Socialism &
Feminism
Archive
2009

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 disease.

First, for those of us who care about such things, the facts. According to the latest government report, men die an average of 5.4 years before women.

The main reason for that disparity in life expectancy is heart disease. Heart disease is the number one killer of men and women alike.

But men’s risk of dying from heart disease is far greater than women’s – about 50% higher. These are the actual numbers from the recent report, Health, United States, 2004: The adjusted heart disease death rates in 2002 were 297 per 100,000 persons for men and 197 for women [www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus.htm ].

Those figures actually understate the extent of the problem, because when men die of heart disease, they are typically in their 40s and 50s, whereas women usually die of heart disease at a later age.

This means that when women die from this condition, their kids are out on their own. But men stricken by heart disease are still the main breadwinners for the family, working overtime to pay off the mortgage and driving the kids to soccer practice. His untimely death is a medical and financial disaster for the wife and kids.

Public health experts have a way of gauging that age effect – it’s called “Years of potential life lost.” So in 2002, the number of potential years lost due to heart disease was 1,707 for men, and only 749 for women. That’s more than a two-fold difference.

But we live in an Alice-in-Wonderland world where the wishes of women necessarily trump the medical necessities of men. Thus, we are told that we should be more concerned about women, not men, who are risk of heart disease.

So get ready for National Wear Red Day on Friday, February 4. The American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health are urging women to wear red that day, using the predictable feminist jargon, in order to “share the power.”

But this event is not limited to one day – it’s a full-fledged campaign. All across the country, local chapters of the American Heart Association will be celebrating every manner of activity, including Woman-to-Woman conferences, Wear Red Day, and Go Red for Women luncheons [www.heart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3017091 ].

Ironically, these AHA events are all co-sponsored by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, the folks who make millions of dollars selling Viagra to men.

Orwellians always try to cover their tracks by invoking the notion of “truth.” The Wear Red Day campaign is no exception to that rule.

Go to the National Institutes of Health website, and there you will see how the decidely one-sided “truth” will be presented at a series of Heart “Truth” Events [www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/hearttruth/index.htm ]. These events include an Olympus Fashion Week, Single City Community Events, outreach to health professionals, and the Heart Truth Road Show.

How do upstanding organizations like the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health justify the embarrassing neglect of men’s hearts?

Here’s what Dr. Augustus Grant, president of the American Heart Association, had to say: “Heart disease kills more American women than any other disease, yet surveys show that when you ask women to name their No. 1 health threat, less than half answer correctly.” (Editor's note: That's because the health industry has made women fear breast cancer, which kills fewer than 40,000 women a year compared to hundreds of thousands to heart disease.)

But the AHA didn’t even bother to survey men. Sometimes you almost have to feel sorry for those afflicted by political correctness, persons who are so easily taken in by their pat answers and delusions of gender enlightenment.

Propaganda campaigns always have their share of sweet ironies. And here, the Heart Truth website talks about women celebrating the impending Valentine’s Day.

But when those women open their husband’s gift of mouth-watering chocolates, how many will realize that they may well spend their Golden Years alone, ruing the fact that their husband’s life was cut short by heart disease?

And as they are lovingly handed that bunch of red roses, how many single girls know their boyfriend faces a 50% greater risk of dying of heart disease than they do?

On February the fourth, as these women admire the svelte models strolling down the runway at the Red Dress Collection Fashion Show, how many will appreciate the irony?

Double-Standard Treatment for Child Abusers


Heather Thomas of Fairfax, VA was arrested last week in the shaking death of her 6-day-old granddaughter. On Christmas Day Valerie Kennedy held her son in a tub of scalding water as punishment, causing his death. A few days later Genevieve Silva was arrested in Oklahoma on child rape charges for luring a high school student to run away from home.

Chances are you didn’t read about these incidents in your local newspaper. Because when a man commits abuse, it seems the story is splashed all over the front page. But when the perpetrator is a member of the fairer sex, the story is relegated to the bottom of the Police Report on page C9.

Each year the federal Administration for Children and Families surveys child protective service (CPS) agencies around the country to spot the latest trends in child abuse. And according to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, women are the most common abusers of children.

In 2003, females, usually mothers, represented 58% of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect, with men composing the remaining cases. In that same year an estimated 1,500 children died of abuse or neglect. In 31% of those cases, the perpetrator was the mother acting alone, compared to 18% of fathers acting alone. [www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/index.htm ]

Then there’s the scandal of Dumpster babies. In 1998, 105 newborn infants were discovered abandoned in public places. One-third of those babies were found dead.

In a civilized society that makes adoption services widely-available, that practice should have been condemned as unconscionable and wrong. But instead of prosecuting the abandoners, we accommodated to the societal imperative to provide choices to women no matter the moral consequences. So we passed laws to establish “safe havens.”

Under New York law, mothers can now anonymously drop off their infants up to five days old. But if she later has second thoughts, not to worry. She can come back and reclaim the child up to 15 months later.

That satisfaction-guaranteed-or-your-money-back offer might work at a Macy’s handbag sale, but that’s not how a moral society treats its most vulnerable members.

Patricia Pearson has written a blockbuster book called, When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence. Pearson documents repeated examples of violent women who draw their Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card by claiming PMS, battered woman’s syndrome, or postpartum depression.

Remember Andrea Yates who admitted to drowning her five boys in a bathtub? Of course the National Organization for Women rushed to her defense, claiming that postpartum blues justified the serial murder. And two weeks ago Texas 1st Court of Appeals ruled that her conviction should be reversed.

Then there’s the problem of women, usually female teachers, who seduce and deflower teenage boys. Look how the media sanitizes the issue. Reporters trivialize the incident using clinical phrases such as “sexual contact,” or worse envelope the story in a snickering “didn’t-he-get-lucky” tone.

I once knew a teenage boy who was raped by his older sister’s girlfriend during a holiday visit to his parent’s home. Ten years later, he was still devastated by the incident. Of course he never reported the assault, no one would have taken him seriously.

When these cases go to trial, the double standard persists. As CNN’s Nancy Grace plaintively asks, “Why is it when a man rapes a little girl, he goes to jail, but when a woman rapes a boy, she had a breakdown?”

And shame on reporters who use limp clichés to excuse the inexcusable. Like the story about a New Orleans mom who stuffed her 3-month-old son in the clothes dryer and hit the On button. This was the feeble explanation that the Times-Picayune offered in its December 8 edition: “Murder Suspect ‘Was Trying her Best.’” [www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1134027521231650.xml ]

That condescending headline brings to mind the Solomonic words of columnist Kathryn Jean Lopez: “There are mental-health issues in many of these cases, obviously, but regardless, a society can and must say loud and clear: ‘That’s wrong. That’s evil. That can never happen again.’” [www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200510170830.asp ]

To which I say, “Amen.”

In radio talk shows and internet bulletin boards around the nation, Americans’ ire has reached the boiling point over female child abusers who are treated with reverential deference by the media and our legal system.

As long as we tolerate this gender double-standard, the problem will fester and grow. And our children will continue to be at risk.

The Unfolding AIDS Scandal at the UN


December 1 was World AIDS Day and the focus this year is on women and girls. That's good, because almost half of all HIV-infected persons in the world are female. But if you are a woman who is concerned about HIV infection, I'd suggest you avoid the UNAIDS program like the plague. Why? Because their advice just might kill you.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

As we know, there is no vaccine or drug that can stop AIDS. But there is one proven strategy. That approach, which is backed by the Bush Administration, is known as "ABC." A stands for Abstinence, B means Be faithful, and C refers to Condoms [www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2003/wt030406.html ].

The ABC concept has been implemented in Uganda over the past 15 years. There, a massive public education campaign was mounted. Billboard signs admonished would-be adulterers, "No Grazing." And religious organizations were tapped to play key roles (sorry about that, ACLU).

The results were impressive: the HIV infection rate in Uganda dropped from 15% to 5%. In 1991, 21% of pregnant women had the deadly HIV virus. Ten years later, that figure had dropped to 6% [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0415roberts.html .

But the experts at UNAIDS don't believe in the ABCs. Why? Because they had a strategy with a name that appealed to erotomaniacs everywhere: Safe Sex. The Safe Sex advocates argue that since sexual activity is a fact of life, the best we can do is offer condoms.

But two years ago the truth began to emerge.

Speakers at the 2002 Barcelona AIDS conference began to openly admit the failure of the Safe Sex approach. The UN Population Division offered this dispiriting assessment: "Much effort has been spent on promoting the prophylactic use of condoms as part of AIDS prevention. However, over the years, the condom has not become more popular among couples." [nationalreview.com/comment/comment-sylva073002.asp ]

Why did Safe Sex fail? Well, knowing that the condom failure rate is 15%, ask yourself this question: If an intimate partner of yours had AIDS, would you trust your life to a condom?

And why didn't the UN embrace the proven ABC strategy? The answer: it's a little too....puritanical. Abstinence is something a Bible-thumping preacher might push -- but not the respectable public-health types at the UNAIDS.

If the gospel of Safe Sex didn't sell, why not try the orthodoxy of The Sisterhood?

So just last week the UNAIDS published its report, "Women and AIDS" [www.unaids.org/wad2004/EPI_1204_pdf_en/Chapter2_women+aids_en.pdf ]. If you are interested in getting a glimpse into the radical feminist mindset, you will find it there. You will learn how women are subject to discrimination, domestic violence, and all manner of mistreatment - at the hands of their male chauvinist oppressors, of course.

For example, the report tells us the amazing fact that "women and girls provide the bulk of home-based care" -- but what does that have to do with stopping AIDS? Feminists who believe that all heterosexual intercourse is a form of rape will be heartened by the document's sweeping claim that "Women and girls often lack the power to abstain from sex."

And what if you are a woman who is looking for concrete suggestions on how to avoid becoming infected with the deadly HIV virus? Don't go to UNAIDS, because you will find nothing there in the way of practical advice.

If fact you may become convinced that since women are so utterly powerless in the face of global patriarchy, taking any action to protect yourself would be futile.

Every day, 8,500 men and women die from the modern Black Death that we call AIDS. Most of those deaths could be avoided if the UN took a practical approach that is based on science, not ideology. And pitting women against men is hardly the answer.

The UN is engulfed in a growing array of scandals: the Rwanda slaughter that left 800,000 dead; sexual abuse by peacekeeping forces in the Congo; the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Then there's the ever-deepening Iraqi oil-for-food scandal - just this week we learned that Kofi Annan's son Kojo was on the take to the tune of $2,500 a month.

Now add to that list, the devastating toll of the AIDS epidemic.

The Grinches Who Would Steal Marriage


This Christmas season, many are pausing to reflect on our families, our children, and on the uncertain future of marriage. Exactly who are the Grinches who would steal marriage?

As early as 1971, the Declaration of Feminism declared war on this bedrock institution: "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women....We must work to destroy it.”

So radical feminists sounded their hysterical alarm, and began their relentless assault on this sacred union (www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm).

Some feminists went so far as to compare marriage with illicit sex work. Andrea Dworkin warned the sisterhood that “Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.” Attorney Catherine MacKinnon issued this analysis: “Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment.”

In recent years, however, a broad coalition has emerged to rescue and resuscitate this beleaguered institution. Who are the lead characters on the stage of this Christmas pageant?

In Act I, we see the government coming to the rescue. Beginning this past January, DHHS Secretary Tommy Thompson began to announce a series of initiatives to promote healthy marriages.

But Steven Baskerville reveals that only one-quarter of the funds are actually targeted at improving marriages(http://users.rcn.com/baskerville/gov_as_family_therapist.htm ). The remaining amount goes to child support enforcement programs, designed to wring more money out of the pockets of low-income, unemployed fathers.

Act II, enter the marriage counselors, the marital Mr. and Mrs. Fix-Its. But are they hurting more than they are helping?

William Dougherty, a family therapist at the University of Minnesota, would answer that question with an emphatic “yes.” Dougherty accuses some marriage counselors of actually pushing for a break-up withcomments such as, “You deserve better.” And critizing the pro-female bias of many therapists, he notes that “men also get seriously disadvantaged in some couples therapy.” (www.smartmarriages.com/hazardous.html )

But don’t lose hope, because the curtain is about to rise on Act III.

On cue, here come the marriage enrichment programs, those groups that would charge $500 to help you find your marital bliss.

The lead actor in the marriage enrichment business is an outfit called Smart Marriages. This past summer, a Smart Marriages conference featured a speech that answered the question, “What are Men For, Anyway?” (www.smartmarriages.com/pittman.keynote.html ) The conference brochure included this insulting description: “One more time, with feeling and through the movies, we'll explore men's roles and their usefulness. Or lack of.”

And if that’s not disturbing enough, pay a visit to the website of John Van Epp, PhD at www.nojerks.com/. You will see that Dr. Epp conducts seminars on “How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk.” Last I heard, Dr. Epp had no plans to offer a program on “How to Avoid Marrying a Bitch.”

Fortunately, there is at least one marriage enhancement program that is not afraid to present a male-friendly perspective. Secrets of Married Men (www.secretsofmarriedmen.com/ ) offers practical advice on how men can cope with the many stressors and demands of marriage.

But the sad fact is, most marriage enrichment programs are designed for -- and pander to -- women. They convey the message that at best, men are irrelevant, and at worst, men are “the problem” in bad marriages.

So as the curtain falls on our Yuletide pageant, we will ask ourselves, which is worse: The Grinches who demonize and disparage marriage? Or the Grinches who, in the name of reviving marriage, demonize and disparage men?

Patriarchal Power or Marxist Mischief?


Poor Arnold Schwarzenegger had to find out the hard way. Fresh from his stirring speech at the Republican convention where he endorsed President Bush, the governor came home that night knowing he would have some explaining to do.

For wife Maria Shriver is known to be of the liberal Democratic persuasion. Sure enough, Maria put Arnold in the doghouse -- and that meant no sex for a fortnight [cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2004/10/19/676764-ap.html].

According to socialist-feminist theory, a vast anti-female conspiracy known as the “patriarchy” controls the social order. When you ask a feminist to explain that mind-boggling statement, she invariably points to the fact that the great majority of elected officials are male. And according to the Marxist analysis, those callous male patriarchs look out only for their own kind, leaving women neglected and downtrodden.

But when we examine the record, a different picture emerges. Take our federal entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. All three of these programs were conceived of and enacted by men. They are paid for mostly by male taxpayers.

And who are the principal beneficiaries of this governmental largesse? In all three cases, it’s women. Under Social Security and Medicare, women come out ahead because they outlive men. In the case of Medicaid, women edge out the men because of eligibility criteria that favor custodial parents, who in most cases are mothers.

Medical research reveals a similar pattern. Beginning in the 1970s, Senator Edward Kennedy became a tireless advocate for breast cancer research. As a result, the National Institutes of Health now budgets three times more money for breast cancer research than for prostate cancer [www.nci.nih.gov/public/factbk97/varican.htm].

Then add the Violence Against Women Act, aggressive child support enforcement policies, and sexual harassment laws. The conclusion is clear: chivalry is alive and well within the halls of Congress. Our elected patriarchs unabashedly cater to the needs of women.

But the public arena is not the only venue where the matriarchy reigns. Women often rule the roost at home, as well.

And it’s not just Gov. Schwarzenegger who cowers in the face of matriarchal might. During the recent election campaign, Laura Bush recounted how husband George was ordered by mother Barbara to take his feet off the furniture – a story told much to the delight of her female audiences. And we know who wears the pants in the Heinz-Kerry household [www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2004/roberts102704.htm].

It’s true that in traditional families, the husband was considered the head of the family. But appearances can be deceiving. Consider the old saying, “The man is the head of the house, but the woman is the neck. And it’s the neck that turns the head.”

In truth, the husband’s role can be compared to the Queen of England. Even though the Queen is the titular head of the government, her role is more ceremonial than substantive.

There are those who argue that the sexes have always been equal, they only exercised their power in different ways. David Shackleton, writing in the July-September issue of Everyman magazine, explains that men’s power in the political, economic, and physical arenas has always been balanced by women’s power in the moral, emotional, and sexual realms.

Teresa Riordan makes a similar point in her recent book, Inventing Beauty. Surveying women’s use of false bosoms, push-up bras, and lipstick, Riordan argues that women “have shrewdly, cannily, and knowingly deployed artifice in their ceaseless battle to captivate the inherently roving eye of the male.” [oddnews.orb6.com/stories/nm/20041014/oukoe_life_feminisim.php]

So much for the stereotype of the powerless female.

It can be said that “patriarchy” is one of the most potent words in the English language. Its mere mention induces spasms of guilt and shame in men. Among women, the word incites anger and vindictiveness.

That powerful mix of emotions is the fuel that has allowed radical feminists to advance their cause. To this day, the Sisterhood talks about the patriarchy as if it is still going strong, inflicting misery on all those hapless women.

For the last 30 years or so, the neo-Marxists have relentlessly pummelled the frail strawman of patriarchy. After a while you begin to wonder, is their agenda to promote gender equality and reconciliation? Or do they have something more nefarious in mind?

It's Boo-Hoo Time at Abortion Central


What has become of all the strong women? At the N.O.W. headquarters, all the girls were wailing in disbelief. At the Feminist Majority, everyone's mascara had to be redone. And First-Lady-in-waiting Teresa was left speechless.

The 2004 presidential election was not just a setback for the Democratic Party. Candidate Kerry repeatedly promised to appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court and to eliminate the so-called gender “wage gap.” So Kerry’s defeat also represented a repudiation of the rad-fem agenda.

Of course, the feminist Mafia tried to put a good face on the debacle. Ann Lewis, editor of the Democratic party’s Women’s Vote Center, consoled the party faithful: “Congratulations for all you did: the telephone calls, letter writing and contributions, the woman-to-woman conversations and door-to-door canvasses.”

Over at the Planned Parenthood Federation, the ladies were in an absolute tizzy. Already counting the days until they lose their precious right to abortion-on-demand, they vowed to step up the work of its Post-Roe Service Delivery Task Force. Co-chair Chris Charbonneau advised, “Women should lobby state legislators to eradicate laws that date from the 1800s and early 1900s and that call abortion murder.”

N.O.W. president Kim Gandy issued a press release liberally sprinkled with bold-face demands: “We must fight back against Bush’s regressive policies on every issue…We must demand our senators block every Supreme Court nominee.” [www.now.org/issues/election/elections2004/041103letter.html ]

“Fight back” on “every issue”? What is this, Mrs. Gandy, guerilla warfare?

To gauge the mood of the female electorate, a group of women’s organizations called Votes for Women 2004 polled 1,000 voters. The results were released this past week [www.votesforwomen2004.org/Election%20Poll%20Analysis%2011-04.pdf ] -- and the news was grim.

Compared to 2000, support for democrat Kerry declined among a broad range of women: white women, married women, and older women. Even working women were less likely to vote for Kerry in 2004 than Gore in 2000. So much for all those women being kept down by the Glass Ceiling.

Only 2% of persons said that lesbian and gay rights were on their list of top concerns. I guess the N.O.W. is going to have to retool its euphemistically-named campaign for “equal marriage.”

But what most rankled the Sisterhood was the finding that only 2% of all respondents cited abortion as the issue that made them decide whom to vote for President. And 14% of women actually said the candidates were too focused on the abortion controversy. In other words, abortion has become a losing issue.

The poll found that many did not believe that women’s issues were adequately addressed during the campaigns. But now that you mention it, the poll didn’t bother to ask whether the campaigns adequately addressed the issues of men – I wonder why not.

But it was the analysis of the “gender gap” issue which reveals how the feminist movement relies on Soviet-style propaganda to advance its neo-Marxist agenda. The notion of the gender gap has been used for years to browbeat politicians into passing pro-feminist legislation.

But on November 2, the gender gap reversed itself. That day, 55% of males voted for the Republicans, while females were almost evenly split -- 51% favored Kerry and 48% gave the nod to Bush.

Radical feminism survives by churning out an unendless series of myths and falsehoods. So predictably, Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal issued a press release this past week with the misleading headline, “Gender Gap and Women’s Votes Pivotal in Close 2004 Election.” [www.feminist.org/pdfs/gender_gap_release.pdf ]

But an honest summary would have said the exact opposite: “Men’s Votes Pivotal in Close 2004 Election.”

So now the Sisterhood finds itself on the losing side of its own issues, is witnessing the widescale erosion of its voting base, and must now resort to dis-information tactics to staunch the exodus.

Anyone have a hankie?

NASCAR Dads and Soccer Moms Join Forces, But at What Cost?


Following last week’s historic defeat for the Democrats, pollster Celinda Lake was surely wagging her finger as if to say, “I told you so!” Because just last Spring, Ms. Lake was preaching that the Dems would never retake the White House unless they began to take the issues of the white male electorate – the so-called NASCAR Dads -- more seriously.

Indeed, white men represent a sizeable chunk of the U.S. electorate -- 45 million voters to be exact. Back in 2000, 60% of them voted for George W., while only 36% gave the nod to Al Gore (www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html ). Those additional 11 million male voters spelled the critical difference for Mr. Bush in that tight contest.

But Mr. Bush attracted only 49% of the white female vote in that electoral nail-biter. So soon after he was sworn in as President, wooing the women became a key element of the Bush re-election strategy.

That meant that, with the exception of the abortion issue, the Bush campaign was reluctant to ruffle the feathers of the radical feminists. As a result, the Gender Warriors left over from the Clinton Administration continued to have free rein throughout the federal government.

And that’s exactly what they did:

  • Despite the recommendations of a Blue Ribbon panel, the Department of Education refused to soften the rigid Title IX quotas that the Clinton Administration had used to shut down hundreds of male collegiate sports teams.
  • At the Department of State, feminists succeeded in imposing a 20% quota for women in the newly-established legislatures of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • The Department of Health and Human Services named Christina Beato to the powerful Assistant Secretary of Health position. An avowed advocate for women’s issues, she blocked the creation of an Office of Men’s Health.

Most disappointing was the area of child support reform. Early in his term, President Bush brought in fatherhood advocate Wade Horn to head the Administration on Children and Families. But Horn’s program was co-opted by the advocates of responsible fatherhood– “responsible” being a code word for more draconian child support.

Those developments set the stage for the 2004 presidential race.

Despite Celinda Lake’s dire warning, the Democratic Party was not willing to risk offending the Sisterhood. So the 2004 Democratic platform flatly ignored the issues of men, while kow-towing to such feminist demands as protecting abortion rights and remedying the so-called gender “wage gap.”

And what about the Republicans? Not surprisingly, their gender message also targeted the female vote. Millions of placards, lapel pins, and bumper stickers told us, as if we didn’t get it the first time, “W Stands for Women.”

In the end, 62% of white males and 55% of white females voted for George W. Bush. Two core constituencies -- NASCAR Dads and Soccer Moms – came together on November 2 to re-elect President Bush. (www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html ).

This new-found coalition made all the difference in that closely-fought presidential race. But Republican glee should be tempered by a sobering fact: their victory came at the price of neglecting the issues of white males. This is what I mean:

  • Men are the workhorses that drive the nation’s economy. When each year tens of thousands of middle-age men die prematurely from heart disease and cancer, what are the effects on our economic productivity and global competitiveness?
  • Among our nation’s most eligible bachelors, 22% have gone on a marriage strike because of laws that tilt towards women (www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2004/roberts071504.htm).

What does that portend for the future of families, which create the foundation of society?

  • Fathers are a pillar of stability for beleaguered families. When divorcing wives cast fathers out of their homes and claim sole custody of the children, are we prepared for the higher rates of juvenile delinquency and social dysfunction seen among fatherless children?

Meanwhile back in Massachusetts, a small band of NASCAR Dads put together a statewide ballot initiative. The initiative asked voters whether they believed fathers should get shared custody of their children in the event of divorce.

That common-sense idea was overwhelmingly approved by 85% of voters (fathersandfamilies.org/site/legislation.php ). In contrast, candidate John Kerry managed to garner only 63% of the popular vote for the presidential race in his home state.

One of these days, some smart politician is going to come along and will realize that championing the issues of men, as well as women, is not only a winning campaign strategy, it’s also good for America.

All Hail to the Panderer-in-Chief


The polls have closed, President George Bush garnered 51% of the popular vote, and the Republicans consolidated their hold on the U.S. Congress. The 2004 presidential campaign will be remembered for many things, including the fact that the female electorate became the most attended-to group in the history of American politics.

It was a reprise of the timeless story of the two hopeful suitors competing for the affections of the fair maiden.

When the reluctant maiden declined to offer her hand to the first suitor, along came the second gallant knight, proffering more gifts than the first. Determined to not be outdone, the first man upped the ante. Eventually, both men had promised all their worldly possessions.

Pandering, of course, is the stock-in-trade of any political campaign. Still, it was impressive to watch the two presidential candidates pulling out all the stops to woo the female vote.

Of the two campaigns, the Bush people devised the more creative strategy. They took Bush’s middle initial and, like Michael Jordan peddling his footwear, turned it into a brand name: “W Stands for Women.”

This is the first time in memory that a presidential candidate has linked his persona – his own name -- with a particular voting block. But why women? Why not “W Stands for White Men”?

In contrast to Bush’s name brand approach, the Kerry campaign used the more traditional tactic: convince people how awful things are, and then promise them a brighter future.

But attracting the white female vote women is a daunting task. After all, how do you reach out to persons who already have the most rights, protections, and discretionary income of any group in history? What more can you promise to the manicure-and-hairdo set?

So the Kerry campaign set out to test the limits of reinventing the truth.

John Kerry’s condescending message was this: “Things are actually much worse for women than you realize. If you vote for my opponent, you will soon be sent back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.”

But it was the wage equity issue where candidate Kerry was downright insulting to women. Everyone knows that persons who work 41 hours a week (which is the average for men) are going to get higher wages than their female co-workers who clock only 32 hours (www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=56 ). And it’s obvious that men who work in the more dangerous jobs – like construction and asbestos removal – should be paid more than women who work in safe, climate-controlled environments, such as school teachers and telephone operators.

But by harping on the so-called “wage disparity” issue – while offering no specifics on how to solve a problem that doesn’t even exist – Senator Kerry revealed a disdainful regard for women’s intelligence.

Soon the pandering became so obvious that women began to complain. After all, we live in the Age of the Empowered Woman. And empowered women don’t need anything that a man might have to offer.

So in late September columnist Cathy Young, returning to the courtship theme, decried that the two political parties are treating women “with a condescension that, in a better world, would cause a suitor to be sent packing.” (www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/27/a_new_condescension_greets_women_voters/)

Both political parties took note. Neither of them was willing to blink first, but a solution had to be devised. And so it happened.

It occurred during the third presidential debate. Here’s the question that moderator Bob Schieffer asked the two candidates: “What is the most important thing you’ve learned from these strong women?” In case anyone missed the point, Schieffer repeated the “strong women” phrase two more times.

Within days, the “strong women” mantra was appearing in the stump speeches of the candidates’ wives. This way, if women felt guilty about all the political bouquets being thrown their way, they could comfort themselves with the knowledge that indeed, they were “strong women.” How Orwellian.

With both candidates going to such an effort to target their messages to the female voter, you’d think that women would have had no trouble making a decision. But through the very end of the campaign, 62% of all undecided voters were female.

Privileged or victim? Underpaid or compensated fairly? Strong or in need of constant blandishments by powerful men?

With so many fibs and half-truths floating around, it was no wonder that women had trouble making up their minds.

Girlie-Man, Next Leader of the Free World?


Blame it on Arnold Schwarzenegger if you must, but a lot of people are questioning the macho-meter of Democrats in general, and Senator Kerry in particular.

It started back in July when the Democrat-controlled state legislature stalled the vote on a critical budget bill. The partisan foot-dragging prompted Gov. Schwarzenegger to chide the legislators for being “girlie-men.”

Despite howls of protest, Schwarzenegger refused to apologize. Then he repeated the charge in early August, this time tagging candidate John Kerry with the emasculating moniker.

By the time the Republican Convention rolled around, the California delegates – male and female -- had donned pins reading “Girlie Men” with a red slash through them. In his televised speech before millions, Schwarzenegger couldn’t resist repeating the now-famous phrase.

Worse, Kerry’s own supporters began to admit the truth of the charge. In his New York Times column, “How Kerry Became a Girlie-Man,” Frank Rich confessed, “It’s Mr. Kerry’s behavior now, not what he did 35 years ago, that has prevented his manliness from trumping the president.” (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1207620/posts ) And Michael Moore began accusing his fellow Democrats for being “a bunch of crybabies” for complaining “how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can’t win.”

It wasn’t for lack of trying that Senator Kerry couldn’t shake the caricature. Riding high after winning primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, he challenged President Bush to “Bring it on.” And when he rode that thundering Harley-Davidson onto Jay Leno’s set, the black-leather crowd was duly impressed.

Of course, Kerry didn’t help things when he admitted he intended to fight a “sensitive” war on terror. Or that he wanted to bring the terrorist threat down to the level of a mere “nuisance.”

But it’s the Teresa factor that really tests Senator Kerry’s cojones. As we all know, Teresa Heinz Kerry is worth more than $700 million, which prompted columnist Ann Coulter to deride Kerry as a “poodle to rich women.”

Let’s consider Teresa’s last name. Some political wives, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, choose to retain their maiden names. That’s fine.

But Heinz is not Teresa’s maiden name – it’s her ex-husband’s name. By calling herself Teresa Heinz Kerry, Teresa is revealing her loyalty to former Republican Senator John Heinz.

Naomi Wolf had this to say in a recent New York magazine article: “Teresa is publicly, subliminally cuckolding Kerry with the power of a dead man.” Strong words, indeed.

Most revealing, though, were Senator Kerry’s comments during the third presidential debate. Referring to the wives of the two candidates, moderator Bob Schieffer posed this question: “What is the most important thing that you’ve learned from these strong women?”

After paying tribute to his now-deceased mother, Senator Kerry had this to say:

“And my daughters and my wife are people who just are filled with that sense of what’s right, what’s wrong.”

Feminists believe that women are morally superior to men, so that comment played well with one of Kerry’s key constituencies. But what does that say about Mr. Kerry’s own moral compass?

And then things fell apart. Kerry admitted:

“They also kick me around. They keep me honest. They don’t let me get away with anything. I can sometimes take myself too seriously. They surely don’t let me do that.”

“Kick me around”? Last I heard, kicking is a form of domestic violence. If a female candidate ever said that, the cops would have shown up at her doorstep with an arrest warrant in hand.

Maybe Mr. Kerry didn’t mean that kicking comment literally. But still, is this the voice of a self-confident male who is in marital relationship with equal say and mutual respect? Or is this the whine of a hen-pecked husband?

If elected President, is this a man who will command respect from our allies and adversaries? Will they regard him as a man of his word?

This man John Kerry curtsies and bows to anyone wearing a skirt. And now he aspires to be the next leader of the most powerful nation on earth?

Wonderful, Wacky World of Fem-Speak


Welcome to Femlandia, fellow traveler! On today’s tour, we’ll be visiting the enchanting place where the natives speak an exotic dialect known as Fem-Speak.

To get around in Femlandia, you must master a little Fem-Vocabulary, Fem-Statistics, and Fem-Logic. Are you ready?

There are three key words in Fem-Vocabulary. Pay close attention now, because these words have different meanings from their English counterparts:

1. Feminist: In the English language, “feminine” refers to a woman who is polite, modest, and comely. But in Fem-Speak, “feminist” has the exact opposite connotation: demanding, angry, and unkempt.

2. Equality: In English, equality refers to open and equal opportunity. But in Fem-Speak, equality refers to statistical uniformity that is enforceable with rigid quotas. Feminists will apply this term to women’s issues and concerns, but then will refuse to discuss it in relation to men.

3. Gender: This word actually has three meanings:

1. Male or female biological sex
2. Social differences between men and women that are learned, as in “gender roles”
3. Pertaining to the radical feminist ideology

Gender is one of the most popular words in Fem-Speak because no one knows for sure which interpretation you are using (www.sydneyline.com/Language%20Wars.htm ). Just ponder the phrase, “gender equality.” Consider the many permutations of meaning this innocent-looking expression contains!

In Fem-Speak, it is perfectly acceptable to use words and expressions with female derivations, such as Mother Earth, mother-tongue, mother lode, ladybug, sister city, “necessity is the mother of invention,” and so on.

But Fem-Speak prohibits any word or phrase with a male connotation, such as mankind, manpower, middleman, or “man the ramparts.” Breaking this linguistic convention is a violation of what feminists call “speech codes,” and can invite the imposition of legal sanctions.

And did you catch my use of the word “master” in the first paragraph of this travel guide? My friend, that is a word you should never use in Femlandia. Not only does it have masculine implications, but it also contains allusions to the dreaded hierarchy.

Once you grasp the basic vocabulary, you are now ready for a lesson in Fem-Statistics. Fem-Statistics is easy once you understand this one basic rule: Always give percentages in multiples of 10 -- like 30%.

So what if the actual number is, say, 53%? No problem, you can round up or round down -- whatever makes your statement sound better.

And what if that number doesn’t feel right? Again, no problem. Use whatever number you want! Remember that in Femlandia, truth is deemed to be a linear, socially-constructed concept. So feel free to be creative.

Now on to Fem-Logic.

Fem-Logic can be described as any discussion that presents information out of context, introduces irrelevant concepts, and eventually reaches a conclusion that bears no relationship to common sense. And if you want to elevate the statement to the level of Revealed Truth, just preface your comment with the two magic words, “I feel.”

This can be illustrated by way of example.

A couple weeks ago I heard some people talking about athletics. One man was arguing that men are biologically stronger and faster, which gives them an inherent advantage in sports such as sprinting. But the persons from Femlandia said he could not possibly be right, because his reasoning did not comport with the Fem-Speak definition of equality.

So after a few moments of thought, one person responded: “I feel that women surpass men in endurance sports. We may not run as fast, but we run more efficiently and have more pelvic strength.”

Did you get that?

In Fem-Speak, it’s perfectly fine to simultaneously espouse opposite views. For example, you can talk about women being strong and independent. And then you can turn around and argue that women are victims who require constant governmental help and legal protection. Femlandists see no contradiction in those two statements.

Finally, a word of counsel. In Femlandia, you should never question or doubt the truth of a denizen’s statement. For these persons are said to possess A Woman’s Way of Knowing.

Fem-Speak is a rich, emotive language, filled with subtlety and nuance. And with luck, fellow traveler, all of us will soon be thinking in Fem-Speak.

Women Fleeing the Feminist Fold


Remember that popular TV game show, To Tell the Truth? That was the program that would put three petite women on the stage – one a real-life alligator wrestler and the two others impostors. The contestants would then try to outwit the celebrity guests.

It’s now 2004 and Americans are the guests on a remake of To Tell the Truth. The object of the game is to answer the question, What is the real face of feminism?

Many people think of feminism as a movement that promotes gender equality and opportunity. And for many years, I counted myself in that group. To deny women the opportunity to get a good education and pursue a career -- that seemed abhorrent and contrary to the American Dream.

Then the voices of the skeptics demanded a hearing.

As early as 1972, Phyllis Schlafly posed this question: “The claim that American women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century…Why should we lower ourselves to ‘equal rights’ when we already have the status of special privilege?” That editorial launched the movement that eventually defeated the Equal Rights Amendment.

But I still counted myself a true believer.

In a 1992 article in the Washington Post, Sally Quinn compared the leaders of NOW to the apparatchiks of the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union. She concluded, “many women have come to see the feminist movement as anti-male, anti-child, anti-family, anti-feminine.”

That broadside made me blink.

Two years later Christina Hoff Sommers released her stunning expose’, Who Stole Feminism? Ms. Sommers methodically dissected and debunked the feminist claims about domestic violence, rape, and women’s health.

That was more than I could ignore, so I began to do my own research. I went to my local library, combed through government reports, and surfed the internet. I soon learned that Schlafly, Quinn, and Sommers were right: the feminist claims were actually Ms.-Information.

Around that time, millions of women began to reach the same conclusion. In 1992, a Gallup poll found that 33% of American women considered themselves to be feminist (http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~lhuddy/neelyhuddy.pdf). But seven years later, the Gallup poll reported that number had plummeted to 26%. And one CBS poll noted that 22% of women said that being called a feminist would be an “insult.”

But substitute the word “women” for “feminist,” and you come up with a very different story. A 1998 Pew survey found that 67% of females (and 66% of males) were favorable to the “women’s movement.”

So a large majority of American women do not consider themselves to be feminists, but still support the women’s movement. An obvious and startling conclusion emerges: Women no longer believe that feminism represents their interests or needs.

A recent article in the National Review paints a similar picture of waning feminist influence (www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200408060855.asp). Feminist thinking holds that a bride taking her husband’s last name “signifies the loss of her very existence as a person under the law,” as former NOW-head Patricia Ireland once put it. But alas, most women have a mind of their own. According to marriage records in Massachusetts, the percentage of surname keepers dropped from 23% in 1990 to 17% in 2000.

What’s more, a growing number of women’s organizations have set out to counter the feminist agenda, including the Concerned Women for America, Independent Women’s Forum, Women’s Freedom Network, and the Clare Booth Luce Foundation. And several women’s websites now feature anti-feminist commentary, such as ifeminists.net and ladiesagainstfeminism.com.

But there are still a substantial number of persons in our society who cling to the belief that feminism is about promoting equality, fairness, and gender enlightenment.

So guest celebrity, our time is up. Which face of feminism is real, and which is the impostor? Is feminism about promoting equality of rights and responsibilities? Or does it aim to foment gender discord and marital break-down?

The modern rendition of To Tell the Truth is no mere game show. It’s not about a few hundred dollars in funny money. It’s a real life drama that spells enormous consequences for our culture, our families, and our children.

Outing the Feminist "Great Lie"


This past weekend the Vatican issued a letter to the Roman Catholic bishops which denounced feminism for preaching “conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism.” According to the Vatican letter, this belief has caused “immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family.”

Strong words, indeed. So what is the genesis of the feminist attempt to induce antagonism between men and women?

It can all be traced back to the feminist Creation Myth, which goes like this:

Once upon a time, in a land far away, men and women lived in a state of communal bliss. There were no sexual prohibitions, no division of labor, no ownership of property, and most of all, no patriarchy. It was a pure feminist utopia.

Over time, men and women began to pair off, babies were born, and families began to emerge. The development of stable families gave rise to a division of labor between the sexes: Men did the hunting and fishing, and women did the gardening and child-raising.

But the pivotal point in history was the emergence of the concept of private property. Simone de Beauvoir’s book The Second Sex, which is required reading in every Women’s Studies program, explains it this way:

“Private property appears: master of slaves and of the earth, man becomes the proprietor also of woman….Here we see the emergence of the patriarchal family founded upon private property. In this type of family, woman is subjugated.” (www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/debeauv3.htm )

You say, Where on earth did Beauvoir get these fantastic ideas? From Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2004/roberts012704.htm ).

And how did Marx and Engels come up with this crackpot theory? From an obscure book called Ancient Society, written in 1877 by an American anthropologist named Lewis Henry Morgan, who had spent a few weeks studying the Iroquois Indians in upper New York State.

Subsequent anthropologists have refuted Morgan’s methods and conclusions (www.aaanet.org/gad/history/051tooker.pdf ). For example, the part about primitive society being a sexual free-for-all – that can be credited entirely to Morgan’s wishful thinking.

But that didn’t keep feminists from anointing Morgan as their patron saint. After all, he served a useful purpose.

Radical feminists accept Morgan’s fable as if it were the Revealed Truth. Once we understand that, the rest of feminist theory begins to make sense.

As feminists see it, the moral of Morgan’s account is that once patriarchy took over, women became the mere slaves of men, had no rights, and endured unrelenting physical and sexual abuse.

That’s what is known as the feminist Great Lie. This is how columnist Wendy McElroy explains the Great Lie: “Victims of men, of the class structure, technology, government, the free market, the family, the church, Western values…everywhere and always women are painted as victims.” (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0422.html ).

True, life may not have been easy for women, but men had their share of problems, too. If women were in fact the object of untrammeled social oppression, we would have expected women’s life spans to have been dramatically shorter than men’s.

But the historical record tells a different story. According to research conducted by Ingrid Waldron at the University of Pennsylvania, the life expectancies of men and women over the past several centuries have traced similar trajectories.

Suicide statistics also debunk the feminist enslavement theory. Public health authorities in England and Wales first began to enumerate the causes of death in the late 1800s. As early as 1890, it was found that men’s suicide rate was 2.9 times higher than women’s (http://10.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SU/SUHL.htm ). Judging by suicide statistics, we might conclude that it was men, not women, who were more confined by rigid social roles.

1960s-style feminism had the laudable goal of encouraging equal opportunities for women. But now, feminism has morphed into an ugly ideology of female empowerment and gender retribution.

Most fairy tales have a happy ending. But the Marxist-feminist fable has set the stage for protracted gender conflict. And that, sad to say, poses a grave threat to the timeless institution of marriage.

Kerry Embraces the Radical Feminist Agenda


White males have been fleeing the Democratic Party over the last 30 years. Four years ago, candidate Al Gore managed to attract only 36% of the huge 45 million white male vote. That depressing trend no doubt weighed on the minds of the delegates who gathered this week in Boston for the Democratic National Convention.

Indeed, earlier this year Democratic pollster Celinda Lake began to spread the word that the Democrats would never retake the White House unless they began to reach out to the critical male vote. But the powerful feminist faction within the Democratic Party was none too happy with that idea.

Liberal John Kerry has closely aligned himself with the feminist cause. So when it became clear that Kerry would be named as the Democratic presidential candidate, Lake gave up on her crusade.

Of course the Democrats have every right to target women. But what is interesting is how the Kerry campaign plans to court the female electorate.

That strategy became apparent on the first day that John Kerry campaigned with his new running mate John Edwards. On July 7, an upbeat Kerry boasted that his team has “better vision, better ideas,” and – get this -- “we’ve got better hair.” Men, of course, have little interest in a candidate’s hairdo.

A look at the Kerry website (www.johnkerry.com/issues/women) reveals that Kerry believes that women will fall for all manner of obsequious pandering. This is what John Kerry is telling American women:

1. “We need a president who will put the American government and legal system back on the side of women.”

The truth is, practically every federal government agency has an office devoted to women’s issues. But none – that’s right, none -- has an office designated for men. The Congress and Supreme Court have enacted and upheld countless laws intended to help women, including the Violence Against Women Act, abortion rights, sexual harassment rules, and many others.

2. “John Kerry will increase funding for breast and cervical cancer research.”

The American Cancer Society reports that 230,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004, compared to 216,000 women told they have breast cancer (www.cancer.org/downloads/MED/Page4.pdf). But at the National Cancer Institute, funding for breast cancer outstrips prostate cancer by more than a 3:1 margin (www.nci.nih.gov/public/factbk97/varican.htm). Mr. Kerry, please help us to understand why any fair-minded woman would want to make that research disparity even worse?

3. “We must ensure that women earn equal pay for equal work.”

On average, men work 2,147 hours a year, compared to 1,675 hours for women (www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=56). Men work in the more hazardous occupations such as construction and mining. And men have more work qualifications than women.

The myth of gender wage discrimination has been debunked by the Women’s Freedom Network (www.womensfreedom.org/newslet.htm) and the Independent Women’s Forum (www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=575). Anyone who still claims that women are paid unfairly is being intellectually dishonest….or is a die-hard socialist (mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/03/roberts120903.htm).

American women are arguably the most privileged of any group in history. But the Kerry-Edwards website makes it sound like women are on the verge of being shipped back to their suburban concentration camps: “But today, women are witnessing an unprecedented erosion of their basic rights.”

This past Monday, Kerry’s strategy to advance the radical feminist agenda was unveiled at a so-called “She Party” (rhymes with Tea Party – get it?). The featured speaker was the feminists’ “secret weapon:” none other than Peggy Kerry, sister of John.

And Peggy didn’t beat around the bush. “There are three things my brother is going to do when he’s elected president,” she promised. John will restore $34 billion in funding for the UN Population Fund for abortion services. Then he will assure the Senate ratifies the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Third, Kerry will “appoint pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.”

There’s no doubt that the Democrats’ appeal to the massive white male electorate will continue to decline. So the question is, what will American women think of John Kerry’s sexy new hairdo?

Dissing Dads


Why do Americans refer to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as our Founding Fathers? When Christians recite the Lord’s Prayer, why does the phrase, “Our Father” immediately tumble out? Why did a generation of Americans grow up watching the TV series, Father Knows Best?

In days past, “father” evoked notions of goodness, wisdom, steadfastness, and self-sacrifice. And with good reason.

According to the Father Facts report from the National Fatherhood Initiative, children with involved dads get better grades in school, have fewer emotional problems, enjoy better physical health, and are less likely to live in poverty -- it’s an impressive inventory.

When the Industrial Revolution swept through the United States, fathers left the farm to work in the factories, the steel mills, and later the corporate highrises. A void was created, which was soon filled by their wives.

Even though Dad continued as the titular head of the family, the reins of the daily operations of the house rested firmly in the hands of the wife. But that common-sense division of labor didn’t satisfy the radical feminist agenda.

Beginning in the 1970s, feminists launched a ruthless campaign against the family and fathers. Maybe you’re asking, What’s wrong with the family? And why would they target fathers?

To answer those two questions, we must turn back the hands of time to exactly 120 years ago.

In his 1884 classic, the Origin of the Family, Frederick Engels wrote: “The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.”

This passage, and others like it, were used by Lenin and his minions to convince impressionable women that they would be better off leaving their families and taking up the hammer and the sickle (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0106roberts.html ).

But fem-socialists knew better than to wage a frontal assault on fatherhood. They would have to find a new boogeyman.

Soon after Lenin seized power in 1917, he set out to destroy religious belief and practices. To do this, Lenin banned and humiliated the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church.

So when the Sisterhood decided to put fathers in their crosshairs, it’s no surprise that they seized upon the “patriarchy” as the historically-convenient scapegoat.

It was Kate Millett’s 1970 book, Sexual Politics, that gave the green light to the onslaught. The book is replete with hateful calumnies about men. Millett offers this pithy paraphrase of Frederick Engels earlier indictment of fathers: “Patriarchy’s chief institution is the family.”

No one could really define patriarchy. But patriarchy became an oft-repeated epithet that soon evolved into a circular argument: patriarchy was bad because it caused the oppression of women. And women’s oppression was self-evident because of the existence of patriarchy.

The feminist assault on fatherhood harnessed the mass media to disseminate their destructive message. Feminists portrayed fathers as deadbeats and abusers. And single moms became, well, chic.

This campaign was remarkably successful in dismantling the cultural authority of fatherhood.

By 1992, it was acceptable for TV sitcom character Murphy Brown to have a child out of wedlock. So commendable, in fact, that when Vice President Quayle chided Brown for “mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone,” Quayle was the one who endured the firestorm of criticism.

Three years later, a stunned David Blankenhorn was compelled to write in his book Fatherless America, “The most urgent domestic challenge facing the United States...is the re-creation of fatherhood as a vital social role for men. At stake is nothing less than the success of the American experiment.”

The deconstruction of fatherhood continues to this day. Turn on your TV and you will see the sitcoms and advertisements that portray dads as speechless dolts in the face of the superior wisdom of their wives and 11-year-old children.

So when feminists attack the institution of fatherhood, they are rending the very fabric of families, and of Nationhood itself.

Fathers the Fall-Guy in the Abortion Debate


Despite the vast ideological differences that divide the pro-abortion and pro-life camps, advocates on both sides will agree on one key point: it’s really the man’s fault.

Here’s radical feminist Catherine McKinnon: “All heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.”

And pro-lifer Kathleen Howley opens her anti-male diatribe with this sentence: “I am going to try to say this without sounding like a man-hating feminist.” (www.roevwade.org/howley.html )

But reflexively blaming the father only serves to perpetuate demeaning stereotypes about women, and marginalizes the institution of fatherhood in our society.

Let’s examine the reality of how a woman ends up getting an abortion.

First, the interlude of passion. Yes, it’s fair to say that on the whole, men enjoy sexual relations.

Seductive women pursue sexual liaisons, as well – they just employ different tactics. Just read the advice columns in Cosmo magazine. Or go to your local nightclub on a Friday night -- count the number of women cavorting about in bare midriffs, revealing necklines, and high-cut dresses.

And if we accept McKinnon’s absurd claim about women not being able to give consent to the sex act, then obviously women are incapable of consenting to surgical procedures, signing wills, and entering into business contracts.

Second, the use of contraceptives. Yes, male condoms are available and easy to use. But condoms are not nearly as effective as the female-controlled forms of contraception, especially the pill. And dare we mention the women who “forget” to take their pill before the big date?

Third is the decision to get the abortion. As proof of male irresponsibility, people like to cite Carol Gilligan’s famous study, In a Different Voice, which found that in one-third of cases, the father influenced the woman’s decision to get the abortion.

But citing this and similar studies reverses the argument. If the decision to get an abortion rests with the father one-third of the time, then clearly, the woman has made the decision in the other two-thirds of the cases.

But even Gilligan’s one-third figure is suspect. A few years ago, Arthur Shostak and Gary McLouth interviewed 1,000 fathers of aborted children. Their book, Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love reveals that only 4% of the women had been opposed to getting the abortion in the first place.

So the myth that women get an abortion because of coercion by marauding sexual predators is an urban legend that serves to shield us from one simple fact: abortion is by and large a female-dominated decision.

Consider the case of Norma McCorvey. She became pregnant in 1969. In order to get an abortion, she falsely claimed that she had been raped by her boyfriend. Her attorneys did not prevail under Texas law, so they appealed, the case eventually reaching the Supreme Court.

To protect her confidentiality, McCorvey was referred to as Jane Roe. In their famous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled in McCorvey’s favor, establishing abortion as a “fundamental” right for women. But one must wonder, if the Supreme Court had known that the pregnancy was concensual and not the result of rape, would the split decision have gone the other way?

The fetus that resides within the mother’s womb inherits half of its genetic material from the father. But as a result of Roe v. Wade, fathers have no standing under reproductive law. Women, married or not, have no duty to consult with, or even inform the father about the abortion. And this is exactly what happens 15% of the time. Fathers have been biologically disenfranchised.

It is a truism that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. When rights recede, responsibilities also diminish. Thus deprived of their fundamental biological rights, is it possible that Roe v. Wade also may have intruded on men’s basic sense of familial obligation?

The Follies of Child Support: Dead-Beat or Dead-Broke?


Persons who are looking for an example of how good intentions can turn into a nightmare should consider the case of Alexander Shire. When Alexander was 14, he was plied with liquor and raped by Laura Evelyn, then 21 years of age. Evelyn became pregnant and bore a child. That was back in 1984.

When the child support commissars in Michigan recently found out about the case, they demanded that Shire pay child support.

You may wonder how this can be, since the offspring is now full-grown and no longer in need of “child” support. But draconian child support laws make no provision for that. Shire would be required to pay for all back payments, plus interest.

How could this banana-republic justice happen here in America?

Back in 1974, the Congress established the Office of Child Support Enforcement (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/index.html ). For years, few knew of this petty bureaucracy.

All that changed on May 4, 1992, when Newsweek magazine depicted on its cover an affluent white man. He was framed with a Wanted poster bearing the caption, “Deadbeat Dads: Wanted for Failure to Pay Child Support.” Almost overnight, Deadbeat Dads became Public Enemy No. 1.

But the Newsweek picture was wrong. Instead of a well-heeled businessman, it should have shown a guy wearing a faded T-shirt. Color him disheveled. Call him “dead-broke.”

In his acclaimed book, Divorced Dads, researcher Stanford Braver concludes that “unemployment is the single most important factor relating to nonpayment.” And according to a study of non-paying dads released by the Urban Institute last year, “only 1% have recent net incomes in excess of $50,000.”

So much for the two-timing executive driving off in his red convertible with trophy girlfriend in hand.

Teresa Kaiser, former director of the Maryland child support office, freely admitted to her audiences that support formulas are set way too high for low-income dads. So the child support “crisis” is actually an artifact of unrealistic payment guidelines.

But seduced by the stereotype of the dad willfully neglecting his kids and tantalized by the prospect of reducing ballooning welfare budgets, the child support zealots moved ahead.

First came wage garnishment in 1977. In 1980, child support agencies were granted access to IRS wage information. Paternity identification programs geared up in 1988 (www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/2003appendix7.pdf ).

But the early returns were not encouraging. In 1989, moms were getting $2,252 – only $37 more than they had received in 1983 (www.census.gov/hhes/www/childsupport/cstabf.html ).

So the Clinton administration shifted the campaign into high gear. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act established two vast databases that made almost every American a potential suspect for non-payment of child support: the National Directory of New Hires and the Federal Case Registry.

Clinton-era bureaucrats dreamed up other programs that, in retrospect, were simply irrational. Driving licenses were revoked – just try earning a living wage if you can’t operate a car or truck.

And debtor’s prison was re-instituted. As you read this article, 15,000 destitute dads are spending time behind bars. Is that where they’re supposed to get training for the jobs of the future?

Last October the Census Bureau issued its report, Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2001 (www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf ). The report reveals that from 1994 to 2002, the percentage of mothers who received child support actually dropped, from 76.1% to 74.7%.

Thirty years and many billions of taxpayer dollars later, we must face the truth: We have unfairly marginalized millions of poor dads from their families, while betraying the hope and trust of struggling moms. In the process we have infringed on the rights and privacy of average law-abiding Americans.

In short, the American child support system has been a depressing failure.

The case of Alexander Shire was finalized last month in the Michigan Court of Appeals. State prosecutor Carl Marlinga successfully argued, “At stake here is not the mother profiting from criminal wrongdoing; what’s at stake here is the child, who is entitled to an appropriately supported upbringing regardless of how he was conceived.” (www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11004783&BRD=988&PAG=461&dept_id=141265&rfi=6 ).

That statement, notably short on compassion and reason, is the totalitarian mindset at work. And that’s what the $4 billion-a-year child support dragnet is doing to us.

Radical Feminist on the U.S. Supreme Court


Just five short days after President Bill Clinton’s nomination, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been confirmed by the Senate and sworn in as Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. That was during the Dog Days of August 1993. Obviously, the Clinton Administration wanted to fast-track the process so no one would have time to ask any embarrassing questions.

Because of her low-key manner, people believed Ginsburg was a moderate. But if the Senate had bothered to look into Ginsburg’s background, they would have been troubled, indeed.

Ruth Ginsburg received her law degree from Columbia Law School. In 1971 she established the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. Throughout the 1970s Ginsburg acquired a first-hand knowledge of the workings of the Supreme Court as she argued six cases – all feminist issues – to the Justices.

Ruth Ginsburg made the same assumption as the rest of the feminist movement. She accepted without question the Marxist claim that women’s role as mothers and wives is inherently oppressive (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0106roberts.html ). And she believed that equality of opportunity should always translate into identical social roles.

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 can’t help but wonder if the current Leftist hostility to the Boy Scouts stems from this recommendation.

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 can’t possibly guess.

But page 206 of this report is where it all comes out. There we learn of Ginsburg’s grand vision to reshuffle the deck of the traditional family. She proposes to do away with the husband-as-primary-breadwinner concept:

"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 equality principle."

But we’re 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 care."

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 Ginsburg’s 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 fem-socialist line.

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 Men Gone?


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 question.

One of the reasons that so many women can’t 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 they’re worth (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0324roberts.html ).

But there’s 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 haven’t 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, it’s the looming specter of cancer. And men’s overall suicide rate is four times higher than among women.

It’s 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 than women.

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 (http://eire.census.gov/popest/archives/national/nation2/intfile2-1.txt ). If you are one of those half-million women, the sad truth is this -- you may never find your Prince Charming.

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. That’s 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 woman’s vote, one would expect to see a stream of government programs dedicated to helping men to live longer, healthier lives. But oddly, that’s not the case.

In fact, the reverse is true. The litany of women’s health programs reveals a gender agenda run amok:

The Department of Health and Human Services sponsors five offices of women’s 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 men’s risk of dying of heart disease is 70% higher than women’s (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 women’s 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 Women’s Health Research (www.womens-health.org ). Victimhood is so important to the feminist creed that it must be invented even where it never existed.

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 Feminists Bash


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 place.”

Funny, it didn’t quite work out that way.

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, patriarchal oppressors.

Somehow, all the name-calling is hard to reconcile with the earlier promises of a kinder, gentler world.

History proves that when society scapegoats a group, curtailment of basic civil rights is likely to follow. And that’s exactly what happened. Laws were passed that violated men’s 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 (www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey8.htm ). 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 enacted (www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey9.htm ).

Men generally don’t 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 Syndrome.

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 ). That’s a huge drop in eight short years. And women became desperate.

So for men, the political was indeed personal.

True to form, the pundits’ first reaction was to pin the blame on men. If men won’t make the Big Commitment, the reasoning went, wasn’t 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 you’ve 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 women’s 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 Monologues.

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 Sunday.

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 (www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm ).

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 experience.

The $7-billion a year women’s 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. Let’s get to know two of these editors:

First, there’s Cathie Black, president of the Hearst Magazines, the billion-dollar media empire that publishes Good Housekeeping and O, the Oprah magazine. Black’s charitable organization of choice: the radical NOW Legal Defense Fund.

Then there’s Frances Lear. Using her $100 million divorce settlement, she started up Lear’s, a magazine so laced with feminist dogma and man-hating articles that it folded within six years.

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 they’re all on a first name basis with Hillary.

But don’t the ethics of journalism dictate that a reporter’s personal beliefs not bias the content of her articles? Yes. But remember, the women’s magazine industry is not about journalism.

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 women.”

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” (September 2002).

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 Monologues.

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 manipulated….there is one thing I really hope you will stop buying – and that’s the spoiled goods of unhappiness.”

Heresy of the Maternal Instinct


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 they’re going to sacrifice prime West Wing real estate every time their husbands and kids kvetch.”

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 firm’s 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 workforce.

Most people would explain this trend with the common-sense response that the women’s maternal instinct kicked in. As Joan Williams of American University put it, women don’t 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 women’s wages fall short of men’s 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 equality?

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 totalitarian measures.

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 Karl’s 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 Firestone’s 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 Horowitz’s expose about Betty Friedan’s 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, it’s women’s 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 Women’s Organizations.

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 Burk’s 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)." (www.crowmagazine.com/ms-sperm.htm )

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 April.

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 Women’s Tennis Association. But Martha Burk didn’t see it that way. She wanted them to admit female members.

Ironically, it was women who mounted the most spirited opposition to Burk’s 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 supports her…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 Burk’s 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 time.”

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 Burk’s 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 Martha’s 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. Here’s how it works:

Burk’s National Council of Women’s 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 mistreated (www.augustadiscriminates.org).

Of course, Burk’s campaign amounts to little more than a shakedown of capitalist America, a strategy that would make any 1960s radical proud.

But once again, Burk has miscalculated. She forgot to check her donor roster.

Kimberly Schuld’s Guide to Feminist Organizations details the financial supporters of the 180-odd members of Burk’s National Council of Women’s 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 Women’s Law Center, National Council for Research on Women, and Planned Parenthood.

One of these days the corporate leaders of America are going take their cue from Hootie. They’re going to tell the radical feminist movement they will no longer tolerate the bullying and intimidation.

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 Burk’s umbrella group, the National Council of Women’s 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 or exclusion.

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 organization’s membership is female?

What percentage of your board of directors is female?

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 shouldn’t have been surprised. Kimberly Schuld, who wrote the Guide to Feminist Organizations, has warned that many of the NCWO members went belly-up long ago.

Then, real people began to send me responses. And to my surprise, some of them got a little defensive.

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 story?”

Another woman became downright hostile: “Dear Fake Reporter, I have been contacted by NCWO. And I will not answer your questions.”

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 members.

The American Medical Women’s 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, that’s a prime example of the Glass Ceiling, and we can’t 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, I’m shocked.

And don’t give me that old line that women’s 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 haven’t 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. Men’s lifespans are five and a half years shorter than women’s, but nowhere did I find that disparity even mentioned on the websites of these women’s organizations. So the question is, are these outfits working for gender equality, or gender inequality?

Very confusing. All along I’ve 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.

Feminism Is Reactionary


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 land.

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 O’Hara’s 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 a man.

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.

Today’s feminists defend the Victorian structure of children to themselves. The National Organization for Women’s 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 learning needs.

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 didn’t 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 women’s constant presence and participation in society, in defining our customs, policies and practices. It’s 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 today’s 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. There’s nothing I can offer so long as we do what we do.

Dear Mr. Wilson,

My name is Lydia <removed> and my husband’s 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 mother’s 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.

Dear K.C.,

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?

Steve D.

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 NOT CARE!

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!!

Tess R.

Nobody knows until it happens to them. Then, it’s too late.

The public does not want to think that our systems regularly meet out abuse. It’s only unusual cases; you must be exaggerating. How do we get it across?

Don’t Use 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 I’ll sue you for $1,000 a month. I know I can; I talked with my lawyer.”

“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 child’s world stability. Before the birth, he broke up with her once and for all.

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 mother’s) instructions,” making her idea of fathers clear, and would allow 2, 2 hour visits a week with an infant he’d never seen. “She was more concerned I not disrupt his daycare.”

There could be no stability for a relationship here. There probably couldn’t 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 didn’t bother explaining to either of us.

“For all Susan’s (the mother’s) faults, I believe she would have agreed to an equal parenting arrangement had it ever been presented. But the mediators were apposed. It wasn’t even an considered.”

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 mother’s 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 child’s 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 mediator’s 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 courts.”

Since both courts and mediators only impose the law – not seek what would benefit children – the only solution is to change what they impose. That’s up to us, society, not lawyers nor shrinks.

Where is Simpson today? He’s 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, it’s become vile and absurd.

On April 25 several hundred thousand feminists descended on Washington DC for the so-called March for Women’s Lives. Like most slogans in the feminist lexicon, “March for Women’s Lives” bears little resemblance to the truth.

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 you’re wondering why your local TV news program didn’t 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 to follow.

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 anger.” (www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6497 ) Apparently women’s “deep anger” carries greater moral weight than killing an unborn president-to-be.

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. She’s pro-choice.”

But that direct connection with the deity didn’t 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, it’s 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 Father’s 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 abortion.”

After witnessing this demonic display, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that feminism contains the seeds of its own imminent destruction.

Told to Act Like a Girl


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 one’s environment, not one’s 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 Brenda’s girlfriends discovered that she urinated standing up.

Dr. Money was apprised of all this, and more.

But when Money released his book, Man and Woman, Boy and Girl in 1972, he portrayed Brenda’s 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 feminine things.”

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 Money’s 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 “No!”

Brenda’s 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 world’s 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 didn’t bother to tell anyone that Brenda was no longer a she.

John Money’s world began to collapse in 1997 when a journal article finally revealed the truth of his ill-fated experiment. Money could only sputter, “It’s part of the anti-feminist movement.”

Money’s 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, David’s 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 don’t 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 family.

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. How’s that for a silly excuse?

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 north.

Then came those shocking pictures from Abu Ghraib, including the one with Leash Lady gleefully mocking the prisoner’s genitals. Of the 7 soldiers charged with misconduct, 3 are female: PFC Lynndie England, Spc. Megan Ambuhl, and Spc. Sabrina Harman.

This time around, the ladies couldn’t 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.

It’s 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 commentators?

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 them.” (www.sptimes.com/2004/05/07/Columns/We_ve_come_a_long__an.shtml ).

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 Ghraib” (www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=5571&sectionID=12 )

Ehrenreich’s 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 it’s 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 days.

Evil is not a gendered phenomenon. It’s just that men and women personify evil in different ways.

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 on men.

White Males Hot Demographic for the 2004 Elections


As President Bush’s 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 women’s 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 Gore’s former campaign manager, says breezily about Kerry’s efforts to connect with this group, “The only thing he hasn’t 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. That’s 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 major hurdles:

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 women.” (www.johnkerry.colm/issues/women) 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 women’s sense of grievance and victimization. Is that John Kerry’s 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.

That’s why it looks like history is going to repeat itself on Tuesday, November the second.

Yes, Fathers Are Essential


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 Moynihan’s conclusion as “blaming the victim.” And feminists reviled the report as promoting the “hetero-patriarchal” agenda.

But it wasn’t enough to just ignore Moynihan’s analysis.

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, Black neighborhoods.

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 back door.

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 Father’s Day to publish an article with the awful title, “Deconstructing the Essential Father” (www.sharedparenting.net/fact/silver99.pdf). The partisan article triggered a firestorm of protest, including a rebuke from 18 members of Congress (www.backlash.com/content/gender/1999/9-sep99/crob0999.html ).

Despite what the American Psychological Association might say, most persons agree that dads are worth keeping around.

First, a father’s 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 the family.

Scores of research studies have documented the positive effects of involved fathers (www.fatherhood.org/fatherfacts.htm ). Here’s just a sampling of the benefits:

  • The National Center for Educational Statistics reported that when fathers are involved in their children’s education, the kids were more likely to get As, enjoy school, and participate in extracurricular activities.
  • Kyle Pruett concluded that kids with engaged fathers demonstrate “a greater ability to take initiative and evidence self-control.”
  • When these boys grew up, they were more likely to be good dads themselves.

But when fathers are disenfranchised by misguided government programs, here’s the result:

  • Their children have a higher rate of asthma, headaches, anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems.
  • 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 mother.

Amazing, isn’t 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 Think


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 Marxism (www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html ). 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 past transgressions.

Experience proves that Political Correctness is difficult to counter because it is always justified by sentimental appeals to fairness and sensitivity.

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 denunciation.

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 – the LLEA.

Just last week, five years of hard work paid off. The Senate approved the LLEA by a 65-33 vote (www.aim.org/aim_column/1698_0_3_0_C/ ). 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 didn’t make that example up.

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 Discourse” (www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/0662882857/200303_0662882857_e.pdf ). The report concluded, “We also recommend that consideration be given to whether legal action can be taken under section 319 of the Criminal Code.”

And what is section 319 of the Criminal Code? Why, that’s 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 feminism.”

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 you’ve been following the story about the Affirmative Action Bake Sales on college campuses (www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20030226.shtml ), 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 I’m going to stoutly resist anybody telling me what I can say and what I can think.

Martha Stewart Plays the Chivalry Card


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 – that’s 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. Lightoller’s response: “The rule of human nature.”

I don’t 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. Stewart’s pre-emptive move saved her the tidy sum of $51,000.

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. Stewart’s innocence – she was being singled out, lying to a federal agent was no big deal, poor Martha didn’t know any better, and so on.

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 womenfolk.

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, Stewart’s lawyers requested leniency – a term of probation and community service working with poor women. The obvious sexism of that offer apparently didn’t disturb anyone.

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 Goldman’s 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 assistant’s 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 didn’t even mention that critical event. Indeed, they glossed over the details about Stewart’s 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 didn’t 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 sentencing guidelines.

Was it luck? Or was it the chivalry of the countless reporters, editors, and columnists who rallied to Martha’s defense?

Karl Marx and the Gender Wage Gap


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 productivity.”

But now, radical feminists have seized upon the well-known fact that women earn 74% of what men earn. Using Karl Marx’s 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 children (mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/03/roberts102903.htm ). 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 feminist mindset.

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 don’t 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.”

It’s 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 (home.earthlink.net/~ahunter/RFvSoc/conflict.html ):

“Conceptually, capitalism is an advanced stage of patriarchy... Strategically, then, the struggle against capitalism, racism, imperialism, and any other attempt of man’s 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 patriarchy.

That’s revolutionary.

Breaking the Hearts of Men


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 (www.americanheart.org ) currently features actress Daryl Hannah posing in a skimpy outfit that she probably found in Janet Jackson’s 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. Here’s 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 chest.”

Ms. Honore’s comment may be true, but misses the key point. That “middle-aged white male” also happens to be married, with a wife and kids.

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 soul-mate.

That’s 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 Association’s 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. That’s 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 not.

The only accurate gauge of need is a person’s 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 wasn’t 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 home.

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 Association.

The Untold Story of Betty Friedan


In 1963, the course of American history was changed with the publication of Betty Friedan’s 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 woman’s 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 Friedan’s personal papers at the Smith College library, historian Daniel Horowitz has dramatically refuted that claim.

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 devotion.

But Horowitz also reveals a dark side to Friedan’s social activism: Betty Friedan was a long-time participant in the American Communist movement.

Here is Betty Friedan’s true story (page numbers from the Horowitz book are in parentheses):

  • 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. 10).
  • 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. 133).

Horowitz also documents Friedan’s 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 shortly thereafter.

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 Friedan’s feminist objectives.

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 Friedan’s basic outlook still reflected the socialist worldview of capitalist oppression and female victimization.

Take this quote from Frederick Engel’s 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 minor degree.”

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 Friedan’s book, and eventually for the entire feminist movement.

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 these conclusions:

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 mid-1800s (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0106roberts.html ).

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 (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1202roberts.html ).

4. Radical feminists have worked at the vanguard of the Culture War. Their range of tactics is astonishing: - discourage women from childbearing (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1216roberts.html ) - undermine the institution of the family (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0113roberts.html ) - promise women equal pay for unequal work (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1209roberts.html ) - impose gender quotas on national elections (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1118roberts.html ) - 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 word, Yes.

Read just a few paragraphs from Kate Weigand’s 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 revolutionary hysteria.

The radical feminist worldview, goals, tactics, and rhetoric -- all can be linked directly to Marxist-Leninist theory.

Ironically, it is doubtful that Marxism has liberated women. Modern women are no more independent than they were 150 years ago in patriarchal Europe.

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, and lonely.

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.

Let’s 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.

Let’s 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, let’s stop the gender epithets which have the effect of shaming and silencing men.

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 don’t we commence a real gender dialog in this country?

The Feminist 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 years:

• 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 we’ll give you socialism.” Debs shot back, “Give us socialism, and we’ll give you the vote.” (www.eugenevdebs.com/pages/women/htm )

• 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. Keller’s 45-page FBI file can be viewed at www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/bio/fbi-file.pdf

• Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a member of the Woman’s 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 chauvinism.” (http://print.google.com/print/doc?isbn=0801864895 )

• Simone de Beauvoir was a well-known socialist with Marxist sympathies (www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/beauvoir.html ). 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 promised.”

• 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 (www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/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. It’s 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 it?

When Family 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 Lenin’s 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 (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0106roberts.html ), 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 Lenin’s dream of gender emancipation soon dissolved into a cruel nightmare of social chaos.

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 children’s and young people’s behavior, in our morals, culture and in production -- are partially caused by the weakening of family ties.”

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 Women's Liberation


The shrill feminist denunciations of male patriarchy share a common origin: the Marxist creed (www.marxists.org/subject/women/index.htm ).

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 patriarchy.

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 oppression:

“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 women’s lifespans would have been shorter. But the reverse was true -- in the second half of the 1800s, men’s life expectancy in Russia and Europe was 2-3 years shorter than women’s (www.hsph.harvard.edu/hcpds/wpweb/97_01a.pdf ), partly due to their responsibilities as primary breadwinners.

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 (www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demtran.htm ).

So Engels’ assertion was ridiculous as it was specious.

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 untapped labor.

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.” (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch31.htm )

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 Marx’s real attitudes towards women, just examine his personal life.

According to Joshua Muravchik’s 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 Helene Demuth.

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 Neo-Com Revolution


It was such a good story, you can’t 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 camera.

This story did not find its way into your children’s fairy tale book, with its “and they lived happily ever” ending. Instead, it ended up on the front page of the Washington Post.

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 propaganda (www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956255,00.html ).

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 Baghdad.

By her own admission, Lynch’s weapon jammed and then she passed out. And that was it. She did absolutely nothing that could be counted as an act of heroism.

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 valor (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/06/60minutes/main582354.shtml ).

But the liberal media barely mentioned him. PFC Miller’s 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 (www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=7590 ).

Neo-Coms know they cannot topple the economic and military power of capitalism. So instead, they subvert the culture.

It’s 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.” (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1125roberts.html )

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 don’t really understand politics, but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break.”

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 Revolution.

Women's Birth-Right 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 China’s 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 reproduction.

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 abortion services.

One document recounts how the International Women’s 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 women’s 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 women’s human rights. Rather, as revealed by the comments of Margaret Sanger and Molly Yard, their ultimate goal is to progressively restrict women’s 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.”

Indeed.

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 government officials.

Case in point -- the National Institutes of Health, charged with advancing America’s 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 don’t 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 law.

2. Never make direct comparisons between men and women -- Because revealing that men’s 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 don’t 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 PC.

We need to tell the NIH that the lives of half the nation’s population should not count for less because they happen to be male. The PC-crats at NIH need to hear that message, loud and clear.

Here’s the e-mail address to send your comments: NIHHealthDisparitiesPlan@mail.nih.gov. And for good measure, send a copy of your message to the NIH director Dr. Elias Zerhouni: zerhoune@od.nih.gov. As a urologist, he knows something about men’s health. Brief or lengthy, your message will make a difference.

© 2005 Carey Roberts

See Books, Issues



Contact Us | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement
Menstuff® Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon Clay
©1996-2017, Gordon Clay