Socialism &
Feminism
Archive

Carey Roberts probes and lampoons political correctness. His work has been published frequently in the Washington Times, Townhall.com, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Intellectual Conservative, and elsewhere. He is a staff reporter for the New Media Network. You can contact him at E-Mail.

Dems Ignore White Men at their Peril


Representing 38% of all voters, white men represent the second largest block in the American electorate, after white females. It is these 97 million white males to whom the Republican Party owes it electoral success in five out of the last seven presidential campaigns.

The reason is simple: White males have abandoned the Democratic Party in droves. While the liberal media consistently depict the gender gap as a Republican liability, in fact, the gap has long worked to the advantage of the G.O.P. This media misportrayal is the subject of David Paul Kuhn’s recent book, The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma.

For years, the Democratic Party was stitched together by an unlikely amalgam of Catholics, blue-collar workers, and southerners. But in 1968 the Party imposed racial and sex quotas on its national convention delegations. It took only four years for the new-found coalition of feminists, Blacks, and ideological radicals to displace the union bosses and party hacks.

In the 1972 election the Dems pinned their presidential hopes on anti-war candidate George McGovern. But he was soon caricatured as the “candidate of the three As: acid, abortion, and amnesty.” Needless to say, Richard Nixon won in a historic landslide.

In 1976 Jimmy Carter campaigned on the basis of his military experience, religious faith, and business acumen. But on Inauguration Day the newly-elected Leader of the Free World nearly groveled in front of his audience: “your strength can compensate for my weakness, and your wisdom can help to minimize my mistakes.”

Seen as timid and ineffective, he was routed from office four years later by the ebullient Ronald Reagan, the former cowboy actor.

In 1984 the Democrats fielded Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. By then working-class men viewed the Dems as effete mother hens. No surprise, Reagan won 525 electoral votes to Mondale’s 13.

The most hilarious moment of the 1988 campaign belonged to Michael Dukakis – that’s the day he donned a combat helmet and popped his head from the turret of an M-1 battle tank. And when a debate question failed to evoke even a hint of outrage about his wife Kitty being raped, his defeat was assured.

These Democratic candidates failed to exemplify the virtues of chivalry, strength, and grit. But it was president Bill Clinton who, embracing the radical feminist agenda, openly stiffed the male electorate.

During the first two years of his hen-pecked presidency, Bill handed over domestic policy to wife Hillary. In short order she installed Donna Shalala at Health and Human Services, Norma Cantu at the Department of Education, and Janet Reno at Justice. Soon thousands of poor fathers were being jailed for non-payment of child support, college men found their athletic teams disbanded, and the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law.

And while middle-class White Men were struggling to cope by stagflation and the extinction of millions of blue-collar jobs, the liberal-left lampooned them as hopelessly out of step with the gender liberation crusade.

No surprise that in the 1994 elections the “angry white male” came out of the woodwork and handed control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans. Steven Stark would later write in the Atlantic that “Bill Clinton’s Administration has, fairly or not, come to symbolize an attack on men and masculinity as ‘problems’ to be overcome.”

When New Age Sensitive Guy Al Gore launched his campaign, it didn’t help that he had to hire feminist Naomi Wolf to advise him how to become a “Beta male.” After Gore came out against gun ownership, George Bush won the white male vote by an astonishing 27% margin.

Author Kuhn reveals the outcome of elections hinges on whether the candidate projects an inward strength of character, conveys a rugged sense of self-sufficiency, and is strong on national security. With the Democrats widely viewed as the “mommy party,” the Republicans have a decided edge in this department.

And referring to an antipathy that modern liberals still refuse to acknowledge, Kuhn notes, “For some 40 years, phases like ‘the Man,’ ‘male chauvinist pig,’ ‘white male privilege,’ ‘dead white males,’ ‘angry white male,’ and the actions behind them have led to an entire vocabulary of blaming white men for the nation’s worst ills.”

Sizing up the current crop of Democratic candidates, Kuhn sees little hope. “The irony of the 2008 election is that Democrats have candidates who can win, but the party remains stuck in its passions rather than its pragmatism,” Kuhn concedes.

So as the 2008 presidential campaign comes into focus, will the Democrats stage an abrupt about-face and embrace the lessons of the past? Or will the Republicans continue to dominate in presidential politics?

The Disgrace of CNN’s Nancy Grace


At the recent Democratic debate in Las Vegas, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer lobbed softball questions at Hillary Clinton. Then he allowed the audience to boo Hillary’s opponents – a callous breach of debate etiquette. And when it came time for the audience to grill the candidates, Blitzer deceptively introduced the questioners as “ordinary people, undecided voters.”

Those voters included a former staffer for Democrat senator Harry Reid, a former director of the Arkansas Democratic Party, an official in a local union, and the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada. [directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/11/cnn-plants-questions-to-protect-hillary.html ]

Yes, ordinary and undecided folks, every one of them.

But Wolf Blitzer isn’t the only CNN commentator to make a mockery of journalistic integrity.

When special prosecutor Nancy Grace won 100 felony cases in a row, she was riding the fast-track to legal notoriety. But in 1997 the Supreme Court of Georgia charged her with “inexcusable” actions that “demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness.” And eight years later her career came off the rails when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Grace had “played fast and loose” with ethical canons.

So Grace left Georgia and signed on as a commentator for Court TV. In 2006 Nancy again boarded the fast train when she struck a deal with CNN to anchor her own Nancy Grace Program.

Then along came a woman named Crystal Mangum -- drug abuser, exotic dancer, and serial rape accuser.

Shortly after the alleged March 14 assault, wild stories began to circulate about what had transpired at 610 North Buchanan. Within days Nancy Grace was claiming -- falsely – that the players had refused to provide DNA samples. She theorized, “If there had been evidence, I’m sure it was flushed down the commode or gotten rid of, innocently or not.”

Just for good measure, Grace added this remark for her vigilante-justice viewers: “What if this girl was your girl? You know, I’d burn the place down, for Pete’s sake!”

Taking her cue from the Queen in Alice in Wonderland (“Sentence first – verdict afterwards!”), Grace then invited a series of guests who would take orgiastic delight in the demonization of three young lacrosse players.

On April 5, Grace invited Duke faculty member Houston Baker. The hate-filled professor made the over-the-top accusation that the players had “used racial slurs [and had] been given special privileges so that they could make up courses in the summer and that they showed up at these courses drunk and indifferent.”

Five days later the defense team announced the DNA did not match any of the lacrosse players. That seemingly took the wind out of Nifong’s earlier promise that “the DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons.”

But since when did exculpatory evidence stand in the way of a good ethnic cleansing?

So that evening Grace invited attorney Wendy Murphy to her show. Despite evidence now pointing to Mangum as an opportunistic perjurer, Murphy illogically claimed the woman was “entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim.”

On May 10 the prosecution team leaked a misleading account suggesting a partial match of the stripper’s DNA. And once again Grace resorted to an over-blown metaphor: “At the eleventh hour, suddenly, a Hail Mary pass was thrown, and it’s a touchdown for the state!” she exulted.

Five days later lacrosse captain Dave Evans stood in front of the Durham County magistrate’s office and defiantly announced, “These allegations are lies, fabricated – fabricated, and they will be proven wrong … You have all been told some fantastic lies.”

While most media commentators were struck by Evans’ sincerity, Grace sarcastically retorted, “What, were they all together, holding hands at a prayer meeting?” Then she played video clips of Richard Nixon saying, “I am not a crook.”

Nancy Grace even vilified those who cautioned the rush to judgment might be premature. During one interview Stephen Miller of the Duke Conservative Union began to worry that “two innocent people may have possibly …” But Grace quickly cut him off: “Oh, good lord! … I assume you’ve got a mother. I mean, your first concern is that somebody is falsely accused?”

Bloviating entertainment for the masses, perhaps. Informative legal commentary, definitely not.

In their must-read book Until Proven Innocent, Stuart Taylor and JC Johnson describe Nancy Grace as “CNN’s egregiously biased, wacko-feminist former prosecutor.” One of these days, Ms. Grace’s pangs of conscience may well get the best of her. Let’s hope she solemnly declares for all to hear, “I’m deeply sorry for all the hurt and pain that I’ve caused to these three innocent lacrosse players.”

Massive Human Rights Abuses in the Name of Stopping Abuse


Remember Colleen Nester? She was the forlorn New Mexico woman who claimed she was being harassed by TV talk show host David Letterman, who was allegedly beaming mental telepathic messages and using televised facial gestures. Under New Mexico law, harassment is a form of domestic violence, so Ms. Nester was granted a restraining order.

Yes, really.

Domestic violence is defined so broadly these days that just raising your voice is now considered grounds for state invention. The mere allegation of abuse invites a draconian response, requiring the man to vacate his home and avoid any contact with the woman or even his own children.

Many believe protective orders do more harm than good. “Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has comes from the issuance of restraining orders,” writes Milton Raphaelson, retired judge from the Dudley, Mass. District Court.

But the somber voice of reason is drowned out by the shrill clatter of advocates who argue we must nip abusive situations in the bud, even if innocent men must be falsely accused and constitutional protections set aside.

In the United States, one million restraining orders are issued each year without even an allegation of violence – recall the David Letterman dust-up. [www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-Restraining-Orders.pdf ] State-sanctioned disdain of civil liberties has now spread to foreign lands.

Earlier this year Mexican lawmakers passed a new domestic violence law that allows authorities to issue emergency protective orders. Now a conviction of being jealous or sexually indifferent can land a hapless man in jail.

In Costa Rica, an American ex-patriate was recently put behind bars when he told his girlfriend’s son to stop painting satanic symbols on the wall. One police officer noted, “Women in Costa Rica are taking advantage of this new law. They throw out their boyfriend and then steal their things and leave.”

In Canada, “judges routinely hold five-minute hearings at the start of the day and make ex parte orders without any inquiries as to why the opposing party cannot be notified,” reveals Louise Malenfant of Parents Helping Parents.

In Israel, the Knesset recently appointed a committee to probe the extent of false claims of domestic violence. Last month Dr. Orli Iness of the University of Haifa revealed, “there have been reports that in some precincts the figure is as high as 50%.”

A 1999 survey of judicial magistrates in Australia concluded that “almost 90% believe domestic violence orders were used by applicants – often on the advice of a solicitor – as a tactic in family court proceedings to deprive their partners of access to their children.”

Libertarian Casandra Hewitt-Reid of New Zealand describes her country’s Domestic Violence Act in these terms: “it is possible for a perfectly innocent man, who has done nothing outside the law, to be sent to prison on one person’s unsubstantiated word.”

In Germany, Michael Bock, criminology professor at the University of Mainz, reveals that the so-called Force Law (Gewaltschutzgesetz) “gives an effective tool to the hands of mothers who want to separate children from their fathers. ... It is not meant to start a constructive dialog between the parties, but to expropriate, disempower, lock out, and punish men.”

Last year Maria Sanahuja, chief justice in Barcelona, Spain issued a scathing commentary on her country’s Gender Violence Law. Sanahuja rebuked the law as representing a “repugnant violation of fundamental rights” that has caused “enormous pain to tens of thousands of men.” Sanahuja’s acid opinion concludes, “The massive detention of men for scarcely any reason is a characteristic of totalitarian countries.”

In India the situation has reached crisis proportions. Section 498a of the Cruelty Against Women Law has lead to widespread arrests of husbands with no evidence of wrong-doing. Because the law states the man’s relatives are likely accessories to the crime, many thousands of brothers, sisters, and elderly parents have also been wrongly imprisoned. In 2005 the Indian Supreme Court labeled the egregious abuses of Section 498a to be an “assassin’s weapon” and a form of “legal terrorism.”

Last April a group known as RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) sent a letter to Senator Joseph Biden, pleading that he not introduce a bill ominously called the International Violence Against Women Act. [www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARletter-to-Biden-and-Lugar-against_IVAWA.pdf ]

Earlier this month, Senator Biden shrugged off the concerns and introduced the Act. If passed, the law would send $175 million of taxpayer money to foreign governments to issue more restraining orders and to kick men out of their homes without evidence or proof.

Until Proven Innocent: Cultural Marxism at Duke


How did a drug-addled stripper succeed in smearing the reputations of three Duke lacrosse players, dividing a community along racial lines, and making a mockery of the American legal system? That’s the question that Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson pose in their recent bell-ringer book, Until Proven Innocent.

Unless your news source is the New York Times, you know by now that Crystal Mangum accused three young lacrosse players of brutally raping and sodomizing her in the early morning of March 14, 2006. (My August 30 editorial was one of the first to publicly disclose the accuser’s name: www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0830roberts.html . I surmise the Old Grey Lady editors didn’t take note.)

Now fast forward to April 11, 2007 – that’s the day North Carolina attorney general Roy Cooper stood before a hushed crowd and declared, “We believe that these case were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations … we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.”

Call it the perfect scandal. The Duke lacrosse case emerged from the rarified nexus of a mentally-imbalanced lady of the night, a racially-divided community, a cabal of Duke University professors, a politically-ambitious prosecutor, and a media enterprise that cared more about hyping a morality tale than getting the facts right.

For the first time, Until Proven Innocent weaves the delicate strands of the story, rendering the outrageous at least comprehensible.

From the very beginning, the Durham police knew Crystal Mangum was a crock. At 1:22am they were summoned to pick up a semi-conscious female at a local grocery store. Not a word was mentioned about rape.

Fearing she might harm herself, the officers decided to have her committed to a local detox facility. But Mangum knew she could side-step the detention center if she played the rape card. Problem was, she couldn’t make up her mind whether there had been three assailants, five, or twenty.

But there was one person stood by her to the bitter end – Tara Levicy, the hospital nurse who later said she never doubted a woman who screams “rape.” Over the ensuring months, Levicy would repeatedly amend, back-fill, and embellish upon the details of her hospital encounter.

Now enter district attorney Nifong who once proclaimed, “My name is Michael Nifong, and I’m the chief asshole of the Durham County district attorney’s office.” He knew the case was a flaky as grandma’s pie crust, but after all, probable cause means different things to different people. Plus, Crystal Mangum would be a godsend for his stalled political campaign.

Nifong, 56, was already mapping out his retirement plans. If he could win the May 2 primary, those four extra years in office would be worth an extra $15,000 to his annual retirement pension. Playing the chivalrous defender of a single mom who claimed to be brutalized by three well-heeled Dukies would translate into a boatload of Black votes.

Within days of the alleged attack, the campus potbangers were brandishing signs that read, “You Can’t Rape and Run” and “Castrate.” All that was missing was the scalpel and hang-noose.

The story also fit perfectly into the neo-Marxist morality tale of race, class, and gender oppression. So the Duke Gang of 88 issued its guilty-until-proven-innocent manifesto, “What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?”

Equally reprehensible was the conduct of the media, which modeled itself on the yellow journalism of a by-gone era. On March 25 the local News and Observer ran a steamy front-page article titled “Dancer Gives Details of Ordeal” – somehow omitting the word “alleged.” Within days the New York Times, CNN’s Nancy Grace, and the rest of the media posse were in hot pursuit of the “scummy white males” who refused to own up to their heinous crime.

The American legal system is founded on the principles of due process and the presumption of innocence. Mob rule is the antithesis to what our country stands for. So exactly what went wrong?

The roots of the Duke fiasco can be traced back to the Frankfurt School, founded nearly a century ago and modeled on the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. “The traditional idea of revolution and the traditional strategy of revolution have ended,” wrote philosopher Herbert Marcuse. “[W]hat we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.” [www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html ]

And exactly what did he mean by a “diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system”?

Marcuse was outlining a breath-taking plan to weaken constitutional protections, bias the media, politicize the academy, portray men as the unruly oppressors of women, and eventually turn American society against itself.

And that’s what happened at Duke University.

Hillary Flips over her Debate Flop


What are we to make of a presidential candidate who portrays herself as strong and independent, a courageous exemplar to the members of her gender -- but at the first hint of criticism collapses as the pitiable victim of gender politics?

Last Tuesday Hillary Clinton delivered a horrendous performance at the Democratic debate. She claimed she wanted to end the war in Iraq -- and in the next breath explained that as president, she would continue to guard our embassy, provide training, and continue to wage the fight against Al Qaeda.

As far as allowing illegal aliens to get a driver’s license, her answer was more convoluted than a New York City subway map. And when it came to rescuing the Social Security system, she declared, “I do have a plan, but personally I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.”

Huh?

Debate moderator Tim Russert tried without success to pin her down. Finally candidate John Edwards stated the obvious: “Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes.” Barack Obama of Illinois added, “She had not been truthful and clear.”

Clinton launched an immediate counter-offensive. First she accused Russert of playing “gotcha.” No, Hillary, he was trying to clarify your contradictory statements – that’s what a moderator is supposed to do.

Then the Clinton campaign released a memo called “The Politics of Pile-On.” Implying that her competitors weren’t bowing and scraping to the inevitability of her nomination, the statement ended with the incongruous claim that Hillary is “One strong woman.”

Still fixated on playing the gender card, Clinton’s media spinners held a conference call. Senior strategist Mark Penn make the shrill claim that he was already “detecting some backlash” among female voters because they fretted the debate had turned into an ugly “six-on-one to try to bring her down.”

Would someone please order the de-caf next time?

Clinton’s surrogates in the media rose to the occasion, but their comments were so off base I wondered if they had actually watched the debate. “Her fighting spirit was all the more impressive because so many of the positions she was defending were virtually indefensible,” Gail Collins argued in Thursday’s New York Times. Problem was, no one could figure out exactly what positions she was defending.

Then HRC’s handlers had the gall to send out a fund-raising letter condemning the men’s actions with the plea, “Hillary’s going to need your help.”

But the counter-offensive stalled when bloggers ridiculed Clinton’s scripted and evasive answers. Commentator Jed Babbin noted, “But one thing isn’t in doubt after Tuesday night: Hillary Clinton can dish it out, but she can’t take it.” Jennifer Rubin satirized, “Indeed it is sometimes difficult to follow the Hillary rules of etiquette.”

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker offered this sisterly advice: “Sorry, but when girls insist on playing hardball with the boys, they don’t get to cry foul – or change the game to dodge ball – when they get bruised.”

Clinton’s Democratic rivals kept the heat on. Asked on NBC’s Today show whether Clinton was trying to play the gender card, Barack Obama responded it didn’t make sense that when “people start challenging her point of view, that suddenly, she backs off and says, ‘Don’t pick on me.’”

John Edwards hit on Hillary’s double-standard. “I think that Senator Clinton ought to be held to the same standard that every presidential candidate is held to,” Edwards told reporters. “That standard is to not engage in double-talk.”

Finally Mrs. Clinton made a lame effort to defuse the controversy. “I don’t think they’re picking on me because I’m a woman; I think they’re picking on me because I’m winning.”

“Picking on me”?

When Barack Obama was excoriated for offering to meet with Fidel Castro, I don’t remember him saying he was being singled out because of his skin color. And when persons ridiculed John Edwards for his $300 haircuts, he didn’t provide the sad-sack defense of being “picked on.”

In the past, playing the victim worked wonders for Mrs. Clinton. During her eight years as First Lady, her highest approval ratings came in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And following a debate with candidate Rick Lazio, Clinton and her aides claimed that his actions were “menacing” and “threatening.”

But in 2007, the last thing our country needs is a candidate who uses divisive gender tactics to satisfy her need for personal satisfaction and political gain.

Bad-Girl Culture Goes Chic


Halloween is around the corner and honestly, girls, that rhinestone-studded “I love Rosie O’Donnell” T-shirt should just stay in the closet. Plus this year, prison pink is all the rage.

So show your solidarity with Paris Hilton by wearing a pink-and-black striped prison suit -- complete with jailbird cap. Get some smudged bat-wing eyeliner and become an Amy Winehouse-wannabee. Or help Lindsay Lohan deal with her issues by strutting a black mini-dress emblazoned with “Rehab Reject.”

Kyrra Rankine of New York plans to go trick-or-treating as “bald Britney” this year. “She’s given me too much material to work with. ‘You go girl, work it out!’” exclaims the 30-year-old social worker.

Retailers can barely keep pace with the demand, USA Today reports, as sweet young things flock to buy bad-girl costumes and temporary tattoos. Ricky’s NYC, a chain of beauty stores, is devoting a seasonal section to this profitable niche. [www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2007-10-25-celeb-halloween_N.htm ]

Most of us, of course, are appalled by lip-glossed celebrities who turn their legal escapades into just another photo-op. But we shouldn’t claim to be surprised. “Rehab Reject” outerwear is only the latest example of a growing trend of evincing ridicule and disdain for traditional notions of law and order.

How did this come about?

Back in the 1980s Gloria Steinem and her Ghoulish Gals issued a curse, claiming that long-held notions of due process and judicial neutrality are part of a broader patriarchal plot to protect male privilege. So nothing less than a complete transformation of the legal system would suffice.

To accomplish that goal, definitions would have to be broadened, standards of proof relaxed, and the presumption of innocence eliminated. The decades-long effort to revamp our legal system is detailed in the Cato Institute’s must-read report, “Feminist Jurisprudence: Equal Rights or Neo-Paternalism?” [www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-256es.html ]

Under the new regime, “equal treatment under the law” would no longer carry the day. Instead, the justice system would employ “an asymmetrical approach that adopts the perspective of the less powerful group with the specific goal of equitable power sharing among diverse groups,” as Martha Chamallas baldly declared in the Texas Journal of Women and the Law.

Rape had long been treated under Anglo-American law as a capital offense. True, the prosecution of these cases was sometimes as weak as watered-down cider. But advocates went too far by insisting on rape-shield laws, changing the definition of consent, and shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.

Then new categories of crimes with broad definitions and subjective standards of proof were invented, namely sexual harassment, stalking, and hate crimes.

Sen. Joseph Biden was one of the earliest proponents of the hate crime theory. Arguing for passage of the Violence Against Women Act, he claimed that “rapes are hate crimes committed against women.”

Thirteen years after the passage of VAWA, domestic violence courtrooms have been turned into a House of Horrors. Husbands are evicted from their homes on the sole claim that their wives are “afraid,” and men under a restraining order are thrown in jail because they sent a birthday card to their children.

And long-standing laws that prohibit false allegations and perjury are all but ignored. As we’ve been repeatedly lectured, prosecuting women like Crystal Mangum who make false allegations of rape would only discourage future victims from coming forward.

VAWA also cemented an emerging sex-based double standard. “We adopt the perspective of a reasonable woman primarily because we believe that a sex-blind reasonable person standard tends to be male-biased and tends to systematically ignore the experiences of women,” the Ninth Circuit court famously held in Ellison v. Brady in 1991.

Then speech codes were introduced in the name of eliminating a “hostile” school and workplace environment. As these restrictions took hold, it became necessary to simultaneously deny their existence. “We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech,” explained one Bowling Green U. feminist.

As if revamping the laws wasn’t enough, persons began to argue that self-proclaimed victims “should be spared having to take legal action,” according to a 2001 article in The Independent. In other words, a woman should be able to by-pass the legal system and send the accused directly to jail.

And if that doesn’t work, vengeful women should simply take the law into their own hands. “Get them jailed or get them killed … When the law fails us, we cannot fail each other,” misandrist Andrea Dworkin once advised.

But come to think of it, maybe we’re being too judgmental. I’m sure Rosie has her good moments. And who can say for sure that Lindsay, Amy, Paris, and Britney should be held accountable for drinking the spiked punch? Probably the Wicked Witch put them up to it.

Ready for the Next Wave of Sex Abuse Hysteria?


In 1994 a Child Protective Services official instructed his employees to dig up child sex abuse cases to justify the agency’s budget. Before long 43 parents and Sunday school teachers in Wenatchee, Wash. had been arrested and charged with nearly 30,000 cases of sex abuse involving 60 children. It wasn’t until four years and many ruined lives later that the Wenatchee witch hunt was exposed as a fraud.

A decade later, we seem to be on the verge of another moral panic involving sex abuse, but this time with a new wrinkle: its perpetrators are as young as four years old.

Last year a pre-schooler in Waco, Tex. hugged a female aide as he boarded the school bus. The four-year-old’s embrace lingered a bit long, and soon the boy was required to defend himself from a charge of sexual harassment. The scarlet letter of “inappropriate physical contact” is now stamped on the child’s school records.

In December a kindergartener in Hagerstown, Maryland pinched a classmate’s bottom. For that he, too, was branded a sexual harasser. To those who asked how a little boy could understand, much less commit such an action, spokeswoman Carol Mowen came up with this loopy explanation: “It’s important to understand a child may not realize that what he or she is doing may be considered sexual harassment, but if it fits under the definition, then it is, under the state’s guidelines.”

Middle school students in McMinnville, Ore. designated Fridays as Slap Butt Day. Those days “pretty much we would just go around slapping people’s butts,” recounted Megan Looney. But one day the local police got wind of the racy activities. They came in and arrested 12-year-old Ryan Cornelison and 13-year-old Cory Mashburn, charging each with five counts of felony sex abuse.

Six times the teenage boys were subjected to a strip search. Six days later they were released from jail. Then it took the judge six months to hear a motion to dismiss the case, even though the “victims” had signed affidavits saying they wanted the charges to be dropped.

Even respected media organizations are beginning to jump on the sex abuse bandwagon.

This past weekend the Associated Press released a report with the five-alarm headline, “Sexual Misconduct Plagues U.S. Schools.” The word “plague” suggests a pestilence descending upon schoolhouses in every hill and dale throughout the land.

But a closer reading of the article reveals that among 3 million public school teachers nationwide, 500 have their teaching credentials restricted each year due to a sex abuse charge. So cause for concern, yes -- a plague, definitely not.

Lest you accuse me of going wobbly on the horrific crime of child sex abuse, I will remind you that when the Congress held hearings on the problem in the early 1970s, similar white-hot rhetoric was bandied about in a calculated effort to convince the federal government to invest millions to halt the abuse “epidemic.”

The bigger problem with the AP study is that was run by journalists, not trained researchers. They only looked at teachers whose credentials had been revoked or restricted, and then concluded “in nearly nine out of 10 cases, they’re male.” Indeed, every one of the teachers highlighted in the AP article are men.

There they go again, those beastly men, this time ravishing young innocents. But hold on a minute …

What about Debra Lafave, the reading teacher in Tampa who admitted to deflowering a 14-year-old boy in her classroom, car, and at home? Have we already forgotten about Mary Kay Letourneau of Washington who had an affair with a sixth-grade boy?

Just last week, Meredith Vincent, a home school teacher in Van Nuys, Calif. was arrested for allegedly molesting a 14-year-old boy. And on Friday, Kay Sorg, a science teacher at Albany Middle School, Calif. appeared in court following an accusation of having sex with a high school girl.

According to a 2004 Department of Education report, “Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of the Literature,” student surveys reveal that only 57% of sex offenders are male. That’s a far cry from the nine-in-10 statistic reported by the AP. So how do we explain the discrepancy?

A few years ago Tina Smith wrote a book on Perspectives on Female Sex Offending: A Culture of Denial. Smith reveals that when it comes to female-perpetrated sex abuse, we live in a state of selective amnesia. Thanks to chivalrous school administrators, female abusers are often given a second chance and their record stays clean.

So before we stick men with the sex offender moniker and ban them from the schools, let’s be sure to look at both sides of the sex abuse equation.

Women Who Batter, Proudly


Chivalrous men resist the image, but it’s a problem that has become so pervasive that we must summon up the courage to face it – an epidemic of women who pummel their husbands and boyfriends.

A recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control found that among physically aggressive couples, 71% of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were female. And last year Renee McDonald of Baylor University published a study in the Journal of Family Psychology with almost identical results.

What’s going on, ladies?

The problem isn’t just gals who clean their boyfriends’ clock in a drunken rage. These high-testosterone females abuse their men and then come clean with a swaggering braggadocio.

A few months ago ABC Primetime did an experiment. The producers hired two actors –male and female – to feign partner violence in a public park. They wanted to see what passers-by would do when they spotted the woman pounding her boyfriend with a rolled-up newspaper. [abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2741047 ]

Most persons paused, then cast a “it’s not my problem” shrug. But one young lass was caught on camera doing a pumped-fist “atta-woman” salute. You go, girl!

That would never happen in real life, right?

Consider superstar singer Amy Winehouse. Married to Blake Fielder-Civil, she now admits that she uses him as a “punch-bag.” “I’ll beat up Blake when I’m drunk. … If he says one thing I don’t like then I’ll chin him,” she brags.

I recently came across a website called Jezebel.com. Jezebel is one of those tell-all websites run by women who flaunt tattoos that declare, “I know what I want and I know how to get it.”

Recently a Jezebel editor named Slut Machine posted a cheeky piece called, “Have you Ever Beat up a Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have.” Let’s put it this way -- the column brings a whole new meaning to the phrase, “female empowerment.”

Ms. Machine confided that one her co-editors had overheard her boyfriend flirting on the phone, “so she slapped the phone out of his hands and hit him in the face and neck” Another smacked a guy when he tenderly revealed to her “he thought he had breast cancer.” As an afterthought she wrote, “that one made us laugh really hard.”

[jezebel.com/gossip/domestic-disturbances/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have-294383.php ]

I was certain that such brazen admissions would draw howls of protest from persons who know full well that “there’s no excuse for domestic violence.” Well, this is what they said:

Probationer announced to her on-line Sisterhood, “Yeah, I've punched the shit out of a guy. But I don’t like to brag.”

Fromthetulleshed bragged, “I’ve had many satisfying dreams where I beat up my ex.

If I saw him again, I don’t think I’d be able to restrain myself.”

Some thought assaulting a guy was downright hilarious: “I bounced an alarm clock off my husband’s head from across the room once. I haven’t been able to find a decent alarm clock since,” lamented Kwindsorfish.

And Sparkle proved you don’t have to be physical to be abusive: “I try so so SO hard to do the sitting silently trick. … But I just couldn’t keep myself from laughing after like a minute thirty of ‘ignoring’ him. It just makes me too giddy to think that I can have that much power by doing absolutely nothing at all.”

When it came to the fact that female abusers often use weapons or the element of surprise to compensate for their smaller size, the women seemed clueless. JoanCrawford revealed, “My Ex told me his former lover beat him. I was a bit startled when I met her. He is 6’3” about 195 lbs.; she was 5’ and appeared to weigh literally 98 lbs. Battered men? The question is, are these men really physically afraid?”

Creative excuses were de rigueur. Goupie reasoned, “I slap my boyfriend on a semi-regular basis. It always hurts me more than it hurts him. And he usually agrees that he deserves it.” Azi’s comment, “I have to say I think he may have had it coming,” was the most common pretext.

And Crocodile Tears of remorse were shed by the bucket-full. Washionfore confessed, “I have slapped a man down before, quite hard, but I love him so I felt bad because, well, it’s abusive.”

Actress Sally Field recently received an Emmy Award for best actress. During her acceptance speech she boasted that women are of the peace-loving kind, crudely shouting, “And, let’s face it, if the mothers ruled the world, there would be no [expletive deleted] wars in the first place.”

But based on the gleeful comments of the naughty Jezebel girls, somehow I don’t think Miss Field’s act is ready for prime time.

IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax


Want a textbook example how the Left manufactures a crisis, passes a law that rolls back Constitutional protections, snookers card-carrying conservatives, and bilks American taxpayers? Look no farther than IMBRA, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act.

A little background: It’s no secret that conditions in post-socialist Russia are grim. Author Sonya Luehrmann recounts how women desperately search to find a husband “to put one’s personal life in order, to settle down with a stable family.”

And here in the United States, some men find American ladies to be a little too, shall we say, high-maintenance for their tastes.

Before long over 200 match-making services around the world had sprouted up like a clutch of springtime tulips.

A few years ago University of Pittsburgh professor Nicole Constable set out to probe the inner workings of these dating agencies. In her book Romance on a Global Stage, Constable revealed the international match-makers were simply responding to a human need for companionship and love. Many men who marry foreign brides “went to great lengths to ensure their partner’s comfort and happiness in the United States,” she noted.

But feminists are rankled by any hint that their nostrum for female liberation may be curtailing American women’s marriage prospects. Worse, some of these foreign women actually aspire to be mothers and homemakers. Imagine that!

So the Sourpuss Sisters conspired to put the kibosh on the operation. They knew convincing Congress to regulate romance would be a hard sell. So they resorted to their tried and true formula of hackneyed stereotypes, outright demagoguery, and appeals to male chivalry.

It was Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington who quarterbacked the legislative strategy. First she brandished the notion of “mail-order brides,” casting foreign women as victims of predatory males. Then she dubbed international dating services as “marriage brokers,” conjuring up the image of a rogue operation trading lives for dollars.

On July 13, 2004 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee scheduled a hearing to air the issue. No dating services or happily-betrothed foreign women were invited to testify -- their comments would not likely fit the script.

During her testimony, Cantwell made the startling claim that match-making services serve as a nefarious front for international human trafficking. She concluded, “there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers.” As proof of that “epidemic,” she highlighted the cases of three abused women.

Cantwell’s depiction of comely maidens being seduced into prostitution rings was more than Sen. Sam Brownback could resist, and before long he signed on as a leading co-sponsor of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act. With liberals and conservatives now on board, IMBRA’s political star was rising.

But it turns out that Senator Cantwell’s supposition that dating services drag women into a life of sex slavery and indentured servitude was nothing more than a feminist tall-tale.

There was the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service report that revealed, “less than 1 percent of the abuse cases now being brought to the attention of the INS can be attributed to the mail-order bride industry.” [www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9ba5d0676988d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=2c039c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRDwww.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9ba5d0676988d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=2c039c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD ]

A second analysis soberly concluded that foreign brides are “dramatically less likely to be involved in domestic violence as calculated by the Intimate Partner Murder Rate.” [www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=544.0 ]

And earlier this week the Washington Post reported that early estimates of up to 100,000 human trafficking victims being secreted into the United States each year were grossly exaggerated. Despite more than $150 million of taxpayer dollars diverted to a massive search and rescue effort, it turns out the actual number of trafficking victims is closer to 200 annually. [www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20929223 ]

But in the politically-correct atmosphere that envelopes Washington these days, agendas count for more than the truth.

So after the gavel fell on the Senate hearing, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act was bundled into the Violence Against Women Act. That law was signed into law on January 5, 2006. A few days later, Fox News columnist Wendy McElroy castigated the act as branding all American men as “abusers.” [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html ]

Now, any man who wishes to go through an international dating company must submit to an extensive background check. That’s right, guys, get ready to tell them about your arrests, criminal history, restraining orders, how many times you’ve been married, and even how many children you have. For good measure, don’t forget the sex offender registry check.

So thanks to Senator Cantwell’s artful dissembling and Senator Brownback’s white-horse chivalry, men are presumed to be a threat to foreign women. And Cupid’s arrow now falls under the watchful eyes of green-visored bureaucrats.

How Female Illegals Abuse the System


Every year thousands of Americans are victimized by a swindle known as the “immigrant abuse scam.” What’s amazing is this shake-down is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer under the guise of stopping domestic violence.

One of those persons was Roger Knudson, 64, of Arizona. When he discovered his wife was having an affair, he filed for divorce. Fearing the judge would learn her visa had expired and order her back to Mexico, she fell into a rage and attacked him.

But the DA refused to prosecute the assault. Then the illegal went to a local woman’s shelter that provided her pro bono legal services and told her to accuse her husband of the very crime that she herself had committed. “I have spent thousands of dollars since 2002 clearing myself of the accusations,” Knudson wrote sadly.

So here’s how the scam works: A woman makes an accusation of abuse. The laws define domestic violence so loosely that she doesn’t need to provide a scrap of evidence -- she only needs to scream “abuse!” So the judge issues a let’s-play-it-safe order.

That restraining order becomes the gold-plated meal ticket that entitles her to preferential treatment by immigration authorities, free legal services, and a generous helping of welfare services. And anyone who questions the swindle is accused of being “soft on domestic violence.”

Elizabeth Howard of Arizona recounts how the wife of her father trapped him in the bedroom and threatened to kill him. When he called for help, the police arrested both of them. As soon as she got out of jail, she marched over to the domestic violence shelter to have him kicked out of his home. Then she began to hold yard sales to sell his car and tools.

“A friend at work whose family migrated here from Mexico told me it’s common knowledge that if a woman marries a U.S. citizen and it doesn’t work out, she can claim abuse and get the resources she needs,” Howard sadly explains. “I believe the Violence Against Women Act should be called the ‘Women Get What They Want Act.’”

In two cases, the extortion tactics continue to this day, forcing my informants to protect their identities.

One woman’s close friend was falsely accused of abuse by his immigrant wife. The courtroom hearing resembled a kangaroo court more than the even-handed administration of justice: “We were not allowed to present a case, ask questions, look at the evidence that the accusing party submitted, two of our witnesses were cut off after two minutes, and the third was not allowed to testify at all,” she revealed.

“As a victim of abuse previously myself, I am sensitive to real victims of abuse. But those who commit fraud and claim abuse where none exists endanger us all,” the woman confides.

In 2001, Bob planned to marry a woman from the Caribbean. Shortly before the ceremony, she informed him she was an illegal alien. But he loved her so he went ahead with the wedding, knowing he could sponsor her for a work permit.

Then the relationship went sour and she threatened to abduct their newborn daughter if he didn’t accede to her demands. One day she surprised him with this news: “I have my baby – I don’t need you anymore!” Bob grew fearful of the intimidation tactics, so he filed for divorce and withdrew her work permit application, believing the immigration service would protect his daughter, a newborn U.S. citizen.

Turning the tables, she requested amnesty under the Violence Against Women Act, even though she didn’t produce an iota of police or medical proof of violence. This filing prohibited him from submitting any evidence of immigration fraud or even appearing in the courtroom during her hearing.

“In the end, she got everything she could have hoped for: A work permit, VAWA amnesty, $750 tax-free dollars per month, and bragging rights on her cleverness on screwing over a stupid American fool in his own stupid country,” Bob bitterly notes.

The abuse rip-off has become so accepted that its proponents openly instruct women how to fleece their boyfriends and husbands. One group instructs gold diggers to view restraining orders “as a tool for economic justice.” Simply accuse your man of violence, and you can force him to pay your attorney’s fees, medical expenses, punitive damages, use of his house and car, and much, much more. It’s really that simple!

That advice comes to us from the Washington, DC-based Center for Survivor Agency and Justice, which receives generous support from the U.S. taxpayer by way of the Department of Justice. The Center offers no advice to help American taxpayers deal with false accusations of domestic violence by immigrant women.

Love Song to the Son I Never Knew


Last month my column highlighted the often-neglected voices of fathers in the abortion debate. [www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.207 ] Afterwards, several men contacted me to recount their painful memories.

Wayne Auman of North Carolina was one of those courageous men. His memories are so vivid and his pain so poignant, I invited him to share the story in his own words:

It all began in 1981, I was dating an incredible girl, and we planned to eventually marry. We had been together over a year, and we were crazy in love. Then one September day she approached me with tears in her eyes and told me she was pregnant. You could have knocked me over with a feather.

After the shock wore off, I suggested we get married and start our family. I was stunned when she refused. I tried to tell her she would love our baby so much, and most of all, that abortion is murder. She cried at me to stop, saying that she had made up her mind, it was her body, and this was the “easy” solution to her problem.

She also told me I was making a difficult decision harder by “preaching” to her. In retrospect, I didn’t preach nearly enough. If I had tried harder, she may not have gone through with it. I will always regret not fighting harder to save the life of our son.

When the day came to do the procedure, I was depressed, scared, and worried about my girlfriend. Upon entering the non-descript waiting room, I felt a dozen pairs of female eyes suspiciously evaluate me. The atmosphere was dark, dreadful, and depressing. The feeling of shame was palpable. Muted whispers and muffled sobs were heard in a far corner.

As I tried to comfort my girlfriend, I told her it wasn’t too late to change her mind. I’ll never forget the look in her eyes when she refused my offer. The look was a pleading, agonizing glimpse into her soul.

During the time my girlfriend was gone, the stillness of room was shattered by a piercing wail of pain from the procedure room. I will never forget the desperation and agony of that scream.

I feared that it was my girlfriend so I got up to ask a staff member. I was instructed that I was to sit down and wait quietly. When I insisted that someone check on my girlfriend, my request was met with a contemptuous glare. Eventually, someone did check on her and informed me it was not my girlfriend who had cried out.

An hour later she emerged. Hunched over, clutching her purse and prescription, she shuffled slowly into the waiting area, and stifled a painful moan. My heart broke into a thousand pieces, never to be whole again. I mourned for her, her wounded soul, but most of all, for our dead child. We had knowingly, deliberately, murdered a child.

And for what? So she could be a college student and have a career, unencumbered by the responsibilities of raising a child?

The effects of the procedure were traumatic. My girlfriend experienced heavy bleeding, severe abdominal pain, and anemia. She was physically affected for months afterward, and is spiritually affected to this day. She refused all attempts to talk about our ordeal. I realized that she experienced something profoundly more horrible than she had expected.

That meant that I would have to deal with my tortured emotions alone, as we agreed not to tell anyone of the deed. This proved to be too much for me to bear, and our relationship would never be the same. One murderous act succeeded in killing not only our child, but the incredible love we had for one another.

Now I am blessed beyond my dreams with a wife and three incredible sons, 11, 8, and 4. I am grateful to God that I have found forgiveness and restoration. I will never forget, however, the life that God intended to be born, I allowed to be murdered.

Don’t let anyone tell you that abortion is a quick, easy solution to an unwanted pregnancy. What appears to be an easy solution has life-long consequences. Twenty-five years later, I am still haunted by the memories of that day, and the lost life of my beloved son. Every day of my life, I know that I’ll wonder.

So on the 25th year anniversary of the abortion, I composed a ballad called “I Wonder: A Love Song to the Son I Never Knew,” which can be seen on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP44BEGnXec .

Here are the lyrics:

“I Wonder: A Love Song to the Son I Never Knew”
Wayne Auman & Jamie Dickmann © 2007
Performed by Jamie Dickmann

You never had a birthday,
But I remember you my unborn son.
25 years since you passed away,
Was there anything more I could have done?

We were so in love,
That’s what we were,
Not a care in this great big world.
I must admit you were not thought of,
Until God’s plan for us unfurled.

I wonder what you would have become,
If choice had not got in the way,
Of hearing you laugh and watching you run.
In my heart your life has begun,
Who had the right to deprive us
Of all of the things we’d have done?

I Wonder...

Precious gift, that’s what you were,
God built his work within her womb,
But a hardened heart and a selfish wish,
Turned that place into your tomb.

I wonder what you would have become,
If choice had not got in the way,
Of hearing you laugh and watching you run.
But in my heart your life has begun,
Who had the right to deprive us
Of all of the things we'd have done?

I Wonder...

My only peace is knowing
That He is at your side.
That He holds you close,
And tucks you in at night.

I’ll bear this empty hole,
Without you in my life,
Knowing that someday,
You’ll run to me - eternally.

I wonder what you would have become,
If choice had not got in the way,
Of hearing you laugh and watching you run.
In my heart your life has begun,
Who had the right to deprive us
Of all of the things we’d have done.

I wonder what you would have become,
If choice had not got in the way,
Of hearing you laugh and watching you run.
We’ll always be father and son,
Who had the right to deprive us
Of all of the things we'd have done.

I Wonder...

Fathers, The Third Victim of the Abortion Industry


Why are men reflexively treated as the fall-guy in the abortion debate?

Recently National Review Online convened a group to opine what would happen in a post-Roe v. Wade world to women who might obtain an illegal abortion. The panelists reveal that before 1973, women who sought an abortion were not subject to criminal prosecution. So overturning Roe v. Wade would not fill our jails with post-abortive women. [article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjkwNWQ4ZDQ2NTljNDg4MjUyYWIxZWQ0NDVjMTkxYjg= ]

One theme surfaces repeatedly in the commentaries: feckless boyfriends who abandon their partners in their hour of greatest need.

Hadley Arkes of Amherst College describes women having an abortion as routinely “Abandoned by the man.” And Dorinda Bordlee from the Bioethics Defense Fund obliquely refers to fathers as “those who should be caring for [the mothers] and their unborn children.”

So does research back up these broad pronouncements of male abandonment?

In their book Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love, Shostak and McLouth report that 44% of single men offered to marry the woman, 18% of the couples had discussed adoption, and half the men accompanied the woman to the abortion clinic – hardly the image of wholesale male abandonment.

When these men show up at the clinic, they are met with a chilly reception. Two-thirds of the fathers want to accompany their partner throughout the experience, and nine out of 10 hope to hold the hand of their partner in the recovery room. But in most cases abortion clinics prohibit men from such expressions of support.

But the NRO panel reserves it harshest criticism for men who force their girlfriends to abort.

Walter Weber at the American Center for Law and Justice claims that “many” women (we aren’t told the number) obtain abortions because “they are coerced by boyfriends, bosses, parents, etc.”

Joseph Dellapenna of Villanova University states, “Significant evidence led one sociologist to conclude that ‘the attitude of the man is the most important variable in a woman’s decision to have an abortion.” Dellapenna does not cite, however, the name of the sociologist or explain what constitutes “significant evidence.”

And Frederica Mathewes-Green recounts the tales of two women who were undergoing an abortion. As they lay on the clinic table, both of them were praying that the boyfriend would burst through the doors and say, “Stop, I changed my mind.” Mathewes-Green’s imagery of the angelic woman succumbing to the spell of the conniving male is unmistakable.

But research paints a very different picture.

Several years ago Carol Gilligan’s acclaimed study, In a Different Voice, examined the dynamics of the abortion decision. She found in only one-third of cases did the father have any influence on the woman’s decision to abort.

Likewise, professors Arthur Shostak, Ross Koppel, and Jennifer Perkins recently summarized several large-scale surveys of men in abortion clinic waiting rooms. They reported that only 19% of men in waiting rooms affirmed the idea of abortion in general, and fewer than 5% of men “may have cajoled their partner into having the abortion.” [www.menandabortion.com/articles.html ]

The conclusion is clear: men are not dragging their pregnant girlfriends willy-nilly into abortion clinics against their will.

Abortion is one of those moral and social tragedies that seems to invite simplistic explanations. But the reality is far more complex.

For example, none of the NRO participants mentioned the fact that thanks to the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision Casey v. Planned Parenthood, women are not required to inform the father of the impending abortion. That’s an important omission -- according to clinic workers, in 15% of abortions the man never finds out, or learns of the deed until it’s too late.

I once met such a man – years later he was still grieving the silent loss of his precious innocent.

A growing body of research reveals that fathers suffer a variety of ill-consequences following the abortion. Dr. Catherine Coyle recently reviewed 28 studies that reveal men often suffer regret, sadness, and depression. One-third admit to a longing to see the fetus.

Coyle sums up the research with this observation: “Several authors have noted a tendency among men to defer the abortion decision to their female partners as well as a tendency to repress their own emotions in an attempt to support their partners.” [www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijmh/vol3n2/abortion.xml ]

Many argue that women are the second victim of the grisly abortion industry. Clearly men can be victims, as well. So when will we stop treating fathers as social pariahs?

Misandry in the Least Likely of Places


Dial up your local Country and Western station and you may soon find your fingers tapping out the beat of Carrie Underwood’s latest hit, Before He Cheats. Underwood suspects her boyfriend is probably cheating on her (in matters of infidelity, I guess “probably” is proof enough).

This how she extracts her revenge:

“I dug my key into the side
of his pretty little souped-up four-wheel drive,
Carved my name into his leather seats...
I took a Louisville slugger to both headlights,
slashed a hole in all four tires...”

Trashing your boyfriend’s car has little to do with sugar and spice and everything nice. But it’s the title -- Before He Cheats – that turns this song into a bitter gender tirade. Just imagine a male star reaching platinum for crooning, Before She Aborts.

For years women’s libbers have reviled misogynist societies that disrespect women. And they have a point. But why haven’t we given equal consideration to the other side of the coin – persons who evince contempt and distain for men – and then pretend it’s a joke.

The problem of misandry has reached the point of commanding scholarly attention. McGill University professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young have published two books that reveal male-bashing has become commonplace.

Their first book, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, examines books, TV shows, movies, greeting cards, commercials, and even comic strips.

Remember Steven Speilberg’s acclaimed movie, The Color Purple? When the movie didn’t win an Academy Award, critics cried “racism!” But how many people objected to, or even noticed the fact that all the male characters were depicted as stupid buffoons or evil tyrants?

Thoroughly documented and persuasively argued, Spreading Misandry sardonically concludes that “men are society’s official scapegoats and [should be] held responsible for all evil, including that done by the women they have deluded or intimidated.”

Last year Nathanson and Young released their second book, Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systematic Discrimination Against Men. Even bolder than their first treatment, they reveal how ideological feminists capitalize on contempt for men to reshape the law in the areas of employment, marriage, divorce, custody, sexual harassment, violence, and human rights.

It’s one thing to peruse a scholarly analysis of gender contempt. It’s quite another to experience it up close and personal, like a bare-knuckled fist shoved into the gut.

That happened last week. I came across an article that announced, “The Spirituality of Moms Outpaces that of Dads.” Based on research by a California-based new-age outfit called The Barna Group, the article purports to show that compared to women, men are spiritual dwarfs. [www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=270 ]

That’s right, a couple hundred years ago we were debating whether American Indians had souls. Now, it seems the spirituality of men is being called into question.

Over the last decade, we’ve watched as our churches have fallen captive to female bonding rituals, Aphrodite worship, and revisionist versions of the Ten Commandments that begin, “Adore me, the Mother. Know that I, the Mother, am immanent and transcendent.”

I’ve seen this with my own eyes, and worse.

And no surprise, men are leaving the church in droves. And now along comes the Barna Group that pompously informs us that “Men generally lag behind the spirituality of women.” Want proof? Because in a typical week, “mothers are more likely than fathers to attend church.”

Girls, how’s that for a plan – we’ll feminize the church, send the men packing, and then proclaim our moral superiority!

So Gents, switch off the mute button while I indulge in a few moments of unedited indignation. (Ladies, you’re welcome to come along for the ride.)

When you were young and a schoolyard bully insulted your courage and strength, did you turn tail and hide behind your teacher’s skirts? Presumably you confronted the tormenter and told him to lay off, in no uncertain terms – right?

Then why are you allowing ideological bullies who spout feminist mantras to kick you around? Why do you shrug your shoulders when a California guru who purports to “facilitate the spiritual transformation of America” does a shame and blame number on you?

So send an e-mail to director George Barna. Or call him at 805-658-8885. Get it off your chest. Do it today. (Ladies, you’re welcome to protest this moral hubris, as well.)

I guarantee you’ll recapture some of that warrior spirit. And before long we’ll turn around this torrent of misandry.

© 2007 Carey Roberts

See Books, Issues



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