineté des peuples et de la garantie contre l'arbitraire.



La seule voie crédible pour créer un texte fondamental équilibré et protecteur est une assemblée constituante, indépendante des pouvoirs en place, élue pour élaborer une Constitution, rien que pour ça, révoquée après, et respectant une procédure très publique et très contradictoire (en droit, le mot "contradictoire" signifie que les points de vue opposés doivent pouvoir s’exprimer totalement).

C'est aux citoyens d'imposer cette procédure si les responsables politiques tentent de s'en affranchir.



La composition assez variée de la Convention Giscard n'est pas un argument satisfaisant : cette convention est une mauvaise parodie, on est à mille lieues d'une assemblée Constituante : ses membres n'ont pas été élus avec ce mandat, ses membres n'étaient pas tous indépendants des pouvoirs en place, et surtout ils n'avaient pas les pouvoirs pour écrire un nouveau texte équilibré, et démocratique : ils ont simplement validé, compilé (et légèrement modifié) les textes antérieurs écrits par des acteurs partisans.

La réécriture du texte par les gouvernants au pouvoir, pendant encore une année après que la Convention a rendu sa proposition, est une énormité de plus, sous l’angle constitutionnel[24].

Tous les vices antidémocratiques du "traité constitutionnel" viennent sans doute de cette erreur centrale, commise depuis l'origine, sur la source du droit fondamental, qui ne peut être qu'une assemblée constituante indépendante, élue sur ce seul mandat.

N’est-ce pas une mission des professeurs de droit, mais aussi des journalistes, de l'expliquer aux citoyens ?

Conclusion
Le TCE paraît donc inacceptable en l’état, mais je ne crois pourtant pas du tout qu’une Europe démocratique soit inaccessible, ni même compliquée à construire, comme on voudrait nous le faire croire.

Je crois même que c'est très simple, pour peu qu'une vraie volonté politique existe pour le défendre : qu'est-ce qu'il y a de compliqué à écrire "Le Parlement a l'exclusivité de l'initiative et du vote des lois. Tous les corps constitués lui rendent des comptes publics. La Commission présente tous les ans au Parlement un bilan et un programme de politique générale qui doit être approuvé à la majorité." ? Où est la difficulté ?

On me parle de compromis, mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi on devrait accepter un compromis sur un point à la fois aussi non négociable et aussi universel : tous les peuples d'Europe ont droit au même respect, à travers le Parlement, que celui que je réclame ici, le compromis devrait être vite trouvé.

On me parle de progrès, mais à la vérité tout est dans la référence qu'on prend pour évaluer le progrès : car en effet, si l'on prend la situation de Nice (que je tiens pour déplorable sur le plan démocratique), c'est effectivement "mieux", c'est un "progrès", et on comprend donc pourquoi on se réfère à ce texte pour nous vendre le TCE.

Mais si je me réfère à la démocratie nationale que je perds au profit de la "démocratie européenne" que je gagne, c'est objectivement un recul historique. Et c’est clairement pour longtemps.

Or je rappelle que c'est la première fois en cinquante ans qu'on me demande mon avis : en tant que citoyen, je ne suis donc pas cosignataire de Nice, ni des traités précédents. À Maastricht, on m’interrogeait sur la monnaie et les contraintes économiques, si je me souviens bien, pas sur l’équilibre et le contrôle des pouvoirs.

Pourquoi n'aurais-je donc à juger que du petit différentiel qui sépare Nice du TCE ? Pourquoi n'aurais-je pas mon mot à dire ("moi", citoyen de base, évidemment) sur l'ensemble de ce fantastique coup de force des exécutifs nationaux depuis cinquante ans sur le contrôle parle­mentaire ?

Je ne vois pas pourquoi il faudrait que le texte soumis au vote soit artificiellement circonscrit aux quelque 50 articles nouveaux du TCE.

Quand je vois d'éminents experts prétendre qu'il n'y a que 60 pages à juger, 50 petits articles de rien du tout, prétendre que le reste existe déjà et se trouve donc hors du sujet, pas soumis au référendum, quand j'entends ça, je me dis, et j'ai l'impression que je ne suis pas le seul, que cette affaire est une escroquerie, pour rester poli.

Si on refuse cette vue d'ensemble dont je parle, si cette période de cinquante ans est sacrée, promue intouchable, irréversible, si on impose Nice comme référence, alors, effectivement, le TCE est un "bon texte" puisqu'"on progresse", mais il ne vous apparaît pas qu'il manque une petite partie de la démonstration ?

C'est vrai que c'est sans doute une erreur (pour ceux qui construisent cette Europe très peu démocratique) d'avoir qualifié le texte de Constitution (ils nous ont mis la puce à l’oreille), et une autre erreur d'avoir proposé le texte par référendum à ces râleurs arrogants que sont les français, mais pour nous, citoyens, j'ai bien l'impression que ces deux erreurs nous donnent une chance historique, celle de voir plus clairement le danger et d'enfin résister, pour rendre aux parlementaires européens le pouvoir dont ils n'auraient jamais dû être privés.

C'est donc bien le précieux pouvoir des parlementaires que je défends aujourd'hui, parce que leur pouvoir, c'est le mien.

Je viens de l’expliquer à une députée européenne qui m’a gentiment écrit, et qui m’a ainsi permis de préciser ma pensée, de progresser. Un bel exemple de courrier respectueux entre citoyens nourrissant le même rêve européen.

J'aimerais pouvoir parler de la sorte à tous les parle­men­taires qui me protègent.

Pour parler franchement, j'aimerais que les parlementaires eux-mêmes soient plus agressifs pour exiger ce pouvoir qu’ils sont seuls à incarner, normalement, du fait du suffrage universel direct.



Finalement, ce "traité constitutionnel" est un détonateur, un révélateur, qui met en lumière ce qui se trame discrètement depuis longtemps.

D'une certaine façon, le loup est sorti du bois et les citoyens peuvent enfin voir le grand danger, et résister.

Une des grandes erreurs, c’est de faire passer l’économique avant le politique, c’est de confier la barre aux économistes alors qu’ils devraient rester dans les soutes pour faire tourner le moteur.

En prônant la liberté comme une valeur supérieure, au lieu de la fraternité, en institutionnalisant la compétition, la concurrence, au lieu de la collaboration et l’entraide, en imposant dans le texte suprême à travers le dogme de la concurrence absolue, et finalement une morale du « chacun pour soi et contre tous », en détruisant la régulation par l’État, gardien de l’intérêt général, pour instaurer la régulation par le marché, somme d’intérêts particuliers, les économistes libéraux s’en prennent aux fondements de la démocratie pour, tout compte fait, affranchir les principaux décideurs économiques de tout contrôle.

La dérégulation systématique menée en Europe (institutions, politique et verrou de la Constitution), et plus généralement sur la terre entière (OMC, AGCS, ADPIC) est un recul de la civilisation, un retour vers la barbarie de la loi du plus fort[25].

Par optimisme, par crédulité, par indifférence, les peuples modernes laissent s'affaiblir leur bien le plus précieux, très rare sur cette planète, celui qui conditionne leur sérénité quotidienne : les différentes protections contre l'arbitraire des hommes forts, depuis le cœur des entreprises (droits sociaux) jusqu'à la patrie (institutions démocratiques contrôlées et révocables).

La démocratie n'est pas éternelle, elle est même extrêmement fragile. En la croyant invulnérable, nous sommes en train de la laisser perdre.

Même après le refus de ce texte-là, il faudra se battre pour la garder, et continuer à militer pour imposer à nos représentants de construire une autre Europe, simplement démocratique.



Mais ce texte fondateur en trompe-l'œil est présenté aux citoyens à travers un débat lui aussi en trompe-l'œil[26].

De nombreux journalistes, en assimilant les opposants au texte à des opposants à l'Europe, font un amalgame malhonnête : la double égalité "Oui au traité=Oui à l'Europe, Non au traité=Non à l'Europe" est un mensonge insultant, une inversion de la réalité, un slogan trompeur jamais démontré, fait pour séduire ceux qui n'ont pas lu le traité et qui n'ont pas étudié les arguments, pourtant très forts, de ceux qui s’opposent à ce traité précisément pour protéger la perspective d’une Europe démocratique.

Les journalistes sont un rempart essentiel, moderne, pour protéger la démocratie. Montesquieu ne pouvait pas prévoir l’importance capitale qu’ils allaient prendre, mais c’est certain : le pouvoir immense des journalistes mériterait lui-même un vrai contre pouvoir (de ce point de vue, on peut sûrement se demander si on ne commet pas une grave erreur en laissant acheter et vendre les médias comme de simples marchandises) et leur responsabilité est ici historique.

Mais que font-ils donc en l’occurrence ? Réveillez-les…

N'y aura-t-il en France que quelques rares émissions à des heures tardives pour organiser les débats contradictoires indispensables pour se forger une opinion éclairée ?

C'est, pour l'instant, l'Internet qui est le média le plus démocratique, non censuré, le meilleur outil pour résister. Si ce message vous semble utile, diffusez-le vite dans vos propres réseaux et au-delà de l’Internet, sur papier.



Conseil aux partisans du TCE (je ne peux pas les aider, je n’ai pas trouvé moi-même les arguments qui leur manquent ;o) : pour rassurer ceux qui sentent un grand danger dans le TCE, c’est une mauvaise réponse de souligner ce qui est bon dans le TCE : ça ne suffit pas à nous rassurer, évidemment. On ne signe pas un texte s’il contient ne serait-ce qu’une seule ligne inacceptable, quand bien même il contiendrait par ailleurs monts et merveilles. Et ce traité comporte de nombreux points inacceptables.

Il faut donc plutôt nous démontrer qu’il n’y a pas de raison de s’inquiéter, par exemple que le Parlement est fort, libre, apte à contrôler réellement l’exécutif dans toutes les phases de création du droit.



J’ai entendu à la radio, il y a quelques semaines, une phrase qui a fait mouche, qui depuis résonne sans cesse dans ma tête et qui me change. Elle dit : on ne naît pas citoyen : on le devient.



Étienne Chouard, Trets (Marseille).
Texte mis à jour le 12 avril 2005.







Vous pouvez m’écrire à etienne.chouard@free.fr mais je n’ai plus le temps de vous répondre comme il le faudrait, ou seulement de temps en temps. Pardon, vous êtes trop nombreux.

Vous pouvez télécharger ce document à http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe
et le diffuser comme bon vous semble, mais envoyez de préférence un lien vers mon site, car un fichier fige mon texte alors que je l’améliore sans cesse grâce à vos vigilantes, bienveillantes et patientes observations.







Post scriptum (3 & 12 avril 2005) :

Ce texte a un succès inattendu et il a déjà suscité des milliers de réactions. Des centaines de messages me parviennent chaque jour, presque toujours enthousiastes, parfois critiques, ce qui m’a permis de progresser. Certaines questions, des doutes aussi, reviennent dans les messages et je voudrais ici, d’un mot, y répondre pour anticiper les prochaines.

Je suis professeur de droit, d'économie et d'informatique, en BTS, dans un lycée de Marseille, j'ai 48 ans, quatre enfants, je n'appartiens à aucun parti, syndicat ou association. Dans ma vie, j'ai fait beaucoup plus de parapente que de politique où je suis vierge, un débutant absolu qui s’est "réveillé" il y a six mois, et où je ne ferai pas de vieux os (le vol libre est une drogue dure qui me rappellera vite à elle).

Je ne suis donc le "sous-marin" de personne (question marrante reçue récemment).

Je suis un simple citoyen, "de base"… :o)

J’ai reçu des propositions de publication sur des sites ou dans des revues que j’ai acceptées sans contrôler que la CIA ou le KGB n’agisse en sous-main. De nombreux sites ont déjà publié des liens vers ce texte, parfois sans m’en parler, et ils font bien.

Je voudrais anticiper sur les probables calomnies à venir, à base d’étiquetage politique hâtif en vue d’un discrédit facile. Je ne suis pas un homme politique, je n’aspire pas à le devenir, je ne prétends pas non plus être juriste pour imposer mon point de vue de façon prétentieuse mais pour expliquer ma démarche, d’ailleurs je ne suis pas vraiment juriste, j’ai surtout une formation de juriste, ce n’est, de toutes façons, pas important car je voudrais que le débat reste concentré sur le fond des problèmes sans dériver sur de stériles et parfois malveillantes querelles de personne ou procès d’intention dont les commentateurs politiques ont le secret

Ne me rendez pas non plus responsable de tout ce que devient ce document, de toutes les prévisibles récupérations et déformations. Chacun comprendra qu’il m’échappe et vit sa vie tout seul… :o)

Je ne cherche à manipuler personne : je me trompe peut-être dans mon analyse, j’attends simplement qu’on me le démontre et un débat respectueux est toujours fertile : "de la discussion jaillit la lumière" me disait mon père quand j’étais petit.

S’il vous plaît, fiez-vous surtout aux idées et arguments, abordez le débat comme si votre interlocuteur était de bonne foi, sans noires arrière-pensées, et ne vous laissez pas polluer l’analyse par des considérations parasites.

Ce débat important appartient au commun des mortels, c'est la beauté de la démocratie, ne le laissez pas confisquer par les experts. Lisez, réfléchissez et prenez la parole sans complexes :o)

Ne me reprochez pas les erreurs éventuelles comme si j'étais malhonnête : elles sont prévisibles, prévues, et pas du tout définitives si on recherche sincèrement à identifier les vrais enjeux de ce traité : admettez que la tâche est rude avec ce texte complexe et sibyllin, et qu'on est beaucoup plus forts à plusieurs pour affiner une critique qui deviendra (peut-être) finalement irréfutable.

Enfin, vous avez compris que ce texte évolue, s’améliore, au gré de vos contributions, il est donc daté. Pour le faire circuler, envoyez donc de préférence un lien vers le site, plutôt qu’un document pdf figé, pour être sûr que ce soit la version la plus récente qui circule.

J’exprime ici un chaud merci aux milliers de personnes qui, c’est émouvant je peux vous dire, m’ont exprimé leur enthousiasme depuis que j’ai lancé cet appel au débat comme on jette une bouteille à la mer. Je voulais un débat, je suis servi :o)

Merci aussi à tous ceux qui, profondément en désaccord avec mes analyses iconoclastes, m’ont écrit des mails splendides, très argumentés, respectueux et comprenant ma crainte sans pourtant la partager. Ces interlocuteurs de toutes origines me font beaucoup progresser, je change, j’essaie de leur répondre individuellement mais je n’y arrive plus comme je voudrais, je dois avoir 700 mails de retard….
Ne m’en veuillez pas, c’et juste impossible, vous êtes trop nombreux.

Merci à tous pour votre écoute attentive et bienveillante :o)

ÉC
BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Parmi les livres et articles que j’ai lu depuis six mois, tous profondément proeuropéens, certains aident particulièrement à se forger une opinion construite et solidement argumentée contre ce texte dangereux, et plus généralement sur la construction européenne et la dérégulation mondiale :

· Raoul Marc Jennar, « Europe, la trahison des élites », 280 pages, décembre 2004, Fayard : pour un réquisitoire rigoureux et passionnant. Une étude consternante des rouages européens et des dérives foncièrement antidémocratiques de cette Europe qui ment tout le temps. Comment la défense des intérêts privés des grands groupes a d’ores et déjà pris la place de celle de l’intérêt général. Les chapitres sur l’OMC, l’AGCS et l’ADPIC sont absolument é-di-fiants. Un livre essentiel, à lire d’urgence.

· Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, professeur de droit public, a écrit dans le Monde, le 11 mars 2005, un article très puissant qui résume parfaitement l’essentiel de l’essentiel : « Qui veut de la post-démocratie ? » :
http://www.non-2005.org/index.php?action=article&id_article=130747.
Un article court (une page) et très dense : important, percutant, à lire absolument.

· Raoul Marc Jennar, « Quand l’Union Européenne tue l’Europe », 40 pages, janvier 2005 : brochure résumant un argumentaire serré contre le "traité constitutionnel". Également un DVD où Jennar présente lui-même, de façon pédagogique, très posée, trois exposés sur l’AGCS, la directive Bolkestein et le traité constitutionnel. On y sent très fortement la terrifiante cohérence qui relie ces textes. Documents importants disponibles sur www.urfig.org.

· Jean-Paul Fitoussi, économiste, « La Politique de l’impuissance », 160 pages, janvier 2005, Arléa : un passionnant petit livre d’entretiens avec Jean-Claude Guillebaud pour comprendre comment l’Europe abandonne sciemment la démocratie et renonce à l’intervention économique des États.

· Jacques Généreux, économiste, « Manuel critique du parfait Européen – Les bonnes raisons de dire "non" à la constitution », 165 pages, février 2005, Seuil : encore un excellent petit livre, très clair, vivant, incisif, très argumenté, avec une tonalité à la fois économique et très humaine.
Encore un enthousiasmant plaidoyer pour une vraie Europe !

· Yves Salesse, membre du Conseil d’État, « Manifeste pour une autre Europe », 120 page, janvier 2005, Le Félin : un argumentaire précis, rigoureux, constructif. Agréable à lire et très instructif.

· Yves Salesse a également rédigé, lui aussi, un article plus court qui résume en 10 pages son analyse : « Dire non à la "constitution" européenne pour construire l’Europe » :
http://www.fondation-copernic.org/Flash-septembre2004.pdf.

· Ces temps-ci, une source majeure d’information non censurée, très orientée politiquement (à gauche), mais absolument foisonnante, est le site portail www.rezo.net. J’y trouve chaque jour au moins un document intéressant.

· Bernard Maris, « Ah Dieu ! Que la guerre économique est jolie », novembre 1999, Albin Michel : pour une démonstration de l’imposture de "l’indispensable guerre économique", avec un parallèle très convaincant avec la guerre de 1914 : comme d’habitude, la guerre n'est pas inévitable, et ceux qui poussent à faire la guerre ne sont pas ceux qui se battent et qui souffrent. Un bel appel à la désertion.
À mettre en parallèle avec la religion de la concurrence (compétition) sans entrave, rabachée par le "traité constitutionnel" qui, finalement, monte les États et les peuples les uns contre les autres, à coups de dumping social, fiscal, et environnemental.

· Joseph E. Stiglitz, « La grande désillusion », 324 pages, sept. 2003, Fayard : un pavé dans la mare : un grand économiste libéral, patron de la banque mondiale, qui a travaillé avec les plus grands hommes de ce monde, et qui décrit en détail le dogmatisme aveugle et criminel des technocrates libéraux du FMI et ses conséquences sur les économies et les peuples. Un style soigné, 0% de matière grasse. Un grand bouquin, une référence. À lire.

· Agnès Bertrand et Laurence Kalafatides, « OMC, le pouvoir invisible », 325 pages, juillet 2003, Fayard : un livre palpitant et éclairant pour comprendre les objectifs et les moyens de cette énorme machine à déréguler que sont le GATT puis l’OMC, outils de contrainte pour les États mais jamais pour les entreprises. Ce livre permet de ressentir fortement la parfaite cohérence qui existe entre les objectifs et les influences de l’OMC et ceux de la construction européenne actuelle.

· Pour comprendre la logique d’ensemble de ce qui prend forme au niveau planétaire, il faut lire l’article à la fois terrifiant et lumineux de Lori M. Wallach, « Le nouveau manifeste du capitalisme mondial », dans Le Monde diplomatique de février 1998, à propos de l’Accord Multilatéral sur l’investissement (AMI), (une de ces « décisions Dracula », appelées ainsi parce qu’elles ne supportent pas la lumière, tellement elles sont évidemment inacceptables) : http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1998/02/WALLACH/10055.
On y perçoit clairement, comme grâce à une caricature, la logique qui sous-tend de nombreux textes et accords essentiels en préparation aujourd’hui : AGCS, Construction européenne libérale, OMC, ADPIC, directive Bolkestein, etc. La parenté de tous ces textes devient évidente : un redoutable « air de famille ».

· Robert Joumard et Christian Darlot, enfin, simples citoyens comme moi apparemment, ont fait la même démarche : ils ont beaucoup lu, digéré, résumé, rassemblé, organisé tout ça avec talent pour faire deux synthèses un peu longues, comme la mienne, mais alors vraiment, je trouve, très intéressantes. Deux documents vraiment très bien faits à lire là :
http://institut.fsu.fr/chantiers/europe/traite_constit/joumard.pdf
et Voir la page Liens de mon site pour le doc de C. Darlot.





O O O O O


NOTES



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Constitution européenne : Comment se procurer le texte intégral ?
http://www.constitution-europeenne.fr
À lire avant de voter :
a/ Le traité établissant une Constitution pour l’Europe - 349 pages.
b/ Les protocoles et annexes I et II - 382 pages. Document nommé "Addendum 1 au document CIG 87/04 REV 1.
c/ Les déclarations à annexer à l’acte final de la CIG et l’acte final - 121 pages. Doc. Nommé "Addendum 2 au document CIG 87/04 REV 2. Total : 349 + 382 + 121 = 852 pages.
Pourtant, tout n’y figure pas : des définitions aussi essentielles que celle des SIEG, services d’intérêt économique général, (cités aux art. II-96, III-122, III-166), à ne surtout pas confondre avec les services publics, ne figurent pas dans les 852 pages : il faut, dans cet exemple, consulter le "livre blanc" de la Commission pour apprendre que les SIG et SIEG n’ont rien à voir avec les services publics.
Rappel : à titre de comparaison, les Constitutions françaises et américaines font chacune environ 20 pages.
Autres unités de mesure, moins sujettes à variation typographique, les mots et les caractères : la Constitution européenne contient 70 904 mots, soit 14,7 fois plus que la Constitution française, et 441 895 caractères (contre 46 515).

[2] Les instructions impératives de type politique sont trop nombreuses pour les citer toutes. Entre autres, plus de trois cents articles de la partie III fixent en détail les politiques économiques de l’Union.

[3] Indépendance et missions de la banque centrale : art. I-30 : « §1 (…) La Banque centrale européenne et les banques centrales nationales des États membres dont la monnaie est l'euro, qui constituent l'Eurosystème, conduisent la politique monétaire de l'Union. §2. Le Système européen de banques centrales est dirigé par les organes de décision de la Banque centrale européenne. L'objectif principal du Système européen de banques centrales est de maintenir la stabilité des prix. Sans préjudice de cet objectif, il apporte son soutien aux politiques économiques générales dans l'Union pour contribuer à la réalisation des objectifs de celle-ci. Il conduit toute autre mission de banque centrale conformément à la partie III et au statut du Système européen de banques centrales et de la Banque centrale européenne. §3. La Banque centrale européenne est une institution. Elle a la personnalité juridique. Elle est seule habilitée à autoriser l'émission de l'euro. Elle est indépendante dans l'exercice de ses pouvoirs et dans la gestion de ses finances. Les institutions, organes et organismes de l'Union ainsi que les gouvernements des États membres respectent cette indépendance. » et art. III-188 : « ni la Banque centrale européenne, ni une banque centrale nationale, ni un membre quelconque de leurs organes de décision ne peuvent solliciter ni accepter des instructions des institutions, organes ou organismes de l'Union, des gouvernements des États membres ou de tout autre organisme. »

[4] Pacte de stabilité : art. III-184 (2 pages) et art. 1 du protocole n°10 sur la procédure concernant les déficits excessifs « Les valeurs de référence visées à l'article III-184, paragraphe 2, de la Constitution sont les suivantes: a) 3 % pour le rapport entre le déficit public prévu ou effectif et le produit intérieur brut aux prix du marché; b) 60 % pour le rapport entre la dette publique et le produit intérieur brut aux prix du marché. »

[5] Interdiction de fausser la concurrence : cette interdiction est partout dans le texte, elle est formelle et contraignante, également à l’encontre des services publics : Art. III-166 : « §1. Les États membres, en ce qui concerne les entreprises publiques et les entreprises auxquelles ils accordent des droits spéciaux ou exclusifs, n'édictent ni ne maintiennent aucune mesure contraire à la Constitution, notamment à l'article I-4, paragraphe 2 [non discrimination], et aux articles III-161 à III-169 [règles de concurrence]. §2. Les entreprises chargées de la gestion de services d'intérêt économique général ou présentant le caractère d'un monopole fiscal sont soumises aux dispositions de la Constitution, notamment aux règles de concurrence, dans la mesure où l'application de ces dispositions ne fait pas échec à l'accomplissement en droit ou en fait de la mission particulière qui leur a été impartie. Le développement des échanges ne doit pas être affecté dans une mesure contraire à l'intérêt de l'Union. §3. La Commission veille à l'application du présent article et adopte, en tant que de besoin, les règlements ou décisions européens appropriés. »

[6] « La politique de l’impuissance » : voir le petit livre lumineux de Jean-Paul Fitoussi qui démontre cette dépossession progressive des responsables politiques par méfiance de la démocratie. Voir surtout le livre enthousiasmant de Jacques Généreux, « Manuel critique du parfait européen » qui proteste, lui aussi, contre le sabordage des outils européens d’intervention économique, et contre le dogmatisme aveugle qui soutient cette folie unique au monde.

[7] Procédure de révision : art. IV-443.3 : « Une Conférence des représentants des gouvernements des États membres est convoquée par le président du Conseil en vue d'arrêter d'un commun accord les modifications à apporter au présent traité. Les modifications entrent en vigueur après avoir été ratifiées par tous les États membres conformément à leurs règles constitutionnelles respectives. »

[8] Rappel : l’article 28 de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen de l’an I de la République française (1793) précisait : « Un peuple a toujours le droit de revoir, de réformer et de changer sa Constitution. Une génération ne peut pas assujettir à ses lois les générations futures. »

[9] Durée d’application du texte : Art. IV-446 : « Le présent traité est conclu pour une durée illimitée. »

[10] Liste des domaines où l’Europe est compétente : Article I-13 : « Les domaines de compétence exclusive : §1. L'Union dispose d'une compétence exclusive dans les domaines suivants: a) l'union douanière; b) l'établissement des règles de concurrence nécessaires au fonctionnement du marché intérieur; c) la politique monétaire pour les États membres dont la monnaie est l'euro; d) la conservation des ressources biologiques de la mer dans le cadre de la politique commune de la pêche; e) la politique commerciale commune. §2. L'Union dispose également d'une compétence exclusive pour la conclusion d'un accord international lorsque cette conclusion est prévue dans un acte législatif de l'Union, ou est nécessaire pour lui permettre d'exercer sa compétence interne, ou dans la mesure où elle est susceptible d'affecter des règles communes ou d'en altérer la portée. » Article I-14 : « Les domaines de compétence partagée : (…) §2. Les compétences partagées entre l'Union et les États membres s'appliquent aux principaux domaines suivants: a) le marché intérieur; b) la politique sociale, pour les aspects définis dans la partie III; c) la cohésion économique, sociale et territoriale; d) l'agriculture et la pêche, à l'exclusion de la conservation des ressources biologiques de la mer; e) l'environnement; f) la protection des consommateurs; g) les transports; h) les réseaux transeuropéens; i) l'énergie; j) l'espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice; k) les enjeux communs de sécurité en matière de santé publique, pour les aspects définis dans la partie III. (…)».

[11] Force supérieure des normes européennes sur toutes les autres normes, nationales et internationales : Art. I-6 : « La Constitution et le droit adopté par les institutions de l'Union, dans l'exercice des compétences qui sont attribuées à celle-ci, priment le droit des États membres. »
Art. I-12 : « §1. Lorsque la Constitution attribue à l'Union une compétence exclusive dans un domaine déterminé, seule l'Union peut légiférer et adopter des actes juridiquement contraignants, les États membres ne pouvant le faire par eux-mêmes que s'ils sont habilités par l'Union, ou pour mettre en oeuvre les actes de l'Union. ».
Parmi les compétences exclusives, voir l’art.I-13, §1 : « e) la politique commerciale commune. »…

Les parlements nationaux sont ainsi totalement dépouillés, par exemple, de la moindre capacité d’influencer les accords commerciaux internationaux (AGCS, ADPIC et autres avatars de l’OMC), alors que la vie des citoyens est promise à des bouleversements majeurs à l’occa­sion de ces accords qui se préparent dans la plus grande discrétion.

Voir aussi les arguments d’Olivier Gohin, professeur de droit public à l’Université de Paris II : le nouveau traité est une Constitution (organisation des pouvoirs et garantie des libertés, avec identification d’un pouvoir constituant) et l’Union est un État (avec un territoire, un peuple, des pouvoirs publics et une souveraineté de compétences) : http://www.non-2005.org/index.php?action=article&id_article=127743.

Certains professeurs vont plus loin : « la personnalité juridique de l’Union, instituée par Art. I-7 », selon François-Guilhem Bertrand, professeur émérite à l’Université de Paris XI, « doit se lire avec l’arrêt du 31 mars 1971 de la Cour de Justice AETR qui décide que la personnalité donnée à l’Europe efface celle des États membres et leur interdit de se manifester lorsque l’Europe s’exprime. » (voir lien précédent).

C’est peut-être exagéré, C’est peut-être la réalité, c’est peut-être bien ou mal, je n’ai pas de certitude là-dessus, mais on pourrait au moins en débattre, au lieu de faire comme si de rien n’était.

Art. I-33 : « Les actes juridiques de l'Union : Les institutions, pour exercer les compétences de l'Union, utilisent comme instruments juridiques, conformément à la partie III, la loi européenne, la loi-cadre européenne, le règlement européen, la décision européenne, les recommandations et les avis.
La loi européenne est un acte législatif de portée générale. Elle est obligatoire dans tous ses éléments et directement applicable dans tout État membre.
La loi-cadre européenne est un acte législatif qui lie tout État membre destinataire quant au résultat à atteindre, tout en laissant aux instances nationales la compétence quant au choix de la forme et des moyens.
Le règlement européen est un acte non législatif de portée générale pour la mise en oeuvre des actes législatifs et de certaines dispositions de la Constitution. Il peut soit être obligatoire dans tous ses éléments et directement applicable dans tout État membre, soit lier tout État membre destinataire quant au résultat à atteindre, tout en laissant aux instances nationales la compétence quant au choix de la forme et des moyens.
La décision européenne est un acte non législatif obligatoire dans tous ses éléments. Lorsqu'elle désigne des destinataires, elle n'est obligatoire que pour ceux-ci.
Les recommandations et les avis n'ont pas d'effet contraignant. »

[12] Procédure de ratification pour l’entrée d’un nouvel État dans l’UE : Article I-58 : « Critères d'éligibilité et procédure d'adhésion à l'Union : (…) §2. Tout État européen qui souhaite devenir membre de l'Union adresse sa demande au Conseil. Le Parlement européen et les parlements nationaux sont informés de cette demande. Le Conseil statue à l'unanimité après avoir consulté la Commission et après approbation du Parlement européen, qui se prononce à la majorité des membres qui le composent. Les conditions et les modalités de l'admission font l'objet d'un accord entre les États membres et l'État candidat. Cet accord est soumis par tous les États contractants à ratification, conformément à leurs règles constitutionnelles respectives. » Ces derniers mots font dépendre du droit national la procédure de ratification de l’entrée d’un nouveau membre.
En février 2005, le Parlement français, réunis en Congrès, a changé la Constitution française pour que cette ratification soit forcément soumise au référendum : article 2 de la loi de révision : « I. – Le titre XV de la Constitution est complété par un article 88-5 ainsi rédigé : "Art. 88-5. – Tout projet de loi autorisant la ratification d’un traité relatif à l’adhésion d’un État à l’Union européenne et aux Communautés européennes est soumis au référendum par le Président de la République." » Quand le texte précise « est soumis », c’est obligatoire (en droit, l’indicatif vaut impératif).

[13] Exclusivité de l’initiative des lois pour l’exécutif : article I-26 : « (…) §2. Un acte législatif de l'Union ne peut être adopté que sur proposition de la Commission, sauf dans les cas où la Constitution en dispose autrement. Les autres actes sont adoptés sur proposition de la Commission lorsque la Constitution le prévoit. »

[14] Domaines où l’exécutif légifère seul (trois mots qui ne devraient jamais être ensemble !) : voir note 16.

[15] Domaines où le Parlement est habilité à légiférer en codécision ("procédure législative ordinaire" de l’art. III-396) : Art. I-34, §1 : « Les lois et lois-cadres européennes sont adoptées, sur proposition de la Commission, conjointement par le Parlement européen et le Conseil conformément à la procédure législative ordinaire visée à l'article III-396. Si les deux institutions ne parviennent pas à un accord, l'acte en question n'est pas adopté. » Pas de liste des domaines de codécision, donc, apparemment : il faut partir à la pêche dans les 850 pages pour trouver les articles qui prévoient la procédure législative ordinaire, et donc la codécision. Voir la note suivante.

[16] Domaines exclusifs, où l’exécutif peut légiférer seul : art. I-34, §2 : « Dans les cas spécifiques prévus par la Constitution, les lois et lois-cadres européennes sont adoptées par le Parlement européen avec la participation du Conseil ou par celui-ci avec la participation du Parlement européen, conformément à des procédures législatives spéciales.» ici non plus, apparemment, pas de liste des "domaines réservés à l’exécutif-législateur" (Montesquieu souffre sans doute dans sa tombe que cet oxymore ose exister), donc : il faut partir à la pêche dans les 850 pages pour trouver les articles qui prévoient une procédure législative spéciale…

Ces domaines étant en quelque sorte une zone franche de contrôle parlementaire, on aimerait pourtant savoir simplement quelles sont les matières concernées.

Ne trouvant pas ce que je cherchais dans mes 852 pages du texte original, j’ai trouvé les explications suivantes sur http://www.legrandsoir.info/article.php3?id_article=2157 : « Les 21 domaines dont le Parlement est exclu et où le Conseil des ministres décide seul sont d’une importance décisive : le marché intérieur, l’essentiel de la Politique Agricole Commune, le Tarif Douanier Commun, la Politique Étrangère et de Sécurité Commune, la politique économique, la politique sociale, la fiscalité... ».

Interrogé sur les sources de cette affirmation, l'auteur Jean-Jacques Chavigné m’a rapidement donné les n° d’articles précis en commentant : « il ne sera jamais écrit noir sur blanc que le Parlement est exclu de la décision. Il faudra comprendre qu’il est exclu lorsqu’un article de la Constitution précisera que c’est le Conseil décide et/ou que le Parlement sera simplement consulté. (JJC) »

Opacité incroyable du texte suprême qui devrait pourtant être absolument clair, on comprend bien ici pourquoi.
JJC continue : « Voilà donc les domaines (ou les parties de domaine) les plus importants où le Conseil décide seul et où le Parlement n’est pas co-décideur : (JJC jusqu’à la fin de la note 16) »

Politique Étrangère et de Sécurité Commune :
Article III-295 : Alinéa 1 : « Le Conseil européen définit les orientations générales de la politique étrangère et de sécurité commune, y compris pour les questions ayant des implications en matière de défense ».
Article III-300, Alinéa 1 : « Les décisions européennes visées au présent chapitre sont adoptées par le Conseil statuant à l’unanimité ».
Alinéa 2 : « Par dérogation au paragraphe 1, le Conseil statue à la majorité qualifiée ».
Le rôle du Parlement est défini à l’article III-304 : Alinéa 1 : « Le ministre des affaires étrangères de l’Union consulte et informe le Parlement européen… »
Alinéa 2 : « Le Parlement européen peut adresser des questions ou formuler des recommandations… »

Marché intérieur :
Article III-130-3 :
« Le Conseil, sur proposition de la Commission adopte les règlements ou décisions européens… »

Tarif Douanier Commun :
Article III-151-5 : « Le Conseil sur proposition de la Commission adopte les règlements ou décisions européens qui fixent les droits du tarif douanier commun ».

Concurrence :
Article III-163 : « Le Conseil, sur proposition de la Commission, adopte les règlements européens pour l'application des principes fixés aux articles III-161 et III-162 [règles de concurrence]. Il statue après consultation du Parlement européen. »

Politique Agricole Commune :
Article III-231 : Alinéa 2 : « La loi ou loi-cadre européenne établit l’organisation commune des marchés… »
L’expression « Loi-cadre européenne », sans autre précision, signifie que la procédure législative ordinaire, définie à l’article III-396 s’applique. Il s’agit alors d’une co-décision du Conseil et du Parlement européen. Ce qui est un progrès par rapport aux traités précédents.

Mais :
Alinéa 3 : « Le Conseil sur proposition de la Commission adopte les règlements ou décisions européens relatifs à la fixation des prix, des prélèvements, des aides et des limitations quantitatives… ». Le Conseil décide donc seul, sur proposition de la Commission, des prix, des aides, des quotas…

Fiscalité :
Article III-171 : « Une loi-cadre européenne du Conseil établit les mesures concernant l’harmonisation des législations relatives aux taxes sur le chiffre d’affaires, aux droits d’accises et autres impôts indirects, pour autant que cette harmonisation soit nécessaire pour assurer l’établissement ou le fonctionnement du marché intérieur et éviter des distorsions de concurrence. Le Conseil statue à l’unanimité, après consultation du Parlement européen et du Comité économique et social ».

Social :
Il faut distinguer trois niveaux :
1er niveau : domaine de co-décision :
Article III-210-1 :
a- L’amélioration du milieu de travail…
b- Les conditions de travail.
e- L’information et la consultation des travailleurs.
h- l’intégration des personnes exclues du marché du travail
i- L’égalité entre hommes et femmes.
j- La lutte contre l’exclusion sociale
k- La modernisation des systèmes de protection sociale, sans préjudice du point c.
2ème niveau : le Conseil décide seul :
Article III-210-3 : « … dans les domaines visés au paragraphe 1, point c, d, f et g, la loi ou loi-cadre européenne est adoptée par le Conseil statuant à l’unanimité, après consultation du Parlement européen… »
c- la sécurité sociale et la protection sociale des travailleurs.
d- La protection des travailleurs en cas de résiliation du contrat de travail.
f- La représentation et la défense collective des intérêts des travailleurs et des employeurs y compris la cogestion, sous réserve du paragraphe 6.
g- Les conditions d’emploi des ressortissants de pays tiers se trouvant en séjour régulier sur le territoire de l’Union.
3ème niveau : l’Union (que ce soit le Conseil seul ou le Parlement avec le Conseil) n’est pas compétente :
Article III-210-6 :
« Le présent article ne s’applique ni aux rémunérations, ni au droit d’association, ni au droit de grève, ni au lock-out… »
Ce qui rend impossible tout Smic européen.
Ce qui vide de son contenu l’article II-210-3-f.
Ce qui vide de son contenu l’article II-88 : le droit de grève ne pourra être imposé par l’Union à un Etat-membre qui ne le prévoirait pas ou le retirait de sa législation. Ce qui a l’avantage de ne pas, non plus, imposer le « lock out » à une législation nationale qui (telle la législation française) ne le reconnaîtrait pas. (JJC)

[17] Seule la Commission peut être renversée par le Parlement, en bloc : Article I-26, §8 : « La Commission, en tant que collège, est responsable devant le Parlement européen. Le Parlement européen peut adopter une motion de censure de la Commission conformément à l'article III-340. Si une telle motion est adoptée, les membres de la Commission doivent démissionner collectivement de leurs fonctions et le ministre des Affaires étrangères de l'Union doit démissionner des fonctions qu'il exerce au sein de la Commission. »,
Article III-340 : « (…) Si la motion de censure est adoptée à la majorité des deux tiers des suffrages exprimés et à la majorité des membres qui composent le Parlement européen, les membres de la Commission doivent démissionner collectivement de leurs fonctions et le ministre des Affaires étrangères de l'Union doit démissionner des fonctions qu'il exerce au sein de la Commission. »
un commissaire peut être « démissionné » par le président de la Commission (lui-même élu par le Parlement) : art. 1-27, dernier § : « Un membre de la Commission présente sa démission si le président le lui demande. »,
mais ni le Conseil des ministres, ni le Conseil européen, ne sont responsables devant personne.
Le Conseil nomme les membres de la Commission (art.1-27 §2), seul le Président de la Commission est élu par le Parlement (art. 1-27 §1) sur proposition du Conseil européen. Ce n’est pas le parlement qui choisit le Pst.

[18] Voir le détail de l’humiliation infligée par Pascal Lamy aux parlementaires qui voulaient consulter les documents préparatoires pour l’AGCS dans le livre passionnant de Raoul Marc Jennar, « Europe, la trahison des élites », pages 64 et s., et notamment 70 et 71.
Voir aussi un passionnant article de Jennar intitulé « Combien de temps encore Pascal Lamy ? », à propos des deux accords AGCS et ADPIC : http://politique.eu.org/archives/2004/04/11.html.

[19] Soi-disant "avancées" pour le Parlement : il va voter le budget et il y aura davantage de matières où il y aura codécision : le Parlement ne sera donc plus exclu de presque tout comme avant… On croit rêver.

[20] Noëlle Lenoir, alors ministre française déléguée aux affaires européennes du gouvernement Raffarin, a déclaré : « il suffira de rassembler un million de signatures en Europe pour obliger la Commission à engager une procédure législative » (Le Monde, 30 octobre 2003).

[21] Droit de pétition : art. I-47, §4 : « Des citoyens de l'Union, au nombre d'un million au moins, ressortissants d'un nombre significatif d'États membres, peuvent prendre l'initiative d'inviter la Commission, dans le cadre de ses attributions, à soumettre une proposition appropriée sur des questions pour lesquelles ces citoyens considèrent qu'un acte juridique de l'Union est nécessaire aux fins de l'application de la Constitution. La loi européenne arrête les dispositions relatives aux procédures et conditions requises pour la présentation d'une telle initiative citoyenne, y compris le nombre minimum d'États membres dont les citoyens qui la présentent doivent provenir. » On est à mille lieues du référendum d’initiative populaire suisse qu’on fait miroiter aux électeurs.

[22] Planning des ratifications :

Pays qui ne soumettent pas le traité à leur peuple : Lituanie (11 décembre 2004), Hongrie (20 décembre 2004), Italie (25 janvier 2005), Slovénie (1er février 2005), Allemagne (12 mai 2005), Slovaquie (mai 2005), Chypre (mai 2005), Autriche (printemps 2005), Belgique (printemps 2005), Grèce (printemps 2005), Malte (juillet 2005), Suède (décembre 2005 et pourtant 58 % des suédois réclament un référendum), Estonie (2005), Finlande (fin 2005), Lettonie (?).

Pays qui ont opté pour le référendum : Espagne (20 février 2005), Pays-Bas (1er juin 2005), France (29 mai 2005), Luxembourg (10 juillet 2005), Danemark (27 septembre 2005), Portugal (octobre 2005), Pologne (fin 2005), Royaume-Uni (printemps 2006), République tchèque (juin 2006), Irlande (2006).

[23] RM Jennar à raison : il faut réaffirmer nos fondamentaux et rappeler ce que proclamait, le 26 juin 1793, l’article 35 de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen de l’an I : « Quand le gouvernement viole les droits du peuple, l’insurrection est pour le peuple et pour chaque portion du peuple le plus sacré des droits et le plus indispensable des devoirs ». (« Europe, la trahison… », p. 218).

[24] Lire à ce propos la position de Pervenche Berès, membre de la convention Giscard, coauteur du texte donc, qui renie pourtant le résultat final tant il a été défiguré par les gouvernements dans l’année qui a suivi, et qui appelle finalement à « Dire "non" pour sauver l'Europe » : http://www.ouisocialiste.net/IMG/pdf/beresMonde290904.pdf.

[25] Selon la célèbre formule de Lacordaire : " Entre le fort et le faible, entre le riche et le pauvre, entre le maître et le serviteur, c'est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui affranchit".
Chacun peut prévoir ce qu’il adviendra avec des renards libres dans un poulailler libre.
Les charmes de la liberté débridée sont une fable, une imposture.

[26] Lire les analyses du site Acrimed sur la partialité des médias sur cette affaire :
http://www.acrimed.org/article1950.html.
Lire aussi l’article de Bernard Cassen dans Le Monde diplomatique : « Débat truqué sur le traité constitutionnel » : http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2005/02/CASSEN/11908

MAINSTREAM MEDIA DON'T REPORT FAIRLY

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DON'T REPORT FAIRLY ON THE SEXES’ RISK AND SACRIFICE IN WAR
by Jerry A. Boggs

UNTIL RECENT YEARS, journalists seldom recognized the military women who risked -- and often sacrificed -- their lives in war. They almost always reported on “the men.” Since military women represented at least a small percentage of those ensnarled in fighting a war, journalists were hardly fair when minimizing or ignoring servicewomen's risk and sacrifice altogether.
Now, however, journalists are over-correcting in overdrive. Instead of “the men” as in the past, they often inappropriately insert in their reports on war “the men and women.” The resulting impression, likely intentional in many cases, is that women have risked and sacrificed in wars just as much as men have.
Take the front-page story about the Vietnam War in the Detroit News on April 30, 2000. Staff writer Kim Kozlowski wrote, “Everyone has their own personal Vietnam. It wasn't just the men and women who traipsed through the Vietnamese jungles, rifles strapped on their shoulders, fear racing through their minds.”
The men and women who traipsed? In that war, over 58,000 American men were slain. The number of women sacrificed? Eight. Despite a male-only draft and the male soldiers’ astronomically higher risk and sacrifice, Kozlowski suggests women showed up in Vietnam in equal number and faced equal risk. Her explanation for the women’s minuscule loss of lives has to be, I'm sure, that the enemy, beset with chivalry, kept females out of its cross-hairs and somehow set its mines and mortars to vaporize only males.
But Kozlowski’s reality-warp pales next to that uttered by ABC News’ Peter Jennings. On May 22, 1998, during a pre-Memorial Day story on the Civil War, Jennings delivered this shocking news: “More than 600,000 men and women died before the war was over.”
Correction: The Civil War murdered over 600,000 males, a lot of them boys young as 14. Historical records show that about 60 women were either wounded or killed. Yet Jennings, instead of taking an extra micro-second to state truthfully how many females died, chose to ignore journalism’s principles of accuracy and fairness, and implied, to the benighted at least, that the Civil War leveled 300,000 men and 300,000 women.
“The men and women” is misemployed also on the Web. At Computingcorner.com, a link informs, “Many U.S. Military men and women encountered some of the most gruesome battles, triumphing over some of the biggest nations to maintain the very freedoms we have today.” At D-Day.org is this: “D-Day. It was the largest air, land, and sea invasion ever undertaken, including over 5,000 ships, 10,000 airplanes, and 250,000 service men and women.” Again, were the benighted left picturing in their mind 125,000 men and 125,000 women? Watch the film documentaries about war, as well as such fact-based combat movies as “Saving Private Ryan.” See any women taking part in an invasion? See any of them floating face down in the water as their blood pools around them? See any female torsos, arms, legs, and other body parts littering the beaches?
Increasingly, the journalists' rule appears to be this: Even if only one female troop -- or just one nurse -- falls in a war that slaughters thousands of men, report “thousands of men and women killed.”
Call it another gender gap: Equal recognition for unequal risk. But this gender gap is of the worst kind.
Giving women recognition that’s commensurate with their actual risk and sacrifice in war is necessary and just. But planting the notion that women risked and sacrificed equally with men is gravely unprincipled. Moreover, it may foster resentment in male war veterans who no doubt sense their risk and sacrifice are per force watered down. “I was in Vietnam,” grumbled Bill Geist, author of The Big Five-0h! “and didn’t see any women over there, and we have a monument for them.” And our country’s next war effort may be hampered. Male soldiers may become demoralized over politically correct distortions such as Jennings’ “over 600,000 men and women killed,” because these soldiers know that they, not women, will overwhelmingly be in harm’s way.
I would be far less troubled by the portrayals of women as equally burdened with protecting the nation and equally victimized by war, if journalists did not deliberately overlook men in other areas of risk and sacrifice. Take the workplace. Although you regularly hear about how women are affected by sexual harassment and the sexes’ wage gap, how often do you hear about the sexes’ occupational death gap, the approximately 6,600 men fatally hurt at work each year compared to the 420 women? Journalists are apparently more concerned about women's pay and about women being offended by off-color jokes at work than they are about men being killed at work. Consider, too, domestic violence. Men’s risk is ignored by most journalists despite recent studies -- those not influenced by feminism -- that expose domestic violence as an equal-opportunity activity. One study, as described in Violence and Victims (Vol. 10, 1995), shows that 11 percent of wives and 7 percent of husbands in military couples were physically aggressive, as reported by the wives.
Judging by journalists' growing disregard of the truth about the sexes’ risk and sacrifice, I can’t help thinking Peter Jennings will one day drop “the men” altogether and intone solemnly, “The Civil War slaughtered over 600,000 women.”
(UPDATE: On September 21, 2004, on MSNBC, war analyst and retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, when referring to our soldiers in Iraq, did not say the usual "men and women." Instead, he reversed the order, saying "the women and men." So did Paula Zahn on CNN September 9, 2004. Does this signal a new trend that will go beyond merely mentioning women in all references to military personnel, to mentioning female soldiers first, even though the soldiers in the military and at risk in Iraq are overwhelmingly men? What if when referring to victims of domestic violence, Gen McCaffrey had said "the men and women," which would have been perfectly logical given that recent studies show women initiate unprovoked spousal abuse as often as men? Wouldn't MSNBC have dropped him as an analyst, and feminists have hounded him out of the country?)

(For more on the media's biased, feminist-influenced reporting on the sexes, among other things, read Bernard Golberg's new book, Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite.)

Newsday.com: 500 WORDS OR LESS

With men on the pill, women could lose control

BY GLENN SACKS
Glenn Sacks is a syndicated radio talk show host who lives in L.A.

April 11, 2005

Women have long lamented the unequal burden they shoulder in the area of contraception. Today, researchers are reportedly close to perfecting a male contraceptive free of side effects, easy to take and reversible. But do women really want a male birth control pill?

Power is a reward that comes with responsibility. During the Cold War, Americans complained about the money and manpower spent protecting an ungrateful world from communism. Yet, these sacrifices also helped give the United States geopolitical power, with its attendant perks and privileges.

Similarly, while women legitimately complain that biology has condemned them to bear the burden of contraception, this burden also gives women control over one of the most important parts of any human being's life - reproduction. The male birth control pill will shift much of that control from women to men. Is the following conversation far away?

Woman No. 1: "My (husband, boyfriend, significant other) is selfish. He's on the pill and won't get off. I've asked him to stop taking it, but he always says he's not ready. He just won't grow up."

Woman No. 2: "That's what the pill has given men - a right to be perpetual adolescents. It's given them veto power over women who want to have children."

Despite the stigma that will develop against men who take the pill, the pill will be a success. While most women are responsible and want to have children with a willing, committed partner, studies show that lack of reproductive control can be a major problem for men today.

For example, the National Scruples and Lies Survey 2004 polled 5,000 women in the United Kingdom for That's Life! magazine. According to that survey, 42 percent of women claim they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners.

Jo Checkley, the magazine's editor, is correct when she says, "To deliberately get pregnant when your partner doesn't want a baby is playing Russian roulette with other people's lives."

Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University say more than a million American births each year result from pregnancies men did not intend.

The male pill will fill a genuine economic need. Child support levels are rising, generally comprising 15-25 percent of take-home pay for one child, in addition to add-ons for child care, health care and other costs.

Moreover, most men realize it's difficult to remain a part of their children's lives once the relationship with the children's mother has broken down, particularly if the children were born outside of marriage. The pill will help ensure that men have children only in the context that's best for men - a stable marriage.

The advent of the female birth control pill greatly aided women's struggle for autonomy and fulfillment. The male birth control pill will also create great changes, but these changes will not be to some women's liking. Be careful what you ask for? You might get it.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

Unconstitutional VAVA Law Upheld By A Propaganda Ploy - Carey Roberts - MensNewsDaily.com�

Unconstitutional VAVA Law Upheld By A Propaganda Ploy

April 13, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you get when you mix equal parts of gender myth, a casual disregard of Constitutional protections, and old fashioned political pork? VAWA – the Violence Against Women Act -- that’s what.

For the past decade, Americans have been subjected to the relentless message, There’s no excuse for domestic violence against a woman.

OK, but what about Piper Rountree who was convicted six weeks ago for the ambush-slaying of her former husband, University of Richmond professor Frederic Jablin? Are cases of female-on-male violence so rare as to be an amusing oddity in the newspaper obituary columns?

Here’s the shocker: Women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence against their intimate partners.

Chances are you’ve been heard the Urban Legend that follows the predictable line, male = abuser, female = victim. So I’m going to repeat my statement, this time with emphasis: Research shows that women are equally likely to commit partner aggression against their boyfriends, husbands, and ex-husbands.

We’re not talking about a handful of studies. Over 100 research reports have shown this to be true -- you can see for yourself by visiting this website: www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Here’s how attorney Linda Kelly recently put it: “men and women commit violence at similar rates.”

Psychologist John Archer reached an even stronger conclusion in his article in the Psychological Bulletin: “Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression.”

It’s not a casual toss of a pillow or a playful jab at the chops. According to Dr. Archer, 38% of all persons who suffer domestic violence injuries are male.

So why don’t we read about these cases of female-on-male violence more often in the newspapers? Because men are far less likely to report the incident to the police – nine times less likely, according to one landmark study. [www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-22.htm#pgfId-1378765]

To understand the DV urban legend, we need to go back to 1991, when senator Joe Biden of Delaware introduced VAWA for the first time. [ww.vawnet.org/SexualViolence/PublicPolicy/VAWA-SVPubPol.pdf] But many in Congress were opposed to Biden’s bill because it ignored key provisions of the United States Constitution.

First, the proposed law flaunted the intent of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. Knowing that men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence, how could anyone in good conscience propose a law that would confer greater protections and services, but only for women?

Second, Biden’s proposed bill violated the principle of federalism enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, and thus infringed on state sovereignty.

Not surprisingly, Biden’s bill was soon relegated to the legislative deep-freeze. That didn’t please the rad-fems. So someone came up with the idea of a publicity stunt.

In January 1993, a daring group of women called a press conference in Pasadena, California. Sheila Kuhn of the California Women’s Law Center made the statement that would provide the boost the feminists were desperately looking for: Super Bowl Sunday was the “biggest day of the year for violence against women.”

That stunning claim quickly appeared on Good Morning America, in the Boston Globe, and elsewhere. The Oakland Tribune would report the Super Bowl causes men to “explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten.”

How’s that for dispassionate news reporting?

Some remained unconvinced, however, including reporter Ken Ringle of the Washington Post. In his article “Debunking the 'Day of Dread' for Women,” Ringle showed the feminist claim was a preposterous fraud. [www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp] But Ringle’s expose’ came too late -- the genie was out of the bottle.

The Super Bowl Hoax, as it was later dubbed, no doubt will become a classic in the propaganda textbooks. And it clearly did succeed in triggering a surge of letters and phone calls to Congress. The following year the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law by President Clinton.

Less than five months from now on September 30, VAWA is set to expire. That means the Sisterhood’s billion-dollar-a-year gravy-train will dry up. Renewal legislation has not yet been introduced, apparently because the Republican majority hasn’t warmed up to the idea of dishing out mega-bucks to the GOP’s avowed political foes.

As the clock ticks down to September 30, the rad-fems are beginning to panic. Armageddon-Day strategy memos are circulating on the Internet. Decisive action soon will be needed to galvanize public support.

Get ready for a reprise of the Super Bowl Hoax.


Carey Roberts

WorldNetDaily: How America can end its divorce epidemic

WorldNetDaily: How America can end its divorce epidemic

How America can end its divorce epidemic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


When 32-year-old Paul and his 17-year-old fiancee Anna walked into the Norristown, Pa., courthouse to apply for a marriage license, the justice turned them down flat when he learned they had known each other for only one day.

Yet after much pleading and persuasion, the judge reluctantly granted them their license, and Anna and Paul were married three days later.

The wedding, held at Paul's brother's house, wasn't much – only four people in attendance, no wedding gown, no flowers, no cake, not even a picture taken. He was poor, and she was poorer.

As marriages go, this one didn't sound like it had too much of a future.

Yet, exactly 50 years later, I was privileged to attend the golden wedding anniversary party of Paul and Anna Paulson, my grandparents. It was memorable. They were as loved by their many friends and relatives as George and Mary Bailey in the final scene of "It's a Wonderful Life." Although their marriage had been arranged by their Greek families according to old-country custom – hence the absence of any courtship – Grandmom and Grandpop had learned to love each other. Along the way they raised four children (including my mother, Louise), kept them safe and sound through the Great Depression, built a successful business, put all four kids through college, saw them all married and producing 13 grandchildren, and lived a long and exemplary life of Christian service to others.

What magic kept their marriage so rock-solid despite the tremendous stresses and hardships they endured?


I didn't know the answer to that as a 14-year-old boy at their 50th anniversary party, nor did the question occur to me. Why would it? After all, their marriage didn't represent anything out-of-the-ordinary. When I was a kid, marriage was normal. Almost all grownups were married, and the marriage lasted until one of them died. That's just the way it was, or so it seemed.

I had heard about Elizabeth Taylor and other movie stars who scandalously seemed to marry for a short time, get divorced and then remarry and then redivorce and remarry yet again. Some would just sleep around and not bother with the charade of marriage at all.

But that was Hollywood. In the real world where I lived, people got married and stayed married.

I vividly remember the day I discovered divorce. My mother introduced me to Yvonne, a friend of hers who had been divorced. I still recall my feelings of awkwardness and embarrassment, a gut recognition of some private shame. I knew there was something very wrong, something tragic, about divorce.

Today, decades later, it seems every few weeks I hear about another friend or acquaintance of mine whose marriage has detonated. With stunning rapidity, divorce has been transformed from something relatively rare, stigmatizing and traumatic to something commonplace, accepted – and traumatic.

Indeed, divorce today is almost expected, with one in every two marriages ending this way. It is only the numbing frequency and ubiquity of divorce that make us forget the full-blown tragedy it really is – the devastation of a family.

"All it takes is one confused spouse who thinks that divorce will solve their unhappiness," said Michelle Gauthier, founder of Defending Holy Matrimony, a Catholic organization. "When that one spouse visits a lawyer, they place the entire family in the hands of a hostile court system. Children become wards of the state, and all marital assets are controlled by the courts. It is truly a tragedy."

A tragedy, yes, and nowhere more so than in its negative impact on children.

"National studies show that children from divorced and remarried families experience more depression, have more learning difficulties, and suffer from more problems with peers than children from intact families," writes Judith Wallerstein, widely considered the world's foremost authority on the effects of divorce on children. In her landmark book, "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce," Wallerstein reveals:


Children from divorced and remarried families are two to three times more likely to be referred for psychological help at school than their peers from intact families. More of them end up in mental health clinics and hospital settings. There is earlier sexual activity, more children born out of wedlock, less marriage, and more divorce. Numerous studies show that adult children of divorce have more psychological problems than those raised in intact marriages.


It gets worse. Besides the more obvious results of rampant divorce – such as the massive growth in single-parent homes – "virtually every major personal and social pathology can be traced to fatherlessness more than to any other single factor," says author Stephen Baskerville, a professor of political science at Howard University. Citing violent crime, substance abuse, unwed pregnancy, suicide and other problems, he says, "fatherlessness far surpasses both poverty and race as a predictor of social deviance."

Indeed, the growth of the youth-gang culture – police say Los Angeles County alone is home to an estimated 150,000 gang members – is eloquent testimony to the powerful need boys have for a father. If they don't have a real father in their lives, they'll gravitate to another male role model, even a poisonous one.

Equally alarming, although largely unrecognized by most people, is the expansion of government power to which rampant divorce has given rise. As Baskerville puts it:


The result of three decades of unrestrained divorce is that huge numbers of people – many of them government officials – now have a vested professional and financial interest in encouraging it. Divorce today is not simply a phenomenon; it is a regime – a vast bureaucratic empire that permeates national and local governments, with hangers-on in the private sector. In the United States, divorce and custody comprise over half of civil litigation, constituting the cash cow of the judiciary and bringing employment and earnings to a host of public and private officials, including judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counselors, social workers, child support enforcement agents and others.

This growth industry derives from the impact of divorce on children. The divorce revolution has spawned a public-private industrial complex of legal, social service and psychotherapeutic professionals devoted to the problems of children, and especially children in single-parent homes. Many are women with feminist leanings. Whatever pieties they may voice about the plight of fatherless, poor, and violent children, the fact remains that these practitioners have a vested interest in creating as many such children as possible. The way to do it is to remove the fathers.


"Where you have minor children, there's really no such thing as no-fault divorce for fathers," says Detroit attorney Philip Holman, vice-president of the National Congress for Fathers and Children. "On the practical level, fathers realize that divorce means they lose their kids."

For an out-of-control, ever-expanding government such as America's, divorce represents a hard-to-resist growth opportunity. "Once the father is eliminated," Baskerville explains, "the state functionally replaces him as protector and provider. By removing the father, the state also creates a host of problems for itself to solve: child poverty, child abuse, juvenile crime, and other problems associated with single-parent homes. In this way, the divorce machinery is self-perpetuating and self-expanding. Involuntary divorce is a marvelous tool that allows for the infinite expansion of government power."

This may appear to be a sinister, almost conspiratorial-sounding assessment of government's role in divorce. But if you look objectively at what has happened to the institution of civil marriage since the 1960s and pay attention not to what people and governments say, but to what they actually do, Baskerville's harsh conclusions are hard to deny.

Consider just how absurdly easy it is to get divorced today. Writer Dennis E. Powell explains how, upon learning his wife desired a divorce, he quickly found the state more than eager to help break up marriages:


I have discovered how my state – Connecticut – has done all it can to make ending a marriage easy, while making little or no provision for preserving it. In Connecticut, as in other states, "no-fault" divorce means "divorce because it suits the mood of at least one partner." The state has produced an official publication, the "Do-It-Yourself Divorce Guide" to make getting a divorce as simple as mounting a defense against a speeding ticket – even if your spouse has no interest in divorce.

Especially if your spouse has no interest in divorce. The "Do-It-Yourself Divorce Guide" offers everything one needs to know to obtain a divorce, but no guidance as to how one who opposes a divorce might respond. There is plenty on how to battle for a bigger piece of the marital corpse and on getting court orders of alimony, child support, custody, and exclusive use of the family home. There is no mention of another pre-judgment court order ... available under the law, in which the court may order two sessions with a marriage counselor or other person trained in the resolution of disputes within families ...

Filing for divorce, the guide notes, is a simple matter. Fill out a couple of forms, take them to the court clerk, and have copies delivered to your spouse by a process server.


In Connecticut, divorce is routinely granted about 90 days after one spouse files the necessary papers. Total cost to the divorcing party if one represents oneself pro se (without an attorney): approximately $225-$250.

Ninety days. A couple hundred bucks. No reason required – other than "the marriage has irretrievably broken down." Breaking a marriage "contract" today is easier than firing an employee hired last week or getting out of a cell-phone contract.

In truth, there is no genuine civil marriage in America anymore. The "contract" part of the marriage contract is non-existent. After all, two parties enter into what they call a contract – and yet either party has the power to end that "contract" at any time, for any reason, whether or not the other party agrees. Thus, there never was a real contract, a binding agreement, in the first place.

Yet, the "binding," extremely-hard-to-break nature of the marriage contract is essential to marriage itself. Marriage is difficult, and there comes a time in many, if not most, marriages when conflicts and suffering cause one or the other spouse to contemplate ending the marriage. The marriage contract is meant to protect both spouses – and their children – against exactly such a period of weakness. No-fault divorce destroys that protection.

How did this happen? How have we managed to cripple civilization's primary institution, marriage, and with such blinding speed?

'Marriage is legalized rape'

Let's begin our exploration by considering that a best-selling pro-marriage book almost never saw the light of day just a few years ago.

Harvard University Press had contracted with University of Chicago sociologist and professor Linda J. Waite, a self-described "liberal Democrat," along with co-author Maggie Gallagher, to write a book based on Waite's studies about marriage.

Apparently, the Harvard-based publishing house expected the book to do the politically correct thing and criticize marriage, as is so common among today's academic elite. But, as the Harvard scholars reviewed the manuscript, they found it revealed married men and women live happier, healthier, more financially secure lives, and even have "more and better sex." So naturally, the university's publication board members decided at the last minute not to publish the book – titled "The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially" – a book they themselves had commissioned.

One Harvard Press reviewer said she didn't like the book's "tone." That's about as close to an answer as the public ever got.

By way of "tonal" comparison, check out another Harvard Press author, feminist Catharine MacKinnon who frequently compares male sexual desire to rape – whether women consent to sex or not. Expressing what one reviewer called "a whole-hog hatred of men," MacKinnon explains: "What in the liberal view looks like love and romance looks a lot like hatred and torture to the feminist." A professor of law at both the University of Michigan Law School and the University of Chicago Law School, MacKinnon has written no fewer than five books for Harvard Press. Her message: "Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment."

So, marriage-equals-rape is OK with the Harvard University Press, but marriage-equals-happiness is not OK. Fortunately, although Harvard turned down "The Case for Marriage" at the 11th hour, it was ultimately published by Doubleday and enjoyed wide readership and critical acclaim.

Flatly contradicting the cherished divorce-may-be-good-for-you myths of the '60s and '70s, Waite and Gallagher argued – using a broad range of indices – that "being married is actually better for you physically, materially and spiritually than being single or divorced." But they introduce their findings with a warning:


For perhaps the first time in human history, marriage as an ideal is under a sustained and surprisingly successful attack. Sometimes the attack is direct and ideological, made by "experts" who believe a lifelong vow of fidelity is unrealistic or oppressive, especially to women.

"Even in the early 1960s," sum up social historians Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg, "marriage and family ties were regarded by the 'human potential movement' as potential threats to individual fulfillment as a man or a woman. The highest forms of human needs, contended proponents of the new psychologies, were autonomy, independence, growth, and creativity," which marriage often thwarted. The search for autonomy and independence as the highest human good blossomed with the women's movement into a critique of marriage per se, which the more flamboyant feminists denounced as "slavery," "legalized rape," and worst of all, "tied up with a sense of dependency." "From this vantage point" Mintz and Kellogg note, "marriage increasingly came to be described as a trap, circumscribing a woman's social and intellectual horizons and lowering her sense of self-esteem."


"Slavery"? "Legalized rape"? How could anyone think of marriage in such terms? Let's travel back to the 1960s and '70s and listen to the feminist drumbeats. And keep in mind that, like much of what was being preached and written about with religious zeal in those days of cultural revolution, even the most absurd ideas had a way of magically morphing into public policy a few years later.



"We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage ... By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God ... We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement." – Gloria Steinem, quoted in the Saturday Review of Education, March 1973

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession ... the choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." – Vivian Gornick, feminist author, a tenured professor at the University of Arizona, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." – Feminist author Robin Morgan, who became an editor at Ms. magazine

"If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry ... The plight of mothers is more desperate than that of other women, and the more numerous the children the more hopeless the situation seems to be ... Most women ... would shrink at the notion of leaving husband and children, but this is precisely the case in which brutally clear rethinking must be undertaken." – Germaine Greer, author, scholar and lecturer at the University of Warwick, England, in "The Female Eunuch" in 1971

"Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women." – Radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin in 1983

"Until all women are lesbians, there will be no true political revolution." – Feminist author and journalist Jill Johnson, in "Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution," 1973

"The legal rights of access that married partners have to each other's persons, property, and lives makes it all but impossible for a spouse to defend herself (or himself), or to be protected against torture, rape, battery, stalking, mayhem, or murder by the other spouse ... Legal marriage thus enlists state support for conditions conducive to murder and mayhem." – Claudia Card, professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in 1996

First, let's be very clear about what we're looking at – pure rage, an all-consuming hatred of men, and often a hatred of God as well.

If you think I'm exaggerating, go read their writings for yourself. You will be shocked at the depth and intensity of anger, the kind one associates with deep personal violation or trauma. Indeed, in some well-known cases, feminist leaders report having been sexually abused as children or beaten by a violent husband. Apparently, they have concluded in their blind anger that all men are predatory beasts and molesters, and thus are determined to save their fellow women from the "slavery" and "oppression" of family life.

Alien nation

Most people who lived through the '60s remember the militant feminists and their angry speeches, demonstrations and bra-burnings. But when this spectacle left the front page of mainstream consciousness – along with the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, long hair, LSD and the rest of the '60s psychedelic cultural revolution – did America just go back to "normal"?

Nope.

We had been transformed. Today, a generation later, we debate issues like cohabitation, divorce, same-sex marriage, civil unions, polygamy and the redefinition of marriage, seemingly oblivious to the fact that marriage as a fundamental institution of civilization was crippled back in the late '60s and early '70s with the advent of no-fault divorce.

Although radical feminism has always been too strident – and frankly, insane – to be embraced by the American public (though it is to this day a powerful molding influence on America's college campuses), its core agenda has mysteriously become our reality.

The same thing happened with abortion, the No. 1 cause of feminists today. The public has never accepted the radical pro-abortion agenda – national polls repeatedly show barely 25 percent of Americans embrace unfettered abortion-on-demand at any time, for any reason. Yet that radical agenda is the law of the land in the United States today. In the same way, the feminist movement – from the "mainstream" variety that pushed women into the workplace to the man-hating radical variety that demanded an end to marriage and the mainstreaming of lesbianism – has succeeded in turning its agenda into public policy.

Look at what its purveyors wanted: to persuade women to be ashamed of their roles as homemaker and mother and to set their sights instead on the workplace; to institute no-fault divorce; to make lesbianism an acceptable alternative to heterosexuality; and most of all, to "free" women from marriage. They scored big-time. The question is: "How?"

While feminism was relentlessly driving the family apart from the sidelines, what on earth was the mainstream thinking? After all, it was state legislatures and judges and governors, not militant lesbians, that actually tossed out the powerfully binding civil-marriage contract by instituting no-fault divorce.

Wallerstein describes the seduction of "mainstream" America:


Up until 30 years ago marriage was a lifetime commitment with only a few narrow legal exits such as proving adultery in the courts or outwaiting years of abandonment. American cultural and legal attitudes bound marriages together, no matter how miserable couples might be. Countless individuals were locked in loveless marriages they desperately wanted to end, but for the most part they had no way out. Then, in an upheaval akin to a cataclysmic earthquake, family law in California changed overnight. A series of statewide task forces recommended that men and women seeking divorce should no longer be required to prove that their spouse was unfaithful, unfit, cruel, or incompatible. It was time, they said, to end the hypocrisy embodied in laws that severely restricted divorce. People should be able to end an unhappy marriage without proving fault or pointing blame.

The prevailing climate of opinion was that divorce would allow adults to make better choices and happier marriages by letting them undo earlier mistakes. They would arrive at an honest, mutual decision to divorce, because if one person wanted out, surely it could not be much of a marriage.

These attitudes were held by men and women of many political persuasions, by lawyers, judges, and mental health professionals alike. The final task force that formulated the new no-fault divorce laws was led by law professor Herma Kay, who was well known as an advocate for women's rights. In 1969, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the new law and people were jubilant. It was a time of hope and faith that greater choice would set men and women free and benefit their children. Within a few years, no-fault divorce laws spread like wildfire to all 50 states. People all across the country were in favor of change.


"But," adds Wallerstein, whose groundbreaking work involved a 25-year study of children of divorce, "what about the children? In our rush to improve the lives of adults, we assumed that their lives would improve as well. We made radical changes in the family without realizing how it would change the experience of growing up. We embarked on a gigantic social experiment without any idea about how the next generation would be affected."

Why did Reagan, a champion of family values, sign the nation's first no-fault divorce bill into law? He was shattered when his first wife, actress Jane Wyman, filed for divorce. Although it was Reagan's growing anti-communism that alienated wife Jane – she complained in her divorce papers that "my husband and I engaged in continual arguments on his political views" – she accused him of "mental cruelty," since divorce laws in the 1940s required a charge against the other spouse of adultery, extreme cruelty, willful desertion, willful neglect, habitual intemperance, felony conviction or incurable insanity.

As son Michael later explained in his book "Twice Adopted," "Even though listing grounds for divorce was largely a formality, those words were probably a bitter pill for him to swallow." In signing California's no-fault divorce law, said Michael, "He wanted to do something to make the divorce process less acrimonious, less contentious and less expensive."

But Reagan later regretted the decision as one of the worst he ever made, as divorce rates skyrocketed and divorce conflicts and legal costs remained "as ruinous as ever," Michael added.

Looking back at America's decades-long divorce "experiment," Glenn Stanton, Focus on the Family's marriage expert, sums up its results. While adults suffered terribly, children "fared even worse," he said.


Many saw the innocence of childhood evaporate the day their parents announced the divorce. Others described being "scarred for life." They told countless stories of being crippled by anxiety, possessed by anger, disoriented by confusion and immobilized by fear of total abandonment. Their behavior, grades and physical and mental health plummeted. They were different children. In fact, they didn't see themselves as children any longer. Divorce forced them to become adults, even before they became teens. We now know these children carry these problems cumulatively into adulthood.


Contemplating the stupendous amount of pain, deprivation and trauma we so jubilantly and foolishly invited into the national family a generation ago – during which time we overthrew most if not all of the rules we had lived by for centuries – we must ask ourselves: What happened to America during the 1960s? I mean, what really happened?

Revolution

What exactly was this mass seduction that we call "cultural revolution" that overtook America during that tumultuous period? I have yet to hear a really good explanation for it.

It seems a combination of powerful factors – like planets that rarely align – all came together during that particular period and ushered in a transformation the American mind.

One factor was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It was to the '60s generation what Sept. 11, 2001, was to today's Americans – a national shock beyond all other national shocks. It signaled the end of America's innocence, of the '50s world of "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best." The handsome Camelot president – he and Jacqueline were the closest thing to royalty in modern America – had his brains blown out on national television.

Like everyone else alive then, I remember where I was – in my eighth-grade science class. It was right after lunch and the teacher walked into the classroom and said: "I suppose you've all heard Kennedy was shot." My first reaction was: "Kennedy? He must mean the boy in our class named Kennedy." It didn't occur to me that it could be our president. Presidents weren't assassinated – just as married couples didn't get divorced. Assassinated presidents were people like Lincoln and Garfield, but it didn't happen in America now, I thought.

It was a major psychic shock. And shock has a strange way of opening people up to new ideas – and not necessarily good ideas.

Then there was the Vietnam War. From an ideological point of view it was arguably one of America's most altruistic wars, as we were there to stop the spread of communism and had little to gain ourselves. But the war's actual execution by America's leaders was incompetent and disastrous, as Defense Secretary Robert McNamera later famously admitted. The nation was polarized and intensely emotionalized over the controversial war.

Powerful emotion also has a strange way of opening people up to new ideas.

Then there was the rock music invasion from England. What started with the Beatles, Rolling Stones and other groups immediately exerted a powerful hold on America's youth and soon introduced and sugar-coated the psychedelic drug subculture – "Turn on, tune in, drop out" – which was, in turn, energized and unified by opposition to the Vietnam War.

A primary effect of mind-altering drugs is that they open people up to new ideas – maybe that's why they're called "mind-altering."

And then, most devastating of all, there was widespread confusion among America's churches and churchgoers over God. Time magazine's infamous 1966 cover story, "Is God Dead?" shockingly quoted top church leaders expressing anxiety and uncertainty over Who God is, or even if He is. With America's traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and moral standards in doubt or disrepute, alien philosophies and beliefs readily flooded into the vacuum – paganism, occultism, channeling and New Age practices of every conceivable sort.

Similarly, without a godly paradigm – whereby we comprehend that man's only true freedom is to be a servant of Heaven, rather than a slave of Hell – our whole concept of freedom was transformed. This naturally opened America up to a torrent of "liberation" movements, from sexual liberation to women's liberation to gay liberation. In America's morally weakened and confused state, even the most radical and alien ideas exerted an immensely powerful influence on the national mind and mood.

As if all this wasn't enough, there was something else at play – something seldom mentioned in polite circles out of fear of ridicule. And that is the issue of communist influence. We didn't just get high on LSD and fall off the cliff during the 1960s. We were pushed.

Hard as it may be to believe today when communism has been so thoroughly discredited, back during the '30s, '40s and '50s many people – including some well-known Americans – actually believed Marxism was a good thing. There was an ideological struggle going on in the world, and the seduction of communism was in its heyday – including in the United States.

During this time, the Soviet Union was engaged not only in its very public military and scientific buildup, but also in massive espionage and infiltration. And, as the public record undeniably shows, the USSR had direct ties with the Communist Party USA.

The entertainment industry was one area targeted by the Communist Party USA, which had been active in Hollywood since 1935. Headquartered in New York, the CPUSA had decided to wrest control of the entertainment industry – and therefore of what Americans would see in their movie theatres – by taking over Hollywood's labor unions.

"By the end of the Second World War, [communist] party membership in Hollywood was close to 600 and boasted several industry heavyweights," reveals Peter Schweizer in his celebrated book, "Reagan's War." "Actors Lloyd Bridges, Edward G. Robinson, and Fredric March were members, as were half a dozen producers and about as many directors." (Some, it should be noted, later renounced their Communist Party affiliation.)

It was none other than Ronald Reagan who took the leading role in throttling this attempted communist takeover of Hollywood when, as head of the Screen Actors Guild, he very publicly and courageously opposed them. It marked Reagan's entry into the world of politics – and the anti-communist mission he would complete 40 years later when, as president of the United States, he took the central role in engineering the end of what he himself had aptly called the "evil empire."

But back in the era immediately preceding the 1960s, there had been many communists infiltrating America's government and institutions. Without a doubt, America came under a direct revolutionary assault – pushed primarily by avowed leftists of every stripe – during the 1960s. Most U.S. college campuses were swept up in the revolutionary fervor, and leftist propaganda and agitation were everywhere. Believe me, I know – I was there.

When all these various national assaults and traumas hit the nation at once – an unpopular war, presidential assassination, music-and-drug cultural invasion, a massive erosion of faith – the anti-America subversion that previously had existed below the surface of society seized the moment and burst forth into open rebellion.

Looking back, one has to wonder just how successful the radical left was in subverting key American institutions, including government, education, entertainment, the press and the churches.

It's hard to say for sure. But it's very sobering to realize that today, America's colleges and universities are absurdly to the left of the mainstream. In fact, just about the only place in the world you can find real, bona fide Marxists any more is on American college campuses, where they are insulated from reality as tenured professors. Same with radical feminists, who also tend to be socialists. The National Education Association, which "represents" America's public school teachers, is a leftist organization, as are the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.

Oh, by the way, maybe it's just a coincidence, but guess what Lenin (Vladimir, not John) did right up front to facilitate the communist revolution? He broke up the family by instituting de facto no-fault divorce, as celebrated Soviet expert Mikhail Heller explains:


It is significant to note that one of the first things V.I. Lenin did when he came to power in the Soviet Union, after the revolution in 1917, was to have passed what amounts to our no-fault divorce statutes.

Lenin, and later Stalin, determined that in order to maintain control of the people it would be necessary to completely destroy the family and restructure it.

Thus, on Sept. 16, 1918, a law was passed whereby one could obtain a divorce by simply mailing or delivering a postcard to the local register without the necessity of even notifying the spouse being divorced.

This statute, along with the communist encouragement of sexual immorality during marriage, approval of abortion, and forcing women out of the home into the workforce, accomplished its purpose of destroying the Russian family.


Unlike Lenin, who had guns, gulags and storm troopers to enforce his will, America's revolutionaries, including the radical feminists, had no means of forcing their anti-marriage and other agendas on society other than the force of "moral persuasion" – or to put it more aptly, angry intimidation. Unfortunately, people who aren't strong and sure of their own beliefs simply cannot withstand the demands of unreasonable, angry intimidators. They give in, they compromise, and even start to adopt the bully's views as their own – to keep the peace.

That's what happened in America.

'Let no man put asunder'

When a man and woman are married – one of the most joyful days of their lives – the officiating minister traditionally seals the wedding ceremony by warning the rest of the world to keep their hands off: "Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder."

Yet, no-fault divorce laws – which by making divorce so easy have deprived couples of much-needed protection of their marriages during periods of conflict and anger – represent an unimaginably broad and destructive policy of government "putting asunder" those whom God joined in holy matrimony.

So, while men and women need to approach marriage with a mature, spiritual paradigm, it's also critical that the government wake up and learn from the sad legacy of its no-fault divorce laws: a generation of broken homes, broken promises, broken spirits.

Marriage is too important, too wonderful, and too challenging to have the odds stacked against it due to short-sighted and pernicious easy-divorce laws. Enlightened legislators and other leaders must revisit and re-fashion America's divorce laws so they serve to preserve marriages, not dissolve them. We must once again realize that marriage really is meant to be forever.

By the way, one last note about my grandfather, Paul M. Paulson. He was an uneducated man, a poor tailor who immigrated to America for a better life, and who barely knew his arranged bride on his wedding day. But decades later, he would credit the success of his marriage to "seeking constant guidance from above, because we both love God and assume woman is a gift of God [to man] – the most important gift after God's son." Grandpop believed that if couples feel this way, they will regard each other with sufficient love, respect and determination to make any sacrifice necessary to preserve the marriage partnership. His favorite Bible verse? "And above all things, have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8).

Another "poor tailor" – Motel (pronounced "Mottle") the tailor in "Fiddler on the Roof" – immortalized these same sentiments in song when the reluctant patriarch Tevia finally agreed to let Motel marry his firstborn daughter, Tzeidel:

Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles,
God took a tailor by the hand
Turned him around and, miracle of miracles,
Led him to the promised land!

When David slew Goliath (yes!),
that was a miracle.
When God gave us manna in the wilderness,
that was a miracle, too.

But of all God's miracles large and small,
The most miraculous one of all
Is the one I thought could never be:
God has given you to me.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Kupelian is vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com and Whistleblower magazine, and author of the forthcoming book, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom.

The Australian: 'Gender divide' in road of learning [ 05apr05 ]

The Australian: 'Gender divide' in road of learning [ 05apr05 ]
'Gender divide' in road of learning
Jennifer Buckingham, Schools editor
05apr05

IT'S all in their brains - boys just can't help arguing with their teachers, while girls are determined to impress them.

The innate differences in the thinking of our children are so stark, according to researchers, that educators need to develop a completely different approach in the classroom.
Boys preferred a competitive environment, to be challenged, and to have frequent changes of activity to "turn their brains on", according to Dutch psychologist Martine Delfos.

"In school, boys need competition in order to feel stimulated and to know their place in the hierarchy," she said yesterday.

"The strategy of girls is more often to please the teacher, whereas that of boys is more to compete with the teacher."

Dr Delfos, who will address a boys' education conference in Melbourne today, said the instinctive male response to anxiety or danger was to take action, while the female response was more likely to be passive.

Research shows boys tended to externalise their anxiety and girls to internalise it.

"The most important problems for boys at the end of primary school are behavioural; with girls, the most frequent problem is tummy ache," Dr Delfos said.

"Boys have a tendency to action and need action in class. A variation between movement and sitting still is more important for boys than for girls."

Dr Delfos also believes that many diagnoses of behavioural disorders are normal externalised behaviours to anxiety-generating social experiences - "only a boy reacting in a 'sane' way to an 'insane' situation".

"Boys need an educational surrounding with more possibilities to express their energy and their discomfort," she said.

Her advice for educators is based on her development of the new concept of "preference behaviour".

"Men and women, boys and girls, are capable of doing the same things but they have preferences linked to their evolutionary gender roles.

"From the first day of life, boys tend to look longer at objects, girls look longer at faces. Boys have an orientation toward understanding the working of things while girls are oriented to relating."

After a long period during which there was much resistance to the idea of brain-based differences between the sexes, especially among educators, there has been growing international interest in Dr Delfos's work.

There has also been a change in Australia, said Deborah Hartman, manager of the Boys in Schools program at the University of Newcastle.

"If we actually acknowledge there might be some differences between boys and girls we might be able to tap into those strengths."

She said a lot of progress had been made in the past decade.

"We're really starting to see the benefits now of a shift in thinking in boys' education.

"We're noticing in those schools their behavioural statistics are improving and we are also starting to see evidence that boys are more engaged in lessons, including a shift in literacy results."

But it would be quite a few years before results would be known, Ms Hartman said.

"The main objective now is for the schools that are doing really good work to share their ideas and results."



privacy terms © The Australian

The Rise of Big Sister-ism - Carey Roberts - MensNewsDaily.com�

The Rise of Big Sister-ism

April 3, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have seen their shell-shocked eyes and unbelieving expressions.

Men saddled with crushing child support obligations, forced to live on scraps or else fall into a desperate sea of mounting debt. A few of them are white-collar guys who once held respectable jobs and lived in comfortable houses.

Time marches forward, and the cases only become more bizarre.

Steve Barreras paid $20,000 to support his daughter, a girl he had never met. In fact, she didn’t even exist. His ex-wife Viola Trevino took another family’s daughter to court and claimed the child as hers. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson has now ordered an investigation.

In Michigan, Terrace Hale had $300 garnished from each paycheck for three years. The money went to support a woman he's never met to raise a child he's never fathered. Now, Marilyn Stephen, director of the Michigan Office of Child Support, refuses to give Mr. Hale’s money back.

Then there are those cases of adolescent boys who were victimized twice. First by their adult female rapists, and then by an inflexible child support system that came knocking when their perpetrators carried the baby to term.

The voice of justice and outrage asks, How could this happen in America?

The answer can be found in our nation’s 30-year crusade to extract child support payments from mostly minority, low-income fathers, men who now bear the contemptuous epithet, “Deadbeat Dads.”

Last year professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University probed the allegations that have been leveled against these “deadbeats.” His must-read article, “Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis?,” reached some surprising conclusions [www.independent.org/tii/ media/pdf/tir_08_4_baskerville.pdf]:

Charge #1: Most marriages break up because fathers “have chosen to abandon their children,” as president Bill Clinton once put it.

Not true. Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen found that women file for divorce in 70% of cases. Likewise, Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver reports in his book Divorced Dads that two out of three divorces are initiated by women.

Charge #2: When women do leave the marriage, it’s to escape domestic violence and abuse.

False. The number one reason cited by divorcing moms, according to Braver, is “not feeling loved or appreciated,” and not anything to do with violence.



Charge #3: Dads don't pay their child support because they don't care about their kids.

Absurd. A 1998 Rutgers and University of Texas study concluded: “many of the absent fathers who state leaders want to track down and force to pay child support are so destitute that their lives focus on finding the next job, next meal, or next night’s shelter.” The problem is not dads who are dead-beats, the problem is men who are dead-broke.

Charge #4: Kids don’t really need their dads, anyway.

Absolutely false. This is the most scurrilous myth of all, because the truth is the polar opposite, and the harmful effects on children are so great. “Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders,” notes Baskerville.

It is no coincidence that all four of these myths place fathers in a bad light. And that suits the Divorce Industry – that veritable army of lawyers, family court judges, custody evaluators, and child support enforcers -- just fine.

These myths have become so ingrained in our thinking that basic Constitutional protections are being casually tossed aside. One brief on child support from the Left-leaning National Conference of State Legislatures made this stunning recommendation: “The burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” which of course means, “Fathers can be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.”

Of course, it’s divorce that triggers the monstrous child support machinery to lurch into motion. The rise of no-fault, unilateral divorce does not trouble the Sisterhood. In fact, they welcome it.

Over the past 50 years, the National Association of Women Lawyers has spearheaded the adoption of no-fault divorce legislation throughout the country, laws that made marital dissolution that much easier. The NAWL now notes with satisfaction, “the ideal of no-fault divorce became the guiding principle for reform of divorce laws in the majority of states.”

A growing divorce rate. Disenfranchised dads. Children lacking paternal guidance and protection. An ever-expanding child support apparatus. Careless disregard of Constitutional protections. A growing totalitarian mindset.

That’s the Matriarchy at work.


Carey Roberts

The Real Goal Of Feminism: Transforming Society by Antonia Feitz

1. The Problem
Top

Ladies and gentlemen, my topic is feminism and some of you may be wondering why, given our country's parlous state. Our national sovereignty is being destroyed by the overriding of our domestic laws and the signing of UN treaties — with no consultation and with no public or even parliamentary debate.

So why feminism? Because feminists are at the vanguard of the phalanx of fools, the useful idiots, the ideologues, who are destroying our hard won rights and our national sovereignty.

We live in an age of ideology. God has been pronounced dead, and Chesterton's witticism has proven true: when people no longer believe in God, they'll believe in anything. And the post-Christian people of the West are proof, holding beliefs which their grandparents would have dismissed as absolute nonsense, and contrary to all common sense, let alone morality.

Take extreme environmentalists. Apart from literally worshiping trees, they exalt the welfare of frogs and even insects over that of people. Believe it or not, there's even a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [1]. Homosexuals demand their relationships be accorded equal status with marriage, including the "right" to adopt children. And under the banner of multiculturalism, Australian children are either kept ignorant, or taught to be ashamed of their own heritage and history, while simultaneously being taught to value ethnic and especially indigenous cultures. But arguably, feminism is the most pernicious of the ideologies that plague us, simply because the relationship between men and women affects all of us.

I must stress that modern feminists are not the heirs of the suffragettes who fought for equal rights such as the right to vote and property rights. Modern feminists are not seeking equal rights for women. They want to transform society, and that's no conspiracy theory because they freely admit it.

Take CEDAW. It's the acronym for the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. (You can discriminate against men till the cows come home). This convention's goals are not reformist, but revolutionary. It openly calls for the elimination of traditional sex roles, and the re-writing of text books to purge them of alleged sexual stereotypes. The UN's call for the total disarmament of the world's people is embedded in CEDAW's preamble.

According to the feminists who constitute the CEDAW Committee, until nations achieve a 50-50 sexual split in everything — in occupations, in public life, and even in the domestic sphere — they are discriminating against women. Now that might sound far-fetched, but article 5 of CEDAW advocates "a proper understanding of maternity as a social function." Note the socialist bullying in the word, "proper." This "proper understanding" demands that child-rearing — universally! — should be "a fully shared responsibility...by both sexes." It also insists that society has an obligation to extend child care services to "allow individuals to combine family responsibilities with work and participation in public life."

The message to women is: you will participate in work and public life whether you want to or not. In a now notorious interview with Betty Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir said: "No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." [2]

So much for freedom of choice. These bully-girls demand "a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family...to achieve full equality of men and women." Their version of equality is complete identity. It's reminiscent of communist China in Mao's time. The communists were all feminists too. Remember?

To achieve the goal of sexual identity, Article 10c mandates the revision of textbooks, school programmes and teaching methods with a view to eliminating stereotyped concepts. This must be why one of my children's French textbooks showed Dad in an apron washing the dishes while Mum, dressed in a chic suit and carrying a briefcase, waved ta-ta to the baby in the high-chair. A French textbook! Textbooks in all subjects are being used to indoctrinate children in our schools. It's just too bad if individuals prefer the traditional roles when they have young children — as most people actually do.

According to CEDAW's Preamble, all nations are "obliged to work towards the modification of social and cultural patterns of individual [emphasis added] conduct in order to eliminate prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on...stereotyped roles for men and women."

These intolerant ideologues who so loudly criticize Christian evangelists are far worse. At least religious conversion is voluntary! But incredibly, the CEDAW Committee has instructed Libya to re-interpret its sacred book, the Koran, in ways that are permissible under CEDAW. The Algerian government was castigated for "using religion as an excuse" for failure to comply with CEDAW. The Committee has also instructed China to legalize prostitution. [3]

Whatever happened to national sovereignty? And how hypocritical is the UN? On the one hand it supposedly values the diversity of the world's nations and cultures. But on the other hand, with CEDAW, it demands that the world's nations and cultures must conform to the deranged and frequently immoral opinions of Western feminists who themselves are a minority in their own countries.

If you think CEDAW is bad news, the Optional Protocol to CEDAW drafted in March 1999 is even worse. If governments want to maintain any vestige of national sovereignty, they'd better not sign it. Previously, nations signing or ratifying international treaties could add RUDs — reservations, understandings and declarations. These are statements limiting or modifying the effect of the provisions of a treaty; or of giving notice of matters of policy or principle; or of simply clarifying matters. But true to feminist tyranny, the Optional Protocol to CEDAW will forbid any reservations.

Feminists have been frustrated that too many countries included RUDs when they signed CEDAW — precisely to protect their cultures, religions and sovereignty. The Optional Protocol will forbid any such reservations. It is an unprecedented and massive assault on national sovereignty and if signed, will set a terrible precedent for the signing of other treaties.

Maybe the ancestor of CEDAW — the 1946 UN Commission on the Status of Women — had good intentions. But those good intentions have been highjacked by CEDAW. Instead of improving the welfare and securing basic rights for women in the poorer nations, CEDAW's main game is transforming society in the West. The Optional Protocol will be used by individuals and NGOs in the West to achieve radical social change that national parliaments would never dare consider, because their members have to face voters. It's through UN treaties such as CEDAW and the UN Charter of Human Rights that homosexual relationships will achieve the legal status of marriage.

The most cursory glance over the countries that have signed and ratified CEDAW makes the whole thing a sick joke. The first three are Albania, Algeria and Angola, hardly well-known for their equal treatment of women. Burundi — where people regularly hack each other to death with machetes — has signed. So has Cambodia, of the killing-fields fame. China has signed too, even though it performs third trimester "abortions" — read "infanticide" — on unwilling women.

Needless to say, Canada and Australia, both of whose governments are heavily feminist influenced, have signed. To its eternal credit, the United States has not.

So, that's the overall picture. Now let's look at what's behind feminism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Theory
Top

Modern radical feminism is founded on contradictory lies. The fact that they're lies doesn't matter, because truth is always secondary for ideologues. The fact that they're contradictory is no source of shame, because feminists believe that logic is just a tool of the patriarchy to oppress women and that women have other, and superior, ways of knowing [4].

The first lie is that men and women are interchangeable, and that there aren't any differences between the sexes apart from anatomical ones. In fact, feminists claim that there aren't two sexes at all but at least five genders, which are socially constructed. They regard heterosexual men and women as being hopelessly repressed in gender stereotypes forced upon them by society. Their life's mission is to liberate us from these imposed stereotypes.

To achieve the interchangeability, feminists at first tirelessly promoted the traditional male life pattern of uninterrupted full-time work as the norm for women. Creches and childcare were demanded to free women from domesticity, whether they wanted to be "freed" or not. In Australia, groups such as the Women's Electoral Lobby fought to change Australia's tax system from a family-friendly one to a profoundly unjust one where a married man with a family pays virtually the same tax as a single man. They won, and their victory clearly shows the contempt for ordinary women that is the hallmark of feminism.

But seeing as ignoring babies doesn't go down too well with most mothers, feminists have changed tack. If they can't force women to be like men, then they'll force men to be like women. The sexes must be interchangeable for their gender theory to work. This is behind the increasingly hectoring calls for men to avail themselves of the "opportunity" of part-time work and to do more domestic work out of "fairness." Australian academic Ken Dempsey deplores the fact that most of the women in his surveys on domestic work perversely fail to see they're oppressed [5].

These academics can't even see how absurd, let alone insulting they are to the men and women of Australia. What business of theirs is it how couples organize their domestic life? In any case, their concern is hypocritical: feminist high-flyers don't share the domestic chores as they exhort the lower orders to. No, they employ household help. They don't have part-time work either. No, they have well-paying full-time careers [6].

The first lie was that there are no differences between the sexes. The second and contradictory lie is that women are in fact superior to men. Increasingly, feminists claim that maleness is some sort of pathology, in need of a cure. And so there is a widespread demonization of men in our culture, with disastrous effects on young males who are made to feel ashamed of their sex and to scorn the manly virtues. And then politicians, academics and social commentators have the hide to express concern about male suicide rates.

Increasingly men are being regarded and treated as second class citizens, being freely discriminated against in employment via affirmative action programmes. Feminists contemptuously dismiss the achievements of Western civilization as the product of "dead white males." And they're doing their best to overthrow it and replace it with their own socialist hell where every facet of life will be regimented, even down to doing the housework. It's already happened in one German state [7].

There are some chilling prospects in store for men if they win. For instance the president of the Center for Advancement of Public Policy in Washington DC, has proposed that men's fertility be controlled by mandatory contraception beginning at puberty. Boys would be forced to have contraceptive implants along with compulsory DNA fingerprinting. Doctors would have to report anybody who refused the implants or sought medical attention after trying to remove them himself [8]. This is not sci-fi, folks, this is now.

The strategies used to demonize men are stereotyping and disinformation, or in plain English, labelling and lies. Men are so routinely stereotyped as "violent" now, that the slander is rarely challenged. And the lies keep being disseminated by governments, the bureaucracies, the schools, the media, and even to their shame, the churches.

Take rape. Organizing their annual "Reclaim the Night" marches, Australian feminists claim with a straight face that one in four women have been raped. But this is where the lies come in: "rape" doesn't mean the same thing for feminists as it does for the rest of us. The feminist researcher's definition of "rape" included women who simply had second thoughts in the morning because they'd been drunk or stoned at the time. As well, only a quarter of the women she regarded as having been raped agreed that they had been raped! [9]

Yet Australian feminists continue to feed the media with this arrant nonsense that one in four Australian women has been raped. And the lies continue, though I'm beginning to think they originate in stupidity more than malice. For instance, one feminist academic wrote the following nonsense to me after I politely chided her for slandering all men as violent.

She wrote, "The Women's Safety Survey, a national survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (most recently 1996) of 6,880,500 women aged 18 years and over, found that in the twelve months prior to the study almost half a million women had..." Blah, blah, blah. I replied saying: "This defies belief. I doubt that there ever was a survey of 6,880,500 women aged 18 years and over. I think you probably meant to say there was a survey of X numbers of women, from which researchers then extrapolated those figures from ABS statistics. A bit different."

She didn't have the grace to reply.

Domestic violence is certainly an evil, but the feminists have both grossly overstated its occurrence and denied the facts of female violence. For example, it is well documented that there is a high rate of domestic violence among lesbians [10]. Yet all governments uncritically accept the feminist propaganda that domestic violence is simply a matter of violent males abusing helpless women and children. Not so. There is now an abundance of research, including recent Australian research, which shows that most abusing men are in abusing couple relationships and that women instigate acts of violence more frequently than men [11]. Erin Pizzey, the founder of the women's shelter movement in England, has been saying the same for years but has been studiously ignored by feminists and bureaucrats. Feminists have no interest in the truth. They even deny it exists. Objective truth, logic, standards of evidentiary proof, linear thinking are all dismissed as the "White Male System" of rationality that is in no way superior to other ways of knowing.

At the institutional level, feminism has been spectacularly successful. I'd now like to look at a few specific areas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Achievements
3.1. The sexual harassment industry
Top

Until recently, the workplace was one of the traditional places for making romantic attachments. But now it's a no-no, thanks to the feminists. They've generated a climate of hysteria about any expression of the normal sexual interest between males and females at work. In today's workplace, male interest — not boorish behaviour — but just interest, may be perceived as sexual "harassment" if a woman chooses to regard it as such.

In response to this legal minefield, feminism has generated yet another parasitical growth industry: anti-harassment training is now big business costing millions a year, billions in the US.

But there is an acceptance of double standards. Adult men, even in all-male workshops, or the all-male crew of submarines, aren't allowed to put up girlie pictures as they have traditionally done on the grounds that it demeans women and reduces them to sex objects. But a Kolotex hosiery ad of a naked woman perched on a bound, naked man was "fun" — because it was created by an all-woman advertising agency.

The irony in all this sexual harassment nonsense is that before all the legal machinery was set up, women were much more independent, psychologically speaking. Any woman worth her salt could stop a man's unwelcome advances with a look that stopped him in his tracks from ten feet away. Girls smooched with boys in the back row of the cinema or at the drive-in, and they usually had the last word on "how far to go." Compared with those self-confident young girls, today's adult "victims" are pathetic specimens of womanhood.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2. The affirmative rip-off
Top

In the feminist lexicon, the word, "equality" doesn't mean equal opportunity; it means equal outcomes. So AA bureaucracies have been established to enforce the social engineering necessary to achieve equal outcomes.

But affirmative action has been premised on false assumptions.

1. Firstly, the claim that under-representation of women in certain occupations is proof of discrimination is intellectually very shaky and even dated. Australian academic Faye Gayle has said that "...universities could not, by definition, be led by the best brains since they had not achieved a 50-50 gender balance across all classifications...especially in areas such as physics, chemistry and engineering..." [12]

But she's simply wrong. There's now an embarrassment of research into sex differences which clearly shows male and female variation in aptitudes and interests — which doesn't mean that girls can't become scientists. It's an indictment of intellectual life that most of this research has been done by women as the topic is too "hot" for men. It's an indictment of feminism that when confronted with the evidence, prominent feminist Gloria Steinem responded by saying such research should be banned.

2. Secondly there's the experience of the kibbutzim [in Israel]. Despite indoctrination in socialist and feminist principles from birth, and despite the highest personal motivation, the kibbutzniks failed utterly to achieve a 50-50 society. The third generation reverted to the sexual division of labour along the lines found in most societies. There were few women in trades such as carpentry and plumbing, but they outnumbered men 9 to 1 in teaching. Even then, there were virtually no men in pre-schools, but 40% in high schools [13].

So was it a failure for the goal of sexual equality? No. It was a victory for common sense. Ideology gave way to reality: The kibbutzniks changed their ideas about what equality between the sexes means. They totally rejected the feminist idea that the sexes must be identical.

3. A third false assumption is that all women want be in full-time paid work. Because of feminist propaganda, most people are very surprised to learn that the participation rate of women in full-time work has hardly changed in thirty years. From 1966 to 1998, it rose by just 0.4% [14]. Most mothers still opt out of the full-time workforce during their peak child-bearing years. And it's not for lack of childcare either. Survey after survey shows that the majority of mothers and fathers still think that home care is best care, for babies in particular. It's not hard to see why. Australians standards specify one carer to every five children under two. That's not quality care in any man's language.

With AA being based on these false assumptions, the discrimination against men is unjustified, particularly when men are the main providers for their families. And who benefits from AA? Overwhelmingly young, tertiary-educated women. The 50-50 workplace won't happen without massive social engineering and massive discrimination against men. That this is unjust is immaterial. Yes, according to feminists, justice too is a tool of the patriarchy to oppress women.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3. The Law
Top

Speaking of justice, feminists have had enormous success in transforming society by transforming the law. According to them, the problem with the law is the male focus on universals, principles, rules, distinctions, and consistency. Their goal is "to rid the law of individual rights and transform it into a bundle of group rights." [15]

Canada and Australia are at the vanguard of feminist jurisprudence, and, just as in indigenous land rights, the two countries' activists feed off each other. For example, in 1990, Canadian Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson called for the transformation of the law along feminist principles, and for the re-education of her male colleagues in "summer schools on sexism." But Australian judges already attend such re-education courses.

Demonstrating a blatant bias against men, Wilson is on the record as saying that, "women are...less concerned than men with abstract notions of justice, less preoccupied with what is 'right' and 'wrong'." [16]. Imagine the furore if a male Supreme Court judge spouted such sexist rubbish. She has even castigated her fellow judges for relying too much on the evidence of a case instead of entering "into the skin of the litigant and making his or her experience part of your experience and only when you have done that, to judge." [17]

No wonder our countries are in decline: this feminist fruitcake is a Supreme Court judge! The law as we understand it, and the rights of individuals which have been so hard won over centuries of struggle, are being destroyed by feminism. Feelings and perceptions — but only of women — are becoming more important than facts and evidence. If a man is accused of rape, his belief that the woman consented is dismissed, because women never tell lies according to feminist ideology. Yet if a wife murders her sleeping husband, her belief that she was in danger of death is accepted as self defence.

The blindfold has well and truly been ripped from Justice. She is no longer impartial; she is a feminist with a mission to transform society.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.4. The military
Top

Australian women have played an honourable role in the nation's defence forces. Currently, under a Sex Discrimination Act exemption, the Australian Defense Force (ADF) is allowed to limit women in combat roles. Women mustn't be put in a position where they would be likely to engage in hand-to-hand combat. This is common sense, but feminists still demand full combat roles for women because the armed forces are just another arena in their relentless goal to transform society. Men and women are interchangeable and consequently every institution of society must reflect it. The US experience should warn us not to go down this road.

In October 1994, a female US Navy Lieutenant was killed on an approach-landing to an aircraft carrier. While the Navy publicly said it was engine failure, privately it acknowledged it was pilot error. The poor woman was allowed to continue training despite recording seven crashes in combat conditions during (simulated) training. Why? Because an admiral under political pressure announced he wanted women in combat roles. Quickly. A male pilot would have been disqualified well before his seventh crash [18].

Career officers who see difficulties arising from feminist demands are silenced through a high-ranking official Committee on Women's Issues, which has recommended that any disagreement with the "women in combat" policy disqualifies officers from positions of leadership. Excellent male officers' careers have been sacrificed for expressing, even privately, reservations about women in combat.

Some U.S. Army infantry divisions have a battalion-equivalent of pregnant soldiers. According to David Hackworth, one of the US's highest decorated retired soldiers. During Desert Shield, the non-deployment of women soldiers was much higher than men because of pregnancy. The different non-deployment rates for the sexes aroused no official concern, despite it being an obvious injustice to the men who can't shirk their duty by getting pregnant.

It's ludicrous, but there were thirty-eight pregnancies on the USS Eisenhower after the crew boarded. The Navy claimed there was no indication that any of the pregnancies resulted from sex aboard ship. Small comfort to the sailors' wives ashore, especially when one couple, both married to others, videotaped themselves having sex in a remote corner of the ship. There were also eighty pregnancies in the UN (US) peace-keeping forces in Bosnia. Hardly surprising, given there was mandatory integration of the sexes in sleeping quarters. The strong objections of servicemen's wives to women in combat roles are routinely dismissed in any discussion of the matter.

Consequently, the US Army's morale is at an all-time low. Training standards have dropped: at the once prestigious West Point, men don't have to run carrying heavy weapons anymore, because women can't do it. A recent congressional study found 40 percent of officers and 62 percent of enlisted personnel plan to leave military service when their time is up. More than 60 percent of those interviewed cited "work circumstances" as the final straw that broke their commitment to the military. Hackworth's own informal survey of more than 3,000 serving soldiers and sailors a week confirms that "work circumstances" is code for problems with women. He claimed a soldier now in Basic Training told him that "five females in my platoon were so weak they couldn't pull the charging handle back on an M-16 (rifle)." [19]

Only feminist ideologues could fail to see that the presence of women on a battlefield weakens combat readiness. But for feminists, national security comes second to ideological purity. The sexes must be identical, and it looks like Britain is set to jettison its military heritage and join the Americans in having women in combat.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.5. Education
Top

In education, the transformation starts with unsubtle brainwashing in pre-schools. Believe it or not, Australian pre-schools have banned Cinderella and Superman.

Yes, the National Childcare Accreditation Council's handbook states that "anything that emphasizes men and women in traditional masculine and feminine roles" is outlawed [20]. Along with Superman and Cinderella, favorite authors like Hans Christian Anderson and C.S. Lewis have also been given the boot. Staff are discouraged from telling little boys and girls that they look handsome or pretty respectively, and from providing "stereotyped" toys. When the council's General Manager was challenged about promoting views so contrary to community standards she defended the guidelines claiming that they were voluntary. Well yes, I suppose if a childcare centre is happy to risk its accreditation and hence funding, it can choose to flout the "recommendations." Soft totalitarianism indeed.

The propaganda continues through all levels of education. As mentioned previously, school textbooks have all been vetted for gender stereotypes in all subjects. In the US, high school history textbooks have been rewritten to give women an importance they simply didn't have in pre-contraceptive ages. In one popular science text, a 19 th century astronomer called Maria Mitchell who discovered a comet gets more space than Albert Einstein [21]. And we all know, the university is the feminist's natural habitat. Feminism wouldn't have survived outside academia. In too many of them, what were once academic disciplines — such as history and literature — have been transformed into courses which "deconstruct" history and literature for "evidence" of oppression of women and minorities.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.6. Religion
Top

Showing good reasons for their increasing irrelevance, many Christian churches have succumbed to feminist demands. Some, such as the Uniting Church have fallen into line and dispensed with traditional beliefs, even accepting homosexual ministers. The ones who have retained traditional beliefs — orthodox Catholics and the so-called fundamentalist Christians — are loathed by feminists, precisely because they are the last institutions in society to resist the idea that the sexes are interchangeable. As such they are under unrelenting pressure and hostility.

This is the reason the ordination of women is so bitterly fought. Reasonable people would think if women want to be ordained, the sensible thing to do would be to leave the traditional churches for more congenial spiritual pastures. That the dissenters don't do so clearly shows they have no respect either for their own churches or for the diversity they profess to cherish, and that their real intent is to transform the churches according to feminist ideology.

That's not speculation either, they brag about it. At a 1993 conference in Minneapolis, delegates from 27 countries, sponsored by mainstream Christian churches and groups, even orders of Catholic nuns, claimed they were "signalling the dawn of the Second Reformation in a way Luther or Calvin couldn't imagine." [22] Addressing the conference, a bishop said the churches must free themselves from "the grip of sexism, racism, and classicism." The faithful who financed the delegates might have been more appreciative had the bishop condemned sin and encouraged the practice of virtue.

At this Christian conference there was lots of drumming, scribble-writing, Hawaiian chants, Zulu songs, along with belly-dancing and the theology of darkness, the goddess, creation spirituality, midlife transitions, and dreamwork.

Only in America? Sadly not. At the Sophia centre for women's spirituality at the Dominican convent at Cabra in South Australia, the Sisters have recognized the injustices in the world arising from the oppression of women. So instead of rolling up their sleeves and nursing the sick and teaching the children of the poor, they're now committed to "work towards the transformation of the consciousness and structures in our society, especially within the Church's sphere of action" [23]

Their inaugural biennial conference in 1992 gives the flavour. In the keynote address, Sr. Elaine Wainwright spoke of the superiority of feminine traits; the destructive elements in the patriarchal system; the need to deconstruct, reinterpret, and reconstruct Scripture; the need to rid the world of androcentric bias and replace it with "the weaver woman goddess Wisdom in one of her many manifestations which included Isis, Lilith, Sophia and even Jesus/Christa." [24]

Also at the conference was a self-professed witch called Spider Redgold. She was facilitator for a workshop called: "The Mother of all religions: can Christianity acknowledge the goddess?" The Sophia centre claims to be Christian, but the word "Sophia" is no longer is the personification of wisdom, but a name of the goddess. The sisters' outreach programme is spreading the feminist word and has reached a Technical And Further Education (TAFE) course, community centres, a girls' college, school staffs, the University of Adelaide, and they've even linked with the Office of Women's Adviser to the Premier.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.7. Language
Top

George Orwell knew that those who control the language control the debate, and changing our language was one of the first and major successes of feminism. We let it happen because we thought it was too silly to be taken seriously, but they've had the last laugh. The average Australian who is outside of academia and the bureaucracies would be shocked at the level of linguistic intimidation in this country.

Chapter 8 of the Australian government's Style Manual is titled "Non-sexist Language." It uncritically accepts the feminist assertion that Standard English is sexist, even though as recently as thirty years ago feminists themselves used Standard English.

Nevertheless Femspeak is winning among the elites. They've managed to ban generic "man" along with any words with "man" as a prefix or suffix. There is a three page list of offensive man-words. I'm not joking.

You can't man the pumps, the desk, or the phones any more. The man in the street is now the average citizen. The faith of our fathers and the brotherhood of man get the chop. You can't master a language or a musical instrument any more. Cleaning ladies and housewives are out. The sentence, "A Brunswick mother of four has been appointed to the board" is deemed offensive because it mentions the M word. It says a lot about feminism that to mention the word "mother" is seen as offensive and demeaning to woman. Brave New World indeed.

Language does change over time, but so-called inclusive language is not an organic change to the English language, but rather an ideological assault relying on very shaky scholarship. It thrives only in academia, government bureaucracies, the Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC), and religious orders. That list says it all — there's your classic herd of independent minds!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finale
Top

To sum up, I'd like to read a quote from Kenneth Minogue who was professor of political science at the London School of Economics. He wrote: "An ideological movement is a collection of people many of whom could hardly bake a cake, fix a car, sustain a friendship or a marriage, or even do a quadratic equation, yet they believe they know how to rule the world." [25]

Too many people who call themselves feminists are uncritical, accepting the ideology because it — like all the others — provides a convenient crutch in life and does away with the need for personal responsibility. Interestingly, the more intelligent ones have tended to rethink their views as they've grown older. Unfortunately, feminists have already done much damage to individuals, to families and to the institutions of society. And as I showed at the beginning, they are the useful idiots who are undermining our national sovereignty.

Thank you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References
Top

1. www.vhemt.org

2. Quoted in Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, New York: Regan Books, 1997, p. 204.

3. Kathryn Balmforth, "The Optional Protocol to CEDAW: an Open Invitation to Radical Attacks on Sovereignty," Endeavour Forum Newsletter, no. 96, October 1999, p.2.

4. Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women, New York: Touchstone, 1995, chapter 4.

5. Dempsey, Inequalities in Marriage: Australia and Beyond, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1997, p.11

6. The Weekend Australian, 3-4/7/99.

7. Sun-Herald (Sydney), 30/5/99

8. members.tripod.com/~adviser1/medusa/ch07.html (URL no longer valid)

9. Hoff Sommers, p.211

10. Ibid, p.199

11. Karen Brownlee, "Men Can be Victims of Domestic Violence as Well," Regina Leader Post and Saskatoon Star Phoenix, 22 October 1999

12. The Australian HES, 8/6/97.

13. Robert Pool, The New Sexual Revolution, London: Stodder and Houghton, 1994, p. 267.

14. Betting Arndt, "Jobs For the Girls," Melbourne, The Age, 21/4/98.

15. Shirley Robin Letwin, "Law and the Unreasonable Woman," National Review, November 18, 1991, p. 35.

16. Ibid. 17. Ibid.

18. Bork, p. 219-220.

19. David H. Hackworth, Why the troops are hanging it up, November 16, 1999.

20. (Sydney) Sun-Herald, May 18, 1997.

21. Hoff Sommers, p.58

22. Kathy Kersten, "A New Heaven & a New Earth," First Things, March 1994, p.10.

23. Margaret E. Mills, Woman: Why Are You Weeping, North Melbourne: News Weekly, 1997, p.106

24. Ibid, p.108 25. Kenneth Minogue, "The Goddess That Failed", National Review, November 18, 1991, p. 46.

A Separate Crime of Feminist Bigotry - John Hribernick - MensNewsDaily.com�

A Separate Crime of Feminist Bigotry

March 11, 2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by John Hribernick

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yale Law School professor Ian Ayres and Chicago-Kent College of Law professor Katherine Baker want to send men to jail if they don't wear a condom. In a report they recently published they propose to make "reckless sexual conduct" a crime punishable by imprisonment. While some laws already exist to criminalize the intentional or reckless transmission of a disease to a sexual partner, several aspects of their proposal raise serious questions about its academic integrity. Most troubling is the discriminatory way in which only males would be targeted for punishment.

Ayres and Baker leave little doubt that only men would be prosecuted for reckless sex. They state that "...women would rarely, if ever, be prosecuted under such a statute." According to their report: "A defendant would be guilty of reckless sexual conduct if, in a first sexual encounter with another particular person, the defendant had sexual intercourse without using a condom." The punishment could be six months in prison.

Ayres and Baker are not simple misguided do-gooders. They are law professors and seasoned researchers who heavily cloak their argument in statistics, legal concepts and academic jargon. Yet having read their report and discovering what they are actually proposing, the influence of radical feminist ideology and its vicious anti-male bias become easily evident. At a time when there is debate about whether a remark by the president of Harvard (that some say show his gender insensitivity) should cost him his job, it's ironic that professors Ayres and Baker feel free to propose an extremely prejudicial law endangering the social liberties and constitutional rights of only the male gender.

The professors first claim their proposal will reduce or eliminate sexually transmitted disease (STD). No one would disagree that STD causes a great deal of suffering and its elimination is certainly a laudable goal. However, if unprotected sex is to be a crime, a rational approach is to punish consenting males and females equally. This report departs sharply from that fair and just approach. Under this proposal, females are absolved of virtually any legal responsibility to control disease. This fact alone suggests a deep-rooted gender bias that calls into question the credibility of their argument. Given their claim to be protecting the public from disease, and the seriousness of the consequences for men called for in this proposal, it seems this is not an oversight but rather pure and simple academic dishonesty.

Ayres and Baker then claim that their proposal can lead to a reduction in rape. They speculate on how or even whether that would occur but in their view it is a likely outcome. However, their entire argument is overshadowed by what constitutes consent. They appear to take the feminist view that consent can be present at the time of intercourse yet revoked by the female at any time, perhaps hours or days later. In this context the argument for condom use is irrelevant. In fact, the professors are careful to note that not wearing a condom is evidence of non-consent but that wearing a condom is alone not evidence of consent. Where does this leave men? This law leaves them at increased risk of false criminal allegations with fewer due process rights to prove their innocence.

This outcome is exactly what the professors claim is needed even though they have no proof it will reduce rape. They dismiss convictions of innocent men as an insignificant and acceptable problem and propose no corresponding punishment to discourage false allegations. Rape is already a crime punishable by far more serious consequences. It doesn't seem logical that lesser penalties would create greater deterrent.

The true intent of the professors' proposal does not appear to be the control of disease or directly reducing the number of rapes. Rather, it seems to be increasing the conviction rate for accused males. A primary rational given in their report for legalizing discriminatory gender-based prosecution is their claim that "unprotected first encounters are also correlated with coercion." According to an ABA eJournal article on the issue, as in their report, Ayres and Baker firmly link their proposed law to rape prosecutions

Their report states: "The crime of reckless sexual assault will also be a powerful prosecutorial tool for the thousands of acquaintance rape cases that are simply not winnable under current law. It represents a way to partially overcome the "he said/she said" dilemma. Reasonable doubts can remain whether an alleged acquaintance rapist raped, but there is often no question that he engaged in unprotected, first-encounter sex." According to the ABA eJournal article, Ayres says a crime of reckless sexual conduct would be a lot easier to prove than rape and criminalization is needed to reduce the "tragedy of sexual coercion."

The professors practically boast that this law is based on the Kobe Bryant case and that their law would provide a means to convict men of something even when there is no evidence of rape. Their report states: "Indeed, the 19 year-old's accusation *even if false * may have reduced the risk that [Bryant] would spread a disease contracted in Colorado." Here the professors go further than to ignore the sexual behavior of the 19 year-old girl who may be spreading STD to men through her casual sexual encounters. They imply it's permissible for her to commit a crime by making a false accusation. Is this the kind of law they teach at Yale or Chicago-Kent?

It's likely the professors notice that the female in their example also engaged in "first-encounter unprotected sex." However, there is no condemnation or criminalization of her sexual activity because, ideologically, the male is viewed as the problem.

The professors say that it's the male who should bear ultimate responsibility for wearing a condom and thus only the male who should be at risk of criminal prosecution and jail, even when the sex is consensual and he has no STD. They argue that lawful restrictions can be placed on behavior that causes no harm because drunk drivers can be arrested even when they cause no accident. Katherine Baker, appearing on the Glenn Sacks radio show "His Side" used this analogy to defend singling out the male for punishment.

The validity of this analogy would seem to be challenged by the fact that both males and females are arrested and prosecuted for driving drunk. However, let's indulge the professors. Imagine driving drunk is not illegal and two professors propose to make it illegal. Their research indicates that reckless drunken male drivers sometimes injure women. It also shows that when a male and female are in a car together and there is an accident involving alcohol the female tends to have more serious injuries than male. They therefore propose to make it a crime for men to drive drunk. Women are granted immunity from prosecution even if they injure a sober male passenger while recklessly driving drunk. The two professors say they were motivated to propose this unequal treatment because of the legal difficulties of convicting a basketball star accused of rape.

For all its shortcomings, this comparison clearly shows such a proposal would be a sophomoric way to approach the social problem of drunk driving. Its one-sided punishments and its lack of equal concern for the social and physical well-being of both men and women indicate it is driven by something other than academics, science or law.

It therefore seems that the ideological problem for Ayres and Baker is that consensual unprotected sex may involve no male predation and no female victimization whatsoever. To resolve that dilemma they employ a fairly unsophisticated trick. They simply define males as the problem and shift the entire legal burden to men. This, in their view, eliminates the need for any gender-equal criminalization no matter how many diseases or sexual partners the female has and no matter her culpability in enticing the male into unprotected sex or making false allegations after the fact.

They mount a potent but doomed ideological campaign to rationalize their proposal's one-sided punishment of males. They relentlessly expound the culpability of males and continually portray females as victims. The result is an intellectual smokescreen behind which appropriate constraints on the prosecutorial power of the state are eliminated and due process rights of accused men are shredded.

The science they use to get you to accept the ideological view of men as disease spreading sexual predators and potential rapists that need to be regulated and punished can be summarized as follows: 1) The more sexual partners you have the more likely you are to be infected with STD, and 2) rapists don't usually wear condoms. That sounds more like common knowledge than a scientific revelation. Ayres and Baker claim that by "minimally regulating a small subset" of sexually active people (those who sleep around a lot) STD and rape should decline. Since they view females only as victims they require action and punishment only of males. The "small subset" that they propose be regulated includes virtually every male but not one female.

The professors sneak their ideological finger onto the scales of justice in another disturbing way. According to the report: "Consent to unprotected intercourse would be an affirmative defense, to be established by the defendant with a preponderance of evidence." This means that the male is always guilty unless he can prove his innocence. Without witnesses, it would difficult to prove you wore a condom. In fact, condoms do not always prevent pregnancy. The professors' anemic case for turning the constitution on its head in this instance fails as rational scholarship. It's a dangerous step toward the police state marching right into your bedroom and your religion and, as proposed, it's atrocious public policy.

In shifting the legal burden to men, Ayres and Baker propose to have all men regulated as potential rapists and potential public health threats. Their law attaches this legal stigma to men in each of their initial sexual encounters. This very idea fails so many principles of American justice that it should stand as a testament to the ideological corruption that pervades this kind of academic research. Political or ideological propaganda, even when espoused by so-called academics, is rarely the best information on which to base criminal prosecution and broader public policy. These professors' efforts would be better spent increasing unbiased education about STD and rape rather than on demonizing men and building fallacious arguments for anti-male gender discrimination under the guise of sound public policy.

John Hribernick


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Hribernick is a freelance writer from Edmonds, WA

what women genius?

The Larry Summers Show Trial
By Steve Sailer

[Note to culturally-deprived immigrant Editor: The title references a classic HBO comedy called "The Larry Sanders Show."—Steve.]

[Peter Brimelow replies: Oh.]

Nothing exemplifies the corruption and decay of American intellectual culture more grotesquely than The Larry Summers Show Trial.

At a private academic conference, the Harvard president dared to suggest that discrimination might not be the only explanation why men outnumber women as professors of math, science, and engineering at elite universities.

The horror! No matter how many times Summers apologizes for telling this truth, and no matter how much in other people's money and other men's opportunities he offers up as reparations for his "gaffe," it just hasn't been enough.

When the former Clinton Administration Treasury Secretary finally released the transcript of his off-the-record talk, it turned out to be a humble but devastating demolition of the reigning cant about the need for more diversity in hiring.

And that only exacerbated the frenzy. Precisely because Summers's talk was a model of how the intellectual leadership of America ought to be thinking about important issues, he has been endlessly excoriated.

For example, the front page of Friday's Wall Street Journal featured a typical article, Harvard Clash Pits Entrenched Faculty Vs. Brusque Leader, by Robert Tomsho and John Hechinger, reporting that Summers said:

"'It does appear that on many, many different human attributes -- height, weight...overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability -- there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means' or average levels of ability 'there is a difference in the standard deviation and variability of a male and a female population…'”

Thus, for example, it’s a well established fact that, while male and female IQs are about the same on average, there are far more male morons…and geniuses. [VDARE.COM: See here for Ilana Mercer’s discussion of Richard Lynn's alternate theory that men enjoy a 5-point advantage in average IQ.]

The WSJ reporters went on, in the grand tradition of Claude Rains' Captain Renault in Casablanca, to act shocked, SHOCKED by other statements of fact made by the Harvard president:

"Mr. Summers also told participants at the conference that women weren't the only group underrepresented in an important activity. ’To take a set of diverse examples,' he said, 'the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and agriculture.'

"According to the transcript, Mr. Summers cited no sources for these assertions …"

No sources? In other words: when it comes to whether or not white men are statistically underrepresented in the NBA, who (to paraphrase Richard Pryor) are you going to believe: the President of Harvard and your own lying eyes—or the Axiom of Equality that says that the world would be infinitely homogenous if not for discrimination by the White Male Power Structure?

And since the WMPS would want to hog the money and fame that goes with playing in the NBA, then it must obviously be an unsubstantiated "stereotype" that most players are black!

Give me a break.

One of Summers's earlier gaffes has been repeatedly brought up again over the last month. The WSJ reporters write:

"Many at Harvard are still bitter that Mr. Summers singled out one of the department's stars, Cornel West, three years ago for a highly unusual presidential scolding of a tenured professor. Among Mr. Summers's issues, according to Prof. West's associates: making a hip-hop record and allegedly missing classes to help with a political campaign. At the time, a person close to Mr. Summers said he was only trying to encourage Prof. West to concentrate on scholarship and teaching. The incident inspired widespread publicity, and Prof. West ultimately left for Princeton University."

But Summers' racial "insensitivity" spared Harvard the embarrassment engendered by Professor West's next feat of scholarship: playing the role of a "Councillor of Zion" in those two unbelievably awful sequels, The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions.

In "The Education of Larry Summers" in the Feb. 28th edition of The American Conservative (now available on newsstands, but not online), I explore the brouhaha in depth.

One topic in my essay that deserves more consideration is: Where are all the female geniuses that the feminist revolution was supposed to unleash upon the world?

Virginia Woolf claimed long ago that often a female genius—"some mute and inglorious Jane Austen" -- had been silenced by male oppression.

Yet after decades of strenuously celebrating women's achievements, such as they are, we don't seem to have gotten many new Jane Austens, for our troubles—or even many new Virginia Woolfs.

We're about 35 years into the age of feminism, but how many new geniuses do we have to show for it?

In contrast, by the time 35 years had passed after Jackie Robinson had integrated baseball in 1947, the game had benefited from Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Bob Gibson, Roberto Clemente, Maury Wills, Reggie Jackson, and countless other black stars.

Lets look at some hard numbers for the hard sciences. The first human being to win two Nobel Prizes was a woman: Madame Curie (Physics laureate in 1903 and a Chemistry laureate in 1911). Through 1964, women had won five times in Physics or Chemistry.

Since then, out of the 160 laureates in those two fields, women have numbered … zero.

Women have done better in Medicine/Physiology, but, overall, women made up 2.5 percent of the laureates in the three hard science Nobels up through 1964 … and 2.3 percent ever since. (No woman has ever won a Fields Prize, the Nobel equivalent for mathematicians.)

In Economic Sciences (I'll remain silent on whether that term is an oxymoron), women have accounted for none of the 44 Nobel Laureates since that Prize was instituted in 1969.

Possibly the most prominent American female economist today is Deirdre McCloskey—who, perhaps not coincidentally, used to be the prominent American male economist Donald McCloskey.

When I look at fields I'm more qualified to judge, it's evident that women are not currently storming the heights of genius in the numbers Woolf expected.

As a reviewer of nonfiction books, I would probably pick Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae as the single most brilliant work by anyone, male or female, over the last 15 years. After that, though, the pickings get slim.

As a film critic, I’ve noted that while the number of female Hollywood executives has soared, the number of top women screenwriters has declined since the 1960s, the number of consistently strong female directors is very small (women have earned only three of the last 84 Academy Award nominations for Best Director), and the number of outstanding woman cinematographers is nonexistent (no woman has ever been nominated for an Oscar in cinematography).

Since the death of Pauline Kael, there haven't even been many leading women film critics.

Or consider a brand new field, one too young for an Old Boys Network to control: blogging.

The top woman in the business is almost certainly VDARE's own Michelle Malkin, with perhaps Wonkette a contender. But, nobody would dispute that blogging is a field heavily dominated by men.

Of course, noting the recent lack of female geniuses may be unfair to women, since we don't appear to be living in an age of male geniuses either.

The most rigorous attempt to measure the number of great discoverers and creators over time is Charles Murray's 2003 book, Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. It uses the citations of individuals in leading reference books in order to rank their importance.

Around 1400, Western Europe became a perpetual motion machine for the creation of geniuses. But Murray's statistics show, on a per capita basis, a falling off of individual accomplishment beginning in the second half of the 19th Century and continuing up through 1950 (when Murray stopped in order to prevent ephemeral recent fads from warping the data).

Murray's subjective view is that human accomplishment has dropped even more sharply in the last half century, and I have to agree.

I asked my blog's readers to nominate works of art from the post-1950 era that would likely meet Murray's challenge of still being appreciated 200 years from now. Strikingly, a large fraction of the nominees turned out to be from the 1940s.

For example, the first play I thought of as likely to win a place in the permanent repertory was Eugene O'Neil's Long Day's Journey into Night, which debuted on Broadway in 1956. Yet it turned out to have been written 15 years earlier.

Of the nominated works that were actually created in the second half of the century, by far the most came from the 1950s, with the 1960s in second place.

So, it could be that the current feminist era is just unlucky to have happened during an overall slack period.

But, it's also likely that feminism—with its emphasis on self-pity, resentment of greatness, hatred of logic, insistence upon social validation of personal feelings, and demand for lying and browbeating the honest into silence—has contributed to the general decline in quality.

Modern feminism and modern decadence are results of the same general trend. Feminism emerged at the end of the 1960s precisely because the cultural leaders of the era had rebelled against the traditions that had made Western Civilization such an incubator of geniuses for over 500 years— above all, the preference for truth over ideology.

Larry Summers is merely the latest, and perhaps the least, victim.

Why We Must Demand the �Male Pill� - David R. Usher - MensNewsDaily.com�

Why We Must Demand the “Male Pill”

February 20, 2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by David R. Usher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Men who are sick and tired of having no sexual or gender power in marriage and society have something very important to do: demand legalization and widespread distribution of the male birth control pill immediately.

Feminists were brutally wise urging birth control for women. They cried for a way to prevent coat-hanger abortions and to free women from the burden of unintended motherhood. But the actual political goal, as discussed in feminist books, was to grant women penultimate control over reproduction, and subsequently, family under the guise of “choice”. At the other end of the spectrum, this line of thinking also created Rowe v. Wade, which additionally gave women sole control over everything between conception and birth, insinuating addition sole pre-emptive rights even after birth. The women’s sexual liberation movement was more about creating a matriarchy than anything else. Social data proves this is a reality today.

Having sole control over conception and termination of conception is an awesome amount of power, particularly when one realizes what this has done to family law. Because feminists essentially have total control over all aspects of reproduction, feminist legal principles extending from Rowe v. Wade came to dominate family law, impressing these values on culture from the trial court bench. As it stands, virtually everything within 1000 yards of a woman’s reproductive tract is legally seen as an extension of her body, and therefore, her choice.

Over the years, I have worked with thousands of men who, in my opinion, were raped. “Rape” is the act of forcing one’s reproductive capacity on another person. But law only recognizes this act when a man does it via physical force and violence.

Women force their reproductive capacity on men not by using overwhelming physical force, but by deception and seduction. It is an act of social violence, not physical violence. When combined with the action of welfare laws, it becomes the act of stealing a man’s natural right to be a father and husband. It also becomes slavery, where a man who is denied the right to be a father and husband, must then labor for the benefit of the mother, for which he receives absolutely nothing in return.

Many men end up in paternity suits because his girlfriend said she was using an (invisible) form of contraception; when in fact she was not. Men have no way to verify this. The rape is the misrepresentation of fact surrounding the most powerful aspect of life itself: reproduction and the social structure under which the mother intends it to take place.

A few years ago, I had an extended discussion with Cathy Young about this problem. Despite Cathy’s wisdom in many areas, she simply couldn’t agree with me. “Reproductive fraud” is about as far as she could see. The point here is that we can no longer diminish what women do to men when they force their reproductive capacity on men.

How often do women rape men? I have not seen any studies on this issue. But we can measure the problem another way, perhaps more factually, by looking at illegitimacy statistics. If women were being responsible with birth control, we would expect that illegitimacy would decrease with the introduction of modern birth control methods. It has not. Despite having the best contraceptive methods in the history of civilization, the number of children born out of wedlock in 1995 is thirteen times higher than it was in 1960 (Rosenberg, Harry M. et al. Births and Deaths in the United States, 1995: Monthly Vital Statistics Report). Illegitimacy rates remain unchanged since 1995 [childstats.gov - America's Children in Brief, 2004 ].

So we have it. Despite having the most effective birth control methods available in the history of womankind, women have taken reproductive advantage of men in astonishing numbers. The really sick part is that society blames this all on men, who have very little control over contraception at all.

Men are not stupid. We all know about this problem. Some men resolve the issue by having themselves neutered. Others avoid the problem by finding their gay side, and subsequently join forces with radical feminists who now want to give women the right to marry each other so they don’t need men at all. Some men never go beyond chat room relationships.

But most men eventually end up being raped. It does not have to be this way.

When the “male pill” becomes widely available, I predict we will see profound changes in culture, social data, and legal decisions surrounding the “gender power equation”. Very few men want to end up being served up on the platter of radical feminism. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of men will be highly responsible with birth control, where women have failed so miserably.

Men must live life in the answer. We, too, should have equal control over our bodies and reproduction. The technology is here. All we have to do is organize ourselves and demand it. We no longer have to suffer the triple indignities being raped, having to pay the rapist, and being blamed by government, David Blankenhorn, and even Promise Keepers for it all.

It time for the “responsible half” of the sexual revolution organizes itself, so that men can have equal reproductive and legal rights in society, family, and home. We are being held responsible for the problem, so we might as well put ourselves in a position where we can be responsible for our destiny

Men finally need the right to decide who they are going to get pregnant with. When we can, we will be well on the way towards ending Rowe v. Wade and the plethora of feminist family law principles that fall out of that decision.

The male pill will bring about a tremendous realignment of gender power in relationships. When women can no longer garner the economic benefits of marriage by taking advantage of men sexually and socially, women will again see marriage as a worthy institution. Women will no longer be society’s “free agents”. The power-sharing institution known as marriage will become the norm.

Over time, we will see a realignment of legal principles towards responsibility-based marriage in which men are treated much more fairly. Why will this take place? When illegitimacy ends, the feminist-political-media complex will not be able to use men as the scapegoats of the world. Men will commonly be treated with more respect, and men will be in a clear position to demand it.

Is this a conservative approach? You triple-ditto bet it is. Abstinence is certainly a worthy goal in high school (when kids have plenty to learn and parental controls are in place), but you can’t expect that of men forever. I will bet a date with Hillary Clinton that Rush Limbaugh wasn’t a virgin at age 25. The abstinence programs and welfare reforms in effect for the past decade have not reduced the overall illegitimacy rate one bit. The greater illegitimacy problem is clearly not one of abstinence – it revolves around the fact that men have little control over when they get pregnant. Empowering men to end the illegitimacy problem is precisely what is needed.

Ending the need for the welfare state is the biggest problem government and all political parties have wrestled with for over thirty years. The male pill will largely abate this problem. When men have equal reproductive gender power, many of the welfare-state problems will simply go away. All Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians finally have a powerful tool to take care of the very problem that obviously can’t be prevented by the traditional reactionary vehicles of education, child support enforcement, incarceration of men, and ratcheting feminist socialism.

Those who want to end abortion have a powerful way to end political support for Rowe v. Wade. Most men desperately do not want the problems that go with out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Men learn at a very early age they don’t get anything out of an out-of-wedlock birth except discrimination, a huge child support order, and the condemnation of society. In fact, we can predict that men will be far more responsible about using birth control than women are because they are the only ones who have a strong incentive to use it. Abortion will become a relic of the past when women rarely get pregnant out of wedlock.

Cultural restoration of marriage depends decisively on the male pill. Men hate the welfare state. They remain unwilling victims of its predatory practices to this very day. The divorce revolution succeeded only because it rode the coattails of the welfare state, which created the notion that we should entitle women for having children out of wedlock. When this entitlement diminishes, reforming the divorce revolution will become a separate and politically approachable problem. When men finally have equal reproductive power, the cultural institution of marriage will become the most popular option – because it is the only institution in which men have equal rights in family, home, and society.

If conservatism is about fungible equality for all Americans – the ownership society, marriage, and ending welfarism; then conservatives must actively call for the male pill. It is the magic bullet with which all egalitarian-minded political parties, organizations, and individuals can end the misery and burden inflicted on every taxpayer, mother, father, and child touched by the problem of family breakdown.

David R. Usher

Hostile School Environment Created by Lesbian Teachers - Jim Kouri - MensNewsDaily.com�

Hostile School Environment Created by Lesbian Teachers
Pacific Justice Institute Battles ACLU, Homosexual Groups

February 14, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Jim Kouri, CPP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American public school teachers continue to fail in educating children while students continue to suffer from violence and crime. Yet, some school administrators find it more
important to preach about sexuality to kids and to push a gay agenda with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Public high school teachers in Santa Cruz County have recently begun hanging pro-homosexual posters in their classrooms. Lesbian teachers also have begun openly discussing their homosexuality in the classroom and providing referrals to third party gay, lesbian, and bisexual organizations to students questioning their own sexuality or who “feel queer,” as one poster states.

Numerous parents have complained to school officials because the students are clearly a captive audience. Parents also assert that the instructors stand in a position of authority but are teaching values that are inconsistent with what is taught in the home.

While teachers engage in this conduct under the guise of promoting tolerance, the teachers will not allow posters celebrating traditional families. Further, a student who is not interested in joining a diversity club is subjected to obscene gestures and other forms of harassment by aggressive gay and lesbian students.

“What is occurring at this school is that militant teachers and pupils are creating a hostile environment for students who hold faith-based or traditional values which view homosexuality as immoral,” said Brad Dacus, President of the Pacific Justice Institute. “The radical homosexual teachers’ idea of diversity education is that they will have a monopoly on the debate to the exclusion of everyone else.”

Parents who have requested that the pro-homosexual posters be taken out of the classrooms and pinned instead on public bulletin boards, where students can either read or ignore them, or placed with posters showing competing view points, have thus far been ignored by the school administration.

Homosexual organizations and the ACLU are reportedly claiming that this type of tolerance and diversity education is necessary to comply with anti-harassment laws. “That’s misleading. The truth is that those laws are not written exclusively for homosexuals. They apply equally to Southern Baptists, Mexicans, the physically disabled and everyone else,” said Kevin Snider, attorney for Pacific Justice Institute.

“Bullying and harassment is never appropriate in school. But it was never the intent of lawmakers to have public school teachers use anti-harassment laws as a soapbox for state sponsored endorsement of homosexuality.”

Jim Kouri

In Search Of Men Who Want To Marry Mommy - Fred Reed - MensNewsDaily.com�

In Search Of Men Who Want To Marry Mommy

February 14, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Fred Reed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is becoming a constant, like gravity: Maureen Dowd opens her mouth, and I get email from guys saying, “Fred! Geez, man, how much do apartments go for in Guadalajara?”

Maureen is the resentment columnist for the New York Times. She serves as newsprint megaphone for the angry, selfish, wretchedly unhappy career woman who can’t understand why she is living alone in an apartment with two cats. (I understand the alone part. I question the judgement of the cats.)

Maybe I can explain.

In a recent column, headed "Men Just Want Mommy," Maureen tells us, “A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: ‘I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women.’"

The bastards.

Here we have the eternal cry (at least it’s beginning to feel eternal) of the unhappy feminist: “The whole world can’t stand me. What’s wrong with the whole world?” If men don’t want to marry a self-absorbed menopausing ocelot, there is something wrong with men. I listen to this stuff and I want to marry someone’s personal assistant, just to be sure I don’t get drunk and marry a very beautiful actress.

But more of Maureen and the personal assistants. She continues observantly, “I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.” Men want to marry Mommy, she implies, with forty-weight passive-aggressiveness you could lube a diesel with.

Actually, what men very much do not want is to marry Mommy. The problem for Maureen is that she is Mommy: censorious, moralizing, self-pitying, endlessly instructive, and so achingly tedious that men find themselves thinking of moldy bath sponges. I have never seen her and don’t know how old she is. She may be twenty-three, radiantly gorgeous, and have seven husbands. She writes as if she were fifty, a tad overweight and, having grossly overestimated her value in the meat market, missed the train. (I have a federal license to mix metaphors like that.) Since nothing can be her fault, that leaves men.

Now, why might a man want to date his secretary instead of some virile pit-viperess of a lawyer, forever coiled to strike? To start with, twenty-five is more appealing than fifty. Sorry, but there it is. Second, secretaries usually lack the misandry, vanity, and abrasiveness of the viperess. (Think Alan Dershowitz in drag, but hostile.) Which leads to, Third, the secretary is likely to be lots more fun. You don’t have to spend time comparing penises with her. She won’t always be looking for discrimination, like a chicken clucking after bugs in a barnyard. You won’t get the throwaway snotty remarks about men.

I can’t imagine doing a fast double-step jitterbug in a dirt bar in Austin with a warlike partner from Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe—you know, Little Richard shrieking Long Tall Sally, skirts flying in the twirls. A secretary is likely to think it is a hell of a good idea.

Maureen pretty much answers the question of why these creatures stay single. In another column she says, “When I asked a 28-year-old friend how he and his lawyer-girlfriend were going to divide the costs on a California vacation, he looked askance. ‘She never offers,’ he replied. ‘And I like paying for her.’”

Maureen knows lots of these. “Carrie, a publicist in her late 20's from Long Island, is not unwilling to dig into her Kate Spade bag. ‘He can get the jewelry, the dinners, the shoes and the vacations,’ she says. ‘I'll get the cab.’"

Who would marry that? Carrie is a parasite, like a screw-fly larva. You could find better leaning against a lamppost. Honest prostitution is preferable to dissimulated. (Incidentally, Stanford did a genetic study in which they found that a New York career woman shares ninety-five percent of her genes with the common tape worm. The remaining five percent, speculated the scientists, explains why tapeworms, though parasitic, are not uncivil.)

Maureen’s women are forever nattering about sexual equality. Maureen, speaking of some movie: “Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection.” Actually art isn’t doing anything. A woman who wants a man to pay her bills is already a selfish narcissist.

I find myself wondering what parallel universe Maureen inhabits, and how she found the door. In fairness to at least some career women, maybe most of them, I dated mostly such for a decade or two in Washington, and expected them as a matter of course to split the bill. They did. It didn't seem to bother them. And—surprise—I thought of them as equals. They acted that way.

So little of what Maureen says tracks with the world I know. She thinks men don’t like smart women. I know a lot of bright guys, and they all look for bright women. They just want agreeable bright women.

Further—am I alone in this?—I don’t think of women I date in terms of superiority and inferiority. Sally is my date, not my competitor. Does it run through Maureen’s tiny little mind that I walk along with a secretary thinking, “Hah! Mere secretary. My inferior. Hah!”? Actually I think, “How’d I get so lucky? Hope she doesn’t think of that.”

This erosion of pecking order by mating explains why the military doesn’t want officers to date enlisted women: A cute corporal is on equal terms with an admiral by virtue of seeing him. Hierarchy doesn’t survive romance. But, as Maureen’s status-obsessed women discover, neither does romance survive a relentless concern with hierarchy.

Thing is, the times have changed. The age-old bargain was that women exchanged sex for whatever they wanted, and men exchanged whatever they had for sex. Part of the deal was that the woman would be reasonably agreeable. A career woman today, being independent, no longer has to be agreeable, and frequently isn’t. On the other hand, a man doesn’t have to commit himself to anything to get sex. So the man dates his secretary, and the career woman sits in her apartment with the cats.

I’m going to move to Mexico. (Though come to think of it, I already have.)

Fred Reed

Domestic Violence: How Non-Facts Become Facts - Richard L. Davis - MensNewsDaily.com�

Domestic Violence: How Non-Facts Become Facts

February 12, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Richard L. Davis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am as frustrated with society as a pyromaniac in a petrified forest. - A. Whitney Brown

Not long ago a prominent journal decided not to accept a manuscript of mine. Their reasoning was that I did not provide enough “empirical support” for my claims. While I agree the article may not have been “professional” enough for their journal, I am not sure about the lack of “empirical support.” The “fact” is that all citations do not provide “empirical support.”

The following appears twice on the first page of an article presented in the December 16, 1999 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (JAMA): “Domestic violence is the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in the United States.” The article is about injuries to women, and excludes injuries to men.

This domestic violence injury non-fact has been written many times and so often presented as fact by the electronic and print media, it has actually become accepted as a fact by the general public and many professionals, researchers and domestic violence advocates.

This domestic violence injury non-fact is presented as fact by one of the more prestigious medical journals in the world. It is co-authored by 9 medical doctors and two staff members. Once JAMA reports that domestic violence is the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in the United States, the JAMA article itself will be used to cite that non-fact as fact.

If you read the article or visit the abstract on the JAMA website you will see that this article has been cited by 14 other articles. Now researchers can provide 15 instances of “empirical support” to document this non-fact as fact. This non-fact to fact to “empirical support” process is not very complicated.

The JAMA article has three citations for its “most common injury” claim. The first citation was: “Family and other intimate assaults – Atlanta, 1984. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1990;39:525-9.” Results are here.

What is a fact is that the above study provides little to no data to support the JAMA researchers claim. It is a very small study and the majority of the participants are African American women living in an urban setting. The report contains only a total of 150 reported non-fatal incidents. That information is gleaned from police reports and presents no comparison with other non-fatal injury reports.

The only information in the MMWR study that might be seen as supporting the researchers claim is a paragraph that notes another study that claims domestic violence is responsible for more injuries than motor vehicle accidents, rape, and mugging combined. However, the MMWR study includes a warning about that study that the researchers chose to ignore.

In fact, the MMWR study warns that this other small study is also takes place in an inner city emergency room where the population is almost exclusively African America women living at the lower end of the socioeconomic strata. These women from an inner city minority community do not accurately represent a cross section of America women. In fact the rate for injuries in the MMWR study notes that African America women were injured three times more than white women.

The second citation in the JAMA article is: “Grisso JA, Wishner AR, Schwarz DF, Weene BA, Holmes JH, Sutton RI., A population-based study of injuries in inner-city women. Am J Epidemiol 1991:134:59-68.” An abstract of the results from that study can be found online.

These JAMA article researchers appear to ignore the fact that the study above they cite actually demonstrates that the major cause of injury to women were falls not domestic violence. Further, it reports “that very little is know about nonfatal injuries to women.” It concludes that, “More work is needed to understand the nature of injuries occurring to young women in urban communities.

This study also does not provide a cross section of American women. The majority of the participants are from a poor, urban, African American community. How can these JAMA article researchers conclude that the information in either of these first two studies is empirical scientific data that provides “support” for their domestic violence injury claim?

The third citation the JAMA article cites is: “Stark E, Flitcraft A. Spouse abuse. In: Surgeon General’s workshop on violence and public health: source book, 1985: Centers for Disease Control, 1986:AS1-SA43.” What is a fact is that this fact was never presented as “fact” by the Attorney General.

In fact the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is on record that they will not recognize this “fact” as being presented by them or the Attorney General as a “fact” at the conference The JAMA article researchers either ignore or are unaware of the CDC disclaimer.

What is more surprising than the non-fact citations presented in the JAMA article, is the fact that these 9 doctors and two staff members failed to notice that two out of their three citations lead them to the CDC.

All that researchers and others who are concerned about this claim have to do is to visit the CDC website to find out that they claim that domestic violence is the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in the United States is without “empirical support”.

The CDC website documents unequivocally that domestic violence is not the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in the United States. There is not a single scientific study anywhere in the United States, or in fact elsewhere, that documents this claim to be true.

This article establishes another less than “reputable citation” for gender feminists [gender feminists are people who believe women’s rights are more important than victim or civil rights] and others who want to continue with this hoax. The truth is that these researchers for this JAMA article, did not present a single citation that can actually document their domestic violence injury claim has “empirical support.”

How is it possible that these researchers and a prestigious medical journal remain so unconcerned or uninformed about the truth? Is it possible that the gender feminist ideology has become more important to some domestic violence researchers than the truth?

Richard L. Davis

Metroactive Features | Feminism

Victims Gone Wild

How Feminism Has Messed Up Relationships

By Amy Alkon

"IN SEDUCTION, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine," proclaimed radical feminist Andrea Dworkin in 1976. If you're a woman born 20 years ago, you probably don't even recognize Dworkin's name. Yet, there's a good chance you've had some seriously frustrating dates with her unwitting progeny: the guy who waits until date three or four—not to grab you, throw you up against the wall and suck face—but to politely inquire, "May I kiss you?"

Equal pay for equal work? It's a beautiful thing. Equal opportunity? Thrilled to have it. We women owe an enormous debt to Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and all who followed in their footsteps, fighting the righteous fight against sex-based discrimination.

Unfortunately, in the late '70s and early '80s, feminism got hijacked by a small but vocal gang of Victims Gone Wild. Leading the band with Dworkin was anti-porn harpy and law professor Catherine MacKinnon (most of whose outrageous, but now commonly accepted, claims about the damage done to women by pornography were neatly debunked in a 2004 analysis by psych professor Catherine Salmon).

Dworkin, MacKinnon and their hairy-armpitted underbosses gave the order to the "victimized"—women, largely privileged and white, on campuses across America—to crawl out from under the boot of "male oppression." In reality, what they were fighting wasn't male oppression, but maleness of any kind—based on the erroneous feminist notion that equality means sameness.

In their eyes, male sexuality isn't just different. It's WRONG. Penetration is a form of rape, don'tcha know? Ultimately, these femi-fascists sought to re-create men in their own image and to reshape sexual expression into something kinder, gentler and more "egalitarian." (Personally, I have no idea what more "egalitarian" sex is—and I hope I never find out.)

According to their Stalinist-feminist party line, every man is a criminal—a rapist until proven otherwise. In 1992, a small mob of "wymyn" bullied Antioch College into passing the "Antioch Rules," a written code mandating that one obtain "clear verbal consent" from one's partner in any sexual act. At Antioch, from then on, raging desire was expected to play out as if accompanied by the small print on an airline ticket: "Pardon me, but would you mind giving me your unqualified verbal permission to tongue your left nipple?"

Men, as a group, were expected to feel ashamed—although the individual man was generally unclear as to what, he, personally, had done wrong, just by virtue of being born with a penis. Relations between men and women got very confusing. Opening the door for a girl didn't mean you were polite; it meant you found her inferior.

Whatever you do, don't compliment that female co-worker on her hair—a compliment is no longer just a compliment but a full-on patriarchal assault, surely intended to send a woman running, screaming, out of a "hostile workplace." It got to the point, in many quarters, where just about anything a guy could say or do, short of silently rolling over like a stuffed pink bunny, was seen as a capital offense upon the Sisterhood.

Perhaps some of this sounds like old news. It is—and it isn't. While the radical feminists have receded into the background, their agenda is still trickling down into sex, dating and relationships. Just look around at young women and what they wear. Sure, there is that subset of preteen streetwalker chic. But, there are also a lot of lonely women in their 30s and 40s who dress like men trying to attract work picking lettuce. Refusing to pander to "the male gaze" is what it used to be called.

These women can't, for the life of them, figure out why they're unable to get a date. After all, men "shouldn't" care about what's on the outside, right? They "should" only lust after that beautiful person within ... right? Yes, perhaps they "should." But they don't, and they won't, and the sooner women admit that, the sooner they'll have a date with more than their cat on Saturday nights. Of course, this does assume that women will be asked out. That's another big problem, judging by all the requests for advice I get from guys who wonder why no women will ever agree to go out with them, then note somewhere in their message that they're too terrified to even ask.

You really can't blame the guys. They're looking for a sign, any sign, that it's safe; that they won't be rejected. They aren't getting many (or any), because women who go out of their way to look like migrant laborers generally aren't in the habit of flirting—the method women have successfully used for centuries to send a message to men that the coast was clear for the asking.

Some misguided women today do try to take over and sweep a man off his feet. While there are those stories of deliriously happy couples in which the man was hunted down like prey, a whole lot of young women have learned the lesson the hard way that the dynamic created by this act of "equality" doesn't work.

Men and women are actually very different; biologically different. No, they didn't magically become the same just because a bunch of man-loathers in the women's studies ghetto decided to grow out their mustaches.

The burgeoning field of evolutionary psychology is proving that there's nothing new in psychology. In fact, an ever-increasing mountain of data shows that what men want and what women want has always been, and will likely continue to be, the same as it was back in cave days.

Acknowledging how we're hard-wired, and using it in our best interest doesn't "put a woman down." In fact, it takes a strong, self-assured, post-victim-feminist woman to ease up a little. Acting the girl (or putting on the alpha male) is a role—one that's worked for 10 million years. As a role, it involves play and fun—a big part of what's been lost on the dating scene.

It's time all women junked the big ugly boots, shelved the perpetually dour faces and worked up a seductive smile or two. Maybe, once they do, they'll inspire a guy to glue a little hair on his chest and ask them for a date. In time, the guy might even work up the guts to kiss them afterward—and without asking them to sign a permission slip first.

©2005, Amy Alkon, all rights reserved.

The Australian: Males slow to realise 'men are quick thinkers' claim could offend [February 07, 2005]

Males slow to realise 'men are quick thinkers' claim could offend
Roger Dobson and Will Iredale, London
07feb05

BOYS may be outperformed by girls at school but there is a glimmer of hope for them. Researchers claim to have found scientific proof that men can think faster than women.

Their study found that men's brain cells could transmit nerve impulses faster than women's – potentially giving males the intellectual edge.
The claim will add fuel to the debate recently triggered by Larry Summers, the president of Harvard University, who challenged the prevailing wisdom when he suggested women were innately less able than men in subjects such as maths and science.

The new study is likely to prompt similar anger. This weekend, the intellectual credentials of the researchers – all male – were themselves already being challenged by other eminent neurologists. In the study, scientists measured nerve conduction velocity, the speed at which messages passed through and between brain cells.

Other studies have suggested the speed of such impulses is linked to intelligence, drawing parallels with computers, where faster processors result in more power to carry out tasks quickly.

The latest paper, to be published shortly in the academic journal Intelligence, will say: "Males had four faster NCVs than females. This very significant sex difference in all test conditions in favour of males was most unexpected."

Under the research, scientists carried out investigations on 186 male and 201 female Canadian students, who were subjected to a battery of cognitive tests to assess their intelligence and other mental skills.

Researchers also measured the length of their subjects' heads to estimate the distance impulses would have to travel from the eye to the primary visual cortex, which interprets what someone is seeing.

Then they used electrodes to measure how long it took for an image flashed in front of the eye to send an impulse back to the visual cortex.

Professor Edward Reed, a zoologist at Toronto University, and Philip Vernon and Andrew Johnson, psychologists at the University of Western Ontario, found the impulses were speeding through men's brains faster than through women's. They suggest this is because the nerves in men's brains have a slightly thicker coating of myelin, a fatty material which protects the nerves and improves conductivity.

The report concludes: "We find that males have four faster NCVs than females with each of the three test conditions, probably due to their faster increase of white matter in the brain during adolescence."

The researchers appear to have realised only recently that such conclusions could prove political and controversial. This weekend all three were refusing to comment on their findings although Vernon said he would consider replying to emails.

It has long been clear that men's and women's brains do have important differences and each tends to perform certain tasks slightly better than the other. For example, some studies suggest men have better spatial skills, while women may be more emotionally aware and verbally fluent.

However, most experts point out that the differences are small compared with the similarities and that there is far more variation between individuals than genders.

Bruce Burns, assistant professor in the department of psychology at Michigan State University, conducted a study of chess players, suggesting those who were quicker thinkers were likely to make better moves.

He said: "There is controversy about sex difference but there seems to be a fair amount of agreement that men do tend to have better visual spatial skills. However, I am not sure we can say that makes them more intelligent."

Desmond Morris, the social anthropologist and zoologist, said evolutionary pressures were likely to have given men and women slightly different skills. "Perhaps men's better visual responses came from having to hunt animals while women developed personal skills from child-rearing and co-operating to grow or gather plants," he said.

However, others reject such simple analyses, comparing the methods of the Canadian research to phrenology, a discredited Victorian science which attempted to link intelligence, creativity and other mental faculties to the size and shape of people's skulls.

Professor Steven Rose, director of the brain and behaviour research group at Britain's Open University, said previous studies suggested no difference in decision-making between men and women. "It is true that men and women use different parts of the brain for similar tasks but the time taken to complete the tasks is identical."

Bea Campbell, the feminist writer and historian, also questioned the findings. "The distribution of intelligence is much the same for all genders and all races," she said. "Our experience and common sense tells us that the quest to prove one or another biological group is brainier than the other is really a vain exercise."

The Sunday Times

Men Feeling Blue on February the Fourth - Carey Roberts -

Men Feeling Blue on February the Fourth
February 2, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two national health organizations are teaming up in an Orwellian effort to pander to women and mislead the American public about the threat of heart disease.

First, for those of us who care about such things, the facts. According to the latest government report, men die an average of 5.4 years before women.

The main reason for that disparity in life expectancy is heart disease. Heart disease is the number one killer of men and women alike.

But men’s risk of dying from heart disease is far greater than women’s – about 50% higher. These are the actual numbers from the recent report, Health, United States, 2004: The adjusted heart disease death rates in 2002 were 297 per 100,000 persons for men and 197 for women [www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus.htm].

Those figures actually understate the extent of the problem, because when men die of heart disease, they are typically in their 40s and 50s, whereas women usually die of heart disease at a later age.

This means that when women die from this condition, their kids are out on their own. But men stricken by heart disease are still the main breadwinners for the family, working overtime to pay off the mortgage and driving the kids to soccer practice. His untimely death is a medical and financial disaster for the wife and kids.

Public health experts have a way of gauging that age effect – it’s called “Years of potential life lost.” So in 2002, the number of potential years lost due to heart disease was 1,707 for men, and only 749 for women. That’s more than a two-fold difference.

But we live in an Alice-in-Wonderland world where the wishes of women necessarily trump the medical necessities of men. Thus, we are told that we should be more concerned about women, not men, who are risk of heart disease.

So get ready for National Wear Red Day on Friday, February 4. The American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health are urging women to wear red that day, using the predictable feminist jargon, in order to “share the power.”

But this event is not limited to one day – it’s a full-fledged campaign. All across the country, local chapters of the American Heart Association will be celebrating every manner of activity, including Woman-to-Woman conferences, Wear Red Day, and Go Red for Women luncheons [www.heart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3017091].

Ironically, these AHA events are all co-sponsored by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, the folks who make millions of dollars selling Viagra to men.

Orwellians always try to cover their tracks by invoking the notion of “truth.” The Wear Red Day campaign is no exception to that rule.

Go to the National Institutes of Health website, and there you will see how the decidely one-sided “truth” will be presented at a series of Heart “Truth” Events [www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/hearttruth/index.htm]. These events include an Olympus Fashion Week, Single City Community Events, outreach to health professionals, and the Heart Truth Road Show.

How do upstanding organizations like the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health justify the embarrassing neglect of men’s hearts?

Here’s what Dr. Augustus Grant, president of the American Heart Association, had to say: “Heart disease kills more American women than any other disease, yet surveys show that when you ask women to name their No. 1 health threat, less than half answer correctly.”

But the AHA didn’t even bother to survey men. Sometimes you almost have to feel sorry for those afflicted by political correctness, persons who are so easily taken in by their pat answers and delusions of gender enlightenment.

Propaganda campaigns always have their share of sweet ironies. And here, the Heart Truth website talks about women celebrating the impending Valentine’s Day.

But when those women open their husband’s gift of mouth-watering chocolates, how many will realize that they may well spend their Golden Years alone, ruing the fact that their husband’s life was cut short by heart disease?

And as they are lovingly handed that bunch of red roses, how many single girls know their boyfriend faces a 50% greater risk of dying of heart disease than they do?

On February the fourth, as these women admire the svelte models strolling down the runway at the Red Dress Collection Fashion Show, how many will appreciate the irony?


Carey Roberts

Inbox Message List

In-laws get the blame for divorces

Anushka Asthana
Sunday January 23, 2005
The Observer

Pressure from other family members is responsible for nearly a fifth of all marriage break-ups, according to a survey of lawyers who advise on divorce cases.
A report published today reveals that nearly 20 per cent of divorcees cite pressure from their families as the reason for their split, compared with just one in 10 last year. Family strain, now the second most common reason given for divorce, is a particular problem from relatives of the wife, who are blamed eight times out of 10.
The survey by Grant Thornton, an accountancy and consultancy firm, shows that the main cause of marital breakdown is still a partner having an affair.
The third placed reason is emotional or physical abuse, which has also seen a jump since last year.
Toby Yerburgh, a partner in family law with solicitors Collyer-Bristow, said: 'People live at home longer these days and are quite bound up with their parents.
'It is a difficult tie to break and that could mean there is more interference in a marriage. It could also be to do with the fact that it is harder to get on the housing ladder, so not only do people stay at home, but they are more reliant on parents.'
He added that it came as no surprise that abuse was increasingly given as a reason for separation. 'Traditionally it was more physical abuse, and there was far greater prevalence of male towards female,' he said. 'But now emotional abuse is more understood as a concept.'
The report shows that in 60 per cent of cases women are the victim of abuse while in 40 per cent of cases it is the man.
The report reveals that men are losing out more financially when it comes to separation - doing better in only 10 per cent of cases, less than half the amount of last year. It shows that women tend to keep hold of the house and its contents.
The shift is a sign that the courts are increasingly looking towards the non-financial contributions of women to a marriage.
'There was a ground-breaking case where the wife challenged her small proportion of the assets, saying the courts had not acknowledged her contribution to the marriage,' said Toni Pincott, a matrimonial financial expert with Grant Thornton.
'After she won, the courts started with a presumption of equality when it came to assets - that meant factors such as the non-financial role of the wife was looked at.' Pincott added that the change could be why the survey shows an increasing amount of wealth for women after a divorce.
In another high profile case, Middlesbrough and former Arsenal midfielder Ray Parlour's ex-wife Karen was awarded a third of his footballing income over the next four years after her contribution in raising their children and looking after their home was taken into account.
Today's survey shows an increasing rate of pre-nuptial agreements, with the vast majority of lawyers saying they wished such deals would carry more weight in the courts. At the moment, these agreements are not legally binding, although they will be considered in cases without children.
The survey also lists mid-life crisis, addiction, workaholism and business problems as reasons for divorce. And it reveals that more and more divorces are reached co-operatively.
Professor Ben Fletcher, head of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire said: 'The status of marriage is changing so people don't see the sanctity of marriage in the way they used to.
'Of course people try to make it work, but if in the end it can't they want a co-operative split.'

The Gender Feminist Blame Game - Richard L. Davis - MensNewsDaily.com�

The Gender Feminist Blame Game

January 23, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Richard L. Davis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The male paradigm is peculiarly unsuited to mounting a challenge to men’s predicament. Men have no clearly defined enemy who is oppressing them. -Susan Faludi

To truly understand the dynamics of domestic and dating violence one must recognize that they are complex, multifaceted, and often misunderstood dilemmas that must be viewed through an unbiased lens. Contemporarily domestic and dating violence are often viewed myopically by both print and electronic media as males being the perpetrator and females their victim. Unbiased and impartial academic research documents that domestic and/or dating violence are issues that are misunderstood by most people, laypersons and professionals alike.

In 1995 Jeffrey Fagan wrote in the National Institute of Justice research report, The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and Limits, online the report is at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/crimdom.pdf, “Assuming that patriarchy and power relations alone cause [italics added] domestic violence leads us toward conclusions that do not consider a full array of explanatory variables from other disciplines.” Fagan’s advice seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Fagan’s logic fly’s in the fact of the philosophy behind the Violence Against Women Act and it impedes the ideology that drives the gender feminist agenda.

A gender feminist is an advocate who is more concerned with women’s rights than equal or civil rights. Reason and logic dictate that a gender nuturel advocate is one who should be concerned with human rights rather than the rights of only one gender. As for the bias of the Violence Against Women [italics added] Act, the title speaks for itself.

Concerning the issue of high school domestic and dating violence, one of the most respected national and internationally recognized organizations is the White Ribbon Campaign http://www.whiteribbon.ca/Default.asp?language=English. The White Ribbon Campaign makes no attempt to present the issue in a gender neutral context.

This author has three daughters and two sons. He understands that his daughters, as data document, are at greater risk to experience more serious, injurious and sexual domestic and dating violence assaults than their brothers. However, his daughters know and all data document that his sons are also at risk. A fact that the White Ribbon Campaign ignores.

As a retired police officer this author knows that those who report domestic violence incidents to law enforcement and suffer black eyes, bruises, broken teeth, cracked ribs, busted noses, and fractured jaws at the hands of those who profess to love them, are more often women than men.

However, there are no reasons for this author to view his three daughters as always or primarily being innocent and angelic victims of domestic abuse and their two brothers as being destined to be demonic abusive batterers.

The White Ribbon Campaign proclaims that men, their website excludes all women from any blame, have come to believe that violence against a woman, child or another man is an acceptable way to control the behavior of another person . Do they really believe that women or girls never use violence, abusive or coercive behavior as a dating or familial controlling tactic? They claim female dating violence against males is a rare event. Apparently they spend the vast majority of their time preaching to high school students and little to no time listening to them.

Why is it that the White Ribbon Campaign and other gender feminist organizations that moralize about dating or domestic violence in schools to our children seem to be only or primarily concerned with violence by males against females? Is it possible that not a single person in the White Ribbon Campaign or other gender feminists have ever read an unbiased dating violence study?

How is it possible that not a single person in the White Ribbon Campaign has ever taken the time to read any of the data from the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm? Is not dating violence supposed to be their area of expertise? Their website documents they do not have a clue about the above survey or that it even exits. Worse still, perhaps they know the truth and simply ignore it.

An article in the August 1, 2001 Journal ofthe American Medical Association, “Dating Violence Against Adolescent Girls and Associated Substance Use, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual Risk Behavior, Pregnancy, and Suicidality,” begins by quoting from a National Institute of Justice study that “1.5 million women are physically and/or sexually abused each year in the United States.” Clearly the focus of the article is girls, however, what is the reason they only mention boys as perpetrators and girls as their victims?

In fact, for the above JAMA article to note that 1.5 million women are physically and/or sexually abused each year by an intimate partner the authors had to cut a sentence in half so that they could hide the truth. The sentence purposely cut in half by the authors, documents that 834,732 males also suffer abuse.

For the next seven pages the above article documents only the problems adolescent girls face concerning dating violence. Does it not seem logical to mention or to have a couple of lines about how boys have similar problems? Perhaps the inclusion of male victimization would interfere with their gender feminist agenda.

The same JAMA article was headlined in a Boston Globe article, “One in five teen girls abused.” No mention of boys in the Globe article. Using the same focus as the White Ribbon Campaign, the JAMA article concludes that, “Parents and peers appear to play a role in supporting adolescent males’ [emphasis added] violence toward dating partners…” Why do the authors exclude the fact that females use violence against boys? It appears from this article that girls do not need any parental or peer support concerning their violence. In fact the reader is never informed girls use any violence.

The article does contain important information concerning the plight of this authors three daughters, however, what about his sons? Why does not the JAMA article address boys as victims? Why do the authors of the article choose to ignore the plight of boys? Is it because the Violence Against Women Act is more concerned with males as perpetrators than as victims?

The National Center for Victims of Crime http://www.ncvc.org/stats/teen.htm at one time was unbiased and noted that 45% of females and 43% of males reported being the victim from a dating partner. Now their home page notes that, “Twenty percent of teenage girls and young women have experienced some form of dating violence.” The National Center for Victims of Crime has chosen to ignore the victimization of boys. They are now political correct.

Another similar, yet unbiased, report, “Date Violence and Date Rape Among Adolescents: Associations With Disordered Eating Behaviors and Psychological Health, http://www.apa.org/releases/dateviolence.html concerning the same type of adolescent abuse was administered in the Minnesota public schools and this report notes that nearly 9 percent of girls and 6 percent of boys report some type of abusive date-related experience.

The data in the JAMA article was from the 1999 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey http://www.doe.mass.edu/hssss/yrbs99/letter.html . The survey documents that 18 percent of females and 7 percent of males report they were hurt physically or sexually by a date or someone they were going out with. Also 16 percent of females and 6 percent of males report that someone had sexual contact with them against their will.

The following is on the Massachusetts Jane Doe Inc. website http://www.janedoe.org/about.htm

Jane Doe Inc. is a catalyst for change. Through our network of direct service providers, business partners, health professionals, law enforcement and government officials, school teachers and concerned individuals, we amplify the voices of those committed to breaking the silence and ending domestic violence and sexual assault.

We raise awareness, engage people to take action, increase access to and improve the delivery of services, act as a clearinghouse of information, promote efforts to address the needs of underserved communities, and advocate for public and private funding and improved policies and practices in the public and private sectors.

Jane Doe Inc. places a high priority on building bridges with and among our members as well as with allied organizations, government agencies and the private sector. We engage with our allies to address issues of health care, affordable housing, homelessness, economic development, civil rights including those for the disabled and immigrants. By drawing the connections between these concerns and the needs of sexual assault and domestic violence survivors, we share in the task of reaching solutions that integrate rather than divide our efforts [italics added].

On the Jane Doe website you will find that it proclaims that 1 in 5 female high school students report being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner http://www.janedoe.org/know.htm. Jane Doe makes no mention of boys being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner. This is appears to be divisive rather than an integrative.

National data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey paints a very different picture than the one being proffered by the White Ribbon Campaign, Jane Doe and other gender feminists.





The Gender Agenda

Why do the White Ribbon Campaign, Jane Doe and other gender feminists hide or attempt to erase the abuse of boys and men? How does Jane Doe plan on building bridges or providing solutions when they hide and ignore the abuse boys suffer? Should not all of us regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation deserve to be free from abuse? What is the real agenda of gender feminists?

The findings from the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) survey in the report, “Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women,http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf documents that 40.0 percent of surveyed women and 53.8 percent of surveyed men report being physically assaulted by a parent, stepparent, or other adult caretaker as a child. Does this not document more male than female victimization?

Another National Institute of Justice sponsored study, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf, from the same NVAW survey estimates that annually, 4.8 million women and 2.9 million men will suffer from intimate partner assaults. Is 2.9 million male victims so small a number as to be inconsequential to gender feminists?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau report, Child Maltreatment 1996: Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/ncands.cfm documents that 17,590 children were physically abused by men and 21,757 children were physically abused by women. And using an irony they fail to recognize or understand, gender feminists claim that women abuse children more often than men because more children are being raised by women than men.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics special report, Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99, document that concerning violence between persons of the same gender, that on an annual basis 13,740 males report being victims of same sex abuse and 16,900 females report they are victims of same sex abuse. Should we use this data to document that female same sex perpetrators are more violent than male same sex perpetrators?

The Bureau of Justice Statistics special report, Murder in Families, documents that “in murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55 percent of the killers.” These murders do not appear to be in self defense. In spousal murders, women account for 41 percent of the killers.

Concerning the Suppression of Rights

If domestic violence is caused by the suppression of women’s rights and gender inequity, please answer the following questions.

If domestic violence is caused by the suppression of women and gender inequity, why does perpetration and victimization rise and fall with the level of the socioeconomic and educational status of the participants while there is no change in gender differential percentages?
What is the cause of same sex violence?
What is the cause of elder abuse by both males and females against both male and female elders?
What is the cause of the high number of assaults on males as adults and/or as children by adult females?
Why should adult heterosexual women’s rights be our primary concern or more important than everyone else’s rights?
When will domestic violence advocates who insist on reducing the exploration of domestic and dating violence to a gender blame game between men and women understand that they are performing a disservice to all victims of abuse, regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation?
Why do so many domestic violence advocates continue to argue that women are abused while they argue about what “abuse” is or is not?
Why do so many domestic violence advocates continue to rail against the use of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) as a measuring tool when it document equal victimization of men and women? Is it moral and just that these very same gender feminists use the CTS when they attempt to inflate the number of women they claim are being abused by men?
Why do gender feminists think the needs of women are more important than the needs of domestic violence victims regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation?
Why do so many domestic violence advocates want to continue arguing about victim percentage differentials?
Do domestic violence advocates really think that pitting one victim against another is a fair, just and compassionate solution to the problem?
Why does the White Ribbon Campaign proclaim that we should ask only male students to take a pledge not to hit female students?
Does the White Ribbon Campaign really expect anyone to believe that female students only hit male students in self defense?
Has no one in the White Ribbon Campaign ever spoken to a female student who hit her boyfriend because she was angry or jealous? Perhaps it is time they listen rather than lecture.
Equal Access for All Victims

After 4,000 years of recorded human history, that more often than not, ignored the issue of domestic violence, why not present, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Should notthe message be that no one, regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation deserves to be hit and everyone regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation can be a perpetrator, victim or both? If so, why exclude male victimization?

The National Conference on Family Violence: Health and Justice met in March of 1994, 10 years after the first Attorney Generals Task Force on Family Violence demanded that the criminal justice system take the issue of family violence, not only or primarily violence against women, seriously www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/redfam.pdf.

The 1994 conference notes that the problem of “family” violence in the United States is epidemic. The conference report estimates that the annual incidence of abuse of family members is at 2 to 4 million for children, nearly 4 million for women, and 1-2 million for elder adults. Not a single incident of male victimization. Are not men members of the family? At this conference there were 400 professionals and 80 national experts.

The National Violence Against Women Survey estimates that as many as 830,000 men may be victims of some type of domestic abuse each year. This would mean that every 37.8 seconds a man is abused by an intimate partner. How or why is it possible that these 480 professionals or national “experts” could not bring themselves, at least once, to mentionmale victimization? The report itself would not once note a single male victimization.

The majority of contemporary gender feminists and domestic violence advocates can not see male victims because they believe that domestic violence “is” violence against women. They believe that domestic violence is singularly or primarilycaused by patriarchal sexism and the power and control men want to exhibit over women.

If gender feminists were to admit male victimization does occur in large numbers their “patriarchal sexism” theory would fall by the wayside. Hence, their theory has become more important to them than recognizing male victimization as anything other than a “rare” event. As this conference documents, gender feminists are determined not to let the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth be heard.

In fact, for those law enforcement officers who might respond to a domestic violence incident and think that the female may have initiated the abuse and might be the primary aggressor, the report notes on page 7 that the officers must enforce “the primary physical aggressor” concept. The primary physical aggressor concept dictates that the larger and stronger of the people involved in the incident should be the person arrested. This is a sad, painful and shameful code concept for dictating the arrest the male not the female.

What gender feminists are unable or unwilling to understand is that their gender number blame game is driving people many people away from the issue of domestic and dating violence. This is harmful not helpful. Unbiased data document that being a domestic and/or a dating violence abuser or victim, can be problematic for anyone regardless of percentage of victimization, age, gender or sexual orientation.

Gender feminists need to learn how to exhibit equal concern and compassion for our daughters and our sons. Each and every time gender feminists ignore or minimize male victimization they perform a disservice to all victims of abuse.

All victims regardless of severity, frequency or percentage of victimization deserve our compassion and sympathy. No victim, regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation needs to equal half of the total number of victims in order to deserve equal access to services and funding. Perhaps once the gender feminists decide to end their righteousness of cause and their percentage participation gender blame game, more people, both male and female, will become more concerned about and more involved in seeking solutions and providing resolution.

Richard L. Davis

Feminist Utopia, Social Nightmare - Carey Roberts - MensNewsDaily.com�

Feminist Utopia, Social Nightmare

January 19, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every era has its utopian movements that hold out the promise of social perfectability. One such movement is feminism, which claims the path to social nirvana is the liberation of women and the creation of a genderless society.

One hundred years ago, feminism claimed that equal rights under the law was its goal. Once women won the right to vote in 1920, many predicted that having achieved its objective, the women’s movement would close up shop and fade away.

But feminism did not lapse into the dust-heap of history. It merely went underground.

For 40 years, the feminist cause was sustained and nurtured by the Communist Party of the USA. This was accomplished by establishment of the CPUSA Women’s Bureau in the 1920s, and later through the creation of a front organization, the Congress of American Women.

Recognizing its Communist origins, the US Department of Justice placed the CAW on its list of subversive organizations in 1948. (Go to the CPUSA’s web page at www.cpusa.org, and you will see how they have cleverly combined the Communist icons of the hammer and sickle to form a logo that closely resembles the radical feminist hand-mirror symbol.)

When the Civil Rights movement swept the nation in the 1960s, feminism came out of the woodwork. Although feminists still claimed to be working for gender equality, their actions would soon reveal a very different agenda.

Their true intentions became apparent in the feminist position on abortion. In their view, the decision to keep or dispose of an unborn child was the woman’s, and only the woman’s prerogative. No mention of gender equality there.

And the matter of who would gain custody of the kids in the event of divorce – would it be the mother, the father, or both? In the 1970s, the answer became clear, as chapter after chapter of the National Organization for Women came out in opposition to joint custody. This, in spite of the fact that this co-parenting arrangement affords equal rights to both parents – not to mention its benefits for the children.

Next the breast cancer crusade came along. Before long, the National Institutes of Health was spending three times more money on breast cancer research than prostate cancer. Where’s the equality in that?

Then came a series of laws that purported to protect women from predatory males: sexual harassment, domestic violence, and broadly-worded rape statutes. In theory they sounded good. But in practice, they violated men’s fundamental Constitutional protections of due process and equal protection under the law.

Affording equal opportunities to men and women is laudable. But in practice, feminism cares nothing about mere equality. Now, white women have become the most legally-protected and economically-privileged group in America.

At their core, all utopian movements seek to remold human nature. The Marxists demanded that the New Socialist Man place the interests of the state above the needs of the individual. And the feminist movement seeks to achieve a society in which the social and psychological differences between the sexes are eradicated.

But history reveals the populace inevitably begins to resist such extreme psychological make-overs. So the utopians soon look to the government for a solution. That entails placing ever-increasing power in the hands of petty bureaucrats.

When their policies begin to infringe upon individuals’ basic civil rights, the utopians inevitably explain that the ends justify the means. Thus the totalitarian state begins to emerge.

The feminist utopia is a social nightmare to women. Because feminism endeavors to remake women in the image of men. Feminism seeks to remove women’s choice to marry, bear children, and devote themselves to child-rearing.

The feminist utopia is a social nightmare to men. Because feminism wants to remake men in the image of women. In the feminist vision, men are a continual threat to women, so their rights and freedoms must be gradually curtailed.

And the feminist utopia is a nightmare to children. At best, gender feminists see their offspring as an impediment to maternal self-fulfillment. At worst, children are viewed as a contraceptive-abortive failure.

In 1870 Queen Victoria of England wrote, “I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights,' with all its attendant horrors …Were women to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”

One hundred and twenty-five years later, we should give her prediction a second look.

Mes Archives

Feminist Utopia, Social Nightmare

January 19, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every era has its utopian movements that hold out the promise of social perfectability. One such movement is feminism, which claims the path to social nirvana is the liberation of women and the creation of a genderless society.

One hundred years ago, feminism claimed that equal rights under the law was its goal. Once women won the right to vote in 1920, many predicted that having achieved its objective, the women’s movement would close up shop and fade away.

But feminism did not lapse into the dust-heap of history. It merely went underground.

For 40 years, the feminist cause was sustained and nurtured by the Communist Party of the USA. This was accomplished by establishment of the CPUSA Women’s Bureau in the 1920s, and later through the creation of a front organization, the Congress of American Women.

Recognizing its Communist origins, the US Department of Justice placed the CAW on its list of subversive organizations in 1948. (Go to the CPUSA’s web page at www.cpusa.org, and you will see how they have cleverly combined the Communist icons of the hammer and sickle to form a logo that closely resembles the radical feminist hand-mirror symbol.)

When the Civil Rights movement swept the nation in the 1960s, feminism came out of the woodwork. Although feminists still claimed to be working for gender equality, their actions would soon reveal a very different agenda.

Their true intentions became apparent in the feminist position on abortion. In their view, the decision to keep or dispose of an unborn child was the woman’s, and only the woman’s prerogative. No mention of gender equality there.

And the matter of who would gain custody of the kids in the event of divorce – would it be the mother, the father, or both? In the 1970s, the answer became clear, as chapter after chapter of the National Organization for Women came out in opposition to joint custody. This, in spite of the fact that this co-parenting arrangement affords equal rights to both parents – not to mention its benefits for the children.

Next the breast cancer crusade came along. Before long, the National Institutes of Health was spending three times more money on breast cancer research than prostate cancer. Where’s the equality in that?

Then came a series of laws that purported to protect women from predatory males: sexual harassment, domestic violence, and broadly-worded rape statutes. In theory they sounded good. But in practice, they violated men’s fundamental Constitutional protections of due process and equal protection under the law.

Affording equal opportunities to men and women is laudable. But in practice, feminism cares nothing about mere equality. Now, white women have become the most legally-protected and economically-privileged group in America.

At their core, all utopian movements seek to remold human nature. The Marxists demanded that the New Socialist Man place the interests of the state above the needs of the individual. And the feminist movement seeks to achieve a society in which the social and psychological differences between the sexes are eradicated.

But history reveals the populace inevitably begins to resist such extreme psychological make-overs. So the utopians soon look to the government for a solution. That entails placing ever-increasing power in the hands of petty bureaucrats.

When their policies begin to infringe upon individuals’ basic civil rights, the utopians inevitably explain that the ends justify the means. Thus the totalitarian state begins to emerge.

The feminist utopia is a social nightmare to women. Because feminism endeavors to remake women in the image of men. Feminism seeks to remove women’s choice to marry, bear children, and devote themselves to child-rearing.

The feminist utopia is a social nightmare to men. Because feminism wants to remake men in the image of women. In the feminist vision, men are a continual threat to women, so their rights and freedoms must be gradually curtailed.

And the feminist utopia is a nightmare to children. At best, gender feminists see their offspring as an impediment to maternal self-fulfillment. At worst, children are viewed as a contraceptive-abortive failure.

In 1870 Queen Victoria of England wrote, “I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights,' with all its attendant horrors …Were women to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”

One hundred and twenty-five years later, we should give her prediction a second look.

Feminist Utopia, Social Nightmare - Carey Roberts - MensNewsDaily.com�

Feminist Utopia, Social Nightmare

January 19, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every era has its utopian movements that hold out the promise of social perfectability. One such movement is feminism, which claims the path to social nirvana is the liberation of women and the creation of a genderless society.

One hundred years ago, feminism claimed that equal rights under the law was its goal. Once women won the right to vote in 1920, many predicted that having achieved its objective, the women’s movement would close up shop and fade away.

But feminism did not lapse into the dust-heap of history. It merely went underground.

For 40 years, the feminist cause was sustained and nurtured by the Communist Party of the USA. This was accomplished by establishment of the CPUSA Women’s Bureau in the 1920s, and later through the creation of a front organization, the Congress of American Women.

Recognizing its Communist origins, the US Department of Justice placed the CAW on its list of subversive organizations in 1948. (Go to the CPUSA’s web page at www.cpusa.org, and you will see how they have cleverly combined the Communist icons of the hammer and sickle to form a logo that closely resembles the radical feminist hand-mirror symbol.)

When the Civil Rights movement swept the nation in the 1960s, feminism came out of the woodwork. Although feminists still claimed to be working for gender equality, their actions would soon reveal a very different agenda.

Their true intentions became apparent in the feminist position on abortion. In their view, the decision to keep or dispose of an unborn child was the woman’s, and only the woman’s prerogative. No mention of gender equality there.

And the matter of who would gain custody of the kids in the event of divorce – would it be the mother, the father, or both? In the 1970s, the answer became clear, as chapter after chapter of the National Organization for Women came out in opposition to joint custody. This, in spite of the fact that this co-parenting arrangement affords equal rights to both parents – not to mention its benefits for the children.

Next the breast cancer crusade came along. Before long, the National Institutes of Health was spending three times more money on breast cancer research than prostate cancer. Where’s the equality in that?

Then came a series of laws that purported to protect women from predatory males: sexual harassment, domestic violence, and broadly-worded rape statutes. In theory they sounded good. But in practice, they violated men’s fundamental Constitutional protections of due process and equal protection under the law.

Affording equal opportunities to men and women is laudable. But in practice, feminism cares nothing about mere equality. Now, white women have become the most legally-protected and economically-privileged group in America.

At their core, all utopian movements seek to remold human nature. The Marxists demanded that the New Socialist Man place the interests of the state above the needs of the individual. And the feminist movement seeks to achieve a society in which the social and psychological differences between the sexes are eradicated.

But history reveals the populace inevitably begins to resist such extreme psychological make-overs. So the utopians soon look to the government for a solution. That entails placing ever-increasing power in the hands of petty bureaucrats.

When their policies begin to infringe upon individuals’ basic civil rights, the utopians inevitably explain that the ends justify the means. Thus the totalitarian state begins to emerge.

The feminist utopia is a social nightmare to women. Because feminism endeavors to remake women in the image of men. Feminism seeks to remove women’s choice to marry, bear children, and devote themselves to child-rearing.

The feminist utopia is a social nightmare to men. Because feminism wants to remake men in the image of women. In the feminist vision, men are a continual threat to women, so their rights and freedoms must be gradually curtailed.

And the feminist utopia is a nightmare to children. At best, gender feminists see their offspring as an impediment to maternal self-fulfillment. At worst, children are viewed as a contraceptive-abortive failure.

In 1870 Queen Victoria of England wrote, “I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights,' with all its attendant horrors …Were women to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”

One hundred and twenty-five years later, we should give her prediction a second look.

Dowd�s Your Mommy - Bernard Chapin - MensNewsDaily.com�

Dowd�s Your Mommy - Bernard Chapin - MensNewsDaily.com�

Dowd’s Your Mommy

January 17, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Bernard Chapin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since October, I’ve basically discontinued writing regular columns in the hopes of finishing my book. In such circumstances, the last thing I want to do is to waste any precious non-Gangsta time on Maureen Dowd. Yet, after my friend Robert sent me her latest column today I knew I had to address it.

She titled her ramble, “Men Just Want Mommy”, and it is essentially the wretched rationalization of one who fought on the losing side of a war. Maureen, like so many other mindless, ungrateful feminists, thought she could have it all. She could be famously successful at work and then find a man later. Instead, like the characters in the movie Casino, she had everything going for her but f-cked it all up. Now she is beaten and withered, and, rather than reflect on her own shortcomings, she blames men. Sound familiar? If the reader is too tired to scroll this, I suggest that you turn on an Oprah rerun as the gist will be the same.

The misconceptions begin quickly:

A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women." I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and act-checkers.

Her initial observation is unquestionably correct as men prefer to marry young women, but then she misinterprets the reasons as to why. Perhaps as a means to placate herself for her own stupidity in supposing that she would be as attractive at 50 as at 20, she attributes male preference to our need to be cared for. Not only does this have nothing to do with our attraction to young women, it intentionally clouds the real reason for our preferences. Men are attracted to woman who can reproduce. It’s that simple. Dowd and her kind are many years past their viability. If reproduction is not possible there’s no reason to put up with a self-centered and pre-retirement princess. Males don’t pursue women to fulfill the fantasies of Hallmark Card artists. We pursue them due to biological imperative. The young ones can give us everything we dream of (and unfortunately, a lot of things we haven’t dreamed of) while those past their reproductive prime can only offer us their company. When faced with some of the inquisitor dispositions and personalities found in the average member of the over-the-hill gang, most men will wisely choose a beagle or a golden retriever instead. What’s the point of spending your days with a deposed and bitter queen?

The great intellectual heavyweight, Miss Dowd, then turns to a review popular film, the most authoritative works she knows, as a mechanism to batter male preference.

In James Brooks's "Spanglish," Adam Sandler, as a Los Angeles chef, falls for his hot Mexican maid. The maid, who cleans up after Mr. Sandler without being able to speak English, is presented as the ideal woman. The wife, played by Téa Leoni, is repellent: a jangly, yakking, overachieving, overexercised, unfaithful, shallow she- monster who has just lost her job with a commercial design firm. Picture Faye Dunaway in "Network" if she'd had to stay home, or Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" without the charm.

Well, of course these are movies and Hollywood has provided us with five gazillion examples of men being drunken, debaucherous, bastards over the years so I suppose we should be content that Spanglish brings a bit of realism to the ledger. Regardless, I’ve known men who did exactly what Sandler did by marrying women with simpler backgrounds than themselves and it makes perfect sense to me. Most men are similar to this commentator and lack the funds necessary to court a spoiled princess. A woman of high socio-economic status could well have needs that we cannot meet which indicates that the middle class fool who marries her will have to put up with criticisms about his failings for an eternity. Women who are content with what God has given them are the ones worthy of marriage. The ones who consider Tiffany boxes to be religious icons are the ones to be avoided. Of course, Dowd disagrees with such observations:

Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection. As John Schwartz of The New York Times wrote recently, "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame." As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women." Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them. "The hypothesis," Dr. Brown said, "is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own." Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. And men did not show a preference when it came to one-night stands.

This is merely another example of the utopian despairing over the fact that they cannot change human nature. You can almost hearing hear their despair through your internet connection. Clearly, there are many things that can stated about her positions. First, woman already do not have equality with men. They have state sponsored superiority via to affirmative action. Second, her supposition is that all men have high powered jobs. Well, I personally, and neither every man I am friends with does not. I guess that Maureen does not consider the cabbies, vendors, policemen, and firemen that she sees everyday to be fully human. That is to be expected from a feminist elitist. Their benchmarks are the top one percent and the rest of us are unworthy of examination. Third, I agree that who she and The New York Times define as “powerful women” are at a disadvantage but it is due to their advanced age as opposed to vocational status. Economically successful men and women are, for the most part, getting up there in years as considerable time is required in order to get ahead. That’s why they are undesirable. It is not due to their occupations. Independently, I can fathom no reason why they would be more likely to cheat than women with a lower socioeconomic status. I would regard those with important jobs as having less time for strumpetry but that’s just my perspective. If some men are moved to avoid these females for this reason then I respect their choice. Four here, is the hilarious belief that women without highly paid jobs are not powerful. The average female college student has more power in one breast than women in their forties have in their entire bodies. They rule the world and can get any man (or nowadays: woman, transvestite, or androgynous walking tattoo and piercing exhibit) that they want. To pretend that a woman’s “power” is judged by their salary is absurd, but no one has ever confused politically correct views as being accurate–or sane for that matter. You’d have to have a pretty concrete mind not to notice that you’re average 22 year old waitress can get just about anything she wants out of anybody.

A man’s insecurities are then cited:

A second study, which was by researchers at four British universities and reported last week, suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals. The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise. So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve, the less desirable they are? Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to - unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to.

Allow me to pose a question so obvious it’s stunning that even NYT staff would not process it. Why on earth would anybody want to marry a woman who was not old-fashioned? Marriage is an old-fashioned arrangement. If a woman is non-traditional there is no reason to marry her. What do you get out of marrying a radical? When I pointed this out in a piece I wrote over the summer, a female reader called me selfish. I asked her why I wouldn’t be selfish regarding my own interests. She did not respond. If a woman brags that she does not want your name and has slept with a borough of men, then you should emulate those before you and forget her once the getting is done. To marry her is to commit yourself to a life of masochism and suffering.

I think that the confounding variable not analyzed regarding IQ is “how much more likely is a woman with a high IQ to have been indoctrinated by radical feminist complaint theology?” Radical feminist thought is available in its purest form at your local university and those women with the highest IQs are the ones most likely to have attended college. They were advised to ignore genetic commandments and wait until its too late to forge bonds with the opposite sex. These are the women who told Sylvia Hewitt a few years ago that the average age of fertility decline is 40 when it is in fact 27. At my last job, I knew of two women in their early thirties who were undergoing scandalously expensive fertility treatments because they could not get pregnant. Women should learn from their example and select a man while in their twenties when they rule the earth.

Maureen is neither mommy nor concubine. She is a bitter and jaded person who should not blame men for her self-absorption and faulty powers of perception. Had she actually listened to the men she knew or divorced herself from feminista dogma, she could have led a fulfilled life.


Bernard Chapin

Scotsman.com News - International - CIA gives grim warning on European prospects

CIA gives grim warning on European prospects

NICHOLAS CHRISTIAN


THE CIA has predicted that the European Union will break-up within 15 years unless it radically reforms its ailing welfare systems.

The report by the intelligence agency, which forecasts how the world will look in 2020, warns that Europe could be dragged into economic decline by its ageing population. It also predicts the end of Nato and post-1945 military alliances.

In a devastating indictment of EU economic prospects, the report warns: "The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalisation could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role."

It adds that the EU’s economic growth rate is dragged down by Germany and its restrictive labour laws. Reforms there - and in France and Italy to lesser extents - remain key to whether the EU as a whole can break out of its "slow-growth pattern".

Reflecting growing fears in the US that the pain of any proper reform would be too much to bear, the report adds that the experts it consulted "are dubious that the present political leadership is prepared to make even this partial break, believing a looming budgetary crisis in the next five years would be the more likely trigger for reform".

The EU is also set for a looming demographic crisis because of a drop in birth rates and increased longevity, with devastating economic consequences.

The report says: "Either European countries adapt their workforces, reform their social welfare, education and tax systems, and accommodate growing immigrant populations [chiefly from Muslim countries] or they face a period of protracted economic stasis."

As a result of the increased immigration needed, the report predicts that Europe’s Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025, potentially triggering tensions.

The report predicts that America’s relationships with Europe will be "dramatically altered" over the next 15 years, in a move away from post-Second World War institutions. Nato could disappear and be replaced by increased EU action.

"The EU, rather than Nato, will increasingly become the primary institution for Europe, and the role Europeans shape for themselves on the world stage is most likely to be projected through it," the report adds. "Whether the EU will develop an army is an open question."

Defence spending by individual European countries, including the UK, France, and Germany, is likely to fall further behind China and other countries over the next 15 years. Collectively these countries will outspend all others except the US and possibly China.

The expected next technological revolution will involve the convergence of nano, bio, information and materials technology and will further bolster China and India’s prospects, the study predicts. Both countries are investing in basic research in these fields and are well placed to be leaders. But whereas the US will retain its overall lead, the report warns "Europe risks slipping behind Asia in some of these technologies".

For Europe, an increasing preference for natural gas may reinforce regional relationships, such as those with Russia or North Africa, given the inter-dependence of pipeline delivery, the report argues. But this means the EU will have to deal with Russia, which the report also warns "faces a severe demographic crisis resulting from low birth rates, poor medical care and a potentially explosive Aids situation".

Russia also borders an "unstable region" in the Caucasus and Central Asia, "the effects of which - Muslim extremism, terrorism and endemic conflict - are likely to continue spilling over into Russia".

The report also largely en dorses forecasts that by 2020 China’s gross domestic product will exceed that of individual western economic powers except for the US. India’s GDP will have overtaken or be overtaking European economies.

Because of the sheer size of China’s and India’s populations their standard of living need not approach European and western levels to become important economic powers.

The economies of other developing countries, such as Brazil, could surpass all but the largest European countries by 2020.

Salaires

Depuis des décennies, les Guerrières du genre sexuel sont sur la piste deguerre contre « l’écart salarial. » Elles ont un argument simple: enmoyenne, les femmes gagnent 76 cents pour chaque dollar gagné par untravailleur mâle. Cette différence est preuve de discrimination sexuelle. Il est temps de mettre fin à ce mythe mensonger du féminisme. … les hommes qui travaillent à temps plein travaillent en moyenne 45 heurespar semaine, alors que les femmes ne travaillent que 42 heures. Les hommessont plus de deux fois plus susceptibles que les femmes de travailler plusde 50 heures par semaine – c’est pour cela que la plupart des … sont deshommes.les hommes tendent à graviter vers les emplois socialement peu gratifiantsmais lucratifs tel que la programmation d'ordinateur, la loi sur lesimpôts, et l’ingénierie. Les femmes tendent à choisir des professionstelles que l’enseignement, le nursing, le travail social qui payent moins,mais offrent plus de flexibilité de travailla désirabilité du travail …calibré 250 travaux sur la base du revenu, del’environnement de travail, des exigences physiques, du stress, ainsi desuite. Les cinq pires emplois étaient marins, travailleur de l’acier,cow-boy, pêcheur, et bûcheron. Êtes-vous surpris d’apprendre que ces travaux sont tous « dominés » par leshommes? … la différence dans les risques au travail. Les hommes sont 92% de tousles décès professionnels. Pourquoi? Si vous regardez une liste des métiersles plus dangereux - lutte contre l'incendie, conduite de camion,construction, et mines - ils sont à 96-98% composé de mâles …Aux USA, en moyenne les hommes travaillent 13,5% de plus que les femmes …Au Canada …les hommes travaillent donc 42,2% de PLUS que les femmes …Au Québec … les hommes travaillent donc 5,6% de plus que les femmes Les fémi-sexistes elles-mêmes savent que les femmes travaillent MOINS queles hommes : ergo cela est donc PLUS positif.Les femmes médecins BOUDENT l'urgence … les avocates DÉLAISSENT leursclients pour avoir des enfants … les pharmaciennes travaillent MOINSd'heures … MOINS d'heures au boulot … cinq heures de MOINS par semaine …quatre heures de MOINS … deux heures de MOINS … « SE TUER AU TRAVAIL, C’ESTFINI » … l'emploi à temps partiel touche (i.e. les femmes s’y concentrent)le QUART des travailleuses …Souvenez vous de tout cela la prochaine fois que les fémi-sexistes (de tousgenres sexués) se mettront (encore une fois) à BRAILLER que les femmesgagnent MOINS que les hommes________________________________________Salaire inégal pour travail égal?Le prétendu « écart salarial » entre les hommes et les femmes est un desmeilleurs exemples de manipulation féministe.Depuis des décennies, les Guerrières du genre sexuel sont sur la piste deguerre contre « l’écart salarial. » Elles ont un argument simple: enmoyenne, les femmes gagnent 76 cents pour chaque dollar gagné par untravailleur mâle. Cette différence est preuve de discrimination sexuelle. Il est temps de mettre fin à ce mythe mensonger du féminisme. C’est exactement ce que fait le dernier livre de Warren Farrell. « Why MenEarn More; The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap—and What Women Can DoAbout It <" target=_blank>http://www.amanet.org/books/catalog/0814472109.htm>; » est remplide statistiques gouvernementales et de données scientifiques sur lessalaires. Celles-ci démontrent que « l’écart de salaire » féministe est unegigantesque escroquerie idéologique.Je me sens un peu bête d’avoir à dire quelque chose de si évident, mais jesuppose que quelqu’un doit le dire : les patterns de travail des hommes etdes femmes sont différents. En premier lieu : la quantité de travail. Selon le « Bureau of LaborStatistics <" target=_blank>http://www.bls.gov/>; » (Bureau des statistiques du travail)les hommes qui travaillent à temps plein travaillent en moyenne 45 heurespar semaine, alors que les femmes ne travaillent que 42 heures.() Leshommes sont plus de deux fois plus susceptibles que les femmes detravailler plus de 50 heures par semaine – c’est pour cela que la plupartdes CEOs (Chief Executive Officer; Président directeur général) sont deshommes.Il n’y a que dans les économies dominées par l’idéologie socialiste que lesemployés reçoivent le même salaire indépendamment du nombre d’heures detravail.Deuxièmement, les hommes tendent à graviter vers les emplois socialementpeu gratifiants mais lucratifs tel que la programmation d'ordinateur, laloi sur les impôts, et l’ingénierie. Les femmes tendent à choisir desprofessions telles que l’enseignement, le nursing, le travail social quipayent moins, mais offrent plus de flexibilité de travail. Troisièmement, la désirabilité du travail. Récemment le « Jobs RatedAlmanac<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1569802246/103-2386272-1964608?v=glance> » (l’Almanac des travaux calibrés) a calibré 250 travaux surla base du revenu, de l’environnement de travail, des exigences physiques,du stress, ainsi de suite. Les cinq pires emplois étaient marins,travailleur de l’acier, cow-boy, pêcheur, et bûcheron. Voir aussi leCareerournal.com.<" target=_blank>http://www.careerjournal.com/jobhunting/change/20020507-lee.html>; Êtes-vous surpris d’apprendre que ces travaux sont tous « dominés » par leshommes? La seule façon pour des entreprises de recruter des hommes pourfaire ce genre de travail dur, sale et dangereux (parfois mortellement) estde leur offrir un meilleur salaire.Finalement, il y a la différence dans les risques au travail. Les hommessont 92% de tous les décès professionnels. Pourquoi? Si vous regardez uneliste des métiers les plus dangereux - lutte contre l'incendie, conduitede camion, construction, et mines - ils sont à 96-98% composé de mâles,selon le Bureau of Labor Statistics. Les hommes qui risquentquotidiennement leurs vies ne devraient-ils pas recevoir un salairesupplémentaire? Warren Farrell s’attaque ensuite à la malhonnêteté des média dans leursarticles sur « l’écart salarial. » Un titre particulièrement stridentclamait : « une étude sur les directeurs de nouvelles télévisées démontrela discrimination envers les femmes. » Il est vrai que les directeuresféminines de nouvelles télévisées gagnent 27% de moins que les directeursmasculins.Mais jetons-y un autre coup d'œil; il s'avère que les directeurs masculinsont en moyenne 14,8 ans années d'expériences professionnelles dans lesnouvelles, alors que les directeures féminines n’en ont que 5,6 années. End'autres termes, les hommes ont eu presque trois fois plus d'expérienceprofessionnelle que les femmes. Cependant, il ne gagnent que environ unquart de plus que les femmes. (GPL : Les femmes ont 37,8% de l’expérience des hommes mais gagnent 75% deleur salaire. Une discrimination « positive » : les femmes sont payées à198% de leur niveau d’expertise. « Cé tsu assez beau le féminisme! »)Cette étude sur les directeurs de télé soulève quelques questionssupplémentaires. D'abord, pourquoi les directeures féminines ont-elles enmoyenne 9,2 années d'expérience professionnelle de moins que leurscompétiteurs masculines? De plus, y a-t-il des candidats masculins plusqualifiés que des femmes qui sont discriminés à cause de leur sexe?(GPL : inversement, si les directeurs étaient payés autant que les femme,selon le niveau d’expérience, leur salaire seraient 98% plus élevés. « Cétsu assez beau le « partage » socialiste des richesses, qui vous l’aurezconstaté va toujours dans le même sens : des hommes vers les femmes)Il s'avère qu’il n’y a pas que dans les postes de directions à la téléqu’il se passe quelque chose de louche. « Why Men Earn More »offre de l’information sur les salaires pour ceux quiviennent de sortir de l’université, selon leur spécialisationuniversitaire. Dans le tableau 5 nous apprenons que les femmes qui sontspécialisées dans la programmation d'ordinateur, la physique, le génieagricole, ou l'analyse de systèmes informatiques bénéficient de salairessubstantiellement plus élevés que eux des hommes. Par « substantiel » jeveux dire que les hommes dans ces domaines reçoivent de $4,000 à $7,000 demoins, dès leur première année de travail. C'est beaucoup d'argent depoche.Au tableau 6, nous apprenons qu’il y a 10 métiers où les femmes ayant desbaccalauréat reçoivent des salaires initiaux d’au moins 10% plus élevés queles hommes: investissement bancaire, gestion de portefeuilled’investissement, planification urbaine, analyse financière, distribution,politique financière, lever de fonds, professions religieuses, productionde communications et diététique.Exemple, si vous êtes une diététicienne féminine, votre premier salaireannuel est de $23,160. Mais vos compétiteurs mâles ne recevront que $17,680– un manque à gagner de 30%.Ce genre d’information arrive comme une bombe idéologique. Je prédit que lorsque le mot sur ces disparités va se répandre lescompagnies américaines auront à faire face à un tsunami de plaintes, deréclamations, et de procès intentés pour discrimination (sexiste) sur lesalaire. Pourquoi? Mais, parce que les hommes ont droit à « UN SALAIRE ÉGAL, POUR UN TRAVAILÉGAL ».Le 12 janvier 2005 par Carey Roberts http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0112roberts.html traduit parGérard Pierre Levesque__________________________NOTES1 – Aux USA, en moyenne les hommes travaillent 8,01 heurs par jour; lesfemmes 7,06. Soit (8,01 – 7,06) une différence de 0.95 heures par jour; leshommes travaillent 13,5% de plus que les femmes À TOUS LES JOURS. À toutes les semaines : 0,95 X 5 : 4,75 heures. À tous les mois : 4,75 X4,3= 34,7 heures. À toutes les années : 34,7 X 11 = 381,4 heures. Sur touteune vie : 381,4 X 40 années : 15, 256 heures. Voir: Table 5. Average hours worked per day by employed persons atworkplace or home by selected characteristics, 2003 annual averages<" target=_blank>http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t05.htm>; En passant, les Américains (hommes et femmes) travaillent 1,455 heures parannée alors que les Canadiens ne travaillent que 1,322 heures. LesAméricains travaillent 9,24% de plus que les Canadiens; et certains sedemandent pour quoi le « green back » est si fort.Voir Les heures de travail au Canada et aux États-unis<" target=_blank>http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/Francais/030911/q030911b.htm>; de StatistiquesCanada2 - Au Canada (2000) les hommes travaillent 1,565 heures par année alorsque les femmes ne travaillent que 1,101 heures : les hommes travaillentdonc 42,2% de PLUS que les femmes à toutes les années. Voir Les heures de travail au Canada et aux États-unis<" target=_blank>http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/Francais/030911/q030911b.htm>; de StatistiquesCanada. 3 - Au Québec, les hommes travaillent 242,3 jours par année, alors que lesfemmes n’en travaillent que 229,4. Les hommes travaillent donc 5,6% de plusque les femmes À TOUS LES JOURS. Les hommes travaillent 6,2 journées en travail supplémentaire (rémunéré);les femmes 2,9 : les hommes travaillent font donc 113,8% de plus de travailsupplémentaire que les femmes. Voir Étude de la Durée du travail réelle<http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/remuneration/pdf2003/etude_travail2002.pdf> (p 51) de l’Institut de la statistique Québec. Et ensuite, les féministes ricanent que si les hommes meurent plus jeunesc’est parce qu'ils le … veulent. (Why men die younger? Because they want to<" target=_blank>http://forum.iamnotageek.com/t-73028.html>; ) (:’-()4 – En passant, les Québécois travaillent 7,2 heures par jour, alors queles Canadiens travaillent 7,7 heures et les Ontariens 8,1 heures. LesCanadiens travaillent donc 6,9% de plus que les Québécois et les Ontariens12,5% de plus. Voir Note technique Temps productif : parité entre les hommes et les femmesau Québec<http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/salle-presse/communiq/2001/novembre2001/temps_productif.htm> , de l’Institut de la statistique QuébecPourquoi s’étonner que le Québec traîne derrière l’Ontario, ainsi quel’Alberta et la Colombie britannique? Moins on travaille, moins on a denouvelles ressources pour investir dans de nouveaux emplois, plus on a dechômage : économique 101.5 - Finalement, les fémi-sexistes elles-mêmes savent que les femmestravaillent MOINS que les hommes : ergo cela est donc PLUS positif. Suivez LA guide :Selon le Conseil du statut de la féministe<" target=_blank>http://www.csf.gouv.qc.ca/fr/communiques/index.php?F=affiche&id=182>; :« Les femmes médecins BOUDENT l'urgence. Les avocates DÉLAISSENT leursclients pour avoir des enfants. Les pharmaciennes travaillent MOINSd'heures que leurs confrères... L'arrivée massive des femmes dans plusieursprofessions traditionnellement masculines MENACE-t-elle l'équilibre denotre marché du travail ? … Vrai, les professionnelles – de la médecine, de la pharmacie, du droit, dunotariat, de l'architecture – consacrent MOINS d'heures au boulot que leurscollègues masculins. … Les omnipraticiennes travaillent cinq heures deMOINS par semaine que leurs confrères. Les pharmaciennes, quatre heures deMOINS. Les médecins spécialistes, deux heures de MOINS. Vrai aussi, les femmes ont tendance à se concentrer dans certainesdisciplines. En médecine, on trouve 8 filles pour 49 garçons en chirurgieorthopédique, 10 pour 21 en neurochirurgie, et 3 pour 14 en chirurgiecardiaque. Plus du quart des avocates se spécialisent en DROIT FAMILIAL,alors que seulement une sur dix choisit le droit commercial. ……dans plusieurs entreprises, le désir de fonder une famille est encoreperçu comme un problème… pour lequel les travailleuses doivent payer. «Normal : CETTE FEMME [en congé de maternité] S’ENRICHIT D’UN ENFANT, PASSES ASSOCIÉS … »Mais les efforts que déploient les femmes pour équilibrer leur viepersonnelle et professionnelle deviennent le combat de toute unegénération. À Joliette, sept chirurgiens (dont quatre hommes) ont formé unpool qui partage les tours de garde, paye un congé d'un mois lors d'unematernité ou en cas de maladie, et redistribue les honoraires en partségales. « SE TUER AU TRAVAIL, C’EST FINI. Les gars de notre génération onteux aussi envie de vivre et de voir grandir leurs enfants », dit lachirurgienne Élise Martel. Dans un autre article, « DES HOMMES SUR VÉNUS », trois gars racontent leurcarrière dans des secteurs non traditionnels. … des spécialistes du marché du travail évaluent la présence féminine àl'université et dans les emplois hautement qualifiés. Le nombre de fillescontinue d'augmenter à l'université, même en sciences appliquées, où lesinscriptions féminines ont presque doublé entre 1986 et 2002. LEUR SUCCÈS SCOLAIRE NE SE RÉFLÈTE PAS DIRECTEMENT SUR LEUR CARRIÈRE, …L'emploi à temps partiel touche le QUART des travailleuses, contreseulement UN travailleur sur DIX. En un sens, c'est une bonne nouvelle … «Nous faisons face à une PÉNURIE ANTICIPÉE de main-d'œuvre. Hausser le tauxd'activité des femmes sous-employées pourrait nous aider à résoudre ceproblème. » 6 - Les femmes médecins BOUDENT l'urgence … les avocates DÉLAISSENT leursclients pour avoir des enfants … les pharmaciennes travaillent MOINSd'heures … MOINS d'heures au boulot … cinq heures de MOINS par semaine …quatre heures de MOINS … deux heures de MOINS … « SE TUER AU TRAVAIL, C’ESTFINI » … l'emploi à temps partiel touche (i.e. les femmes s’y concentrent)le QUART des travailleuses …Souvenez vous de tout cela la prochaine fois que les fémi-sexistes (de tousgenres sexués) se mettront (encore une fois) à BRAILLER que les femmesgagnent MOINS que les hommes.Et ces Einsteines du progressivisme québécois s’étonnent que « Nous faisonsface à une PÉNURIE ANTICIPÉE de main-d'œuvre.C’est ÇA la façon de comprendre des FEMMES (woman’s way of knowing).Il faut vraiment être un « HOMME SUR VÉNUS » pour ne pas mourir de ridiculeà s’associer avec une telle logique (sic) féministe.Hommes sur Vénus : gars « corrects », hommes « progressistes », mâles pourle matriarcat, émasculés pro-féministes, « moumounes roses » …________________________Gérard Pierre LEVESQUE

Sex, Lies & Feminism by Peter Zohrab

Sex, Lies & Feminism by Peter Zohrab

Sex, Lies & Feminism by Peter Zohrab: Appendix: Women's This, Women's That, and Women's The Other Thing: Historical Manifestations of Feminism

CHAPTER 15
MANIFESTATIONS OF FEMINISM

Introduction
This chapter gives a brief survey of some historical forms of Feminism. It is not intended primarily as an attack on Feminism, because that has been the function of the rest of this book. Rather, it is to give an historical account of the Feminist ideology and political movement, which has also been known as the Women's Liberation Movement, or the Women's Movement. The difference between these terms is that the word "Feminism" is sometimes used to refer purely to a theory or ideology, whereas the terms "Women's Movement" and "Women's Liberation Movement" also refer to political activities.

Individualist/Liberal Feminism
Individualist Feminism received its first substantial formulation in Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). This was in the tradition of 18th century Individualist social and political theory, deriving ultimately from John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689), according to which the supreme law was to be the welfare of the people. It was a fairly small step from that stated principle to looking at various categories of people – such as women – and asking what the "system" was doing to or for them. From our vantage-point, we might question the bias of the people who decided what categories of people to investigate, but that is another issue.

Wollstonecraft noted that when people referred to "people" or "humans," they almost always meant men. Women were viewed principally in relation to men; i.e., as sexual partners and rearers of men's children, and so on. She asserted women must be looked on primarily as people in their own right, and only secondarily as the housekeepers and wives, etc. of men.

An important contention in her book is that men used education to train girls to play the dependent "womanly" roles men have mapped out for them. This, indeed, is a recurrent theme throughout the Feminist literature. Wollstonecraft demands equality of civil rights between men and women. She does not say much about political rights for women, though there are indications she intended to write something on that topic, too.

John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women was an important 19th Century Feminist work, written under the influence of his late wife, Harriet Taylor. Mill's proposals are similar to those of Wollstonecraft. But he goes further, saying that women should have the vote. As far as employment is concerned, he too says women should be free to enter the occupation of their choice (including marriage and child-rearing, if that is their preferred option).

Fundamental to Mill's philosophy, Utilitarianism, is the idea of optimizing the greatest good for the greatest number of people; that is, ethical priority was accorded to the greatest good of the greatest number of people. According to most authorities on Mill's works, the notion of "equality," which is so basic to Feminist writings in general, did not seem to obviously follow from Utilitarian principles. It is not logically necessary that "equality" between different groups or individuals in Society would inevitably be a means of producing the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

It might be argued, for example, that some people are better at producing wealth than others. Therefore, if you want to maximise the wealth in a given Society, you have to accord special rights and privileges to such people in order to attain your overall goal of maximising the material well-being of the population as a whole. Mill had to add the principle of equality on almost as an afterthought before he could construct his Feminist argument.

Nevertheless, he does try to demonstrate how everybody would benefit from granting women legal equality with men by arguing that the liberation of women will result in a net gain in the quantity of happiness for mankind. This is because, according to Locke's previous work, the "servitude" of women in marriage makes many of them miserable. He also says that mankind (by which he meant, in present day Feminist parlance, "humankind") will benefit if woman's full potential is freed, educated, and employed to the benefit of all. And marriages would be happier if men and women were equally well educated. He believed happiness in marriage depended on the partners being as similar and unified as possible.

In the course of the nineteenth century, Feminists obtained greater educational opportunities in schools and universities and the admission of women to the professions. Laws relating to divorce, the property rights of married women, and control of children in marriage were also modified in a direction that favoured women. Moreover, by the early 20th Century, at the latest, women gained the franchise in most western countries. The first breakthrough for the Feminists came in 1869, when women got the vote in the American State of Wyoming, and the first sovereign state to grant women the vote was New Zealand – in 1893. However, in no country did men force women to become liable to be drafted into the front line, in return for getting the vote. This shows how little thinking was done about equality of rights and responsibilities.

After the franchise for women had been achieved in many countries, the Second World War intervened. This possibly caused a hiatus in the Feminists' political struggles, perhaps because they did not want to be forced to serve as front-line soldiers. Such an obligation might reasonably be expected of them had they continued agitating during the war. And when the war was over, people needed time to forget the men who had lost their lives and/or limbs in the War.

But sure enough, after a decent interval, a peacetime mentality soon evolved in western societies to which the hypocrisy of some of the Feminist demands for "equality" did not seem so glaringly obvious. This was no conspiracy – the process is a natural one, as most people prefer to treat war as a bad dream they want to wake up from as soon as possible! And from a Lesbian Feminist perspective, men are always expendable.

This postwar period marked Feminism's true Second Wave, a time when it seemed natural to focus more and more on the way women's role in the family prevented them from having careers to the extent men did. This attitude implied that the roles of wife and mother were somehow inferior to that of income-earner in a workplace (or wage-slave in the rat-race, as others might phrase it).
One book pushing this line within the Individualist Feminist tradition was Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (1963), which followed relatively closely on the heels of Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex (1953) (see below). Friedan's aim was for society and women's lives to be organised to maximise the ability of women to have a career as well as a family. She thought that American middle-class, suburban, white, heterosexual housewives were bound to feel unfulfilled and bored, unless they had a full-time job outside the home:

“Science should not relieve housewives of too much drudgery; it must concentrate instead on creating the illusion of that sense of achievement that housewives seem to need.” (The Feminine Mystique, 4th Dell Printing, June 1964, p 172)

This would, of course, not be such a problem in countries and social classes where labour-saving devices were unaffordable. But what is most interesting here is how Friedan seems to take it for granted any sense of achievement felt by housewives would be necessarily an "illusion". This is a very subjective view. Obviously, Friedan obviously does not feel that a sense of achievement in a career outside the home would be illusory – either for men or women. Nor does she believe a woman can be both feminine and fully human:

“(B)y choosing femininity over the painful growth to full identity, by never achieving the hard core of self that comes not from fantasy but from mastering reality, these girls are doomed to suffer ultimately that bored, diffuse feeling of purposelessness, nonexistence, noninvolvement with the world that can be called anomie, or lack of identity, or merely felt as the problem that has no name.” (The Feminine Mystique, 4th Dell Printing, June 1964, p 172)

This is the same gender-role confusion which has affected many Feminists; somehow, they manage to equate femininity with a lack of a identity. What this really demonstrates is the frustration that bisexual middle-class Feminist writers felt with the need to conform to "feminine" role-models, and why they wanted to convert more women to their more masculine personalities. They wanted to take power away from the feminine and attractive women, whose personas were centred around cooperating with men, and create a cohort of women whose personas would centre around competing with men. Overtly Lesbian Feminists are merely at the extreme end of this covertly Lesbian movement. From this perspective, Friedan's famous "problem that has no name" is actually the "problem" of heterosexuality – it couldn't be given a name because its true name would repel converts. Despite this, some found her less radical than her predecessors:

Betty Friedan's 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique, was in some ways less 'radical' than Wollstonecraft's, Taylor's or Mill's. Despite Friedan's implicit understanding of woman as a powerless sex class, she often wrote as if individual women can, through sheer effort, advance to the ranks of the powerful sex class known as 'man'. Her tendency, at least in The Feminine Mystique, was to forget that this is easier said than done, so long as men are generally in charge of hiring and promoting. (Tong 1989, 22)

Tong believes Friedan's emphasis on individual "self-improvement" constitutes a diversion from radical activity aimed at changing society through political means, and criticises Friedan for not being analytical enough to look for barriers to women achieving careers outside the home. Many years later, however, Friedan remedied this omission to some extent with a second book, The Second Stage:

“In the first stage, our aim was full participation (of the woman's movement), ... But we were diverted from our dream. And in our reaction against the feminine mystique, which defined women solely in terms of their relation to men as wives, mothers and homemakers, we sometimes seemed to fall into a feminist mystique which denied that core of women's personhood that is fulfilled through love, nurture, home.” (Friedan, op. cit., 27)

So the main emphasis in Liberal/Individualist Feminism was on removing barriers that prevent women from competing with men on an equal footing in paid employment. And this remains its main emphasis, although many of these barriers no longer exist. Ironically, a strict interpretation of the Liberal/Individualist Feminists paradigm does not sit well with the dominant Feminist thinking today: If women still don't achieve as well in public life as men do, responsibility rests solely with the individual (a Liberal Feminist would say). You can't just look at any inequality between men's and women's achievement in the workplace and deduce from it that there must still be some sexist barriers to women's achievement.

This issue is relevant to such questions as what happens to women when they return to the workforce after a break of several years, during which they have been busy raising their children. Some Feminists argue such women should reenter the workforce at the same level of pay and seniority as enjoyed by their (male and female) colleagues who had a continuous career throughout the period in question. I consider this Feminist position unjust for three reasons:

First, the employer grants seniority (in theory, anyway) not on the basis of age, but experience and skills gained. A person who has been absent from the workplace has presumably not acquired the same level of experience and skill. Feminists respond that being a mother provides much relevant experience and skill – but this is a brain-dead argument. It depends on what occupations are involved.
Obviously, being a mother is somewhat relevant to a career as an au pair, nanny, cook, nurse, or childcare worker. However, it is irrelevant to a career as an office-worker, laboratory technician, police officer or miner! An analysis of the relevant job description can be conducted by any halfway intelligent person, then compared with that of a housewife/mother. Anyone who buys the blanket Feminist argument that being a mother is equally relevant to any occupation should not be allowed to handle sharp implements, operate a motor vehicle or occupy any position requiring more than rudimentary reasoning ability. Their argument reeks of intellectual incompetence.

Second, what about people who are absent from a certain workplace for other reasons? It would be absurd and unjust to grant them the same seniority and pay as their colleagues who had stayed in the same workplace – yet it would be equally absurd and unjust to deny them this while granting it to returning mothers.

Finally, women who have children (usually) do this voluntarily, and bringing up children is a very rewarding occupation in its own right. It is not as if anyone was forcing them to do it. Those Feminists who believe all men are involved in a pervasive patriarchal conspiracy to subjugate all women are paranoid.

Certainly, some men derive satisfaction from being the breadwinner and being waited on hand-and-foot by women, and some men and women actively promote this vision of Society. But that is a quid pro quo arrangement – the man has burdens he must carry in wartime and other emergencies. It is also true that men are usually not the ones who have to choose between children and careers; on the other hand, men are also denied some of the joys of motherhood, so it is only equitable that women should be unable to have their cake and eat it too – especially as the mothers are more likely to be granted custody of the children after separation or divorce.

The time came when Individualist Feminism achieved most of its goals in western countries. A cynic might add that Feminism was therefore in need of new demands to make. Certainly, once a political movement has achieved certain political gains, those gains become part of the status quo and the political movement involved is at liberty to examine the new status quo to see if it is completely satisfied with it, or whether it thinks further "improvements" could or should be made.

Generally, when activists achieve their political goals they tend to rest on their laurels to some extent, and there is often a hiatus until succeeding generations grow up taking these achievements for granted and consider mounting new campaigns. However, the recent institutionalisation and financing of perpetual Feminism through Women's Studies departments, Ministries of Women's Affairs and state-funded and privately sponsored women's organisations are countering this tendency.

Socialist/Marxist Feminism
Socialist and Marxist Feminism are very similar to each other as Tong explains:

“Whereas socialist feminists believe that gender and class play an approximately equal role in any explanation of women's oppression, Marxist feminists believe that class ultimately better accounts for women's status and function(s). Under capitalism, they say, bourgeois women will not experience the same kind of oppression that proletarian women will. What is distinctive about Marxist feminism, then, is that it invites every woman, whether proletarian or bourgeois, to understand women's oppression not so much as the result of the intentional actions of individuals but as the product of the political, social, and economic structures associated with capitalism.” (Tong 1989,39)

It was Socialist Feminism, together with Radical Feminism (see below), which made up the vanguard of Feminism's Second Wave. Socialism (including Marxist Socialism/Communism) has been a very diverse movement. Yet, with few exceptions (such as the French writer Proudhon), Socialists favoured Feminism from the outset. There were possibly two reasons for this: First, Socialism arose at a historically later stage than Individualism, when Feminism was already an up-and-coming ideology; second, Socialism was generally antagonistic to the institution of the family. This was attractive to those Feminists who wanted to disconnect women from their role in the family.

In most forms of Socialism, there was to be no private property for the family to own and pass on to later generations. So there would be no need to rear children privately or tie women to the home.

One of the most important works in the Socialist Feminist tradition was Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. Influenced by Jean-Paul Sartre, she was an Existentialist as well as a Marxist. Juliet Mitchell's Woman's Estate (1971) was another influential Marxist Feminist work. She agreed with the efforts of the Radical Feminists (see below) to encourage women to analyse their own situation, but she thought the results of this process of analysis would need Marxist theory superimposed on it for it to make any sort of sense.

One of the main issues concerning Marxist Feminists is household work. They maintain that even when women have full-time jobs their household workload remains both undiminished and undervalued: if women weren't doing it for free, someone would have to be paid to do the shopping, cook, clean the house, and look after the children, etc. But capitalist societies, they contend, view women as mere consumers (using the money their male partners earn as producers).

Some Marxist Feminists believe women are oppressed because they see women as basically parasitical, the work of a housewife as easy, and of little value. They have therefore argued for the socialisation and collectivisation of women's household work. What they want is for people to live communally, so child-rearing, cooking and housework are carried out on a large scale by paid workers. This work will then acquire a monetary value and its worth will be thereby officially acknowledged – even if it is still mostly women who do it.

Other Marxist Feminists argue that a woman's household work in an individual household should attract a wage. This wage should be paid by the government. According to Tong (1989), however, there is another Marxist Feminist point of view which has it that paying women to do housework has three disadvantages:

1.It would make it more likely that women would be isolated in their own homes. Their work would become increasingly trivialised, as more and more labour-saving devices became available to them. They would become more and more prey to suburban neurosis.
2.The relationship of the woman to the rest of her family would be put onto a commercial footing, when many Marxists would like to get away from what they see as Capitalism's tendency to commodify everything.
3.It would entrench the traditional sexual division of labour – making it more likely that men would keep on working outside the home, and women inside the home.

Existentialist Feminism
As stated above, de Beauvoir was both an Existentialist and a Marxist. This leads authors such as Tong (1989) to classify her as primarily an Existentialist Feminist, rather than as a Marxist Feminist.
To fully understand Existentialist Feminism, one would have to understand Existentialism, and it would be outside the scope of this book to digress into the details of Existential theory. However, the essential characteristic of Existentialist Feminism is that it takes the positive, active categories of Existentialism and applies them to men, and takes the negative, passive categories and applies them to women – thus making women out to be disadvantaged and oppressed.

“Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, probably the key theoretical text of twentieth-century Feminism, offered an existentialist explanation of woman's situation. De Beauvoir argued that woman is oppressed by virtue of otherness. Woman is the Other because she is not-man. Man is the self, the free, determining being who defines the meaning of his existence, and woman is the Other, the object whose meaning is determined for her. If woman is to become a self, a subject, she must, like man, transcend the definitions, labels, and essences limiting her existence. She must make herself be whatever she wants to be.” (Tong, op. cit., 6).


Cultural Feminism
Margaret Fuller's Woman in the Nineteenth Century (1845) was the first significant Cultural Feminist work. Cultural Feminism sets out to persuade us that men and women are not only different from each other, but that women's values are superior to men's and women's values should supplant men's values. In other words, this is Female Supremacism.

What about women who behave badly? Most Feminists insist such are the result of socialisation, education and upbringing in a patriarchal society. By the same logic, however, the supposedly "positive" aspects of "women's values" must also derive from the same source. This means both the positive and negative aspects of women's values and behaviour might vanish as a result of the social engineering proposed by the Cultural Feminists!

Where 19th century Liberal Feminists concentrated on political and legal issues, Cultural Feminists examined institutions such as religion, marriage, and the home. They looked beyond the possibility of political and legal equality between women and men to the changes in society they believed could or should result from such equality. The idea, simply, was that men had been making a mess of things and women would do a better job of running, or helping to run the world.

Some Cultural Feminists believe in the myth of a primordial matriarchy, when pacifism, cooperation, nonviolent settlement of differences, and a harmonious regulation of public life were the order of the day -- in contrast to the destruction, tyranny, and war which are supposed to have characterised patriarchy. By using the word myth, I don't mean this belief is necessarily incorrect – just that it is an unproved tale about historical events which is central to a particular explanation of Society.
Unable to find any "Matriarchies" in the present day, many Feminists resort to inventing an idyllic Lost Matriarchal Paradise in the dim mists of prehistory. Even though there is no acceptable scholarly evidence for this, it has become an accepted fact in 'Women's Studies'. (www.patriarchy.com/~sheaffer/patriarchy.html)

Social Darwinism (Spencer, 1851) was an important influence on Cultural Feminism. This theory applied the quasi-Darwinian notion of the "survival of the fittest" to human societies, races and individual people. It implied that any successful society achieved its success by virtue of characteristics that made it "fitter" than rival societies. Societies could be "fitter" in various ways, including:

1. birthrate;
2. infant mortality rate;
3. longevity;
4. food production;
5. total population;
6. total land area;
7. success in warfare, etc.

Social Darwinism placed high value on male aggression and competitiveness. Some Social Darwinists even favoured murderous competition and war as appropriate selective mechanisms. However, another, less-publicised school of Social Darwinist thought, such as Charlotte Gilman's Women and Economics (1898), foresaw a different trend. They believed Humanity was evolving toward a more collective organisation, requiring more cooperation and less competition, more altruism and less egoism.

Psychoanalytic Feminism
The core thinking of Psychoanalytic Feminism goes something like this:

“Psychoanalytic Feminists find the root of women's oppression embedded deep in her (sic) psyche.... the Oedipus complex, the process by which the boy gives up his first love object, mother, in order to escape castration at the hands of father. As a result of submitting his id (or desires) to the superego (collective social conscience), the boy is fully integrated into culture. Together with his father he will rule over nature and woman, both of whom contain a similar irrational power. In contrast to the boy, the girl, who has no penis to lose, separates slowly from her first love object, mother. As a result, the girl's integration into culture is incomplete. She exists at the periphery or margin of culture as the one who does not rule but is ruled, largely because ... she fears her own power.” (Tong 1989, 5)

Psychoanalytic theory, however, is highly speculative, and not disprovable enough to rate (in my view, anyway) as a truly "scientific" theory. In addition, I find aspects of the above picture somewhat implausible -- particularly the notion that females are less integrated into culture than males. Females mature (socially, as well as sexually) earlier than males, and females typically show a more complete internalisation of cultural norms – i.e., they are "better behaved" – than males. Society really reflects female values more than male values and directs male behaviours toward supporting and protecting females. The idea that nature resembles women more than men is also highly debatable.

Radical Feminism
Radical Feminists tend to reject the State itself, not to mention many institutions within it, as a patriarchal framework. They believe it is neither a neutral institution which mediates between forces – the result of a flexible consensus – nor a forum within whose constraints women can achieve their political goals (as Liberal Feminists see it).

Radical Feminism is a product of the Second Wave and took over where previous factions left off. Fewer of its ideas have been implemented than is the case with Individualist Feminism or Socialist Feminism, however:

“(I)t is radical feminism which has been most theoretically innovative, rejecting traditional definitions of both politics and theory, while condemning all previous political theory as patriarchal. Unlike the Marxist approach, it has not struggled to incorporate women into a preexisting political framework, but instead attempts to shift our whole perception of society, to restructure it in terms of a radically new set of woman-centred meanings. Its aim has been to recast political identities; to reclaim language and culture from their masculine forms; to relocate significant political power; to reassess human nature and to challenge traditional values. (Coole, D. H., 1988: Women in Political Theory, p. 235)”

The main difference between Radical Feminism and other types of Feminism is that the former denies any Psychological differences between the sexes. Upbringing and education are claimed to be the causes of different male and female behaviour patterns, according to this view. And the function of differential upbringing and education for men and women is supposed to be to support the institution of male dominance (patriarchy). Radical Feminists demand the abolition of all sexually differentiated roles and the creation of an androgynous society. Needless to say, this is a philosophy created by lesbians to suit Lesbians.

“Some radical feminists ... pursue the logic of their analysis to a point where a united women's movement of the broad left becomes difficult to realize. In their view, women's physiological capacities for reproduction are analogous to the material production of the working class in traditional Marxism. Women, then, constitute a class in the same way that workers do. Just as the working class must become a class for itself by taking control of production, so, too, must women take control of their reproduction in order to become free. An absolute extension of the class analogy must lead to the idea of the destruction of the previously dominant class – men; or, at least, separation from it. Radicals demand that lesbianism be considered not merely a matter of freedom of choice but as essential political practice for feminists.” (Meehan, Elizabeth (1990): British Feminism from the 1960s to the 1980s. pp. 191-2)

One of the best-known Feminist works on sexuality is Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch (1971). This book is one of the classics of Radical Feminism. It is radical in the sense that it claims that people such as Betty Friedan did not go far enough. Setting up a female Establishment in opposition to the male Establishment, as Friedan suggested, did not help most women, according to Greer.

Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex (1970) comes under the category of Socialist Feminism as well as Radical Feminism. This book is unusually intelligent, clear, lucid, and thorough in its approach, by Feminist standards. This does not mean that what it claims is true or undistorted. She eventually ended up in a psychiatric institution, and I don't find this very surprising.

Shulamith Firestone is one influential Feminist writer who used Marxism as a starting-point. She begins by citing the 19th Century German Communist theorist Engels with approval, though she thinks he did not go far enough:

Engels did observe that the original division of labor was between man and woman for the purposes of child-breeding; that within the family the husband was the owner, the wife the means of production, the children the labor; and that reproduction of the human species was an important economic system distinct from the means of production. (Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex, 1971, New York: Bantam, pp. 4-5)

Even if we take a narrow, purely physical view of reproduction, Engels' analysis is very distorted. The male, along with the female, is part of the means of sexual production. And many acts of sexual intercourse are usually required for each fertilisation. Moreover, the male usually expends much more energy in these acts of coitus than does the female. If there is foreplay, the man is typically much more energetic in this phase of intercourse as well as in the actual coitus.

Additionally, the ultimate "owner" of the children varies greatly from culture to culture, and time to time. The ultimate test, I would say, is who gets custody of the children in cases of separation or divorce. In the western world, this is almost always the mother. Thus, in the contemporary western world, at least, women are the real "owners" of the "product." In about ninety percent of cases, according to the consensus of fathers' rights activists on the Internet, mothers gets sole custody of their children after a divorce or separation. This bias against fathers often takes the form of the "Natural Caretaker Doctrine" – the belief that the person who has the most day-to-day contact with children is the person best suited to have custody after separation or divorce.

It is a well documented fact that fathers have a very difficult time obtaining custody due to the pervasive anti-father prejudice that still exists in many parts of the Family Court system. (www.deltabravo.net/custody/index.shtml).

What's more, reproduction properly includes all the years devoted to rearing (feeding, housing, educating, etc.) the children. Typically, as the primary breadwinner, fathers expend a substantial proportion of their time and income for that purpose. If, as argued above, it is the mother who is the real "owner" of the children, then it is really the mother who is exploiting the father in this particular economic system. When you get right down to it, men are an oppressed minority in western society today. They are a genuine minority, unlike women, who are a privileged majority dressed up by Feminists as an oppressed minority.

Firestone thought that where Radical Feminism and human biology disagreed, it had to be human biology that gave way! In other words, she was lucid enough to see some conflicts between Radical Feminist theory and reality, but like so many other ideologues tilting at windmills, she didn't let that stop her. More recent Feminists have solved such problems by lying about the facts and bullying entire societies into believing arrant nonsense (as we have seen in previous chapters). When entire societies believe lies, this is called "ideology," "superstition" or "religion".

Firestone bases her own analysis on the following, in part uncontroversial, assertions to do with what she calls the "biological family":

1.That women throughout history before the advent of birth control were at the continual mercy of their biology – menstruation, menopause, and 'female ills', constant painful childbirth, wet nursing and care of infants, all of which made them dependent on males ... for physical survival.
2.That human infants take an even longer time to grow up than animals, and thus are helpless and, for some short period at least, dependent on adults for physical survival.
3.That a basic mother/child interdependency has existed in some form in every society, past or present, and thus has shaped the psychology of every mature female and every infant.
4.That the natural reproductive difference between the sexes led directly to the first division of labour at the origins of class, as well as furnishing the paradigm of caste (discrimination based on biological characteristics) (ibid, 8-9).

The terms "at the origins of" and "paradigm" seem to imply the sexual division of labour was a precondition for the emergence of the phenomena of class and caste. Firestone makes this claim explicit (though she still provides no evidence for it) in her definition of historical materialism:

Modern technology makes it feasible, she thinks, to overthrow the biological basis of the present sexual power-structure. This is where her psychosexual utopia comes in. She argues that women should take control of "the new population biology as well as all the social institutions of childbearing and child rearing." More radically, in her utopia there would be no such thing as family or community, but only disconnected individuals toiling for the moment:

“(G)enital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality -- Freud's 'polymorphous perversity' – would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.) The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would be born to both sexes equally, or independently of either.... the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general.... The division of labor would be ended by the elimination of labor altogether (cybernation).” (op. cit.)

One of the most influential Feminist works in recent times has been Kate Millett's Sexual Politics. Her central thesis is that one can characterise the relationship between the sexes in political terms. This insight apparently derives originally from Wilhelm Reich. It would be fairer to be more balanced than the Feminists are about the actual political relationships that exist between the sexes. Millett starts from the following assumptions:

a) the United States (and similar countries) are "patriarchies";
b) this is evident from the fact that politicians are mainly males;
c) this rule by men over women applies to all components of society, including the family.


She doesn't makes these claims very clearly or explicitly, but it is evident she believes them. And Feminism has become established to such an extent that these tenets are popularly regarded as virtually self-evident throughout the western world.

Two concepts that typify Radical Feminism are the theoretical maxim "the personal is political" and its practical corollary, "consciousness-raising".

“Within the consciousness-raising group each person's experience, each woman's life-story was a matter of interest. We understood that through listening to an individual's experience we could draw a much richer picture of how society was put together. Sexual politics provided an understanding of how society works both at an ideological level and at a material level and deepened the understanding the left had of human experience. The Women's Liberation Movement built an analysis of society founded on the nuts and bolts of individual life experience. It enlarged and challenged previous understanding of the social, economic and political basis of society.” (Luise Eichenbaum and Susie Orbach: Outside In. Inside Out. Women's Psychology: A Feminist Psychoanalytic Account, Harmondsworth:Penguin,1982,12)

I would liken this process to the gathering of data to prove a scientific hypothesis, with the major difference that consciousness-raising has a built-in bias which can be easily demonstrated by asking the (rhetorical, of course) question, "How many consciousness-raising groups did the Feminists hold to enable men to discuss how they had been oppressed by women in their lives?" In other words, "consciousness-raising" is a near-synonym to "brainwashing," "instruction" or "conversion." Radical Feminist theory (sexual politics, as conceived of by Feminists) provided the framework for women to reinterpret their lives much as religions do for converts.

Postmodern Feminism / French Feminism
A cynic might characterise Postmodern Feminism as a stage or type of Feminism that makes a virtue of the fact that contemporary Feminism is splintered and apparently directionless:

Postmodern feminists worry that because feminism purports to be an explanatory theory, it ... is in danger of trying to provide the explanation for why woman is oppressed, or the ten steps all women must take in order to achieve true liberation. (Tong 1989, 217)

Feminism is unable to do these things. Indeed, no Feminist has objectively demonstrated that women are (more) oppressed (than men) and, therefore need to be "liberated." Such an objective demonstration is a precondition for the explanatory theory they lack. The splintered nature of Postmodern Feminism is the inevitable result of the fact that none of the various factions of Feminism have been able to construct an explanatory theory. In turn, these schisms have created an environment in which the so-called "backlash" has been able to emerge.

Women's Studies
"Women's Studies" is a curious academic subject. Partly because it is new, but mostly because it has more in common with theological or ideological training than with other academic disciplines in (say) the Social Sciences.

“Women's studies, like feminism itself, presents two approaches to the question of inequality. One approach, using anthropological, biological, historical and psychological evidence, argues that women are essentially no different from men, and that therefore in a differently structured society it would be possible for divisions based upon sex or gender differences to disappear, leaving us with an equal society. The other approach argues that women are essentially different from men and that inequality results in an undervaluing of female activities and characteristics.... Women's studies can thus be seen to be linked to two concepts of equality, which we may call 'plain equal' or 'equal but different'.” (Ruth, Issues in Feminism: A First Course in Women's Studies, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1980, p. 5)

It is a characteristic of the ideology of a social movement that it tries to "marry" contradictions in an attempt to maximise the political clout of the movement. Purely academic disciplines, on the other hand, tend to focus on contradictions in an attempt to reach a conclusion as to which theory is correct.
Because Women's Studies is not really an academic subject, however, we cannot expect it to objectively examine such questions as whether men are oppressed in society, whether they are oppressed by women, and whether they are oppressed more than women. Women's Studies takes the oppression of women (by men or by "Society") as a self-evident truth which no right-thinking person would even question. Even Women's Studies lecturers admit this bias toward political action rather than rigorous scholarship:


(T)he ideas, methods, curricula, and theories of Women's Studies exhibit great diversity and resist easy definition. Those now working in Women's Studies have called it variously a process, a field of inquiry, a critical perspective, a center for social action, and/or the academic arm of the women's movement. It is all of these and more. (ibid, p. 3).

Ruth is aware of the charge that Women's Studies is biased. She responds by claiming male bias (which she calls "Masculine-ism," "Masculism" or "Androcentrism") has always been a feature of Society. This may well be so, but proving many male academics have been biased does not prove Women's Studies is not biased, nor does it justify Women's Studies being biased, if it is.

Masculists/Men's Rights activists are not responsible for what male bias has existed and does exist. We do not need to defend male bias, where it exists. If Feminists reveal male bias, that is not a bad thing. However, Feminists do more than just reveal male bias, they also create female bias. One of the main aims of this book is to reveal cases of female bias. Here are some of the examples covered in this book:

1. the definition of political power and identifying who has it;
2. attitudes toward male as against female circumcision;
3. evaluating male and female courtship roles in the context of rape legislation;
4. the dissemination and interpretation of the facts of domestic violence;
5. the dissemination of information on various types of child abuse;
6. the evaluation of the legal system's treatment of men and women;
7. the evaluation of employment issues involving men and women;
8. the compilation and dissemination of UN and other statistics on gender equity;
9. the choice of issues where gender equity is demanded;
10. the definition of gender equity.

Sex, Lies & Feminism by Peter Zohrab: Chapter 14: The Frontman Fallacy

CHAPTER 14
THE FRONTMAN FALLACY

What is Men's Rights About ?
Men's Rights is the ideology according to which men have intrinsic rights that are often denied them in contemporary Western culture -- indeed, according to this view, society does not usually recognize that men, as men, even have rights. Feminists in western countries have, over about 200 years (since Wollstonecraft), established as a given the thesis that society is male-dominated and oppresses women. This is the meta-issue that Men's Rights activists raise, as a logical (but not necessarily practical) precondition to the raising of various specific issues.

Men's Rights proponents consider that Feminists have argued for "equality" in respect of self-selected issues only, -- using ad hoc (and seldom explicit) definitions of "equality" that they developed themselves, rather than (for example) calling a conference of all interested parties for the purpose of clarifying the issues. It is argued that Feminists have not sought gender equality on issues such as child custody, the decision to abort one's unborn child, compulsory military service, unsegregated professional sports, law enforcement relating to domestic violence, funding for men's and women's groups, Men's Studies vs Women's Studies, ministries of Men's Affairs to complement ministries of Women's Affairs, and health research funding, etc..

Many Men's Rights activists also criticise Feminism for relying on a restricted view of political power, whereby a count of the relative numbers of men and women in important decision-making positions suffices to determine whether men or women are the more powerful. Men's Rights proponents point out that there are many other sorts of pol