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.
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
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
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 mens risk of dying from heart disease
is far greater than womens 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
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
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 its 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. Thats
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
But this event is not limited to one day
its 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
Ironically, these AHA events are all
co-sponsored by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, the folks
who make millions of dollars selling Viagra to
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
Heres 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 didnt 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
But when those women open their husbands
gift of mouth-watering chocolates, how many will
realize that they may well spend their Golden Years
alone, ruing the fact that their husbands
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?
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 didnt 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
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 theres 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
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
offer might work at a Macys handbag sale, but
thats not how a moral society treats its most
Patricia Pearson has written a blockbuster book
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
womans syndrome, or postpartum
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
Then theres 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
I once knew a teenage boy who was raped by his
older sisters girlfriend during a holiday
visit to his parents 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 CNNs 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
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: Thats
wrong. Thats evil. That can never happen
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.
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
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%
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
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
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
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
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
Now add to that list, the devastating toll of
the AIDS epidemic.
The Grinches Who Would
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
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
The remaining amount goes to child support
enforcement programs, designed to wring more money
out of the pockets of low-income, unemployed
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
But dont 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 thats 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
Fortunately, there is at least one marriage
enhancement program that is not afraid to present a
male-friendly perspective. Secrets of Married Men
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
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
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
And who are the principal beneficiaries of this
governmental largesse? In all three cases,
its 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
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
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 its 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
Its 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 its the neck that
turns the head.
In truth, the husbands 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 mens power in the political, economic,
and physical arenas has always been balanced by
womens power in the moral, emotional, and
Teresa Riordan makes a similar point in her
recent book, Inventing Beauty. Surveying
womens 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.
So much for the stereotype of the powerless
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
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 Kerrys defeat
also represented a repudiation of the rad-fem
Of course, the feminist Mafia tried to put a
good face on the debacle. Ann Lewis, editor of the
Democratic partys Womens 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 Bushs
regressive policies on every issue
demand our senators block every Supreme Court
Fight back on every
issue? What is this, Mrs. Gandy, guerilla
To gauge the mood of the female electorate, a
group of womens 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
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
The poll found that many did not believe that
womens issues were adequately addressed
during the campaigns. But now that you mention it,
the poll didnt 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
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
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
Womens Votes Pivotal in Close 2004
But an honest summary would have said the exact
opposite: Mens Votes Pivotal in Close
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 weeks 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 --
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
Those additional 11 million male voters spelled the
critical difference for Mr. Bush in that tight
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
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 thats 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 womens issues, she blocked the
creation of an Office of Mens 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
Horns 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
Despite Celinda Lakes 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
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 didnt
get it the first time, W Stands for
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
nations 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
- Among our nations most eligible
bachelors, 22% have gone on a marriage strike
because of laws that tilt towards women
What does that portend for the future of
families, which create the foundation of
- 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, its
also good for America.
All Hail to the
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 Bushs
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
In contrast to Bushs 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
So the Kerry campaign set out to test the limits
of reinventing the truth.
John Kerrys 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 its 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
But by harping on the so-called wage
disparity issue while offering no
specifics on how to solve a problem that
doesnt even exist Senator Kerry
revealed a disdainful regard for womens
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 dont
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. Heres the question that moderator Bob
Schieffer asked the two candidates: What is
the most important thing youve 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,
youd 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
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
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
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
couldnt resist repeating the now-famous
Worse, Kerrys 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,
Its Mr. Kerrys behavior now, not
what he did 35 years ago, that has prevented his
manliness from trumping the president.
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 cant
It wasnt for lack of trying that Senator
Kerry couldnt 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 Lenos
set, the black-leather crowd was duly
Of course, Kerry didnt 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 its the Teresa factor that really
tests Senator Kerrys 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.
Lets consider Teresas last name.
Some political wives, such as Hillary Rodham
Clinton, choose to retain their maiden names.
But Heinz is not Teresas maiden name
its her ex-husbands name. By
calling herself Teresa Heinz Kerry, Teresa is
revealing her loyalty to former Republican Senator
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
Kerrys 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 youve learned from these strong
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 whats
right, whats wrong.
Feminists believe that women are morally
superior to men, so that comment played well with
one of Kerrys key constituencies. But what
does that say about Mr. Kerrys own moral
And then things fell apart. Kerry admitted:
They also kick me around. They keep me
honest. They dont let me get away with
anything. I can sometimes take myself too
seriously. They surely dont let me do
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
Maybe Mr. Kerry didnt 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
Welcome to Femlandia, fellow traveler! On
todays tour, well 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
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 womens issues and concerns, but
then will refuse to discuss it in relation to
3. Gender: This word actually has three
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
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
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 doesnt 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,
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
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
Did you get that?
In Fem-Speak, its 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
denizens statement. For these persons are
said to possess A Womans 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
Women Fleeing the
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
Its 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
As early as 1972, Phyllis Schlafly posed this
question: The claim that American women are
downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of
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
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
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
So a large majority of American women do not
consider themselves to be feminists, but still
support the womens movement. An obvious and
startling conclusion emerges: Women no longer
believe that feminism represents their interests or
A recent article in the National Review paints a
similar picture of waning feminist influence
Feminist thinking holds that a bride taking her
husbands 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.
Whats more, a growing number of
womens organizations have set out to counter
the feminist agenda, including the Concerned Women
for America, Independent Womens Forum,
Womens Freedom Network, and the Clare Booth
Luce Foundation. And several womens 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
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. Its not about a few hundred
dollars in funny money. Its a real life drama
that spells enormous consequences for our culture,
our families, and our children.
Outing the Feminist "Great
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
But the pivotal point in history was the
emergence of the concept of private property.
Simone de Beauvoirs book The Second
Sex, which is required reading in every
Womens Studies program, explains it this
Private property appears: master of slaves
and of the earth, man becomes the proprietor also
.Here we see the emergence of the
patriarchal family founded upon private property.
In this type of family, woman is subjugated.
You say, Where on earth did Beauvoir get these
fantastic ideas? From Karl Marx and Frederick
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
Morgans 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 Morgans wishful thinking.
But that didnt keep feminists from
anointing Morgan as their patron saint. After all,
he served a useful purpose.
Radical feminists accept Morgans fable as
if it were the Revealed Truth. Once we understand
that, the rest of feminist theory begins to make
As feminists see it, the moral of Morgans
account is that once patriarchy took over, women
became the mere slaves of men, had no rights, and
endured unrelenting physical and sexual abuse.
Thats 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
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 womens
life spans to have been dramatically shorter than
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 mens suicide rate was
2.9 times higher than womens (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
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
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
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
Of course the Democrats have every right to
target women. But what is interesting is how the
Kerry campaign plans to court the female
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 --
weve got better hair. Men, of
course, have little interest in a candidates
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
womens issues. But none thats
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
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
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 Womens Freedom Network
and the Independent Womens Forum (www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=575).
Anyone who still claims that women are paid
unfairly is being intellectually dishonest
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
This past Monday, Kerrys 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 didnt beat around the bush.
There are three things my brother is going to
do when hes 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.
Theres 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 Kerrys sexy new
Why do Americans refer to George Washington and
Thomas Jefferson as our Founding Fathers? When
Christians recite the Lords 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 --
its 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 didnt
satisfy the radical feminist agenda.
Beginning in the 1970s, feminists launched a
ruthless campaign against the family and fathers.
Maybe youre asking, Whats 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
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
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, its no surprise that they
seized upon the patriarchy as the
It was Kate Milletts 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: Patriarchys 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
womens 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,
This campaign was remarkably successful in
dismantling the cultural authority of
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
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: its really the mans fault.
Heres radical feminist Catherine McKinnon:
All heterosexual intercourse is rape because
women, as a group, are not strong enough to give
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
Lets examine the reality of how a woman
ends up getting an abortion.
First, the interlude of passion. Yes, its
fair to say that on the whole, men enjoy sexual
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 McKinnons 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 Gilligans famous study, In a Different
Voice, which found that in one-third of cases, the
father influenced the womans decision to get
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 Gilligans 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
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
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
McCorveys 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
The fetus that resides within the mothers
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
mens 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
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,
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
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
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 cant
operate a car or truck.
And debtors prison was re-instituted. As
you read this article, 15,000 destitute dads are
spending time behind bars. Is that where
theyre 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
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; whats at stake here
is the child, who is entitled to an appropriately
supported upbringing regardless of how he was
That statement, notably short on compassion and
reason, is the totalitarian mindset at work. And
thats 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
Clintons 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
Because of her low-key manner, people believed
Ginsburg was a moderate. But if the Senate had
bothered to look into Ginsburgs background,
they would have been troubled, indeed.
Ruth Ginsburg received her law degree from
Columbia Law School. In 1971 she established the
Womens 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 womens role
as mothers and wives is inherently oppressive
And she believed that equality of opportunity
should always translate into identical social
In 1977, Ginsburg wrote a report for the
Commission on Civil Rights titled Sex Bias in
the U.S. Code (http://dl.jctc.kctcs.edu/users/anne.kearney/Doc5.htm
This report demanded 800 changes to federal laws in
order to eliminate any and all distinctions between
men and women.
For starters, the report claims that the Boy
Scouts perpetuate stereotyped sex roles, so they
must be gender-integrated or abolished. You
cant help but wonder if the current Leftist
hostility to the Boy Scouts stems from this
Then we are instructed to clean up our speech:
"manmade" must be changed to "artificial,"
"midshipman" to "midshipperson," and so forth. Why
the report fails to object to such obviously sexist
terms as mother tongue, Mother
Nature, ladybug, and sister
city, I cant possibly guess.
But page 206 of this report is where it all
comes out. There we learn of Ginsburgs grand
vision to reshuffle the deck of the traditional
family. She proposes to do away with the
"Congress and the President should direct their
attention to the concept that pervades the Code:
that the adult world is (and should be) divided
into two classes--independent men, whose primary
responsibility is to win bread for a family, and
dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to
care for children and household. This concept must
be eliminated from the Code if it is to reflect the
But were still not done. On page 214
Ginsburg urges us to adopt Communist-style day care
services: "The increasingly common two-earner
family pattern should impel development of a
comprehensive program of government-supported child
Radicals often moderate their stance as they get
older and wiser. But not Ruth Ginsburg.
On January 29, Justice Bader appeared at a
lecture sponsored by the National Organization for
Women Legal Defense Fund (www.nowldef.org
Over the years the NOW Legal Defense Fund has used
the cover of gender equality to promote their
agenda of destabilizing the family and promoting
Marxist ideals (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0113roberts.html
Justice Ginsburg not only appeared at the meeting,
she introduced the speaker for the 4th Annual Ruth
Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on
Women and the Law.
In that appearance, Ginsburg showed that she
remains ever-faithful to the Sisterhood. Plus, she
fostered the perception that she lacks judicial
impartiality and objectivity. As Hofstra University
law professor Monroe Freedman remarked, I
think this crosses the line.
Ruth Bader Ginsburgs writings reveal the
true intentions of radical feminism: achieve a
gender-less society and impose totalitarian ideals
on American society. And her recent appearance at a
NOW conference reveals she still hews to the
Justice Ginsburg is now 70 years old, and may
step down from the bench in a few years. But for
now, radical feminists can rest assured that they
have a friend in very high places.
Where have all the Young
Remember that lyrical ballad by Peter, Paul, and
Mary? That was back in the 1960s. Forty years
later, hundreds of thousands of unmarried American
women are asking themselves exactly the same
One of the reasons that so many women cant
find a husband is that millions of men have
declared a Marriage Strike. Men believe that family
courts have become so unfair that in case of
divorce, they will lose custody of their children
and their ex will take them for all theyre
But theres a second reason for the
marriage gap. Most people have heard that gloomy
statistic: American women outlive men by over five
years. But maybe they havent considered the
effects of that longevity gap on women.
Throughout his life, the American male is
relentlessly stalked by the Grim Reaper.
In his late teens, car accidents, suicides, and
homicides claim three times more male victims than
females. Beginning in their 30s, men must face the
scourge of heart disease. In their 50s and 60s,
its the looming specter of cancer. And
mens overall suicide rate is four times
higher than among women.
Its a public health disaster of epic
proportions: For every one of the top 10 leading
causes of death, men have a higher risk of death
This demographic imbalance wreaks havoc on the
lives of American women.
Consider this fact: The Census Bureau reports
that among Americans in their 40s, there are
523,000 more women than men in that age group
If you are one of those half-million women, the sad
truth is this -- you may never find your Prince
And as women age, their predicament worsens. In
their fifties, the number of American women who
have no prospect of finding their marital bliss
tops the one million mark. Thats a lot of
women who must now face the prospect of spending
their Golden Years alone.
Given that politicians often trip over each
other to woo the womans vote, one would
expect to see a stream of government programs
dedicated to helping men to live longer, healthier
lives. But oddly, thats not the case.
In fact, the reverse is true. The litany of
womens health programs reveals a gender
agenda run amok:
The Department of Health and Human Services
sponsors five offices of womens health, but
has no office designed to help men.
The National Institutes of Health spends three
times more money on breast cancer research than for
prostate cancer (www.nci.nih.gov/public/factbk97/varican.htm
NIH-funded research studies included only 31%
male subjects in 2001 (www4.od.nih.gov/orwh
which violates a 1994 Congressional mandate to
include both sexes equally in medical research.
Last year the DHHS launched a campaign to
educate women about heart disease (www.nhlbi.nih.gov/new/press/03-02-21.htm
while mens risk of dying of heart disease is
70% higher than womens (www.americanheart.org/downloadable/heart/1075102824882HDSStats2004UpdateREV1-23-04.pdf
How did this topsy-turvy situation arise?
Beginning in the early 1990s, feminist
politicians like Pat Schroeder of Colorado and
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland began to spread the
rumor that women had been routinely excluded from
medical research. Shrill headlines began to fill
the New York Times and the womens magazines.
Soon everyone was believing the story, since
everyone knows that feminists never tell a lie.
But the claim that women were shortchanged by
medical research turns out to be one of the biggest
deceptions ever foisted on an unsuspecting American
public. This urban legend has been debunked by
Cathy Young (reason.com/0105/co.cy.false.shtml),
Sally Satel (www.sallysatelmd.com/html/a-wsj01.html
and myself (www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/roberts-carey4.html
But the myth lives on, thanks to groups like the
Society for Womens Health Research (www.womens-health.org
Victimhood is so important to the feminist creed
that it must be invented even where it never
So for now, millions of American women are
destined to live out the rest of their lives in
solitude, betrayed by an ideology that once
promised female liberation and a gender utopia.
Women Lose when
Four decades ago when feminists were making the
case for women to leave their families in pursuit
of a career, one of their arguments went like this:
When women join the workforce, the world will
become a kinder, more compassionate
Funny, it didnt quite work out that
Because that all-purpose epithet male
chauvinist pig made its first appearance
right around that time.
From there it only got worse. By the 1970s,
feminists had lapsed into an orgy of male-bashing.
Men were stereotyped as insensitive, controlling,
sexual harassers, batterers, and rapists.
Eventually the phrase male-dominated
became a short-hand expression for anything that
was wrong with society.
But it was husbands and fathers who were
targeted for the vilest attacks. Feminists set out
to destroy the Father Knows Best image.
Hard-working hubbies were denounced as domineering,
abusers, deadbeats, and another all-purpose smear,
Somehow, all the name-calling is hard to
reconcile with the earlier promises of a kinder,
History proves that when society scapegoats a
group, curtailment of basic civil rights is likely
to follow. And thats exactly what happened.
Laws were passed that violated mens basic
Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal
protection under the law.
In 1973, the Supreme Court granted women the
sole legal right to abort an unborn child
In 1990 President Clinton signed the Violence
Against Women Act which allowed women to evict
their partners solely on account of being
fearful of an attack. And in 1996
draconian child support enforcement measures were
Men generally dont like to complain. A man
will endure ridicule and abuse, and then move on
with his life. But abuse him once too often, and he
will vote with his feet.
And one day, men woke up to the fact that
marriage was a losing proposition. The math was
hard to refute: Half of all marriages wind up in
divorce. In 85% of cases, mothers gained custody of
the children. And sometimes, bitter ex-wives would
try to turn the children against their father, what
psychologists call Parental Alienation
In the face of such dismal odds, men decided to
go on a Marriage Strike (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0812.html
By the millions, men opted to remain single. In
1990 the U.S. marriage rate was 9.8. By 1998 it had
plummeted to 7.4 (www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_21.pdf
Thats a huge drop in eight short years. And
women became desperate.
So for men, the political was indeed
True to form, the pundits first reaction
was to pin the blame on men. If men wont make
the Big Commitment, the reasoning went, wasnt
that further proof that they are cads at heart?
But two years ago, researchers Barbara Dafoe
Whitehead and David Popenoe decided to get the male
perspective. Their now-famous report revealed
surprise! -- that many men are fearful of
marriage because They fear an ex-wife will
take you for all youve got and
that men have more to lose financially than
women from a divorce. (marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2002.htm
I know some of these marriage-strikers. Tom, for
instance, fits the perfect picture of the eligible
bachelor: 30-ish, well-educated, witty,
heterosexual, and a successful entrepreneur. But he
views marriage as a raw deal for men.
And other men, after years of feminist
brain-washing that women can do anything a
man can do, only better, have simply decided
that they have precious little to offer a woman in
a committed relationship.
So ladies, if you are having trouble finding
your Better Half, I have good news for you. Forgo
those expensive beauty products, figure-distorting
Wonder Bras, and bulimic weight loss programs. You
can stop wasting your money.
Instead, pass on those womens magazines
that pound the constant drumbeat of domestic
violence. Avoid the office gossip who constantly
denigrates her boyfriend. And skip the local
presentation of that awful play, The Vagina
A kinder, gentler world maybe the end of
that Marriage Strike is just ahead.
MS. Information: Making
Women Angry and Afriad
An American woman is beaten by her husband or
boyfriend every 15 seconds. Domestic violence
against pregnant women is responsible for more
birth defects than all other causes combined. And
violence against women rises by 40% on Super Bowl
Everyone knew those domestic violence
facts were true -- until Christina Hoff
Sommers came along. In her 1994 book, Who Stole
Feminism?, Sommers showed that these familiar
feminist fables bore no relationship to the truth
The Sommers book was so persuasive that no one
could refute her disturbing conclusion: the
American public had been hoodwinked.
One would have expected the Sommers book to have
put a stop to the lies. But somehow the myths kept
on re-appearing. Obviously someone wanted to keep
women misinformed and angry. But who?
That question is answered in a new book by Myrna
Blyth with the provocative title, Spin Sisters: How
the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and
Liberalism. As the editor-in-chief of Ladies Home
Journal for 21 years, Blyth writes from first-hand
The $7-billion a year womens magazine
industry is the target of this eye-opening tale.
Blyth introduces us to the Media Mavens, the top
editors of the glossy magazines that 50 million
American women read religiously every month.
Lets get to know two of these editors:
First, theres Cathie Black, president of
the Hearst Magazines, the billion-dollar media
empire that publishes Good Housekeeping and O, the
Oprah magazine. Blacks charitable
organization of choice: the radical NOW Legal
Then theres Frances Lear. Using her $100
million divorce settlement, she started up
Lears, a magazine so laced with feminist
dogma and man-hating articles that it folded within
Susan Winston, former executive producer of Good
Morning America, describes the Spin Sisters this
way: We were feminists. We were liberals, and
most of us still are. They are all the very
best of friends. And of course theyre all on
a first name basis with Hillary.
But dont the ethics of journalism dictate
that a reporters personal beliefs not bias
the content of her articles? Yes. But remember, the
womens magazine industry is not about
So tucked in among the beauty tips and dating
advice columns, you will find articles that reflect
the worldview of hard-edged radical feminism.
After George W. Bush became president, Vogue ran
an interview of Jane Fonda in its March 2001 issue.
Fonda made the Chicken-Little claim that The
forces of darkness that are now in Washington are
absolutely opposed to the empowerment of
Does anyone really believe that stuff?
In 2002 Glamour named liberal
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi as Woman of the Year.
Marie Claire tilts even more to the lunatic
left. In November of that same year, it featured an
article that regurgitated the misleading statistics
about the gender wage gap.
Above all, these magazines exploit what Blyth
calls the Female Fear Factor. And here, domestic
violence garners top billing.
Take Glamour magazine. Long after
Christina Sommers had debunked the DV myths, the
Glamour editors conspired to convince women
that it was just a matter of time until they became
victims: Could He Be a Stalker? Danger
Signals You Might Discuss (June 1997),
Glamour Investigates the Gunning Down
of American Women (January 2000), and
Meet the Women Stalkers Love to Target
In November 2002 Cosmo ran this uplifting
article: The Surprising Thing That Can Make
You a Target for Rape. And in its March 2003
issue, Marie Claire published a hysterical
rant by Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina
Blyth points out that American women are
arguably the most fortunate and most prosperous
group in history. So when these women are misled
about imminent threats of stalking and physical
abuse, they are being victimized by a greatly
exaggerated feelings of fear and insecurity.
Blyth concludes her account with this warning to
women about feminist Ms. Information: I want
you to realize how often you are being
.there is one thing I really hope
you will stop buying and thats the
spoiled goods of unhappiness.
Heresy of the Maternal
News flash: Women are leaving the workplace in
droves to become full-time mothers.
Two years ago Karen Hughes resigned as counselor
to President Bush to go back to Texas and spend
time with her family. In response, New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd ridiculed Karen Hughes
exercise of free choice: Women will never get
anywhere in this boys administration, or this
boys town, or this boys world, if
theyre going to sacrifice prime West Wing
real estate every time their husbands and kids
Not to ruin your day, Ms. Dowd, but Karen Hughes
is not an aberration.
According to the recent March 22 cover story in
Time magazine, the percentage of married mothers
with children under one who are in the workforce
fell from 59% in 1997 to 53% in 2000. And among
women with graduate or professional degrees, 22%
are staying at home with their kids. At
PricewaterhouseCoopers, 10% of the firms
female partners work part-time.
This trend was confirmed in an article last
October in the NY Times Magazine which reported
that only 38% of middle-aged female graduates from
Harvard Business School are now working full-time.
Overall, one-fourth to one-third of
professionally-educated women are out of the
Most people would explain this trend with the
common-sense response that the womens
maternal instinct kicked in. As Joan Williams of
American University put it, women dont reach
the top of the corporate ladder because ''they are
stopped long before by the maternal wall.''
But to radical feminists, that statement is
heresy. To them, maternal instinct is
repugnant to everything they stand for.
Because to feminists, equality is
not about equal opportunity or equal choices.
Instead, feminists believe that 50% (at least) of
all elected officials, 50% of all corporate CEOs,
50% of all Nobel prize winners, 50% of everything
must be female. Anything short of that should be
blamed on patriarchal oppression.
To achieve that goal, feminists must pretend
that there are no biological or psychological
differences between the sexes.
Think about it: If the Sisterhood admitted to
the possibility of the maternal instinct, then it
would have to agree that women might want to leave
the workforce to nurture their offspring.
Then feminists would have to admit that women
will never compose 50% of the workforce. Next they
would have to concede that the reason why
womens wages fall short of mens is
because women drop out of the labor market for
years at a time. And when they do return, these
women seldom seek out the high-paying,
pressure-cooker jobs that men as primary
breadwinners may feel compelled to take on.
And as you can see, the entire feminist ideology
would soon unravel. So why does the Sisterhood
demand this unattainable notion of statistical
The answer is Marxism.
The Marxist creed preaches the utopian goal of
absolute economic and social equality. But human
nature rebels against enforced sameness. Which is
why socialist governments inevitably resort to
Go to the Women and Marxism website at www.marxists.org/subject/women/
, and you can easily trace the unbroken line that
begins with Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and
Karls youngest daughter Eleanor. Then read
the proto-feminist speeches and writings of
Vladimir Lenin and his wife Nadezhada, of Joseph
Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung.
Scan Shulamith Firestones 1972 book, The
Dialectic of Sex, and see how she took the Marxist
theories and translated them into the shrill
rhetoric that permeates modern-day feminism.
Examine the writings of Simone de Beauvoir and
Kate Millett, and see how these feminist icons
freely and openly advocate socialist concepts. Then
peruse David Horowitzs expose about Betty
Friedans secret Communist past (www.salon.com/col/horo/1999/01/nc_18horo2.html
The fem-socialist attempt to impose absolute
statistical equality on the sexes is doomed to
failure. In any contest that pits human nature
against social ideology, its womens
maternal instinct that will always win out.
Martha Burk Declares a Holy
War on Corporate America
Considering all the discredit she has brought to
her cause, Martha Burk would seem to be an unlikely
person to head up the powerful National Council of
Her problems started back in 1997, when Burk
wrote "The Sperm Stops Here in Ms. Magazine.
In that article, Ms. Burk advocated nothing less
than mandatory birth control for men. These are
Burks own words:
"Mandatory contraception beginning at puberty,
with the rule relaxed only for procreation under
the right circumstances (he can afford it and has a
willing partner) and for the right reasons
(determined by a panel of experts, and with the
permission of his designated female partner)."
When Burk appeared on CNN's Crossfire, she got
hammered. Co-hosts Tucker Carlson and Debbie
Schlussel ridiculed Burk's proposal as "weird,"
"wacko-bizarro," and "pretty authoritarian even by
the standards of feminism." (www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/12/cf.00.html
Then there was the embarrassment of last
The Augusta National Golf Club is a private
organization that believes it has the right to set
its own membership rules, just like the Ladies
Professional Golf Association and the Womens
Tennis Association. But Martha Burk didnt see
it that way. She wanted them to admit female
Ironically, it was women who mounted the most
spirited opposition to Burks crusade. Allison
Greene, who founded Women Against Martha Burk,
explained it this way: "I haven't spoken to one
woman -- in Augusta or any place else -- who
I can't figure out her motives,
but I can tell you this: It's certainly not to
further the women's movement."
Representative Sue Burmeister took issue with
Burks carpetbagger tactics: "I don't like it
that I have Martha Burk coming down to my district
and trying to force a private organization to do
something they don't wish to do at this
On April 12, when the sun rose over the
manicured greens of Augusta, only a handful of
women were there to wave their placards in support
of Burks cause. And Augusta chairman
Hootie Johnson stood tall. As columnist
Wendy McElroy concluded, Burk deserves
derision for making women's rights into a circus of
trivial privileges. (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0225.html
But step aside, because Marthas circus is
now moving to the center ring.
Recently Burk unveiled Phase Two of her feminist
jihad. Repeating her tired complaint that the
Augusta National Golf Club openly and proudly
discriminates against women, Burk announced
her Women on Wall Street initiative. Heres
how it works:
Burks National Council of Womens
Organizations has partnered with law firm Mehri and
Skalet, which bills itself as a leading legal
authority on glass ceiling, sexual harassment, and
pay discrimination issues.
Next, Burk identified those corporate giants
whose top executives belong to Augusta: American
Express, Bank of America, Berkshire Hathaway,
Citigroup, Franklin Templeton , JP Morgan Chase,
Morgan Stanley, and Prudential.
Finally, Burk is inviting women who work at
those corporations to file sex discrimination
lawsuits if they feel they have been
Of course, Burks campaign amounts to
little more than a shakedown of capitalist America,
a strategy that would make any 1960s radical
But once again, Burk has miscalculated. She
forgot to check her donor roster.
Kimberly Schulds Guide to Feminist
Organizations details the financial supporters of
the 180-odd members of Burks National Council
of Womens Organizations. And many of her
groups count on corporate largess from the very
same organizations that are being targeted by the
Women on Wall Street program.
American Express, Bank of America, Citigroup,
Morgan Stanley, and Prudential all have
provided financial support to NCWO-member
organizations. American Express has been especially
generous, opening its corporate wallets to the Ms.
Foundation for Women, National Womens Law
Center, National Council for Research on Women, and
One of these days the corporate leaders of
America are going take their cue from Hootie.
Theyre going to tell the radical feminist
movement they will no longer tolerate the bullying
Oh my! Women's Groups
are Excluding Me
Word comes from Martha Burk that the Augusta
National Golf Club still openly and proudly
discriminates against women. We should all be
working ourselves into a lather over that.
So now Burks umbrella group, the National
Council of Womens Organizations, is unveiling
its Women on Wall Street campaign. This corporate
shake-down is hoping to teach a lesson to those
naughty companies that are harboring all those
Augusta Neanderthals (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0421roberts.html
For sure, the members of the NCWO are paragons
of female virtue, free of any trace of gender bias
But then, I began to wonder. So I decided a
little fact-finding was in order.
I contacted all 178 member organizations of the
NCWO, from the AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund to the
YWCA, and asked them two questions:
What percentage of your organizations
membership is female?
What percentage of your board of directors is
Knowing that the Women on Wall Street campaign
is pushing for corporate accountability, I was
confident the NCWO groups would respond freely and
openly to my questions.
So I was gratified when the e-mail responses
came pouring back, literally within seconds.
Thirty-one replies, all tagged as
Undeliverable. Well, I shouldnt
have been surprised. Kimberly Schuld, who wrote the
Guide to Feminist Organizations, has warned that
many of the NCWO members went belly-up long
Then, real people began to send me responses.
And to my surprise, some of them got a little
One woman retorted, Why are you asking
these particular questions? Do you think there is
some kind of problem regarding the membership or
governance of organizations that work for the
empowerment of girls or women? Does it relate,
perhaps, to the Augusta National Golf Club
Another woman became downright hostile:
Dear Fake Reporter, I have been contacted by
NCWO. And I will not answer your
Despite the NCWO warning to shun the Fake
Reporters, 29 organizations did respond to my
inquiry. Ms. Burk, I have a bit of unpleasant news.
It turns out that eight (!) of the NCWO groups that
answered my questions do not have any male
The American Medical Womens Association,
Financial Women International, Gender Action,
National Association of Commissions for Women,
National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease,
National Hispana Leadership Institute, Veteran
Feminists of America, and Women in Military Service
for American Memorial Foundation all are
self-admitted bastions of female exclusivity.
But wait, other problems are lurking. Two of the
NCWO organizations, GenderWatchers and the League
of Women Voters, revealed that they do have male
members. But then they conceded that there are no
males on their Board of Directors. As everyone
knows, thats a prime example of the Glass
Ceiling, and we cant have that.
The story worsens. Only three of the 29 NCWO
groups reported that they have more than 10% male
membership. Since gender diversity is now the Law
of the Land, Ms. Burk, really, Im
And dont give me that old line that
womens organizations should be composed only
of women. We all know that gender is purely a
social construct, so obviously many biological
males, with proper socialization, could easily
become gender females.
But this is the part I havent figured out.
The website of NCWO states that its purpose is to
work for equality. Of course, males are
sadly lagging behind females in areas such as
education and health.
And indeed, there are 15 health-related
organizations that belong to the NCWO. Mens
lifespans are five and a half years shorter than
womens, but nowhere did I find that disparity
even mentioned on the websites of these
womens organizations. So the question is, are
these outfits working for gender equality, or
Very confusing. All along Ive been
counting on the feminists to lead us to a more
inclusive, a more equal, a more caring society
a veritable gender utopia. Heavens,
something has gone terribly wrong.
Property today is not what it was 300 years ago.
Today, like everything, it is a consumable. Buy a
car and hope it lasts a couple of years. Buy a
house to hope the neighborhood prices rise so you
can retire somewhere else. Our daily sustenance
does not come from direct labor but the new god:
Career. We have long disassociated from the
Before industrialization, property was not only
sustenance, it was your posterity. It was
everything that came before you and all you left
behind. Property made you noble. It was permanent;
your life, by contrast, transient. In Gone with the
Wind, Scarlet OHaras commitment was
never to any person but to Tara, the land.
Perhaps the greatest ignorance is when we
project our context back in time or onto other
societies. Today, when we see old references to
women and children as property, it is insulting.
But only because for us, now, property is less than
In an agrarian society, women as property put
them on a pedestal. It is not that family was
treated as property. Property was the family in all
its generations. It was not an insult then, but
privilege. Contrary to what has become popular to
believe today, women had special status, and if a
woman committed a crime, her husband was punished.
Men died for their property.
We now call that oppressive to women.
It is not convenient to understand this now. An
agrarian context is as foreign as Afghanistan and
we have had to seek many adjustments to things no
other society has faced. It is, however, still
convenient for some women to seek special
treatment, not the equality many of us (men and
women) strove for back in the 1970s.
Todays feminists defend the Victorian
structure of children to themselves. The National
Organization for Womens divorce policy has
long been: shared parenting only to the extent she
says. Independent men are not convenient to many
women, and children are an excellent tool.
Title IX gives women equal funding as men for
sports in college, even though less than half the
number of women are as interested. Girls get
special attention in school to make them just as
capable at math as boys, while boys have always
lagged girls by a wider margin in reading and basic
scholastics, but get no attention for their
The Violence Against Women Act presumes that
women are the only victim of only male violence,
even though all studies give a different picture.
The public buys in: women get special protection
from men; men have none from violent women.
Protective orders are now part of female violence
against men as all it takes is an accusation, not
even a sworn statement.
But, Men made all the rules. Of what
could they complain?
Most men didnt know this. They thought
society made the rules, a society, as it happens,
always more than one-half female. Men have
all the power, is an abdication of
womens constant presence and participation in
society, in defining our customs, policies and
practices. Its playing child.
Is feminism still, as it claims, striving to
make women an equal part of society: equally
responsible, equally accountable for their equal
violence and equal sexual behavior, along with
equal opportunity for careers? Or is it by now
arch-conservative: an attempt by todays
spoiled, upper-middle class white women to have it
both ways; to create special privilege for women in
an industrial, rather than agrarian, society?
Feminism prevents the egalitarian society of
which we spoke three decades ago where all are
equal partners. Feminism is reactionary.
The Lives That Are
Destroyed (Items In My Mail)
When I get these letters I feel helpless.
Theres nothing I can offer so long as we do
what we do.
Dear Mr. Wilson,
My name is Lydia <removed> and my
husbands name is Jody. He went through a
nasty divorce in Harrisonburg Va. The judge awarded
him visitation of their 6 year old girl at the
mothers discretion. That means never. We pay
$700.00 a month in support plus insurance and I
think it is terrible that they can get away with
this. They don't care how he cries for his little
girl. He is a very hard working, loving and gentle
man and has never been in any sort of trouble.
There is no reason for this. One of the lawyers we
had said that women move from all over the US just
to get their divorce here. There has to be a
reason. Our hands are tied. They have drained us of
everything we have, including our hearts. It seems
as though Kaitlyn will go on forever and never know
her father because the court system sold her to the
highest bidder. But we pay the bill. Please let us
know if you can help or if you know who can.
Having been a divorced father for 10 years, I
read some of the statistics on your website and
thought: How can we as a society allow the court
system to simply equate the payments of money as a
substitute for fathers? It has made me miserable
for all these years. Unfortunately, my onetime
girlfriend has given birth to our child and the
flames of love and passion have turned to the ashes
of enmity and contempt. She will not permit me to
see my child! I am heartbroken all over again. I am
left with the bitter feeling that this woman has
used my sperm to have her "baby" and will now use
the court system to take money from me and allow my
fatherly presence at her own discretion. What's a
dad to do?
Dear Mr. Wilson:
I am so thankful to have found your information
! For the past two years I have witnessed abuses
toward my son that have broken my heart and caused
me to feel anger beyond expression ! In the past I
bought the idea of the no account, deadbeat father,
but I now know that many of these young men are
simply trying to survive and the child support
payments enforced by the courts make this task very
difficult .I have helped him with these payments
because he has been unemployed 2 years (no fault of
his own) and is now in school completing an
engineering degree. So, you see, the financial
burden is not his alone to bear, but the courts DO
I appreciate your comments about mothers being
able to remarry, start another family, etc., while
dad is prevented from doing so because of the
financial burden. I am also convinced that some
women are opportunistic and vindictive. In these
cases the father is victimized and this is fully
supported by the legal system. Mothers have no
right to walk out, never look back, then tell dad
to pay up it truly is an injustice to both
father and son.
Thanks for listening. I will continue to visit
your website. Please continue to care about this
serious, family destroying issue!!
Nobody knows until it happens to them. Then,
its too late.
The public does not want to think that our
systems regularly meet out abuse. Its only
unusual cases; you must be exaggerating. How do we
get it across?
Mediation for Divorce
Mediation is a recent expansion of the divorce
industry as additional professions cash in, now,
mental health workers.
Mediators sincerely believe they provide
something different. Unfortunately, it is in form,
not substance. As long as they act as extensions of
the legal system simply separate
implementors of the same conventions they
can only create the same results.
Fifteen years ago, Chris Simpson (not his real
name) was 32 when he and his girlfriend became
pregnant. Though the relationship had been volatile
he was delighted at having a child. He proposed,
but she continued her cycle of temperamental
breakups and makeups, even taunting him with
abortion. One night she rolled over and said,
If you leave me Ill sue you for $1,000
a month. I know I can; I talked with my
She got pregnant to control me and I knew
would only use the child for that. But I wanted
that child. I wanted the best I could possibly give
it, says Simpson. He knew that the ambiguity
of its parents relationship had to stop to at
least assure the childs world stability.
Before the birth, he broke up with her once and for
He did not see why this should effect the child
having its father, but knew the law did.
When a lawyer suggested mediation, it
sounded like the solution.
He assumed it was an alternative solution, not
just an alternative route to the same one. That was
a big mistake.
Resa Eisen told him, You must obey her
(the mothers) instructions, making her
idea of fathers clear, and would allow 2, 2 hour
visits a week with an infant hed never seen.
She was more concerned I not disrupt his
There could be no stability for a relationship
here. There probably couldnt be one with only
4 hours a week. People spend more time with their
friends, the child, more time with strangers.
Two years later, still desperate for his child,
he managed to force a second mediation thinking the
answer lay in a better mediator. But despite
recommendations, Sheila Faucher giggled at
the idea of a man changing diapers. She saw herself
answering to the lawyers, not us nor the child.
After eight months she had avoided negotiation by
trying to manage everyone relationships
instead. Looking back, she must have been trying to
force us into some textbook she didnt bother
explaining to either of us.
For all Susans (the mothers)
faults, I believe she would have agreed to an equal
parenting arrangement had it ever been presented.
But the mediators were apposed. It wasnt even
All Simpson sought was some operational
recognition of being independently important to the
child, just as the mother gets. If his parenting
was entirely at the mothers mercy he believed
it would never be the constant he felt it had to
be. Paternal regard turned out to be more elusive
from social workers. His mission for the
childs stability, which started, His
parents are together or not, then forced to,
He has a father or not, got a negative
answer from the matriarchal wall: children are only
for women. A mediators job is to get men to
accept their lot as the inconvenience the law also
regards them as being. Simpson now feels, I
would have been better treated by the
Since both courts and mediators only impose the
law not seek what would benefit children
the only solution is to change what they
impose. Thats up to us, society, not lawyers
Where is Simpson today? Hes a deadbeat
dad, of course.
Why are Lesbians Marching
for Abortion Rights?
Have you noticed how feminism has morphed in the
last couple of years? Before, feminism was just
plain radical. Now, its become vile and
On April 25 several hundred thousand feminists
descended on Washington DC for the so-called March
for Womens Lives. Like most slogans in the
feminist lexicon, March for Womens
Lives bears little resemblance to the
The National Abortion Rights Action League
NARAL claims that before abortion
became legal, 5,000 American women died from
illegal abortions each year. Dr. Bernard Nathanson,
who co-founded NARAL and later turned away from the
abortion crusade, estimated the actual number was
closer to 39 (hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/ppbodyparts.html)
Maybe youre wondering why your local TV
news program didnt run any news clips about
this event. The reason is the parade was so
tasteless and vulgar that it would not have made it
past the FCC censors.
At the very front of the group was a teenage
girl. Over and over, she kept yelling the F-word.
Apparently she was put there to desensitize
onlookers to the grotesque messages that were soon
The marchers reveled in virulent anti-Bush
slogans. Kiss my Tush, Bush, read one
of the less offensive placards. Not even mother
Barbara was safe from the abortionists venom:
If only Barbara had a choice and
Barbara Chose Poorly were two of the
more popular signs.
When former NOW-head Patricia Ireland appeared
on Hannity and Colmes a couple days later, she
refused to condemn the anti-Bush posters. Ireland
would only explain, There is deep
Apparently womens deep anger
carries greater moral weight than killing an unborn
Acutely aware that public support for their
cause is ebbing, the pro-abortionists tried to wrap
themselves with the trappings of spirituality. Some
protesters carried signs that read, I asked
God. Shes pro-choice.
But that direct connection with the deity
didnt deter them from vilifying organized
religion. One marcher carried a sign that read,
Euthanize Christians. Once you begin to
believe in the Culture of Death, its hard to
know where to draw the line.
A few carried Stop Violence Against
Women signs. One wonders where killing unborn
baby girls fits into that admonition.
Strutting up Pennsylvania Avenue, the marchers
soon came face-to-face with hundreds of
counter-demonstrators, standing on opposite sides
of the metal barricades. First were the young
fathers and mothers, cradling their babies against
the cool April breeze. Then the college students,
some on their knees praying their rosaries.
Next the marchers passed Silent No More, a group
of post-abortive women. One of them, Dr. Aveda
King, niece of Martin Luther King, compares
abortion to slavery.
Near the end of the parade route, the marchers
passed the Navy Memorial. There, Father Reynolds
stood alone, making the sign of the cross and
offering blessings and prayers (www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1124410/posts
The Fathers blessings were more than the
marchers could handle. As they passed, protesters
flipped him off, screaming at the top of their
lungs, pedophile and child
abuser. Imagine an abortionist accusing
someone else of being a child abuser.
Radical feminism has become almost synonymous
with lesbianism. So of course the Lesbian Avengers,
Christian Dykes for Choice, and other homosexual
groups made their appearances.
So why was this mass of non-reproducing women
screaming for abortion rights?
Maybe these women never learned about the birds
and the bees. Or else a lot of lesbians are working
side jobs to supplement their income, and are
forgetting to use protection.
But the winner of the Most Tortured Logic Award
went to Rep. Maxine Waters of California. She
announced defiantly to the multitudes, I have
to march because my mother could not have an
After witnessing this demonic display, its
hard to escape the conclusion that feminism
contains the seeds of its own imminent
Told to Act Like a
The death certificate listed suicide as the
official cause of death. But the real cause of his
demise was a controversial gender experiment lead
by one of the most influential sex researchers of
the 20th century.
Bruce Reimer was born in 1965 to a blue-collar
family in Winnipeg, Canada. Eight months later, he
was victimized by a botched circumcision, and baby
Bruce ended up without his sex organ.
The distraught family eventually contacted John
Money, a charismatic psychologist at Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore. Dr. Money was a leading
advocate of the idea that sex-role identification
is determined by ones environment, not
ones genetic make-up.
Money recommended sex re-assignment surgery, a
dubious procedure that had never been performed on
a boy born with normal genitalia. Bruce would be
given a vagina, his name would be changed to
Brenda, and he would be raised as a girl. It would
be as easy as that.
So one month before his second birthday, little
Bruce was wheeled into the operating room as a boy,
and came out as a girl.
But back in Winnipeg, Brenda had other plans.
When her mom put a dress on her, little Brenda
tried to tear it off. Later she informed her
startled parents she wanted to become a garbage man
when she grew up.
Enrolled in school, she was more competitive
than her female classmates. When girls got into
fights, they used their open hands. But Brenda used
her fists. Then Brendas girlfriends
discovered that she urinated standing up.
Dr. Money was apprised of all this, and
But when Money released his book, Man and
Woman, Boy and Girl in 1972, he portrayed
Brendas sex-change operation as a resounding
success. The book reviewer at the liberal New York
Times wrote approvingly: if you tell a boy he
is a girl, and raise him as one, he will want to do
Feminists were elated. They needed to prove that
women were just as determined as men to ascend the
corporate ladder. Women just needed to overcome the
oppressive conditioning of patriarchal society. And
Moneys research was just the ticket.
Meanwhile things in Winnipeg went from bad to
worse. When Brenda reached puberty and her voice
deepened, the folly of the charade could no longer
be denied. About to undergo her annual breast exam
one day, Brenda refused to disrobe. When asked by
the doctor, Do you want to be a girl or
not?, she defiantly answered
Brendas parents knew the time had come to
tell her the truth.
Brenda immediately reverted to her male
identity. Choosing the name David, he underwent
penile reconstructive surgery. In 1990, David put
the past behind him when he and Jane Anne Fontane
tied the knot.
During all these years, John Money was the toast
of the town. He was hailed as the worlds
leading expert on sex reassignment. Media
interviews, professional awards, and NIH grants
all were showered on him. After all, he had
proven that gender identity is a product of
nurture, not nature.
He just didnt bother to tell anyone that
Brenda was no longer a she.
John Moneys world began to collapse in
1997 when a journal article finally revealed the
truth of his ill-fated experiment. Money could only
sputter, Its part of the anti-feminist
Moneys demise was sealed three years later
by the book, As Nature Made Him, which
revealed the psychologist to be a charlatan,
tireless self-promoter, and intellectual fraud.
Two years ago, Davids life began to
unravel when his brother unexpectedly died. Then he
separated from his wife. After 38 years of
indignity and torment, David Reimer took his own
life on May 4 (www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20040511/REIMER11/national/National
The feminist dogma that gender is socially
constructed is still widespread in our society.
Boys receive constant messages that they should
start acting more like girls. The sad tale of David
Reimer should make us pause to reconsider our mass
experiment in gender re-education.
Feminine Virtue Take a
Beating at Abu Ghraid
Feminists preach the absolute equality of the sexes
in all respects, save for one. They believe in the
unequivocal moral superiority of women over men.
The notion has become so entrenched that people
dont bother to question it any more.
Originally, people believed that morality also
resided with the male sex. Indeed, the word
"virtue" comes from the Latin root "vir," meaning
man. And in Colonial America, fathers were expected
to be the moral exemplars and preceptors of the
But then the Industrial Revolution swept the
nation in the mid-1800s. As the primary
breadwinners, fathers were forced to leave their
farms to labor in the factories, the mines, and
later the corporate high-rises.
Soon mothers moved to fill the domestic void.
Women came to be viewed as the Guardians of
Goodness to shield their families from the
contaminating influences of the outside world.
When feminism came along, it preached that the
Patriarchy was to blame for the misdeeds of women.
Take the feminist dogma on domestic violence, for
instance. Research shows that DV is instigated
equally by men and women (www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
But feminists continue to insist that women strike
their husbands only because they have been abusive
and controlling. Hows that for a silly
So misbehaving women were able to have their
cake and eat it, too. They got away with murder
sometimes literally content in the
smug belief that their moral compass always points
Then came those shocking pictures from Abu
Ghraib, including the one with Leash Lady gleefully
mocking the prisoners genitals. Of the 7
soldiers charged with misconduct, 3 are female: PFC
Lynndie England, Spc. Megan Ambuhl, and Spc.
This time around, the ladies couldnt blame
their actions on the male power structure. The
prison was directed by Gen. Janis Karpinski. And
the top U.S. intelligence officer in Iraq was Major
Gen. Barbara Fast.
So here was female barbarism and debauchery, all
on full-frontal display in the newspapers.
Its not an exaggeration to say that what
passes for radical feminist discourse these days
sometimes resembles a clinical state of hysteria,
narcissism, and paranoia. So who would have
expected the awful pictures would trigger a round
of remorseful introspection by feminist
Mary Jo Melone of the St. Petersburg Times
starts off by admitting, Feminism taught me
30 years ago that not only had women gotten a raw
deal from men, we were morally superior to
Melone scrolls through the usual litany of
implausible explanations, and then finally laments,
Or am I just making excuses, unable to
believe that women are incapable of this?
Writing for the Washington Post, Melissa
Embser-Herbert voices similar angst: In Abu
Ghraib the tables are turned. Men men who
have been characterized by many as evil, or at the
least not to be trusted -- are on the receiving
end. And women, long held up by our society as a
kinder, gentler class of persons, are
engaging in abuse and humiliation. (www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/18/1084783517291.html?from=storylhs
But it was Barbara Ehrenreich whose confession
was least expected. First toeing the feminist line
that women are assumed to be morally superior
to men, Ehrenreich is then forced to concede,
A certain kind of feminism
died in Abu
Ehrenreichs admission is notable because
she is the most radical-left of the three writers.
Ehrenreich is an ardent socialist (www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUArchive/socialfem.html
and allegedly serves as honorary chair of the
Democratic Socialists of America (www.well.com/user/srhodes/ehrenreich.html
The problem with the women are morally
superior dogma is not just that its
wrong. The real danger is this belief is only a
tiny nudge away from the outright gender bigotry
that one often sees on feminist websites these
Evil is not a gendered phenomenon. Its
just that men and women personify evil in different
So it is refreshing to hear card-carrying
feminists finally admit that sometimes women do act
like mere mortals. And those sins cannot be blamed
White Males Hot
Demographic for the 2004 Elections
As President Bushs polling numbers falter,
Democrats are beginning to salivate over the
prospect of winning the November elections. So
everyone is asking, what is the demographic group
that holds the key to election success?
The answer: white men, who represent a whooping
45 million of the total U.S. electorate.
Back in 1976, Jimmy Carter attracted a majority
of white male voters to seal his underdog
Presidential bid. But around that time, the
Democratic Party began to view women as one of its
core constituencies, and to define womens
needs through the lens of radical feminism. Not
surprisingly, white men began to abandon the
Democratic party in droves.
So by the time the 2000 elections rolled around,
only 36% of white men voted for Al Gore, compared
to an impressive 60% for George W. Bush. To
Democratic pollsters like Celinda Lake, that was a
demographic disaster. During the 2002 mid-term
elections, white men came through again, handing
Republicans control of the Senate.
So now Ms. Lake is arguing the Democrats will
never win the White House unless they begin to
reach out to the massive voting group she has
dubbed the NASCAR Dads. Indeed, the male gender gap
has become so worrisome that the liberal New York
Times recently ran an article offering advice on
how to rev up the NASCAR vote.
But the jocular tone of the article, Yes,
Democrats Can Win (Some) White Male Voters,
betrays the fact that the Democratic establishment
has no intention of taking the concerns of white
men seriously. Donna Brazile, Al Gores former
campaign manager, says breezily about Kerrys
efforts to connect with this group, The only
thing he hasnt done is sit down with a
six-pack and chew tobacco with them.
Brazile further confirms how clueless the
Democrats are when she makes this pronouncement:
White males, especially working class males,
care about their jobs, and they care about things
like health care.
That statement is about as profound as saying
that mothers care about their babies. Thats
because Brazile fails to explain why millions of
men have fled the Democratic Party since 1976.
If the Democrats really want to attract the
white male vote, they will need to overcome two
First, white men are likely to be the primary
breadwinners for their families. They view higher
taxes as an obstacle to their ability to be good
providers. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found
that 70% of men favored smaller government, but
only 48% of women believed the same way. So men are
far more likely to view big government as part of
the problem, not the solution.
Second, men (and many women, as well) have grown
tired of the Democrats endless pandering to
female voters. On his website, candidate John Kerry
promises, As president, I will put American
government and our legal system back on the side of
Really, it is doubtful that there is anyone left
who truly believes the U.S. government is NOT on
the side of women.
The fact that the Kerry campaign would run these
canards reveals an unsettling truth that in
order to win the female vote, Kerry believes that
he needs to continually nurture womens sense
of grievance and victimization. Is that John
Kerrys concept of female empowerment?
True, Kerry has begun to appear in photo-ops
attired in full hunting regalia, thinking that will
get him in good with the redneck crowd. But how
many millionaire preppies who hail from
Massachusetts know the difference between a shotgun
and a pea-shooter?
Despite all the consciousness-raising by Celinda
Lake, the Democrats have made no headway in
bringing white men back into the fold. According to
the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, John Kerry
is stuck with exactly the same numbers as Al Gore:
36% of the white male electorate.
Thats why it looks like history is going
to repeat itself on Tuesday, November the
Yes, Fathers Are
In the past several decades, the United States has
achieved the dubious distinction of becoming the
world leader in fatherless families. Currently, 34%
of American children live without their biological
father. When did this trend start, and what does it
bode for our kids?
The rise of father-absence can be traced 50
years back. In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then
working in the Johnson administration, looked into
the problems of under-class America. The Moynihan
Report issued this solemn warning:
"From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century
eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los
Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in
American history: A community that allows a large
number of young men to grow up in broken families,
dominated by women, never acquiring any stable
relationship to male authority, never acquiring any
rational expectations about the future -- that
community asks for and gets chaos."
The heralded Report offered Americans a unique
opportunity to alter the trajectory of history, to
thwart the impending plunge into the abyss.
But rather than heed the prescient warning,
warm-hearted liberals denounced Moynihans
conclusion as blaming the victim. And
feminists reviled the report as promoting the
But it wasnt enough to just ignore
Architects of the Great Society program went
ahead and implemented eligibility requirements that
cut off welfare benefits if the father resided with
the mother the so-called
man-in-the-house rule. Now, low-income
fathers found themselves pitted against government
largesse to compete for the loyalty of poor
mothers. A tragic mismatch, indeed.
As a result, the number of children who lived in
fatherless homes mushroomed from 5.1 million in
1960 to 16.5 million in 1995. These policies were
so devastating in their impact that involved,
caring fathers all but disappeared from low-income,
So while liberals comforted themselves with the
knowledge that they had avoided blaming the
victim, millions of little boys and girls had
to console themselves with the elusive hope that
someday, society would stop shoving daddy out the
Once poor fathers had been run out of their
homes, the fem-liberals broadened their focus. They
launched an attack on the whole notion of
fatherhood itself (www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2004/roberts060904.htm
Five years ago this month the American
Psychological Association used the occasion of
Fathers Day to publish an article with the
awful title, Deconstructing the Essential
partisan article triggered a firestorm of protest,
including a rebuke from 18 members of Congress
Despite what the American Psychological
Association might say, most persons agree that dads
are worth keeping around.
First, a fathers breadwinning instinct
keeps the family out of the clutches of poverty.
Indeed, while father-present households saw an
increase in income from 1960 to 1990, father-absent
families saw a financial decline.
But fathers are more than income producers.
Fathers undergird the very order and structure of
Scores of research studies have documented the
positive effects of involved fathers (www.fatherhood.org/fatherfacts.htm
Heres just a sampling of the benefits:
- The National Center for Educational
Statistics reported that when fathers are
involved in their childrens education, the
kids were more likely to get As, enjoy school,
and participate in extracurricular
- Kyle Pruett concluded that kids with engaged
fathers demonstrate a greater ability to
take initiative and evidence
- When these boys grew up, they were more
likely to be good dads themselves.
But when fathers are disenfranchised by
misguided government programs, heres the
- Their children have a higher rate of asthma,
headaches, anxiety, depression, and behavioral
- Teenagers are at greater risk of alcohol,
tobacco, and illicit drug use, and suicide
- Adolescent girls are 3 times more likely to
engage in sexual relations by the time they turn
15, and 5 times more likely to become a teen
Amazing, isnt it?
Thank you, dad, for being there. You were more
than essential. You were a beacon of truthfulness,
common sense, kindness, and silent courage.
Afraid to Say What We
Some persons may get a chuckle out of the term. But
Political Correctness is an implacable force that
we must come to terms with, or else accept the
reality that our First Amendment freedoms may
become irrevocably lost.
Political Correctness has its roots Cultural
Cultural Marxists know that democratic capitalism
cannot be overthrown by external force. So they
seek to undermine Western society like a cancer
attacking from within.
The politically-correct view all of history
through the prism of power. For example, radical
feminism teaches that in the past, men had all the
power. That made men the unrelenting oppressors of
women. So now men are obliged to make up for their
Experience proves that Political Correctness is
difficult to counter because it is always justified
by sentimental appeals to fairness and
The purveyors of PC began 20 years ago by
discouraging the use of demeaning stereotypes and
epithets directed against any racial, ethnic, or
gender group. Who could argue with that?
An exception was made, however, for males, who
were considered fair game for the crudest forms of
Soon, campus speech codes began to sprout. In
the workplace, speech codes became subsumed under
the rubric of sexual harassment. If a boss called
his secretary honey or a doctor
referred to a patient as dear, that
could get him into trouble.
The next step in the unfolding PC campaign was
the passage of hate speech legislation.
In 1999, the National Organization of Women and
other groups unveiled the Hate Crimes Prevention
Act, which aimed to expand the scope of the
existing hate crime laws to include gender and
sexual orientation. When it floundered in
committee, they changed the name of the bill to the
benign-sounding Local Law Enforcement Act
Just last week, five years of hard work paid
off. The Senate approved the LLEA by a 65-33 vote
If the House of Representatives approves the bill
and President Bush signs off, the LLEA soon will
become the law of the land.
So what would happen if someone writes a book
that portrays a protected group in a negative
light? Could that be construed as a hate crime?
Actually, I didnt make that example
On June 10, legendary actress Brigitte Bardot
was convicted in France and fined $6,000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3794513.stm
Her offense? Including passages in her best-selling
book, A Cry in the Silence, about the growing
Islamic influence in Europe. The sections in
question allegedly incited racial hatred against
Moslems. However, a review of the passages in
question reveals them to be provocative, but
certainly not hateful.
Or what would happen if a person did a critique
of feminist ideology not attacking feminists
as a group, just analyzing their philosophy? Could
that get a person into hot water?
Again, that is not a hypothetical question.
Because just last year, the Canadian government
published a report entitled School Success by
Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculist
The report concluded, We also recommend that
consideration be given to whether legal action can
be taken under section 319 of the Criminal
And what is section 319 of the Criminal Code?
Why, thats the Canadian hate crimes law.
And what are the crimes of the accused?
According to the indictment in the Executive
Summary, The results of our analysis of the
masculist discourse reveal an ideology that aims to
challenge the gains made by women and discredit
Exactly who are the perpetrators of this
ideological crime? The report lists persons like
Christina Hoff Sommers, author of the expose, Who
Stole Feminism? Accusing a woman of being hateful
to other women apparently the irony of that
was lost to authors of the report.
And if youve been following the story
about the Affirmative Action Bake Sales on college
you know that the move to ban certain forms of
political expression has gained a solid foothold in
the United States, as well.
First Cultural Marxism. Then Political
Correctness. And now the LLEA. Take me to my grave,
but Im going to stoutly resist anybody
telling me what I can say and what I can think.
Martha Stewart Plays the
In the wee hours of April 15, 1912, the
unsinkable SS Titanic settled into its
final resting spot in the depths of the North
Atlantic. The nascent cause of gender equality was
dealt a blow on that wintry night. Among its 425
female passengers, 74% were rescued. But among the
1,667 men, only 338 thats a paltry 20%
-- survived this nautical disaster (www.sciencedrive.com/mitchk/stats.htm
First Officer Charles Lightoller was later
called to testify before Congress. One Senator
inquired why women had been favored over men, even
while many of the lifeboats bobbed half-empty in
the icy waters. Lightollers response:
The rule of human nature.
I dont know whether chivalry is based more
on human nature or cultural conditioning. But there
is no doubt that chivalry is as deeply-rooted in
men as is the maternal instinct in women. Even
though feminists will rebuke a man who holds a door
for a lady to pass, chivalry is still alive and
well in our society.
Take the case of Martha Stewart.
Acting on an insider tip, Stewart sold all 3,928
shares of her ImClone stock in 2001. A few days
later, the stock took a nosedive. Stewarts
pre-emptive move saved her the tidy sum of
During the subsequent probe, Stewart made the
mistake of lying to the federal investigators. The
homemaking maven was charged on four counts of
perjury and obstruction of justice.
Every day Martha Stewart emerged from the
courtroom, surrounded by her white knights in
shining armor (ahem, lawyers). No matter how badly
the case was going, she was always beautifully
coifed, with a scarf serving as her fashion
accessory. The Martha Stewart case, involving an
attractive woman with a comely smile and a vaguely
helpless demeanor, was more than the men in the
media could resist.
Over the course of the trial, I read countless
editorials about the case. All of them asserted Ms.
Stewarts innocence she was being
singled out, lying to a federal agent was no big
deal, poor Martha didnt know any better, and
And all of the columns were written by men, none
of them who had spent a day in law school. The
articles called to mind the chivalrous noblemen of
yore who steadfastly defended the virtue of their
But the jury of four men and eight women saw
things differently. On March 5, claiming a victory
for the little guys, the jury found Stewart guilty
on all four counts.
Afterwards, Stewarts lawyers requested
leniency a term of probation and community
service working with poor women. The obvious sexism
of that offer apparently didnt disturb
Last Friday Judge Miriam Goldman sentenced
Stewart to five months behind bars. In announcing
the sentence, Goldman noted, I believe that
you have suffered, and will continue to suffer,
enough. Kinda makes your heart melt.
Media coverage of Goldmans sentence
reveals how chivalry can bias the news. On December
27, 2001, Stewart had received a message from her
stockbroker warning that ImClone is going to
start trading downward. Stewart later stole
into her assistants computer and sanitized
the message to read, Peter Bacanovic re:
ImClone. Jurors later said that incident was
the defining moment in the trial.
But this past weekend, the media didnt
even mention that critical event. Indeed, they
glossed over the details about Stewarts
well-document efforts to obstruct justice.
The lead story in the liberal New York Times
quoted one supporter, Daniel Stone, who said,
If she serves any time at all, it's going to
be a real pity (www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/business/17marthas.html).
The NYT article didnt mention the fact that
the American public does not like white-collar
criminals being sent home scot-free.
Studies have repeatedly found that when men and
women commit the identical crime, women are less
likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and
incarcerated. Legal experts say that Stewart was
extremely lucky in receiving only a judicial slap
on the wrist, the minimum allowable under federal
Was it luck? Or was it the chivalry of the
countless reporters, editors, and columnists who
rallied to Marthas defense?
Karl Marx and the Gender
In 1875, Karl Marx set out his famous prescription:
From each according to his abilities, to each
according to his needs. Marx was saying that
workers should be paid the same, regardless of
their hard work or productivity.
Flat wages, administered by a
centrally-controlled economy, were tried in the
Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere. Farmhands,
blacksmiths, and university professors -- all were
to be paid the same.
And everywhere, the result was economic and
social disaster. This is how economist Helen Hughes
described the Soviet debacle (www.cis.org.au/Policy/Spring98/spr9805.htm
The comparative worth wage-setting in
centrally planned economies was part of the
framework that led to the collapse of these
economies. Comparative worth wage determinations
broke the linkages between renumeration and
But now, radical feminists have seized upon the
well-known fact that women earn 74% of what men
earn. Using Karl Marxs discredited economic
theories, feminists have launched a holy war on the
gender wage gap.
The fact is, the wage gap disappears
when you take into account such factors as
training, years in the workforce, travel
requirements, degree of physical labor, and risk to
life and limb (www.iwf.org/pubs/figures.shtml
And truth be told, men essentially have no
choice -- they are expected to be the primary
breadwinner in order to support their wives and
So they accept the high-paying, dangerous jobs that
women are unwilling to accept.
In contrast, women have a broad range of
options: Be a full-time mom, take on a part-time
job, or do volunteer work.
So the so-called wage gap is really
a choices gap. And the feminist
campaign to level wages really amounts to equal pay
for unequal work.
But evidence and reason do not deter the
And now, the UN-backed International Labor
Organization has taken up the cause. In a recent
report, the ILO claims that women have been victims
of what it calls occupational
segregation. That explains the outrageous
fact that Truck drivers, for instance, are
usually men. (www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/decl/publ/reports/report4.htm
Honestly, I dont know a single woman who
aspires to be a truck driver. But maybe the ILO
believes that with suitable indoctrination, that
problem can be solved, as well.
And if there is any doubt about the socialistic
aims of the ILO, read this statement from page 51
of the ILO report: The growing prevalence of
wage-setting systems based on workers
productivity or performance instead of on the
content of the job raises new challenges for
achieving pay equity.
Its easy to understandable that socialists
disdain free market economies. But why the feminist
contempt for capitalism?
The answer requires a basic understanding of
feminist ideology. Feminists believe that
capitalism is just another example of oppressive
patriarchy. In 1981, socialist Azizah Al-Hibri
penned these words in her feminist manifesto
Conceptually, capitalism is an advanced
stage of patriarchy... Strategically, then, the
struggle against capitalism, racism, imperialism,
and any other attempt of mans attempt at
domination of the Other must be based on their
basic patriarchal nature.
So the socialists and radical feminists have
cooked up an amazingly simple strategy: Promise
women equal pay for unequal work, destroy the
linkage between productivity and income,
destabilize free market economies, and cripple
Breaking the Hearts of
Women are seeing red over the latest program from
the American Heart Association, dubbed the Go
Red for Women campaign.
The American Heart Association website
currently features actress Daryl Hannah posing in a
skimpy outfit that she probably found in Janet
Jacksons wardrobe. Hannah wants us to sign up
to receive information about the risks of heart
disease in women.
Why would women ever be perturbed about that?
Because this one-sided campaign overlooks the fact
that men have hearts, too.
Wondering if the feminist campaign for gender
equality had somehow gotten side-tracked, I
contacted the AHA for an explanation. Heres
what spokeswoman Toiya Honore had to say:
When many people think of heart disease or
heart attack, the image that comes to mind is the
middle-aged white male clutching his
Ms. Honores comment may be true, but
misses the key point. That middle-aged white
male also happens to be married, with a wife
When that husband and father suddenly dies, he
leaves behind a devastated family. Mom is now
saddled with the additional burdens of becoming the
primary breadwinner and household repairman. She
has also lost her confidante, lover, and
Thats not all. When his widow reaches her
Golden Years, she will be four times more likely to
be warehoused in a nursing home (according to a
study by Lois Vergrugge), compared to a married
woman of the same age.
In contrast to that middle-aged white
male, women who die of heart disease are
typically in their 50s and 60s. Usually they are
not the primary breadwinner of a struggling family,
and their children have already grown up.
Ms. Honore offers a second justification for the
Heart Associations campaign that again is
technically correct, but misses the bigger picture.
Honore notes, overall, more women die from
cardiovascular disease than men. It is true
that of all persons who die of heart disease, 52%
are female and 48% are male.
But even a first-year public health student can
spot the flaw in that logic. Go to the nursing home
in your community, and you will see that most of
the residents are female. And heart disease is a
condition of older people. So of course women hold
a numerical edge in the heart disease tallies.
Thats a no-brainer.
But crude numbers are notoriously inadequate in
guiding program priorities. For example, the number
of Blacks who die of heart disease is far fewer
than the number of Whites. If we only relied on raw
numbers, we would start shutting down programs for
Blacks and other minorities.
And knowing that more men die of cancer than
women, is the Heart Association also calling for a
halt in breast cancer research? I certainly hope
The only accurate gauge of need is a
persons risk. The risk of dying of heart
disease is 228 per 100,000 for white males, and
only 134 among white females. In other words, men
face a 70% higher risk of dying from this dread
disease. The American Heart Association knows these
facts are true - they report them on page 10 of
their own 2004 Statistical Update www.americanheart.org/downloadable/heart/1075102824882HDSStats2004UpdateREV1-23-04.pdf.
American men die an average of five and a half
years before women. If it wasnt for the
unequal gender toll of heart disease, men would be
living almost as long as women. And far fewer women
would be spending their last years alone, gazing
blankly at the cinderblock walls of a nursing
Forty years ago the American Heart Association
sponsored a conference on Hearts and
Husbands. This conference, which taught women
how to keep their husbands healthy and alive, was
attended by 10,000 wives and wives-to-be.
Those women had far greater compassion and
common sense than the radical feminists who are now
calling the shots at the American Heart
The Untold Story of Betty
In 1963, the course of American history was changed
with the publication of Betty Friedans book,
The Feminine Mystique. Over five million copies of
this explosive book eventually would be sold.
In the book, Friedan claimed she had lived in a
comfortable concentration camp of New
York City suburbia. And for years afterwards,
Friedan claimed that her awareness of womans
rights did not coalesce until the late 1950s when
she sat down to write the book in her stately
mansion in Grand View-on-Hudson.
But based on his analysis of Friedans
personal papers at the Smith College library,
historian Daniel Horowitz has dramatically refuted
In his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the
Feminine Mystique, Horowitz acknowledges that
Friedan had a brilliant mind, was a prolific
writer, and pursued her cause with a single-minded
But Horowitz also reveals a dark side to
Friedans social activism: Betty Friedan was a
long-time participant in the American Communist
Here is Betty Friedans true story (page
numbers from the Horowitz book are in
- Friedan was first exposed to socialist
thinking while an undergraduate at Smith College
in the late 1930s (pp. 39-49).
- Beginning in 1940, while still a junior at
Smith, Friedan became an outspoken advocate of
the Popular Front, a pro-Communist umbrella that
embraced a broad range of radical groups (p.
- While studying psychology at UC-Berkeley
1942-43, Friedan was a member of the Young
Communist League (p. 93).
- From 1943 to 1946, Friedan worked as
journalist at the Federated Press, a left-wing
news service established by Socialist Party
members (p. 102).
- In 1944, Friedan requested to join the
American Communist Party. According to her FBI
file, Friedan was turned down because
there already were too many intellectuals
in the labor movement (p. 93).
- From 1946 to 1952, Friedan worked as a
journalist (some would say
propagandist is the more accurate
term) at the radical United Electrical, Radio,
and Machine Workers of America. According to
historian Ronald Schatz, this labor union was
the largest Communist-lead institution of
any kind in the United States. (p.
Horowitz also documents Friedans numerous
relationships with Communist Party operatives,
including her romantic involvement with physicist
David Bohm while a student at Berkeley (p. 92).
Bohm would later invoke the Fifth Amendment while
testifying in front of the House Un-American
Activities Committee, and leave the United States
It is important to note that Horowitz did not
intend to write his book as an exposé.
Indeed, throughout the book, Horowitz is clearly
sympathetic to Friedans feminist
But this much is clear: beginning in 1940, Betty
Friedan became a committed and articulate advocate
for the American socialist movement.
It is true that after 1952, her views become
less strident. but Friedans basic outlook
still reflected the socialist worldview of
capitalist oppression and female victimization.
Take this quote from Frederick Engels
famous 1884 essay, The Origin of the Family,
Private Property, and the State:
The emancipation of women becomes possible
only when women are enabled to take part in
production on a large, social scale, and when
domestic duties require their attention only to a
Engel was saying that equality of the sexes
would only happen when women abandoned their homes
and become worker-drones.
Friedan copied that sentence into her notes
sometime around 1959, while she was doing her
research for The Feminine Mystique (p. 201).
That revolutionary passage would become the
inspiration and guiding principle for
Friedans book, and eventually for the entire
So, is Radical
Feminism a Socialist Front?
For the past 30 years I have followed the
trajectory of feminism. Originally I was an ardent
supporter of the ideology. But 15 years ago, it
became clear that this religion of gender
liberation had lost its moral compass.
Now, feminism has become a parody of the very
ideals it claims to promote. It was this dialectic
that led me to research this series of articles on
Socialism and Feminism. The research has lead to
1. The basic premise of radical feminism is that
being a wife and mother is inherently exploitative
of women. This paradigm originated in the Marxist
analysis of class relationships in Europe in the
2. Over the past 100 years, many feminist
leaders have openly aligned themselves with
socialist ideology (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0120roberts.html
3. Beginning in the 1920s, socialist thinkers
realized that capitalism could never be overthrown
by violent means. So they conspired to undermine
the values and institutions of Western society.
This set up what we now call the Culture War
4. Radical feminists have worked at the vanguard
of the Culture War. Their range of tactics is
astonishing: - discourage women from childbearing
- undermine the institution of the family
- promise women equal pay for unequal work
- impose gender quotas on national elections
- emasculate men (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1202roberts.html
5. Both socialism and radical feminism operate
through deception. While both ideologies claim to
be merely working for equality, in fact they aspire
to radically restructure the entire society.
So is radical feminism a socialist front? In a
Read just a few paragraphs from Kate
Weigands book, Red Feminism (http://print.google.com/print/doc?isbn=0801864895
Or to the Women and Marxism website
(www.marxists.org/subject/women/index.htm) and you
will see the speeches of the Communist rascals that
were calculated to whip up women into a
The radical feminist worldview, goals, tactics,
and rhetoric -- all can be linked directly to
Ironically, it is doubtful that Marxism has
liberated women. Modern women are no more
independent than they were 150 years ago in
Fem-socialism has only shifted female dependency
to big government and to feminist Pooh Bahs who
deem to dictate what women will think, feel, and
do. No wonder women are feeling victimized, angry,
So if feminist-socialist theory has failed
women, where does that leave us?
Clearly, the roles of women -- and men -- are
evolving. The answer to the age-old Woman Question
is not to return to the restrictive gender roles of
the 19th century.
Lets first acknowledge the fact that life
has never been a bowl of cherries -- for either
women or men. Both suffered terribly from abuses
specific to their gender.
Lets also note that rights and
responsibilities go hand in hand. The more rights
any group acquires must be accompanied by a similar
increase in social obligations.
And finally, lets stop the gender epithets
which have the effect of shaming and silencing
The myths of fem-socialism are deeply embedded
in the fabric of Western society. These myths need
to be exposed and debunked.
At the same time, why dont we commence a
real gender dialog in this country?
Subversion of the Gender System
In recent years, the battle of the sexes has
escalated into a full-fledged gender war. This
conflict is playing out in the boardroom, the
courtroom, and the bedroom.
What is the origin of this feminist assault?
And as early as 1886, Eleanor Marx, youngest
daughter of Karl, issued this indictment:
Women are the creatures of an organised
tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of
an organised tyranny of idlers. (www.marxists.org/archive/eleanor-marx/works/womanq.htm
The linkage between socialism and American
feminism can be traced back to the earliest
Susan B. Anthony held a 1905 meeting with
Eugene Debbs, perennial socialist candidate in the
US presidential elections. Anthony promised Debbs,
Give us suffrage, and well give you
socialism. Debs shot back, Give us
socialism, and well give you the vote.
Helen Keller, well-known suffragette and
advocate for the blind, became an outspoken member
of the Socialist Party in 1909. She later joined
the ultra-radical Industrial Workers of the World.
Kellers 45-page FBI file can be viewed at
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned
Parenthood, was a member of the Womans
Committee of the New York Socialist Party. In her
book, Women and the New Race (www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/sanger/labor.html
Sanger wrote: no Socialist republic can
operate successfully and maintain its ideals unless
the practice of birth control is encouraged to a
marked and efficient degree.
Mary Inman was an ardent feminist and
Communist in the late 1930s and early 1940s. During
that era, the Communist Party of the USA often used
the phrase white chauvinism to refer to
racial prejudice. It was Inman who reworked that
phrase to coin the term, male
Simone de Beauvoir was a well-known
socialist with Marxist sympathies
In The Second Sex, she lionized socialism as the
ideal for gender relationships: A world where
men and women would be equal is easy to visualize,
for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution
Betty Friedan went to great lengths to
cover up the facts of her Communist past: her
membership in the Young Communist League, her 1944
request to join the American Communist Party, and
her work as a propagandist for Communist-led
organizations in the 1940s (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1125roberts.html
Gloria Steinem once admitted, When
I was in college, it was the McCarthy era, and that
made me a Marxist. (Susan Mitchell: Icons,
Saints and Divas, 1997, p. 130), Later, Steinem
joined the Democratic Socialists of America
These are just a few of the feminists who have
devoted their lives to the religion of socialist.
The accounts of other socialist women are detailed
at the Women and Marxism website: www.marxists.org/subject/women/index.htm
In her book Red Feminism, Kate Weigand makes
this startling admission: this book provides
evidence to support the belief that at least some
Communists regarded the subversion of the gender
system as an integral part of the larger fight to
overturn capitalism. (print.google.com/print/doc?isbn=0801864895
Subvert the gender system. Emasculate
patriarchy. Overturn capitalism. Its amazing
that Weigand, a die-hard Communist and feminist,
would reveal this destructive plan for all to see.
But then, who in the world would ever believe
Dissolution becomes the Law of the Land
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to
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."
That chilling commentary comes from
fem-socialist Simone de Beauvoir, in her famous
1974 interview in The Saturday Review.
So what happens when the radical feminist agenda
becomes the law of the land?
That is not a mere hypothetical question. It can
be answered by turning the pages of history back to
the tragic early days of Soviet Russia.
When Lenins Bolsheviks seized the levers
of power in 1917, Lenin faced the daunting
challenge of jump-starting agricultural and
industrial production. So he cast his eye on a
vast, untapped workforce: peasant women.
Parroting the Marxist line on female oppression
Lenin incited women to action at the First All
Russia Congress of Working Women: The status
of women up to now has been compared to that of a
slave; women have been tied to the home, and only
socialism can save them from this. (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/nov/19.htm
In short order, Lenin pushed through laws
assuring women equal pay for equal work and the
right to hold property.
But as Simone de Beauvoir pointed out, many
women would be tempted to go back to the old ways
to tend to hearth and home. So the traditional
family would need to be abolished. Lenin understood
that fact, as well.
So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code
that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened
state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries, and
sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and
divorce simplified (www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/women/women_in_soviet_union.asp
In a few short years, most of the functions of
the family had been expropriated by the state. By
1921, Lenin could brag that in Soviet Russia,
no trace is left of any inequality between men and
women under the law. (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/mar/04.htm
But Lenins dream of gender emancipation
soon dissolved into a cruel nightmare of social
First, the decline of marriage gave rise to
rampant sexual debauchery. Party loyalists
complained that comrades were spending too much
time in love affairs, so they could not fulfill
their revolutionary duties (www.theatlantic.com/issues/26jul/russianwoman.htm
Not surprisingly, women who were sent out to
labor in the fields and the factories stopped
having babies. In 1917, the average Russian woman
had borne six children. By 1991, that number had
fallen to two. This fertility free-fall is
unprecedented in modern history (www.rand.org/publications/CF/CF124/CF124.chap2.html#history
But it was the children who were the greatest
victims. As a result of the break-up of families,
combined with civil war and famine, countless
numbers of Russian children found themselves
without family or home. Many ended up as common
thieves or prostitutes (http://texts.cdlib.org/dynaxml/servlet/dynaXML?docId=ft700007p9&chunk.id=ch4
In his recent book Perestroika, Mikhail
Gorbachev reflected on 70 years of Russian turmoil:
We have discovered that many of our problems
-- in childrens and young peoples
behavior, in our morals, culture and in production
-- are partially caused by the weakening of family
Fem-socialists, hell-bent on achieving a
genderless society, are now scheming to repeat the
same disastrous experiment in Western society.
Naturally, they are hoping that you not hear the
story of family destruction in Soviet Russia.
But the truth is there, waiting to be grasped by
anyone who cares to see.
Karl Marx's Prescription for
The shrill feminist denunciations of male
patriarchy share a common origin: the Marxist creed
In the 1840s, Marx concocted this bizarre
theory: Since working men were oppressed by
capitalist economies, then women were
doubly-victimized by the effects of capitalism and
This is how Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
explained it in their 1848 Communist Manifesto:
What is the present family based on? On
capitalism, the acquisition of private
property...The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing
but an instrument of production.
In his 1884 book, The Origin of the Family,
Engels elaborated on the theme of patriarchal
The overthrow of mother right was the
world historical defeat of the female sex. The man
took command in the home also; the woman was
degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the
slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the
production of children.
These claims are preposterous.
If women were more oppressed than men, then
womens lifespans would have been shorter. But
the reverse was true -- in the second half of the
1800s, mens life expectancy in Russia and
Europe was 2-3 years shorter than womens
partly due to their responsibilities as primary
And Engels claim that women had become a
mere instrument for the production of
children is patently absurd. As a result of
the Industrial Revolution, female fertility had
already begun to fall in Europe in the mid-1800s
So Engels assertion was ridiculous as it
And 156 years after publication of the Communist
Manifesto, what is the verdict of history?
The simple fact is, over 100 million persons
have been killed under regimes calling themselves
Socialist. Ironically, almost all of the victims
were members of the working class. Marx did not
care about the proletariat, he only cared about his
pipe dream of achieving a socialist utopia.
Likewise, it is questionable whether Marx really
cared about helping women. Always mindful of the
fact that women represented half of the population,
he and his minions schemed to exploit their largely
Chairman Mao said it best: Many
co-operatives are finding themselves short of
labor. It has become necessary to arouse the great
mass of women who did not work in the fields before
to take their place on the labor front.
Karl Marx also viewed women as effective
agitators to overthrow capitalism. As he admitted
in a 1868 letter, major social
transformations are impossible without ferment
among the women.
But if there are any lingering doubts about Karl
Marxs real attitudes towards women, just
examine his personal life.
According to Joshua Muravchiks brilliant
book, Heaven on Earth, Marx disdained the
responsibilities of a husband and father of three
girls. He was inept in managing the household
finances. He never even tried to get a job.
Instead, he lived off of his inheritance and a
monthly stipend from Engels.
Nonetheless, Marx did indulge in the bourgeoisie
custom of hiring a household maid. Her name was
In 1851, Demuth bore an illegitimate son, Henry.
Federick Engels soon admitted his paternity.
Lying on his deathbed in 1895, no longer able to
speak, Engels took a chalk and slate in hand to
reveal a well-guarded secret. The father of the
bastard-son was Karl Marx himself.
Jessica Lynch and the
It was such a good story, you cant help but
wonder if it had been scripted out in advance.
An American convoy in Iraq comes under enemy
attack. A teenage female soldier (read, Damsel in
Distress) is wounded. Eight days later, a Special
Ops team (read, Knights in Shining Armor) stages a
dramatic midnight rescue. As Lynch is carried
aboard the plane, she smiles coyly for the
This story did not find its way into your
childrens fairy tale book, with its and
they lived happily ever ending. Instead, it
ended up on the front page of the Washington
According the Washington Post story, PFC Jessica
Lynch had "sustained multiple gunshot wounds" and
was stabbed while she "fought fiercely and shot
several enemy soldiers...firing her weapon until
she ran out of ammunition."
Of course, that Rambo-like description bears no
relation to the truth. Looking back, we now see
that the story provided an irresistible mix of
straight news, social entertainment, and feminist
But this story is more than an object lesson how
the liberal media has lost its moral compass.
The Jessica Lynch fiasco is the latest episode
in the budding Cultural Revolution.
Because the Lynch story really boils down to a
mockery of the archetype of the male warrior -- the
time-honored tradition of the man who risks life
and limb to defend family and home.
The story undermines the male archetype, of
course, because Lynch is female.
Worse, the story ignores the true bravery that
happened that March 23 morning on the road to
By her own admission, Lynchs weapon jammed
and then she passed out. And that was it. She did
absolutely nothing that could be counted as an act
In contrast, PFC Patrick Miller, who was
traveling in the same convoy, singly-handedly
turned back the second-wave Iraqi mortar attack. He
was credited with saving the life of Jessica Lynch.
Afterwards, Miller was awarded a Silver Star for
But the liberal media barely mentioned him. PFC
Millers picture did not appear on the cover
of People magazine. He was never offered a $1
million book deal.
So here is the real message: Girls, join
the army, survive an enemy attack, smile for the
camera, and you can be a hero, too.
And exactly who are the people who are waging
this divisive Cultural Revolution?
David Horowitz, a former liberal himself,
understands the radical left agenda all too well.
He calls these agitators the neo-Communists
Neo-Coms know they cannot topple the economic
and military power of capitalism. So instead, they
subvert the culture.
Its like Betty Friedan, who took the
American ideal of suburban comfort and privilege,
and then turned it inside out by calling it a
comfortable concentration camp.
Babette Gross, who was involved with socialist
front movements for many years, describes their
tactics this way:
You do not call yourself a Communist. You
do not call upon people to support the Soviets.
Never. You claim to be an independent-minded
idealist. You dont really understand
politics, but you claim the little guy is getting a
Philospher Herbert Marcuse is one of the leading
neo-Coms. Marcuse describes the Cultural Revolution
in terms of a type of diffuse and dispersed
disintegration of the system." (www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html)
To manipulate the media with an utter disregard
for the truth, to emasculate the male warrior
archetype, to openly call for the
disintegration of our society -- this
is the agenda of the Neo-Com Cultural
Under Attack by Fem-Socialists
Socialist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned
Parenthood, once made this cold-blooded remark,
The most merciful thing a large family can do
to one of its infant members is to kill it." And
when asked about Chinas policy of compulsory
abortion after the first child, Molly Yard, former
head of the NOW, admitted in a 1989 interview, "I
consider the Chinese government's policy among the
most intelligent in the world."
So the disclosure of secret documents from the
New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights
(CRR), recently published in the federal
Congressional Record (www.c-fam.org/pdfs/SecretProabortionInternationalLitigationStrategy.pdf
only confirms our worst fears.
Fem-socialists have long believed that
childbearing is the linchpin of female oppression.
As Frederick Engels wrote, the first
expropriation of labor was that between the sexes,
in the reproduction of the human species. To
the radical feminist mind, the solution to this
exploitative arrangement is to prevent
But women in free societies fiercely object to
being told whether they can have children. So
radical feminists have devised a variety of covert
strategies to overcome these objections.
These tactics were outlined in a series of
secret strategy meetings held this past Fall.
Copies of these 3 memos and other reports were
recently obtained by the Catholic Family and Human
Rights Institute (C-FAM).
Most troubling is how the memos reveal the close
working relationships among the CRR, the ACLU, and
a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
that work with the United Nations. The word
conspiracy certainly comes to mind.
The memos show how the United Nations has been
co-opted to support the abortion crusade. One
document provides a laundry list of the UN-backed
treaties -- including the Convention on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
-- that are being used as a platform to strengthen
One document recounts how the International
Womens Health Coalition has focused on
inserting a gender perspective into
international policies and agreements.
The documents provide many other examples of the
subversive feminist-socialist agenda:
1. One memo claims that treaties such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantee
womens right to reproductive
health, which is a well-known code phrase for
abortion on demand. Clearly, there is
something frightening about claiming a treaty
designed to protect human rights provides the legal
justification for the elimination of life.
The memo also admits the deceptive nature of the
pro-abortion lobby: there is a stealth
quality to the work: we are achieving incremental
recognition of values without a huge amount of
scrutiny from the opposition.
2. A second memo specifically targets under-age
girls. The CRR advocates provision of reproductive
health services for girls without parental
knowledge or consent, and admits this has
always been one of our priority areas.
3. One secret planning document admits the
existence of hostile majorities in most
states, so the protection of the
judiciary will be needed to thwart the will
of the people.
4. One paper outlines recommendations from the
CRR directors. One unnamed director ordered that
CRR programs be ruthlessly prioritized.
Another admonished, We have to fight harder,
be a little dirtier.
The objective of the abortion advocates is not
to protect womens human rights. Rather, as
revealed by the comments of Margaret Sanger and
Molly Yard, their ultimate goal is to progressively
restrict womens reproductive choices, that is
to take away their birth-right.
In entering these documents into the
Congressional Register, representative Christopher
Smith of New Jersey commented, It is
especially important that policy makers know, and
more fully understand, the deceptive practices
being employed by the abortion lobby...These papers
reveal a Trojan Horse of deceit.
NIH: Where Political
Correctness is Sickening
This past Christmas, President Bush felt compelled
to issue three separate holiday cards. Christians,
Blacks, and Jews received cards with greetings
appropriate to their holiday celebrations. That
way, no one would feel offended.
But Political Correctness has gone far beyond
dictating the content of Christmas cards. Now, PC
thinking has seduced the hearts and minds of
Case in point -- the National Institutes of
Health, charged with advancing Americas
medical research agenda, recently unveiled a draft
plan to reduce health disparities. The plan is
saddled with the bureaucratic title,
Strategic Research Plan to Reduce and
Ultimately Eliminate Health Disparities. The
document can be seen at www.ncmhd.nih.gov/our_programs/strategic/volumes.asp
Of course, men lag on practically every measure
of health care. Men are less likely to have health
insurance or to see their doctor when they get
sick. As a result, men die an average of 5-1/2
years before women.
So any discussion of health disparities would
logically focus on men.
Please understand, PCism is very hard to cure.
Its symptoms include a stubborn compulsion to
suppress the natural impulse of logic, fairness,
and compassion. To overcome that humane instinct,
the crafters of the NIH plan had to rigidly obey
these 4 rules:
1. Ignore the parts of the law that you
dont happen to agree with -- The NIH
disparity plan was developed to comply with the
recent Minority Health and Health Disparities
Research Act. The Act defines a health disparity
group as a population where there is a
significant disparity in the overall rate of
disease incidence, prevalence, morbidity,
[or] mortality. That definition fits
the male half of the US population to a T. But the
NIH decided to simply ignore that part of the
2. Never make direct comparisons between men and
women -- Because revealing that mens health
has chronically lagged in comparison to women would
sabotage the entire NIH feminist health agenda.
3. Cover up the fact that your agency is
actually making the disparity worse -- Over the
years, the National Cancer Institute has spent more
than three times more money on breast cancer
research than on prostate cancer (www.nci.nih.gov/public/factbk97/varican.htm
But dont expect the NCI disparity reduction
plan to draw attention to that fact.
4. Give only token attention to the greatest
disparity -- The lifespan of Black men is 7 years
less than for Black females. Black men are the
neediest of the needy. Although the NIH plan does
recommend programs for African-American men, the
plan illogically proposes that more attention be
given to Black women.
Despite its ballooning $28 billion annual
budget, it is unlikely that the cure for the
affliction of Political Correctness ever will be
found at the NIH.
The remedy will have to come from the American
citizens who are sick and tired of the epidemic of
We need to tell the NIH that the lives of half
the nations population should not count for
less because they happen to be male. The PC-crats
at NIH need to hear that message, loud and
Heres the e-mail address to send your
And for good measure, send a copy of your message
to the NIH director Dr. Elias Zerhouni: email@example.com.
As a urologist, he knows something about mens
health. Brief or lengthy, your message will make a
© 2005 Carey Roberts
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
©1996-2017, Gordon Clay