Socialism & Feminism Archive Carey Roberts is a social commentator on political correctness. He has been widely published in newspapers and through the internet. You can contact him at E-Mail. 1 2 3 Afraid to Say What We Think Bias Suit Reveals the Truth Behind the 'Boy Crisis' Breaking the Hearts of Men Comic Relief from the World Health Organization Dissing Dads Don’t Use Mediation for Divorce Double-Standard Treatment for Child Abusers Fathers the Fall-Guy in the Abortion Debate Feminine Virtue Take a Beating at Abu Ghraid Feminism Is Reactionary The Feminist Subversion of the Gender System Fem-Think and the Civil Rights of Men The Follies of Child Support: Dead-Beat or Dead-Broke? Girlie-Man, Next Leader of the Free World? The Grinches Who Would Steal Marriage All Hail to the Panderer-in-Chief Heresy of the Maternal Instinct It's Boo-Hoo Time at Abortion Central Jessica Lynch and the Neo-Com Revolution Karl Marx and the Gender Wage Gap Karl Marx's Prescription for Women's Liberation Kerry Embraces the Radical Feminist Agenda The Lives That Are Destroyed (Items In My Mail) Martha Burk Declares a Holy War on Corporate America Martha Stewart Plays the Chivalry Card Men Feeling Blue on February the Fourth MS. Information: Making Women Angry and Afriad NASCAR Dads and Soccer Moms Join Forces, But at What Cost? NIH: Where Political Correctness is Sickening Oh my! Women's Groups are Excluding Me Outing the Feminist "Great Lie" Patriarchal Power or Marxist Mischief? PBS Propaganda Piece Radical Feminist on the U.S. Supreme Court So, is Radical Feminism a Socialist Front? Told to Act Like a Girl The Unfolding AIDS Scandal at the UN The Untold Story of Betty Friedan When Family Dissolution becomes the Law of the Land Where have all the Young Men Gone? White Males Hot Demographic for the 2004 Elections Why are Lesbians Marching for Abortion Rights? Winner of the Covented 2005 Award for Political Incorrectness Women Fleeing the Feminist Fold Women Lose when Feminists Bash Women's Birth-Right Under Attack by Fem-Socialists Women Who Make Things Worse for Other Women Wonderful, Wacky World of Fem-Speak Yes, Fathers Are Essential Men Feeling Blue on February the Fourth 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.” (Editor's note: That's because the health industry has made women fear breast cancer, which kills fewer than 40,000 women a year compared to hundreds of thousands to heart disease.) 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? Double-Standard Treatment for Child Abusers Heather Thomas of Fairfax, VA was arrested last week in the shaking death of her 6-day-old granddaughter. On Christmas Day Valerie Kennedy held her son in a tub of scalding water as punishment, causing his death. A few days later Genevieve Silva was arrested in Oklahoma on child rape charges for luring a high school student to run away from home. Chances are you didn’t read about these incidents in your local newspaper. Because when a man commits abuse, it seems the story is splashed all over the front page. But when the perpetrator is a member of the fairer sex, the story is relegated to the bottom of the Police Report on page C9. Each year the federal Administration for Children and Families surveys child protective service (CPS) agencies around the country to spot the latest trends in child abuse. And according to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, women are the most common abusers of children. In 2003, females, usually mothers, represented 58% of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect, with men composing the remaining cases. In that same year an estimated 1,500 children died of abuse or neglect. In 31% of those cases, the perpetrator was the mother acting alone, compared to 18% of fathers acting alone. [www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/index.htm ] Then there’s the scandal of Dumpster babies. In 1998, 105 newborn infants were discovered abandoned in public places. One-third of those babies were found dead. In a civilized society that makes adoption services widely-available, that practice should have been condemned as unconscionable and wrong. But instead of prosecuting the abandoners, we accommodated to the societal imperative to provide choices to women no matter the moral consequences. So we passed laws to establish “safe havens.” Under New York law, mothers can now anonymously drop off their infants up to five days old. But if she later has second thoughts, not to worry. She can come back and reclaim the child up to 15 months later. That satisfaction-guaranteed-or-your-money-back offer might work at a Macy’s handbag sale, but that’s not how a moral society treats its most vulnerable members. Patricia Pearson has written a blockbuster book called, When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence. Pearson documents repeated examples of violent women who draw their Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card by claiming PMS, battered woman’s syndrome, or postpartum depression. Remember Andrea Yates who admitted to drowning her five boys in a bathtub? Of course the National Organization for Women rushed to her defense, claiming that postpartum blues justified the serial murder. And two weeks ago Texas 1st Court of Appeals ruled that her conviction should be reversed. Then there’s the problem of women, usually female teachers, who seduce and deflower teenage boys. Look how the media sanitizes the issue. Reporters trivialize the incident using clinical phrases such as “sexual contact,” or worse envelope the story in a snickering “didn’t-he-get-lucky” tone. I once knew a teenage boy who was raped by his older sister’s girlfriend during a holiday visit to his parent’s home. Ten years later, he was still devastated by the incident. Of course he never reported the assault, no one would have taken him seriously. When these cases go to trial, the double standard persists. As CNN’s Nancy Grace plaintively asks, “Why is it when a man rapes a little girl, he goes to jail, but when a woman rapes a boy, she had a breakdown?” And shame on reporters who use limp clichés to excuse the inexcusable. Like the story about a New Orleans mom who stuffed her 3-month-old son in the clothes dryer and hit the On button. This was the feeble explanation that the Times-Picayune offered in its December 8 edition: “Murder Suspect ‘Was Trying her Best.’” [www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1134027521231650.xml ] That condescending headline brings to mind the Solomonic words of columnist Kathryn Jean Lopez: “There are mental-health issues in many of these cases, obviously, but regardless, a society can and must say loud and clear: ‘That’s wrong. That’s evil. That can never happen again.’” [www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200510170830.asp ] To which I say, “Amen.” In radio talk shows and internet bulletin boards around the nation, Americans’ ire has reached the boiling point over female child abusers who are treated with reverential deference by the media and our legal system. As long as we tolerate this gender double-standard, the problem will fester and grow. And our children will continue to be at risk. The Unfolding AIDS Scandal at the UN December 1 was World AIDS Day and the focus this year is on women and girls. That's good, because almost half of all HIV-infected persons in the world are female. But if you are a woman who is concerned about HIV infection, I'd suggest you avoid the UNAIDS program like the plague. Why? Because their advice just might kill you. But I'm getting ahead of myself. As we know, there is no vaccine or drug that can stop AIDS. But there is one proven strategy. That approach, which is backed by the Bush Administration, is known as "ABC." A stands for Abstinence, B means Be faithful, and C refers to Condoms [www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2003/wt030406.html ]. The ABC concept has been implemented in Uganda over the past 15 years. There, a massive public education campaign was mounted. Billboard signs admonished would-be adulterers, "No Grazing." And religious organizations were tapped to play key roles (sorry about that, ACLU). The results were impressive: the HIV infection rate in Uganda dropped from 15% to 5%. In 1991, 21% of pregnant women had the deadly HIV virus. Ten years later, that figure had dropped to 6% [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0415roberts.html . But the experts at UNAIDS don't believe in the ABCs. Why? Because they had a strategy with a name that appealed to erotomaniacs everywhere: Safe Sex. The Safe Sex advocates argue that since sexual activity is a fact of life, the best we can do is offer condoms. But two years ago the truth began to emerge. Speakers at the 2002 Barcelona AIDS conference began to openly admit the failure of the Safe Sex approach. The UN Population Division offered this dispiriting assessment: "Much effort has been spent on promoting the prophylactic use of condoms as part of AIDS prevention. However, over the years, the condom has not become more popular among couples." [nationalreview.com/comment/comment-sylva073002.asp ] Why did Safe Sex fail? Well, knowing that the condom failure rate is 15%, ask yourself this question: If an intimate partner of yours had AIDS, would you trust your life to a condom? And why didn't the UN embrace the proven ABC strategy? The answer: it's a little too....puritanical. Abstinence is something a Bible-thumping preacher might push -- but not the respectable public-health types at the UNAIDS. If the gospel of Safe Sex didn't sell, why not try the orthodoxy of The Sisterhood? So just last week the UNAIDS published its report, "Women and AIDS" [www.unaids.org/wad2004/EPI_1204_pdf_en/Chapter2_women+aids_en.pdf ]. If you are interested in getting a glimpse into the radical feminist mindset, you will find it there. You will learn how women are subject to discrimination, domestic violence, and all manner of mistreatment - at the hands of their male chauvinist oppressors, of course. For example, the report tells us the amazing fact that "women and girls provide the bulk of home-based care" -- but what does that have to do with stopping AIDS? Feminists who believe that all heterosexual intercourse is a form of rape will be heartened by the document's sweeping claim that "Women and girls often lack the power to abstain from sex." And what if you are a woman who is looking for concrete suggestions on how to avoid becoming infected with the deadly HIV virus? Don't go to UNAIDS, because you will find nothing there in the way of practical advice. If fact you may become convinced that since women are so utterly powerless in the face of global patriarchy, taking any action to protect yourself would be futile. Every day, 8,500 men and women die from the modern Black Death that we call AIDS. Most of those deaths could be avoided if the UN took a practical approach that is based on science, not ideology. And pitting women against men is hardly the answer. The UN is engulfed in a growing array of scandals: the Rwanda slaughter that left 800,000 dead; sexual abuse by peacekeeping forces in the Congo; the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Then there's the ever-deepening Iraqi oil-for-food scandal - just this week we learned that Kofi Annan's son Kojo was on the take to the tune of $2,500 a month. Now add to that list, the devastating toll of the AIDS epidemic. The Grinches Who Would Steal Marriage This Christmas season, many are pausing to reflect on our families, our children, and on the uncertain future of marriage. Exactly who are the Grinches who would steal marriage? As early as 1971, the Declaration of Feminism declared war on this bedrock institution: "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women....We must work to destroy it.” So radical feminists sounded their hysterical alarm, and began their relentless assault on this sacred union (www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm). Some feminists went so far as to compare marriage with illicit sex work. Andrea Dworkin warned the sisterhood that “Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.” Attorney Catherine MacKinnon issued this analysis: “Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment.” In recent years, however, a broad coalition has emerged to rescue and resuscitate this beleaguered institution. Who are the lead characters on the stage of this Christmas pageant? In Act I, we see the government coming to the rescue. Beginning this past January, DHHS Secretary Tommy Thompson began to announce a series of initiatives to promote healthy marriages. But Steven Baskerville reveals that only one-quarter of the funds are actually targeted at improving marriages(http://users.rcn.com/baskerville/gov_as_family_therapist.htm ). The remaining amount goes to child support enforcement programs, designed to wring more money out of the pockets of low-income, unemployed fathers. Act II, enter the marriage counselors, the marital Mr. and Mrs. Fix-Its. But are they hurting more than they are helping? William Dougherty, a family therapist at the University of Minnesota, would answer that question with an emphatic “yes.” Dougherty accuses some marriage counselors of actually pushing for a break-up withcomments such as, “You deserve better.” And critizing the pro-female bias of many therapists, he notes that “men also get seriously disadvantaged in some couples therapy.” (www.smartmarriages.com/hazardous.html ) But don’t lose hope, because the curtain is about to rise on Act III. On cue, here come the marriage enrichment programs, those groups that would charge $500 to help you find your marital bliss. The lead actor in the marriage enrichment business is an outfit called Smart Marriages. This past summer, a Smart Marriages conference featured a speech that answered the question, “What are Men For, Anyway?” (www.smartmarriages.com/pittman.keynote.html ) The conference brochure included this insulting description: “One more time, with feeling and through the movies, we'll explore men's roles and their usefulness. Or lack of.” And if that’s not disturbing enough, pay a visit to the website of John Van Epp, PhD at www.nojerks.com/. You will see that Dr. Epp conducts seminars on “How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk.” Last I heard, Dr. Epp had no plans to offer a program on “How to Avoid Marrying a Bitch.” Fortunately, there is at least one marriage enhancement program that is not afraid to present a male-friendly perspective. Secrets of Married Men (www.secretsofmarriedmen.com/ ) offers practical advice on how men can cope with the many stressors and demands of marriage. But the sad fact is, most marriage enrichment programs are designed for -- and pander to -- women. They convey the message that at best, men are irrelevant, and at worst, men are “the problem” in bad marriages. So as the curtain falls on our Yuletide pageant, we will ask ourselves, which is worse: The Grinches who demonize and disparage marriage? Or the Grinches who, in the name of reviving marriage, demonize and disparage men? Patriarchal Power or Marxist Mischief? Poor Arnold Schwarzenegger had to find out the hard way. Fresh from his stirring speech at the Republican convention where he endorsed President Bush, the governor came home that night knowing he would have some explaining to do. For wife Maria Shriver is known to be of the liberal Democratic persuasion. Sure enough, Maria put Arnold in the doghouse -- and that meant no sex for a fortnight [cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2004/10/19/676764-ap.html]. According to socialist-feminist theory, a vast anti-female conspiracy known as the “patriarchy” controls the social order. When you ask a feminist to explain that mind-boggling statement, she invariably points to the fact that the great majority of elected officials are male. And according to the Marxist analysis, those callous male patriarchs look out only for their own kind, leaving women neglected and downtrodden. But when we examine the record, a different picture emerges. Take our federal entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. All three of these programs were conceived of and enacted by men. They are paid for mostly by male taxpayers. And who are the principal beneficiaries of this governmental largesse? In all three cases, it’s women. Under Social Security and Medicare, women come out ahead because they outlive men. In the case of Medicaid, women edge out the men because of eligibility criteria that favor custodial parents, who in most cases are mothers. Medical research reveals a similar pattern. Beginning in the 1970s, Senator Edward Kennedy became a tireless advocate for breast cancer research. As a result, the National Institutes of Health now budgets three times more money for breast cancer research than for prostate cancer [www.nci.nih.gov/public/factbk97/varican.htm]. Then add the Violence Against Women Act, aggressive child support enforcement policies, and sexual harassment laws. The conclusion is clear: chivalry is alive and well within the halls of Congress. Our elected patriarchs unabashedly cater to the needs of women. But the public arena is not the only venue where the matriarchy reigns. Women often rule the roost at home, as well. And it’s not just Gov. Schwarzenegger who cowers in the face of matriarchal might. During the recent election campaign, Laura Bush recounted how husband George was ordered by mother Barbara to take his feet off the furniture – a story told much to the delight of her female audiences. And we know who wears the pants in the Heinz-Kerry household [www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2004/roberts102704.htm]. It’s true that in traditional families, the husband was considered the head of the family. But appearances can be deceiving. Consider the old saying, “The man is the head of the house, but the woman is the neck. And it’s the neck that turns the head.” In truth, the husband’s role can be compared to the Queen of England. Even though the Queen is the titular head of the government, her role is more ceremonial than substantive. There are those who argue that the sexes have always been equal, they only exercised their power in different ways. David Shackleton, writing in the July-September issue of Everyman magazine, explains that men’s power in the political, economic, and physical arenas has always been balanced by women’s power in the moral, emotional, and sexual realms. Teresa Riordan makes a similar point in her recent book, Inventing Beauty. Surveying women’s use of false bosoms, push-up bras, and lipstick, Riordan argues that women “have shrewdly, cannily, and knowingly deployed artifice in their ceaseless battle to captivate the inherently roving eye of the male.” [oddnews.orb6.com/stories/nm/20041014/oukoe_life_feminisim.php] So much for the stereotype of the powerless female. It can be said that “patriarchy” is one of the most potent words in the English language. Its mere mention induces spasms of guilt and shame in men. Among women, the word incites anger and vindictiveness. That powerful mix of emotions is the fuel that has allowed radical feminists to advance their cause. To this day, the Sisterhood talks about the patriarchy as if it is still going strong, inflicting misery on all those hapless women. For the last 30 years or so, the neo-Marxists have relentlessly pummelled the frail strawman of patriarchy. After a while you begin to wonder, is their agenda to promote gender equality and reconciliation? Or do they have something more nefarious in mind? It's Boo-Hoo Time at Abortion Central What has become of all the strong women? At the N.O.W. headquarters, all the girls were wailing in disbelief. At the Feminist Majority, everyone's mascara had to be redone. And First-Lady-in-waiting Teresa was left speechless. The 2004 presidential election was not just a setback for the Democratic Party. Candidate Kerry repeatedly promised to appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court and to eliminate the so-called gender “wage gap.” So Kerry’s defeat also represented a repudiation of the rad-fem agenda. Of course, the feminist Mafia tried to put a good face on the debacle. Ann Lewis, editor of the Democratic party’s Women’s Vote Center, consoled the party faithful: “Congratulations for all you did: the telephone calls, letter writing and contributions, the woman-to-woman conversations and door-to-door canvasses.” Over at the Planned Parenthood Federation, the ladies were in an absolute tizzy. Already counting the days until they lose their precious right to abortion-on-demand, they vowed to step up the work of its Post-Roe Service Delivery Task Force. Co-chair Chris Charbonneau advised, “Women should lobby state legislators to eradicate laws that date from the 1800s and early 1900s and that call abortion murder.” N.O.W. president Kim Gandy issued a press release liberally sprinkled with bold-face demands: “We must fight back against Bush’s regressive policies on every issue…We must demand our senators block every Supreme Court nominee.” [www.now.org/issues/election/elections2004/041103letter.html ] “Fight back” on “every issue”? What is this, Mrs. Gandy, guerilla warfare? To gauge the mood of the female electorate, a group of women’s organizations called Votes for Women 2004 polled 1,000 voters. The results were released this past week [www.votesforwomen2004.org/Election%20Poll%20Analysis%2011-04.pdf ] -- and the news was grim. Compared to 2000, support for democrat Kerry declined among a broad range of women: white women, married women, and older women. Even working women were less likely to vote for Kerry in 2004 than Gore in 2000. So much for all those women being kept down by the Glass Ceiling. Only 2% of persons said that lesbian and gay rights were on their list of top concerns. I guess the N.O.W. is going to have to retool its euphemistically-named campaign for “equal marriage.” But what most rankled the Sisterhood was the finding that only 2% of all respondents cited abortion as the issue that made them decide whom to vote for President. And 14% of women actually said the candidates were too focused on the abortion controversy. In other words, abortion has become a losing issue. The poll found that many did not believe that women’s issues were adequately addressed during the campaigns. But now that you mention it, the poll didn’t bother to ask whether the campaigns adequately addressed the issues of men – I wonder why not. But it was the analysis of the “gender gap” issue which reveals how the feminist movement relies on Soviet-style propaganda to advance its neo-Marxist agenda. The notion of the gender gap has been used for years to browbeat politicians into passing pro-feminist legislation. But on November 2, the gender gap reversed itself. That day, 55% of males voted for the Republicans, while females were almost evenly split -- 51% favored Kerry and 48% gave the nod to Bush. Radical feminism survives by churning out an unendless series of myths and falsehoods. So predictably, Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal issued a press release this past week with the misleading headline, “Gender Gap and Women’s Votes Pivotal in Close 2004 Election.” [www.feminist.org/pdfs/gender_gap_release.pdf ] But an honest summary would have said the exact opposite: “Men’s Votes Pivotal in Close 2004 Election.” So now the Sisterhood finds itself on the losing side of its own issues, is witnessing the widescale erosion of its voting base, and must now resort to dis-information tactics to staunch the exodus. Anyone have a hankie? NASCAR Dads and Soccer Moms Join Forces, But at What Cost? Following last week’s historic defeat for the Democrats, pollster Celinda Lake was surely wagging her finger as if to say, “I told you so!” Because just last Spring, Ms. Lake was preaching that the Dems would never retake the White House unless they began to take the issues of the white male electorate – the so-called NASCAR Dads -- more seriously. Indeed, white men represent a sizeable chunk of the U.S. electorate -- 45 million voters to be exact. Back in 2000, 60% of them voted for George W., while only 36% gave the nod to Al Gore (www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html ). Those additional 11 million male voters spelled the critical difference for Mr. Bush in that tight contest. But Mr. Bush attracted only 49% of the white female vote in that electoral nail-biter. So soon after he was sworn in as President, wooing the women became a key element of the Bush re-election strategy. That meant that, with the exception of the abortion issue, the Bush campaign was reluctant to ruffle the feathers of the radical feminists. As a result, the Gender Warriors left over from the Clinton Administration continued to have free rein throughout the federal government. And that’s exactly what they did: Despite the recommendations of a Blue Ribbon panel, the Department of Education refused to soften the rigid Title IX quotas that the Clinton Administration had used to shut down hundreds of male collegiate sports teams. At the Department of State, feminists succeeded in imposing a 20% quota for women in the newly-established legislatures of both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Department of Health and Human Services named Christina Beato to the powerful Assistant Secretary of Health position. An avowed advocate for women’s issues, she blocked the creation of an Office of Men’s Health. Most disappointing was the area of child support reform. Early in his term, President Bush brought in fatherhood advocate Wade Horn to head the Administration on Children and Families. But Horn’s program was co-opted by the advocates of responsible fatherhood– “responsible” being a code word for more draconian child support. Those developments set the stage for the 2004 presidential race. Despite Celinda Lake’s dire warning, the Democratic Party was not willing to risk offending the Sisterhood. So the 2004 Democratic platform flatly ignored the issues of men, while kow-towing to such feminist demands as protecting abortion rights and remedying the so-called gender “wage gap.” And what about the Republicans? Not surprisingly, their gender message also targeted the female vote. Millions of placards, lapel pins, and bumper stickers told us, as if we didn’t get it the first time, “W Stands for Women.” In the end, 62% of white males and 55% of white females voted for George W. Bush. Two core constituencies -- NASCAR Dads and Soccer Moms – came together on November 2 to re-elect President Bush. (www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html ). This new-found coalition made all the difference in that closely-fought presidential race. But Republican glee should be tempered by a sobering fact: their victory came at the price of neglecting the issues of white males. This is what I mean: Men are the workhorses that drive the nation’s economy. When each year tens of thousands of middle-age men die prematurely from heart disease and cancer, what are the effects on our economic productivity and global competitiveness? Among our nation’s most eligible bachelors, 22% have gone on a marriage strike because of laws that tilt towards women (www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2004/roberts071504.htm). What does that portend for the future of families, which create the foundation of society? Fathers are a pillar of stability for beleaguered families. When divorcing wives cast fathers out of their homes and claim sole custody of the children, are we prepared for the higher rates of juvenile delinquency and social dysfunction seen among fatherless children? Meanwhile back in Massachusetts, a small band of NASCAR Dads put together a statewide ballot initiative. The initiative asked voters whether they believed fathers should get shared custody of their children in the event of divorce. That common-sense idea was overwhelmingly approved by 85% of voters (fathersandfamilies.org/site/legislation.php ). In contrast, candidate John Kerry managed to garner only 63% of the popular vote for the presidential race in his home state. One of these days, some smart politician is going to come along and will realize that championing the issues of men, as well as women, is not only a winning campaign strategy, it’s also good for America. All Hail to the Panderer-in-Chief The polls have closed, President George Bush garnered 51% of the popular vote, and the Republicans consolidated their hold on the U.S. Congress. The 2004 presidential campaign will be remembered for many things, including the fact that the female electorate became the most attended-to group in the history of American politics. It was a reprise of the timeless story of the two hopeful suitors competing for the affections of the fair maiden. When the reluctant maiden declined to offer her hand to the first suitor, along came the second gallant knight, proffering more gifts than the first. Determined to not be outdone, the first man upped the ante. Eventually, both men had promised all their worldly possessions. Pandering, of course, is the stock-in-trade of any political campaign. Still, it was impressive to watch the two presidential candidates pulling out all the stops to woo the female vote. Of the two campaigns, the Bush people devised the more creative strategy. They took Bush’s middle initial and, like Michael Jordan peddling his footwear, turned it into a brand name: “W Stands for Women.” This is the first time in memory that a presidential candidate has linked his persona – his own name -- with a particular voting block. But why women? Why not “W Stands for White Men”? In contrast to Bush’s name brand approach, the Kerry campaign used the more traditional tactic: convince people how awful things are, and then promise them a brighter future. But attracting the white female vote women is a daunting task. After all, how do you reach out to persons who already have the most rights, protections, and discretionary income of any group in history? What more can you promise to the manicure-and-hairdo set? So the Kerry campaign set out to test the limits of reinventing the truth. John Kerry’s condescending message was this: “Things are actually much worse for women than you realize. If you vote for my opponent, you will soon be sent back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.” But it was the wage equity issue where candidate Kerry was downright insulting to women. Everyone knows that persons who work 41 hours a week (which is the average for men) are going to get higher wages than their female co-workers who clock only 32 hours (www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=56 ). And it’s obvious that men who work in the more dangerous jobs – like construction and asbestos removal – should be paid more than women who work in safe, climate-controlled environments, such as school teachers and telephone operators. But by harping on the so-called “wage disparity” issue – while offering no specifics on how to solve a problem that doesn’t even exist – Senator Kerry revealed a disdainful regard for women’s intelligence. Soon the pandering became so obvious that women began to complain. After all, we live in the Age of the Empowered Woman. And empowered women don’t need anything that a man might have to offer. So in late September columnist Cathy Young, returning to the courtship theme, decried that the two political parties are treating women “with a condescension that, in a better world, would cause a suitor to be sent packing.” (www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/27/a_new_condescension_greets_women_voters/) Both political parties took note. Neither of them was willing to blink first, but a solution had to be devised. And so it happened. It occurred during the third presidential debate. Here’s the question that moderator Bob Schieffer asked the two candidates: “What is the most important thing you’ve learned from these strong women?” In case anyone missed the point, Schieffer repeated the “strong women” phrase two more times. Within days, the “strong women” mantra was appearing in the stump speeches of the candidates’ wives. This way, if women felt guilty about all the political bouquets being thrown their way, they could comfort themselves with the knowledge that indeed, they were “strong women.” How Orwellian. With both candidates going to such an effort to target their messages to the female voter, you’d think that women would have had no trouble making a decision. But through the very end of the campaign, 62% of all undecided voters were female. Privileged or victim? Underpaid or compensated fairly? Strong or in need of constant blandishments by powerful men? With so many fibs and half-truths floating around, it was no wonder that women had trouble making up their minds. Girlie-Man, Next Leader of the Free World? Blame it on Arnold Schwarzenegger if you must, but a lot of people are questioning the macho-meter of Democrats in general, and Senator Kerry in particular. It started back in July when the Democrat-controlled state legislature stalled the vote on a critical budget bill. The partisan foot-dragging prompted Gov. Schwarzenegger to chide the legislators for being “girlie-men.” Despite howls of protest, Schwarzenegger refused to apologize. Then he repeated the charge in early August, this time tagging candidate John Kerry with the emasculating moniker. By the time the Republican Convention rolled around, the California delegates – male and female -- had donned pins reading “Girlie Men” with a red slash through them. In his televised speech before millions, Schwarzenegger couldn’t resist repeating the now-famous phrase. Worse, Kerry’s own supporters began to admit the truth of the charge. In his New York Times column, “How Kerry Became a Girlie-Man,” Frank Rich confessed, “It’s Mr. Kerry’s behavior now, not what he did 35 years ago, that has prevented his manliness from trumping the president.” (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1207620/posts ) And Michael Moore began accusing his fellow Democrats for being “a bunch of crybabies” for complaining “how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can’t win.” It wasn’t for lack of trying that Senator Kerry couldn’t shake the caricature. Riding high after winning primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, he challenged President Bush to “Bring it on.” And when he rode that thundering Harley-Davidson onto Jay Leno’s set, the black-leather crowd was duly impressed. Of course, Kerry didn’t help things when he admitted he intended to fight a “sensitive” war on terror. Or that he wanted to bring the terrorist threat down to the level of a mere “nuisance.” But it’s the Teresa factor that really tests Senator Kerry’s cojones. As we all know, Teresa Heinz Kerry is worth more than $700 million, which prompted columnist Ann Coulter to deride Kerry as a “poodle to rich women.” Let’s consider Teresa’s last name. Some political wives, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, choose to retain their maiden names. That’s fine. But Heinz is not Teresa’s maiden name – it’s her ex-husband’s name. By calling herself Teresa Heinz Kerry, Teresa is revealing her loyalty to former Republican Senator John Heinz. Naomi Wolf had this to say in a recent New York magazine article: “Teresa is publicly, subliminally cuckolding Kerry with the power of a dead man.” Strong words, indeed. Most revealing, though, were Senator Kerry’s comments during the third presidential debate. Referring to the wives of the two candidates, moderator Bob Schieffer posed this question: “What is the most important thing that you’ve learned from these strong women?” After paying tribute to his now-deceased mother, Senator Kerry had this to say: “And my daughters and my wife are people who just are filled with that sense of what’s right, what’s wrong.” Feminists believe that women are morally superior to men, so that comment played well with one of Kerry’s key constituencies. But what does that say about Mr. Kerry’s own moral compass? And then things fell apart. Kerry admitted: “They also kick me around. They keep me honest. They don’t let me get away with anything. I can sometimes take myself too seriously. They surely don’t let me do that.” “Kick me around”? Last I heard, kicking is a form of domestic violence. If a female candidate ever said that, the cops would have shown up at her doorstep with an arrest warrant in hand. Maybe Mr. Kerry didn’t mean that kicking comment literally. But still, is this the voice of a self-confident male who is in marital relationship with equal say and mutual respect? Or is this the whine of a hen-pecked husband? If elected President, is this a man who will command respect from our allies and adversaries? Will they regard him as a man of his word? This man John Kerry curtsies and bows to anyone wearing a skirt. And now he aspires to be the next leader of the most powerful nation on earth? Wonderful, Wacky World of Fem-Speak Welcome to Femlandia, fellow traveler! On today’s tour, we’ll be visiting the enchanting place where the natives speak an exotic dialect known as Fem-Speak. To get around in Femlandia, you must master a little Fem-Vocabulary, Fem-Statistics, and Fem-Logic. Are you ready? There are three key words in Fem-Vocabulary. Pay close attention now, because these words have different meanings from their English counterparts: 1. Feminist: In the English language, “feminine” refers to a woman who is polite, modest, and comely. But in Fem-Speak, “feminist” has the exact opposite connotation: demanding, angry, and unkempt. 2. Equality: In English, equality refers to open and equal opportunity. But in Fem-Speak, equality refers to statistical uniformity that is enforceable with rigid quotas. Feminists will apply this term to women’s issues and concerns, but then will refuse to discuss it in relation to men. 3. Gender: This word actually has three meanings: 1. Male or female biological sex 2. Social differences between men and women that are learned, as in “gender roles” 3. Pertaining to the radical feminist ideology Gender is one of the most popular words in Fem-Speak because no one knows for sure which interpretation you are using (www.sydneyline.com/Language%20Wars.htm ). Just ponder the phrase, “gender equality.” Consider the many permutations of meaning this innocent-looking expression contains! In Fem-Speak, it is perfectly acceptable to use words and expressions with female derivations, such as Mother Earth, mother-tongue, mother lode, ladybug, sister city, “necessity is the mother of invention,” and so on. But Fem-Speak prohibits any word or phrase with a male connotation, such as mankind, manpower, middleman, or “man the ramparts.” Breaking this linguistic convention is a violation of what feminists call “speech codes,” and can invite the imposition of legal sanctions. And did you catch my use of the word “master” in the first paragraph of this travel guide? My friend, that is a word you should never use in Femlandia. Not only does it have masculine implications, but it also contains allusions to the dreaded hierarchy. Once you grasp the basic vocabulary, you are now ready for a lesson in Fem-Statistics. Fem-Statistics is easy once you understand this one basic rule: Always give percentages in multiples of 10 -- like 30%. So what if the actual number is, say, 53%? No problem, you can round up or round down -- whatever makes your statement sound better. And what if that number doesn’t feel right? Again, no problem. Use whatever number you want! Remember that in Femlandia, truth is deemed to be a linear, socially-constructed concept. So feel free to be creative. Now on to Fem-Logic. Fem-Logic can be described as any discussion that presents information out of context, introduces irrelevant concepts, and eventually reaches a conclusion that bears no relationship to common sense. And if you want to elevate the statement to the level of Revealed Truth, just preface your comment with the two magic words, “I feel.” This can be illustrated by way of example. A couple weeks ago I heard some people talking about athletics. One man was arguing that men are biologically stronger and faster, which gives them an inherent advantage in sports such as sprinting. But the persons from Femlandia said he could not possibly be right, because his reasoning did not comport with the Fem-Speak definition of equality. So after a few moments of thought, one person responded: “I feel that women surpass men in endurance sports. We may not run as fast, but we run more efficiently and have more pelvic strength.” Did you get that? In Fem-Speak, it’s perfectly fine to simultaneously espouse opposite views. For example, you can talk about women being strong and independent. And then you can turn around and argue that women are victims who require constant governmental help and legal protection. Femlandists see no contradiction in those two statements. Finally, a word of counsel. In Femlandia, you should never question or doubt the truth of a denizen’s statement. For these persons are said to possess A Woman’s Way of Knowing. Fem-Speak is a rich, emotive language, filled with subtlety and nuance. And with luck, fellow traveler, all of us will soon be thinking in Fem-Speak. Women Fleeing the Feminist Fold Remember that popular TV game show, To Tell the Truth? That was the program that would put three petite women on the stage – one a real-life alligator wrestler and the two others impostors. The contestants would then try to outwit the celebrity guests. It’s now 2004 and Americans are the guests on a remake of To Tell the Truth. The object of the game is to answer the question, What is the real face of feminism? Many people think of feminism as a movement that promotes gender equality and opportunity. And for many years, I counted myself in that group. To deny women the opportunity to get a good education and pursue a career -- that seemed abhorrent and contrary to the American Dream. Then the voices of the skeptics demanded a hearing. As early as 1972, Phyllis Schlafly posed this question: “The claim that American women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century…Why should we lower ourselves to ‘equal rights’ when we already have the status of special privilege?” That editorial launched the movement that eventually defeated the Equal Rights Amendment. But I still counted myself a true believer. In a 1992 article in the Washington Post, Sally Quinn compared the leaders of NOW to the apparatchiks of the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union. She concluded, “many women have come to see the feminist movement as anti-male, anti-child, anti-family, anti-feminine.” That broadside made me blink. Two years later Christina Hoff Sommers released her stunning expose’, Who Stole Feminism? Ms. Sommers methodically dissected and debunked the feminist claims about domestic violence, rape, and women’s health. That was more than I could ignore, so I began to do my own research. I went to my local library, combed through government reports, and surfed the internet. I soon learned that Schlafly, Quinn, and Sommers were right: the feminist claims were actually Ms.-Information. Around that time, millions of women began to reach the same conclusion. In 1992, a Gallup poll found that 33% of American women considered themselves to be feminist (http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~lhuddy/neelyhuddy.pdf). But seven years later, the Gallup poll reported that number had plummeted to 26%. And one CBS poll noted that 22% of women said that being called a feminist would be an “insult.” But substitute the word “women” for “feminist,” and you come up with a very different story. A 1998 Pew survey found that 67% of females (and 66% of males) were favorable to the “women’s movement.” So a large majority of American women do not consider themselves to be feminists, but still support the women’s movement. An obvious and startling conclusion emerges: Women no longer believe that feminism represents their interests or needs. A recent article in the National Review paints a similar picture of waning feminist influence (www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200408060855.asp). Feminist thinking holds that a bride taking her husband’s last name “signifies the loss of her very existence as a person under the law,” as former NOW-head Patricia Ireland once put it. But alas, most women have a mind of their own. According to marriage records in Massachusetts, the percentage of surname keepers dropped from 23% in 1990 to 17% in 2000. What’s more, a growing number of women’s organizations have set out to counter the feminist agenda, including the Concerned Women for America, Independent Women’s Forum, Women’s Freedom Network, and the Clare Booth Luce Foundation. And several women’s websites now feature anti-feminist commentary, such as ifeminists.net and ladiesagainstfeminism.com. But there are still a substantial number of persons in our society who cling to the belief that feminism is about promoting equality, fairness, and gender enlightenment. So guest celebrity, our time is up. Which face of feminism is real, and which is the impostor? Is feminism about promoting equality of rights and responsibilities? Or does it aim to foment gender discord and marital break-down? The modern rendition of To Tell the Truth is no mere game show. It’s not about a few hundred dollars in funny money. It’s a real life drama that spells enormous consequences for our culture, our families, and our children. Outing the Feminist "Great Lie" This past weekend the Vatican issued a letter to the Roman Catholic bishops which denounced feminism for preaching “conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism.” According to the Vatican letter, this belief has caused “immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family.” Strong words, indeed. So what is the genesis of the feminist attempt to induce antagonism between men and women? It can all be traced back to the feminist Creation Myth, which goes like this: Once upon a time, in a land far away, men and women lived in a state of communal bliss. There were no sexual prohibitions, no division of labor, no ownership of property, and most of all, no patriarchy. It was a pure feminist utopia. Over time, men and women began to pair off, babies were born, and families began to emerge. The development of stable families gave rise to a division of labor between the sexes: Men did the hunting and fishing, and women did the gardening and child-raising. But the pivotal point in history was the emergence of the concept of private property. Simone de Beauvoir’s book The Second Sex, which is required reading in every Women’s Studies program, explains it this way: “Private property appears: master of slaves and of the earth, man becomes the proprietor also of woman….Here we see the emergence of the patriarchal family founded upon private property. In this type of family, woman is subjugated.” (www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/debeauv3.htm ) You say, Where on earth did Beauvoir get these fantastic ideas? From Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2004/roberts012704.htm ). And how did Marx and Engels come up with this crackpot theory? From an obscure book called Ancient Society, written in 1877 by an American anthropologist named Lewis Henry Morgan, who had spent a few weeks studying the Iroquois Indians in upper New York State. Subsequent anthropologists have refuted Morgan’s methods and conclusions (www.aaanet.org/gad/history/051tooker.pdf ). For example, the part about primitive society being a sexual free-for-all – that can be credited entirely to Morgan’s wishful thinking. But that didn’t keep feminists from anointing Morgan as their patron saint. After all, he served a useful purpose. Radical feminists accept Morgan’s fable as if it were the Revealed Truth. Once we understand that, the rest of feminist theory begins to make sense. As feminists see it, the moral of Morgan’s account is that once patriarchy took over, women became the mere slaves of men, had no rights, and endured unrelenting physical and sexual abuse. That’s what is known as the feminist Great Lie. This is how columnist Wendy McElroy explains the Great Lie: “Victims of men, of the class structure, technology, government, the free market, the family, the church, Western values…everywhere and always women are painted as victims.” (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0422.html ). True, life may not have been easy for women, but men had their share of problems, too. If women were in fact the object of untrammeled social oppression, we would have expected women’s life spans to have been dramatically shorter than men’s. But the historical record tells a different story. According to research conducted by Ingrid Waldron at the University of Pennsylvania, the life expectancies of men and women over the past several centuries have traced similar trajectories. Suicide statistics also debunk the feminist enslavement theory. Public health authorities in England and Wales first began to enumerate the causes of death in the late 1800s. As early as 1890, it was found that men’s suicide rate was 2.9 times higher than women’s (http://10.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SU/SUHL.htm ). Judging by suicide statistics, we might conclude that it was men, not women, who were more confined by rigid social roles. 1960s-style feminism had the laudable goal of encouraging equal opportunities for women. But now, feminism has morphed into an ugly ideology of female empowerment and gender retribution. Most fairy tales have a happy ending. But the Marxist-feminist fable has set the stage for protracted gender conflict. And that, sad to say, poses a grave threat to the timeless institution of marriage. Kerry Embraces the Radical Feminist Agenda White males have been fleeing the Democratic Party over the last 30 years. Four years ago, candidate Al Gore managed to attract only 36% of the huge 45 million white male vote. That depressing trend no doubt weighed on the minds of the delegates who gathered this week in Boston for the Democratic National Convention. Indeed, earlier this year Democratic pollster Celinda Lake began to spread the word that the Democrats would never retake the White House unless they began to reach out to the critical male vote. But the powerful feminist faction within the Democratic Party was none too happy with that idea. Liberal John Kerry has closely aligned himself with the feminist cause. So when it became clear that Kerry would be named as the Democratic presidential candidate, Lake gave up on her crusade. Of course the Democrats have every right to target women. But what is interesting is how the Kerry campaign plans to court the female electorate. That strategy became apparent on the first day that John Kerry campaigned with his new running mate John Edwards. On July 7, an upbeat Kerry boasted that his team has “better vision, better ideas,” and – get this -- “we’ve got better hair.” Men, of course, have little interest in a candidate’s hairdo. A look at the Kerry website (www.johnkerry.com/issues/women) reveals that Kerry believes that women will fall for all manner of obsequious pandering. This is what John Kerry is telling American women: 1. “We need a president who will put the American government and legal system back on the side of women.” The truth is, practically every federal government agency has an office devoted to women’s issues. But none – that’s right, none -- has an office designated for men. The Congress and Supreme Court have enacted and upheld countless laws intended to help women, including the Violence Against Women Act, abortion rights, sexual harassment rules, and many others. 2. “John Kerry will increase funding for breast and cervical cancer research.” The American Cancer Society reports that 230,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004, compared to 216,000 women told they have breast cancer (www.cancer.org/downloads/MED/Page4.pdf). But at the National Cancer Institute, funding for breast cancer outstrips prostate cancer by more than a 3:1 margin (www.nci.nih.gov/public/factbk97/varican.htm). Mr. Kerry, please help us to understand why any fair-minded woman would want to make that research disparity even worse? 3. “We must ensure that women earn equal pay for equal work.” On average, men work 2,147 hours a year, compared to 1,675 hours for women (www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=56). Men work in the more hazardous occupations such as construction and mining. And men have more work qualifications than women. The myth of gender wage discrimination has been debunked by the Women’s Freedom Network (www.womensfreedom.org/newslet.htm) and the Independent Women’s Forum (www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=575). Anyone who still claims that women are paid unfairly is being intellectually dishonest….or is a die-hard socialist (mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/03/roberts120903.htm). American women are arguably the most privileged of any group in history. But the Kerry-Edwards website makes it sound like women are on the verge of being shipped back to their suburban concentration camps: “But today, women are witnessing an unprecedented erosion of their basic rights.” This past Monday, Kerry’s strategy to advance the radical feminist agenda was unveiled at a so-called “She Party” (rhymes with Tea Party – get it?). The featured speaker was the feminists’ “secret weapon:” none other than Peggy Kerry, sister of John. And Peggy didn’t beat around the bush. “There are three things my brother is going to do when he’s elected president,” she promised. John will restore $34 billion in funding for the UN Population Fund for abortion services. Then he will assure the Senate ratifies the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Third, Kerry will “appoint pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.” There’s no doubt that the Democrats’ appeal to the massive white male electorate will continue to decline. So the question is, what will American women think of John Kerry’s sexy new hairdo? Dissing Dads Why do Americans refer to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as our Founding Fathers? When Christians recite the Lord’s Prayer, why does the phrase, “Our Father” immediately tumble out? Why did a generation of Americans grow up watching the TV series, Father Knows Best? In days past, “father” evoked notions of goodness, wisdom, steadfastness, and self-sacrifice. And with good reason. According to the Father Facts report from the National Fatherhood Initiative, children with involved dads get better grades in school, have fewer emotional problems, enjoy better physical health, and are less likely to live in poverty -- it’s an impressive inventory. When the Industrial Revolution swept through the United States, fathers left the farm to work in the factories, the steel mills, and later the corporate highrises. A void was created, which was soon filled by their wives. Even though Dad continued as the titular head of the family, the reins of the daily operations of the house rested firmly in the hands of the wife. But that common-sense division of labor didn’t satisfy the radical feminist agenda. Beginning in the 1970s, feminists launched a ruthless campaign against the family and fathers. Maybe you’re asking, What’s wrong with the family? And why would they target fathers? To answer those two questions, we must turn back the hands of time to exactly 120 years ago. In his 1884 classic, the Origin of the Family, Frederick Engels wrote: “The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.” This passage, and others like it, were used by Lenin and his minions to convince impressionable women that they would be better off leaving their families and taking up the hammer and the sickle (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0106roberts.html ). But fem-socialists knew better than to wage a frontal assault on fatherhood. They would have to find a new boogeyman. Soon after Lenin seized power in 1917, he set out to destroy religious belief and practices. To do this, Lenin banned and humiliated the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church. So when the Sisterhood decided to put fathers in their crosshairs, it’s no surprise that they seized upon the “patriarchy” as the historically-convenient scapegoat. It was Kate Millett’s 1970 book, Sexual Politics, that gave the green light to the onslaught. The book is replete with hateful calumnies about men. Millett offers this pithy paraphrase of Frederick Engels earlier indictment of fathers: “Patriarchy’s chief institution is the family.” No one could really define patriarchy. But patriarchy became an oft-repeated epithet that soon evolved into a circular argument: patriarchy was bad because it caused the oppression of women. And women’s oppression was self-evident because of the existence of patriarchy. The feminist assault on fatherhood harnessed the mass media to disseminate their destructive message. Feminists portrayed fathers as deadbeats and abusers. And single moms became, well, chic. This campaign was remarkably successful in dismantling the cultural authority of fatherhood. By 1992, it was acceptable for TV sitcom character Murphy Brown to have a child out of wedlock. So commendable, in fact, that when Vice President Quayle chided Brown for “mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone,” Quayle was the one who endured the firestorm of criticism. Three years later, a stunned David Blankenhorn was compelled to write in his book Fatherless America, “The most urgent domestic challenge facing the United States...is the re-creation of fatherhood as a vital social role for men. At stake is nothing less than the success of the American experiment.” The deconstruction of fatherhood continues to this day. Turn on your TV and you will see the sitcoms and advertisements that portray dads as speechless dolts in the face of the superior wisdom of their wives and 11-year-old children. So when feminists attack the institution of fatherhood, they are rending the very fabric of families, and of Nationhood itself. Fathers the Fall-Guy in the Abortion Debate Despite the vast ideological differences that divide the pro-abortion and pro-life camps, advocates on both sides will agree on one key point: it’s really the man’s fault. Here’s radical feminist Catherine McKinnon: “All heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” And pro-lifer Kathleen Howley opens her anti-male diatribe with this sentence: “I am going to try to say this without sounding like a man-hating feminist.” (www.roevwade.org/howley.html ) But reflexively blaming the father only serves to perpetuate demeaning stereotypes about women, and marginalizes the institution of fatherhood in our society. Let’s examine the reality of how a woman ends up getting an abortion. First, the interlude of passion. Yes, it’s fair to say that on the whole, men enjoy sexual relations. Seductive women pursue sexual liaisons, as well – they just employ different tactics. Just read the advice columns in Cosmo magazine. Or go to your local nightclub on a Friday night -- count the number of women cavorting about in bare midriffs, revealing necklines, and high-cut dresses. And if we accept McKinnon’s absurd claim about women not being able to give consent to the sex act, then obviously women are incapable of consenting to surgical procedures, signing wills, and entering into business contracts. Second, the use of contraceptives. Yes, male condoms are available and easy to use. But condoms are not nearly as effective as the female-controlled forms of contraception, especially the pill. And dare we mention the women who “forget” to take their pill before the big date? Third is the decision to get the abortion. As proof of male irresponsibility, people like to cite Carol Gilligan’s famous study, In a Different Voice, which found that in one-third of cases, the father influenced the woman’s decision to get the abortion. But citing this and similar studies reverses the argument. If the decision to get an abortion rests with the father one-third of the time, then clearly, the woman has made the decision in the other two-thirds of the cases. But even Gilligan’s one-third figure is suspect. A few years ago, Arthur Shostak and Gary McLouth interviewed 1,000 fathers of aborted children. Their book, Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love reveals that only 4% of the women had been opposed to getting the abortion in the first place. So the myth that women get an abortion because of coercion by marauding sexual predators is an urban legend that serves to shield us from one simple fact: abortion is by and large a female-dominated decision. Consider the case of Norma McCorvey. She became pregnant in 1969. In order to get an abortion, she falsely claimed that she had been raped by her boyfriend. Her attorneys did not prevail under Texas law, so they appealed, the case eventually reaching the Supreme Court. To protect her confidentiality, McCorvey was referred to as Jane Roe. In their famous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled in McCorvey’s favor, establishing abortion as a “fundamental” right for women. But one must wonder, if the Supreme Court had known that the pregnancy was concensual and not the result of rape, would the split decision have gone the other way? The fetus that resides within the mother’s womb inherits half of its genetic material from the father. But as a result of Roe v. Wade, fathers have no standing under reproductive law. Women, married or not, have no duty to consult with, or even inform the father about the abortion. And this is exactly what happens 15% of the time. Fathers have been biologically disenfranchised. It is a truism that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. When rights recede, responsibilities also diminish. Thus deprived of their fundamental biological rights, is it possible that Roe v. Wade also may have intruded on men’s basic sense of familial obligation? The Follies of Child Support: Dead-Beat or Dead-Broke? Persons who are looking for an example of how good intentions can turn into a nightmare should consider the case of Alexander Shire. When Alexander was 14, he was plied with liquor and raped by Laura Evelyn, then 21 years of age. Evelyn became pregnant and bore a child. That was back in 1984. When the child support commissars in Michigan recently found out about the case, they demanded that Shire pay child support. You may wonder how this can be, since the offspring is now full-grown and no longer in need of “child” support. But draconian child support laws make no provision for that. Shire would be required to pay for all back payments, plus interest. How could this banana-republic justice happen here in America? Back in 1974, the Congress established the Office of Child Support Enforcement (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/index.html ). For years, few knew of this petty bureaucracy. All that changed on May 4, 1992, when Newsweek magazine depicted on its cover an affluent white man. He was framed with a Wanted poster bearing the caption, “Deadbeat Dads: Wanted for Failure to Pay Child Support.” Almost overnight, Deadbeat Dads became Public Enemy No. 1. But the Newsweek picture was wrong. Instead of a well-heeled businessman, it should have shown a guy wearing a faded T-shirt. Color him disheveled. Call him “dead-broke.” In his acclaimed book, Divorced Dads, researcher Stanford Braver concludes that “unemployment is the single most important factor relating to nonpayment.” And according to a study of non-paying dads released by the Urban Institute last year, “only 1% have recent net incomes in excess of $50,000.” So much for the two-timing executive driving off in his red convertible with trophy girlfriend in hand. Teresa Kaiser, former director of the Maryland child support office, freely admitted to her audiences that support formulas are set way too high for low-income dads. So the child support “crisis” is actually an artifact of unrealistic payment guidelines. But seduced by the stereotype of the dad willfully neglecting his kids and tantalized by the prospect of reducing ballooning welfare budgets, the child support zealots moved ahead. First came wage garnishment in 1977. In 1980, child support agencies were granted access to IRS wage information. Paternity identification programs geared up in 1988 (www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/2003appendix7.pdf ). But the early returns were not encouraging. In 1989, moms were getting $2,252 – only $37 more than they had received in 1983 (www.census.gov/hhes/www/childsupport/cstabf.html ). So the Clinton administration shifted the campaign into high gear. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act established two vast databases that made almost every American a potential suspect for non-payment of child support: the National Directory of New Hires and the Federal Case Registry. Clinton-era bureaucrats dreamed up other programs that, in retrospect, were simply irrational. Driving licenses were revoked – just try earning a living wage if you can’t operate a car or truck. And debtor’s prison was re-instituted. As you read this article, 15,000 destitute dads are spending time behind bars. Is that where they’re supposed to get training for the jobs of the future? Last October the Census Bureau issued its report, Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2001 (www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf ). The report reveals that from 1994 to 2002, the percentage of mothers who received child support actually dropped, from 76.1% to 74.7%. Thirty years and many billions of taxpayer dollars later, we must face the truth: We have unfairly marginalized millions of poor dads from their families, while betraying the hope and trust of struggling moms. In the process we have infringed on the rights and privacy of average law-abiding Americans. In short, the American child support system has been a depressing failure. The case of Alexander Shire was finalized last month in the Michigan Court of Appeals. State prosecutor Carl Marlinga successfully argued, “At stake here is not the mother profiting from criminal wrongdoing; what’s at stake here is the child, who is entitled to an appropriately supported upbringing regardless of how he was conceived.” (www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11004783&BRD=988&PAG=461&dept_id=141265&rfi=6 ). That statement, notably short on compassion and reason, is the totalitarian mindset at work. And that’s what the $4 billion-a-year child support dragnet is doing to us. Radical Feminist on the U.S. Supreme Court Just five short days after President Bill Clinton’s nomination, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been confirmed by the Senate and sworn in as Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. That was during the Dog Days of August 1993. Obviously, the Clinton Administration wanted to fast-track the process so no one would have time to ask any embarrassing questions. Because of her low-key manner, people believed Ginsburg was a moderate. But if the Senate had bothered to look into Ginsburg’s background, they would have been troubled, indeed. Ruth Ginsburg received her law degree from Columbia Law School. In 1971 she established the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. Throughout the 1970s Ginsburg acquired a first-hand knowledge of the workings of the Supreme Court as she argued six cases – all feminist issues – to the Justices. Ruth Ginsburg made the same assumption as the rest of the feminist movement. She accepted without question the Marxist claim that women’s role as mothers and wives is inherently oppressive (www.ifeminists