In Norway, a woman's place is in the boardroom

01.20.06 (10:35 pm)   [edit]
In Norway, a woman's place is in the boardroom Firms must introduce female directors or face closure under a new law Gwladys Fouché in Oslo and Jill Treanor Monday January 9, 2006 The Guardian The 500 companies listed on Norway's stock exchange face being shut down unless they install women on their boards over the next two years in a radical initiative imposed by a government determined to help women break through the "glass ceiling". After a week in which the Equal Opportunities Commission in Britain has warned that it would take 40 years for women to break into the ranks of the FTSE 100 in the same way as men, Norwegian companies face a two-year deadline to ensure that women hold 40% of the seats of each company listed on the Oslo bourse. New companies have to comply now with the rules and the government is considering extending the law to family-owned companies as well. The requirement came into effect at the start of this year after companies were given two years to embrace the demands voluntarily following the passing of the law in 2003. State-owned companies are already obliged to comply and now have 45% female representation on their boards. The failure of companies to act - about half of the companies on the stock market are estimated to have no women on their boards - has prompted the Norwegian equality minister, Karita Bekkemellem, to take the draconian step of threatening firms with closure. "From January 1 2006, I want to put in place a system of sanctions that will allow the closure of firms," she said. "I do not want to wait another 20 or 30 years for men with enough intelligence to finally appoint women. "More than half of the people who have a business education today are women. It is wrong for companies not to use them. They should be represented." It is a cry that is familiar to organisations such as Britain's Equal Opportunities Commission, which are trying to promote the elevation of women to boardrooms in Britain. The EOC's report last week, Sex and Power, found that women make up only 11% of directors in FTSE 100 companies and painted a bleak picture for the prospects of much improvement. The British government tried to tackle the problem after a report into boardroom behaviour by the City grandee Sir Derek Higgs highlighted the "pale male" phenomenon in companies. There was an attempt to draw up a list of 100 women who might be candidates for boards, though Laura D'Andrea Tyson, an academic and former adviser to President Clinton who was charged with finding candidates, decided in the end that such a list was unnecessary. Norway's imposition of quotas seems unlikely to be embraced by Britain. The few women who have reached senior roles in British firms appear to oppose a target system. Deanna Oppenheimer, the American banker recently appointed to run Barclays' branch network, says: "In my experience, mixed teams, mixed by gender, ethnic background, by age and experience, perform better than homogeneous teams." The banking industry - traditionally a bastion of domineering male managers - is one area of British business where women are in senior roles. Ms Oppenheimer is the second American woman named to run a British branch network. Terri Dial has joined the board of Lloyds TSB to run its UK retail operation and is one of two women holding executive positions on the Lloyds board, where Helen Weir is finance director. Ms Weir wonders whether her job - a profession requiring number-crunching - makes it easier for women to achieve a senior role. However, she is a reluctant role model for women eager to progress in business, partly because of the work-life sacrifices required. "The trade-offs I make won't necessarily work for everyone else," she says, adding that 90% of her time is divided between work and her three children with the remaining 10% fought over between her husband, friends and herself. Ms Oppenheimer acts as a mentor for men and women and believes women need to be "very articulate, to form points well" and should work in environments that "value performance" if they want to get on. Like Ms Weir, Ms Oppenheimer, who has moved her two children to Britain, thinks a supportive home background is crucial. "I have two children and have a career," she says. "You need a support structure ... a husband who is involved." In Norway, women have been very successful in reaching top positions outside business. In politics, for instance, a third of the country's MPs are women and nine of the 19 cabinet ministers are women. In Britain, 20% of MPs are women and the Equal Opportunities Commission has warned that it could take another 40 elections for equality with men to be reached. The near-equality of Norwegian women in politics might explain the determination to tackle under-representation in business, where 16% of company directors are women. The law being implemented was the brainchild of the former businessman Ansgar Gabrielsen, a trade and industry minister in the former government. "The law was not about getting equality between the sexes; it was about the fact that diversity is a value in itself, that it creates wealth. From my time in the business world, I saw how board members were picked: they come from the same small circle of people. They go hunting and fishing together, they are buddies," he said. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Norwegian business community is opposed to the government's attempts to interrupt the status quo. Businesses would prefer a more flexible approach, such as organising networking events where companies can meet potential candidates. The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) has a database of 400 women and claims that a quarter of them have been offered management or board positions. Sigrun Vaageng, of the NHO, said: "The punishment is completely disproportionate ... It is far too harsh to close a company just because it lacks one woman." She doubts whether the government will carry out its threat. "It is science fiction to think that the government is going to shut down a company that employs thousands of people over this," she said. Some companies are completely opposed to the law and are waiting to see if the government will use the sanctions, according to Marit Hoel, head of the Centre for Corporate Diversity. But Ms Bekkemellem, the equality minister, seems convinced that firms will not risk it. "Are there companies that will risk closure just because they lack one woman? They have another two years to fix the situation," she warns.

Phyllis Schlafly

01.20.06 (9:01 pm)   [edit]
Phyllis Schlafly and New Politics of Family by Stephen Baskerville Posted Jan 17, 2006 If an icon exists in the conservative world, it is Phyllis Schlafly. The Washington Times recently described her as "arguably the most important woman in American political history," and a biography by historian Donald Critchlow offers a similar assessment. Few individuals can claim to have defeated, almost single-handedly, a measure as momentous and potentially destructive as a proposed constitutional amendment like the Equal Rights Amendment. And she did it in the face of not only a massive leftist lobbying campaign but of capitulation by conservative Republican politicians. Today we are faced with an equally dangerous threat, if not a greater one. Sadly, we seem to have learned little, and Mrs. Schlafly once again stands almost alone in prophetic opposition to forces arrayed against the family, social order, freedom, and quite possibly American civilization. Once again it is a challenge to which our leaders are conspicuously failing to rise. Mrs. Schlafly has challenged a massive abuse of the Constitution that most on the right ignore: the forced, systematic destruction of families and of parents’ rights in the nation’s family courts. This involves much more than "gender bias" against fathers in custody disputes. It represents the logical culmination of what many see as the "totalitarian" tendencies of organized feminism but which few fully understand or confront. "No evidence exists that nearly half of American children were voluntarily abandoned by their own fathers," she writes. "Feminist organizations and writers have propagated the myth that women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society and that marriage is an inherently abusive institution…. Feminists made divorce a major component of women's liberation." What we are seeing here is feminism’s attack on those who literally embody the hated "patriarchy": fathers. It is a direct assault on the family at its most vulnerable point. It has already torn apart families by the millions, and unchecked it will destroy the family altogether –- much more quickly and thoroughly than pornography or television or same-sex marriage. Yet even today, Phyllis Schlafly again meets resistance –- and not only from the left. Perplexing as it may seem, some conservative politicians have been infected with poisonous feminist propaganda and mouth the vapid platitudes of the left. They have accepted the lie of the evil male and the supposed necessity for massive government action against him. It is a brilliant ploy. The stock feminist platform on abortion, employment, and affirmative action commands little support today. So feminists have switched tactics and begun posing as damsels in distress in need of rescue by chivalrous male politicians from brutal, "uncaring" and "insensitive" men. Feminists now pose as defenders of motherhood, and their weapons are children. But the aim is not to strengthen motherhood and the family but to turn them over to the care of government. "The feminists…want to thoroughly politicize the last bastion of personal life in our society: families," writes columnist Wendy McElroy. "They want to wrest motherhood from its traditional right-wing associations and make it a left/liberal issue, with 'Mothers Are Victims' writ-large on its banner." These feminists argue "for government to 'economically recognize' motherhood so that women will not be dependent upon husbands." Government replaces the father and the husband. Some conservative politicians find this difficult to resist. To avoid political risk, they posture as champions of families and "women and children" by demanding measures against "domestic violence" and "deadbeat dads," even when no scientific data indicate that these problems are anything other than creations of the government. "There is a deafening silence from conservatives who pretend to be guardians against federal takeovers of problems that are none of the federal government's business," writes Mrs. Schlafly. What these programs do in fact is destroy families and create the very problems they claim to be solving. The first and easiest step in dissolving the family is to remove the fathers. Mothers then follow, and children become the property of the state. Thus conservative politicians become the unwitting tools of feminist ideologues in their campaign to create a collectivism more total than even Marx envisioned, one approaching the human hatcheries of Brave New World. This is precisely how extremist movements move from the margins to the mainstream and eventually seize power: not by defeating their opposition head-on but by making an end run around it, by disguising themselves in the values of the mainstream, by claiming to champion traditional values that in reality they are hijacking and perverting. This is precisely what feminism is now doing. Phyllis Schlafly stands almost alone today among eminent public figures in warning against the feminist-judicial machine. She is calling for a re-evaluation of "no-fault" divorce, for the role and rights of fathers to be respected equally with those of mothers, and for shared parenting laws to discourage the use of children as weapons. "It's time to stop spending any more taxpayers' money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children." We stand at a crossroads of inestimable importance. We can listen to the prophets of Baal who tell us, as they have told us before, that government must control our lives for the collective good or because of some newly imagined danger or unfairness. Or we can listen to Phyllis Schlafly, who long ago warned of the very evils that are now unfolding before our eyes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Carey Roberts

01.20.06 (9:00 pm)   [edit]
Double-standard treatment for child abusers by Carey Roberts 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. 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.'" [] 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.'" [] 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. Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to, he has published in The Washington Times,,, Men's News Daily,, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report. Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant. Carey Roberts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carey Roberts is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.

Why Men Avoid Commitment

09.14.05 (11:25 pm)   [edit]
Why Men Avoid Commitment

September 9, 2005

by Marc H. Rudov

In the past few months, I’ve encountered several single women who
registered this common complaint about the men they’ve been dating: I just
can’t find a man who wants to commit. To compound this chorus of woe is the
recent rash of books and articles about why men can’t commit, don’t commit,
or won’t commit to women. One would think, by seeing these literary titles,
that men are socially inept, irreparably ambivalent, and emotionally
stunted cavemen.
There’s a simple explanation for drawing such a dour conclusion: The
overbearing feminist movement in our country—supported by the liberal
media, spineless federal and state legislators, and a Napoleonic
judicial/law-enforcement system that presumes men guilty before proven
innocent—has made it socially acceptable to bash males. Does TV show
Everybody Loves Raymond, in which the star character is portrayed as an
idiot father, come to mind? No? How about T-shirts encouraging girls to
throw rocks at boys? Ring a bell? How about Verizon’s insulting TV
commercial showing fathers as incapable of helping their kids with
homework? Still not convinced? Perhaps the pending legal case in Chicago
where a woman secretly impregnated herself with sperm she received through
oral sex, then successfully sued the unwitting sperm owner for paternity?
Shocked, aren’t you? Finally, let’s not ignore the countless incidents of
vindictive women making false 911 calls to get their boyfriends and
husbands arrested and thrown into jail. If you find nothing disturbing
about the aforementioned examples, you are uninformed, apathetic,
desensitized, or part of the problem.
Take a gander at the social pages of any newspaper, and you’ll see that
plenty of men are getting engaged and married—to women. It is true, though,
that some men avoid commitment—not the simplistic can’t or won’t or don’t
that dejected women will decry. Why is that? Anticipated pain. It’s that
simple. A man who avoids commitment foresees a lot of pain. Tony Robbins,
widely regarded as the world’s number-one success coach, teaches us that,
in general, people will do more to avoid pain than to seek pleasure. This
is true about every aspect of life, and it is especially true about
relationships. Consequently, although a man believes that a particular
woman—or, based on his past experiences, women in general—will bring him
pleasure, he believes the anticipated pain will exceed that pleasure. Such
a man will want no part of commitment.
Frequently, a woman will presume that a man’s commitment avoidance is a
general intimacy problem, rather than accept the painful truth: he doesn’t
want to commit to HER. So, if a woman becomes involved with a man who won’t
commit to her, it’s her fault. Why? It’s very easy to determine his desire
to commit by asking him, at their first meeting, what kinds of
relationships he’s had and what kind he wants now. More important: she
should listen to his answer! Too often, he will tell her he just wants to
date casually, but she will assume she can change him. Lunacy. Whether he
doesn’t want to commit to her, or to anybody, is irrelevant: he doesn’t
want to commit. So, if a woman fails to discern and accept his answer,
BEFORE getting emotionally attached to him, shame on her.
At a natural level, there is no difference between the propensity of men
and women to commit—one of the great myths is that women are more
relationship-oriented than men. This is total nonsense: Men, just as much
as women, want to be in healthy, happy relationships. Besides, I’ve met and
received letters from many women who fear or don’t like commitment. The
difference, and the reason for this article, is that men face societal and
legal hurdles, nonsense, and penalties that women do not. And, these
hurdles, nonsense, and penalties are the key reasons men avoid commitment.
Three Categories of Relationships
To illustrate how the prospect of dating and marrying women looks to men, I
have created a model, called The Man’s Relationship Ecosystem TM, in which
I graphically depict the social and legal landmarks of male/female
relationships. There are three categories of the way a man can relate to a
woman (see diagram below). I present them in order of increasing
*     Uncommitted: bachelor (no commitment)
*     Committed: Unmarried (informal commitment)
*     Committed: Married (formal commitment)      

Each relationship category is composed of building blocks, which sit
stacked on the Earth. The bachelor doesn’t get involved with women, so no
friends & community or extended family enters the equation. He does use the
part of the relationship contract that governs how he and his woman, even
on one date, will navigate logistics, sex, and money. If, however, an
encounter with a woman results in a child, the state’s imposed legal
contract immediately kicks in. And, make no mistake: the woman and the
state control this legal contract. Remember this: whether a woman lies
about her fertility or use of birth control, the state does not care.
Imagine that every one of your sperm cells holds a fountain pen in its
hand. The moment one of them unites with an egg, it signs the state’s
contract. The woman decides whether or not to enforce it. Should she do so,
it will endure at least 18 years, maybe 23, depending on the state.
The man in the committed/unmarried category experiences all levels of the
stack. He is either seeing his woman all of the time from a separate
residence or is cohabiting with her. The relationship contract is a
continuously evolving, mutually created set of rules for navigating the
details of everyday life—sex, money, socializing, friends, household
chores, religious practices, schedules, family issues, etc. It endures only
as long as the romantic relationship lasts. As before, if this union
produces a child, that state-imposed legal contract kicks in. Also, if the
parties live together long enough to invest and spend from commingled
funds, the state-imposed contract may govern the disposition of assets at
the termination of the relationship. This is a nebulous area of the law,
but if the parties cannot agree to terms themselves, and one party brings a
legal action against the other, the legal contract dictates the terms.
In the committed/married category, the man, once again, experiences all
levels of the stack, with the added legitimacy that a marriage license and
wedding ceremony bestow. If the marriage fails, all that remains is the
legal contract. In this category, the law is quite clear about what happens
at divorce. The legal contract governs the disposition of assets, income,
debts, spousal and child support, and child-custody and child-visitation
guidelines. With a 50% divorce rate, ignoring the ramifications of this
powerful contract is dangerous behavior. That is why the man and woman
should sign a prenuptial agreement, which is their agreement, signed when
they get along, and not be straddled with one imposed by the state.
The Toxic Bedrock
Solidly embedded in the soil of The Man’s Relationship Ecosystem is a layer
of toxic bedrock (see diagram above), which has the potential to
contaminate every relationship a man has with a woman. Because of this
toxic bedrock, women have more power and legal protections than men do. The
man, therefore, must rely on the goodness, honesty, and stability of each
woman for his well-being. This toxic bedrock contains two, interlinked
1.     Napoleonic legislative/judicial/law-enforcement bias against men
(guilty until proven innocent) in domestic-violence cases and in many
divorce and child-custody cases. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of
1994—thank you, OJ—defines domestic-violence cases and dictates how they
are prosecuted. In general, VAWA’s premise is: woman good, man bad. Here
are two examples:

Lisa Scott, family-law attorney in Bellevue, WA, and founding member of
Taking Action Against Bias in the System, opines:
          “VAWA was based on lies and distortions about the true
extent of intimate-partner violence, yet it continues to be funded at
astounding levels. Feminist groups, led by the domestic-violence ‘scream
queens,’ tout hysterical claims such as ‘the leading cause of
emergency-room visits by women is domestic violence,’ and ‘95 per cent of
victims of domestic violence are women.’ Ten years of VAWA has resulted in
the wholesale criminalization of being a man. VAWA didn't originate this
nightmarish system, but it legitimizes and subsidizes it.
          In today's domestic-violence police state, it's expected
the woman is the victim. All she has to do is call 911 and report that her
husband assaulted her. In many cases, she conveniently fails to mention she
slapped, punched, kicked, or pummeled him to the point that he pushed her
away. As a family-law attorney for 17 years, I have experienced the DV
system personally.
          To some, the solution is a gender-neutral law, such as
‘Violence Against Persons Act.’ Even without overt gender bias, federal
intrusion into local domestic-violence policies is corrupting. It nourishes
a gargantuan beast and ensures a massive stream of taxpayer dollars
creating endless constituent groups lining up to feed at the federal
          Greg Schmidt, a Seattle police lieutenant who, in 1994,
created the department’s Domestic Violence Investigation Unit, said:
          “The domestic-violence industry—the trainers, the shelter
directors, etc.—can spin things however they want, but most street cops
know that women are just as likely to start domestic disputes as men are.
But, arresting women puts you under lot of scrutiny. It's bad for your
2.     Liberal, anti-male media: systematically treat men as moronic oafs.
Men are constantly portrayed in TV shows and commercials, and movies as
unable to help kids with homework, do household chores, or relate to women.

An example: On Everybody Loves Raymond, an extremely funny, now-in-reruns
TV series, I watched three shows in a two-week span in which “smart wife”
Deborah (Patricia Heaton) hit “dumb husband” Raymond (Ray Romano)—in the
testicles, in the eye, and in the stomach. Funny, huh? I’ve seen mother
Marie (played by Doris Roberts) hit father Frank (played by Peter Boyle)
numerous times, usually in the arm. Marie is considered smart, although a
hot-tempered buttinsky, but Frank, an irascible character, is considered
stupid. “Smart woman, stupid man” is considered socially acceptable. Women
physically abusing men is also considered socially acceptable. Had the
roles been reversed—smart men, stupid women, or men hitting women—the show
would have been shut down after two episodes. Instead, its stars won many
Emmys, and Ray Romano, at $2.8M per episode, holds the record as the
highest-paid entertainer in TV history.
The Essence of the Relationship Contract
As I point out in my book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to
Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth, we men love to be with women because of
their ability to soothe us and share intimacy. Fair-minded, intelligent,
talented, dinner-buying, men-loving women are so much fun and
irreplaceable. Their opposite sisters, though, are not. In my book, I also
admonish men to stop tolerating women’s double standards and attitudes of
What to accept and not accept, and what to give and not give comprise the
essence of the relationship contract: how men and women negotiate the rules
of daily living. This, of course, is a nonenforceable, innocuous contract
that lives only as long as the relationship has a pulse.
So, in what situations do men dislike the relationship contract? When women
demand double standards. Some women just don’t get this concept. They want
double standards. They want chivalry, that one-way offering of special,
gender-based, deferential treatment. Chivalry is benevolent sexism, or BS,
tendered in exchange for sex with a woman deemed unworthy of a peer
relationship. The more BS a woman wants, the less a man respects her. When
a man cannot consider a woman his peer, he has trouble committing to her.
He may commit verbally, but not in his heart of hearts—which is not a true
commitment. So, in many such situations, he will avoid commitment.
Here is a pithy example of one woman’s idea of a relationship contract. She
shamelessly acknowledged in this letter to me her attitude of entitlement.
The reason I reproduced it here is that many women never get to see what
some of their sisters are really like. If this letter doesn’t educate you,
nothing will:
“I think that there is a lot of merit to what you say, but I doubt very
much that there are a lot of woman out there who would welcome your concept
of how the male/female relationship should develop. I agree that the woman
wants it all—she wants to be wined and dined by her man, and yet she wants
an equal partnership. I am not saying that it is fair or rational, but I
will say that you are not going to get women to change how they feel, and
you certainly are not going to change the deeply ingrained emotions women
attach to such treatment.
I believe that equality does not have to come by a shared monetary
relationship but only in a shared level of "power." Power comes in many
forms, and I don't believe for a moment that it is all about who picks up
the bill at the end of the night. I will grant you that power can come from
who picks up the bill, but it is not a given. Nor do I believe that the
reverse is true, that a woman always uses sex as her 'power' card. I think
that your concepts are stereotypical, but your suggestions for equality are
not the only answer.
I will use myself as the example because, although I could be fooling
myself, and you may shoot holes in how I see my relationships, I think that
I do not follow your recipe for equal partnership. But I do follow mine: it
is all about who has the power. For you, the one who spends the money has
the power, and, for me, that is not necessarily the answer.
Even though wealth is a relative term, I think it is fair to say I am a
wealthy woman. I am also a very fit, energetic, high-spirited, open, and
straightforward female. I was married for 26 years, had a wonderful
marriage and two great boys who are now out of the house, and in a position
today to do whatever I want, where and when I want—because their father
takes care of every financial need that comes along. Because I already had
a life that I loved, I am not really looking to jump back into another
marriage, even though I am happy to be in a committed relationship. I
should also mention that I am a very sexual woman, and I never use that as
part of my power.
My point is that my life, and what I am looking for, is a very hard act to
follow for most men I date. I bring a lot to the table, and a man must
bring a lot to the table for me to stay interested. He has to be able to
maintain a certain lifestyle, must be athletic, must have enough of the "A"
personality to be driven professionally and physically, must be intelligent
and emotionally intelligent, and has to be good in bed (or at least willing
and able to become good in bed).
The men I date must be able to wine and dine me, but they do not have to be
able to support me and my lifestyle—beyond the wining, dining, and
occasional gifts and trips. That is not to say that I don't do a lot of
gifts and extracurricular buying, such as tickets to plays and concerts.
So, at the end of the day, I certainly hold my own, but I still want a man,
at the end of the night, to be pulling out his credit card vs. mine.
I won homes in Aspen and New Jersey and am very generous on many levels.
So, although I don't need a man to be able to help me out financially, I
still enjoy a man to do that, and I know that, for you, that is the messed
up part (or certainly one of them) of a woman. But, if you are talking
about "power," for me money doesn't give men power, but it keeps them in
the game. If he doesn't have the ability to do that, he holds no power as
far as I am concerned.
That I don't need the man's money and am as independent as I am gives me
the power—even though I still like a man who can afford to pay for dinner,
etc. I think that a man only holds the power over a woman when she NEEDS
the man to help support her or needs him to make her life better
financially. In that scenario, a woman puts up with things and makes
allowances for men, because she needs what the man brings to the table.
Basically, it is the same as when a man dates a woman half his age. He
wants that and therefore is willing to make allowances. For me, it is more
what I am used to and what makes me feel good. And, for the men I am
dating, they are trying to be able to do what I need.”
Any female reading this, who still doesn’t understand why double standards
cause a man to avoid commitment, should try an experiment: reread it while
looking in the mirror, trying to keep a straight face. In this case,
commitment would be the last thought on a man’s mind. Running away from
her, as fast as he can, would be his first thought. After meeting a woman
like this letter-writer, any man who actually gets involved with her is a
Excluding the fear of intimacy and psychological hangups—assuming a guy is
healthy, centered, and generally ready, willing, and able to enter a
relationship—there are three reasons a man avoids commitment: 1) an
unpalatable relationship contract, 2) the toxic bedrock, and 3) the
anti-male legal contract. If women want to create incentives for men to
commit, they can fix the three reasons men avoid commitment. Otherwise,
they should stop complaining.
I recommend the following actions to women:
*     Become a no-nonsense woman. Lose the attitude of entitlement.
Remove one-way chivalry from your vocabulary and replace it with two-way
romance. Make the relationship contract easy and enjoyable.
*     Get radio stations, TV networks and stations, newspapers,
magazines, and advertisers to stop their negative portrayals of men. Also,
demand that your state and federal legislators vote against VAWA 2005 and
change it to the Violence Against Persons Act (VAPA), eliminating the
anti-male bias in domestic-violence cases.
*     Stop using family courts as weapons against men . Take
responsibility for your actions and inactions. Don’t use the courts’
anti-male biases to your advantage. Take your lumps like a man.
Marc H. Rudov

Copyright © 2005 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in
Silicon Valley, California. He is the author of the book The Man’s
No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth TM
(ISBN 0974501719) and eight other articles:
*     “Five Myths About Women”
*     “The Golden Rule Dictates Your Sex Life”
*     “How Every Man Can Land His Dream Woman”
*     “Can Men and Women Really Get Along?”
*     “Did Your Make Your New Year’s Revolution?”
*     “Romance Lessons from Tsunami Animals”
*     “Why Men Dread Valentine’s Day”
*     “Cellular Compatibility & Great Sex.”
Rudov’s book, articles, and dating service are available at <>;
Gérard Pierre LEVESQUE

Military service

09.06.05 (3:08 am)   [edit]
Dad Survives War But Loses Son in Court

“You want to make a soldier cry, you take his son away,” said Army National Guard Spc. Joe McNeilly of Grand Ledge, Michigan. “It’s devastating.”

Spc. McNeilly provided shared physical custody of his son for five years prior to his deployment, one week on, one week off. Then he was sent to Iraq in January, 2004 for fifteen months. While deployed, McNeilly agreed to give the boys’ mother temporary full custody until he returned from duty. But upon return, the court referee recommended against restoring shared physical custody. Instead, McNeilly’s boy was restricted to every other weekend and a few holidays with his dad.

With reasoning worthy of the Brave New World, Director Don Reisig of the Ingham County Friend of the Court denied that the recommendation had anything to do with McNeilly’s military service. “The fact that he was called up to defend his country makes no difference,” said Reisig. Rather, it was because the mother was the “day-to-day caretaker and decision maker in the child’s life” while McNeilly was overseas.


Based on this incisive thinking, we can conclude that when married fathers return from Iraq, they should have no role in raising their children, since they were absent from day-to-day decision making while deployed.


BTW, one of the most important things that you can do as a member of this e-list is get other people to join. If you think of anyone who would enjoy or benefit from receiving our e-mails, please click on the link below that says "forward email."

Best Regards,

Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Fathers & Families


09.06.05 (2:38 am)   [edit]
Marriage Movement At The Crossroads

September 5, 2005

by Carey Roberts

The Marriage Movement recently got hit with some dispiriting news. The U.S. Census Bureau just released a report showing that for the first time, American single-adult households now outnumber traditional Ozzie and Harriet families.

The Census Bureau report comes along at the same time of new evidence that fatherhood still continues under attack. Just view the promos for NBC’s latest reality show, “Meet Mister Mom.” Or read the loony opinion handed down last week by the California Supreme Court which concludes, “We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women.”

Now persons from both sides of the aisle are insisting that if we hope to save families, we need to rally around fathers.

On the Right, critiques of how government welfare programs worsen the plight of fathers have appeared in the American Conservative, National Review Online, and elsewhere. Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly has penned several hard-hitting commentaries. And just last week Rachel Alexander, co-editor of the Intellectual Conservative website, released a column with the provocative title, “Child Custody: Where Men Hit a Glass Ceiling.”

On the Left, former Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton spoke at last summer’s legislative conference of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, urging them to pay far more attention to the plight of young urban black men. And earlier this month Washington Post columnist William Raspberry devoted his weekly column to the issue, complaining that “Fatherless families are America’s single largest source of poverty.”

But there is one voice that is conspicuously absent in the campaign to save fatherhood – the Marriage Movement. Sadly and inexplicably, the Marriage Movement has largely turned its back on men.

Yes, there are a few exceptions, such as last year’s excellent report from the Rutgers National Marriage Project which probed why many men are reluctant to marry. And some marriage enrichment programs like the Secrets of Married Men are sympathetic to the challenges faced by guys. []

But there is a segment of the Marriage Movement that is all too quick to lapse into the habit of pigeon-holing and reviling men. Those images focus on two salacious gender stereotypes: men as abusers and sexual predators.

The findings from social science research are as consistent as they are incontrovertible: women are just as likely to engage in domestic violence as men, and men suffer one-third of all DV-related injuries. []

But some marriage advocates blissfully ignore that fact. The webpage of one well-known marriage group,, features a section on domestic violence. The section features a report with the tabloid title, “MEN EXPLODE: A Special Report on Men and Rage.”

Likewise, a report from a major conservative think tank concludes, “Marriage dramatically reduces the risk that mothers will suffer from domestic abuse.” []

That statement misleads. A reasonable conclusion would have read, “Marriage dramatically reduces the risk that both mothers and fathers will suffer from domestic abuse.”

Another persistent stereotype is the male as the ever-lurking sexual predator. A quick run to the local mall reveals hordes of scantily-clad young females who are aggressively advertising their sexual charms. But when the subject turns to cohabitation, marriage advocates feel compelled to fall back on the old motif of male aggressors who ravish innocent virgins.

For example, University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite published an article on “The Negative Effects of Cohabitation.” But the article’s summary mentions only the negative impact on women. Does Dr. Waite really believe that in the case of an unexpected pregnancy, 18 years of child support payments is a mere trifling matter to the dad?

What is more regrettable is that some in the Marriage Movement are openly dismissive of men and fathers.

One such leader has written columns that resemble a radical feminist manifesto more than a thoughtful reflection on how to shore up the faltering family. Another has repeatedly – and incorrectly -- claimed that the main cause of fatherlessness is paternal “abandonment.”

There is no more important cause in America today than strengthening traditional families. And as its advocates are quick to point out, marriage consists of the union of one man and one woman.

But if the Marriage Movement intends to reverse the disquieting trends from the recent Census Bureau report, it will need to start paying attention to the legitimate concerns of single men, husbands, and fathers.

Carey Roberts

Why men avoid commitment

09.05.05 (8:32 am)   [edit]

Author Rudov Explains Why Men Avoid Commitment

Los Gatos, CA (PRWEB) August 18, 2005 -- Marc H. Rudov, author of The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth TM (ISBN 0974501719), has written a new, groundbreaking article called “Why Men Avoid Commitment.” Rudov wrote this article, available as a bonus to owners of his provocative book, to explain, once and for all, that the anti-male environment in this country is the real reason so many men avoid committing to women. Details about buying Rudov’s book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women, and getting his new article are available at

"Why Men Avoid Commitment" is a groundbreaking article, like nothing else available. It isn't about the irrational fears of men, as some psychologists claim. And, unlike what some books and articles would have you believe, this article does not attribute men’s commitment avoidance to fears about a loss of masculinity in relationships with women. Finally, it does not accuse men of being hopeless, emotionally stunted cavemen, as the movies and TV shows portray.

According to Author Rudov: “Many women are complaining these days that they can’t find men who will commit to them. They think it’s because men hunt and women nest. They think it’s because men are too immature. That’s total nonsense. These women just don't get it and are blaming the men, as usual. ‘Why Men Avoid Commitment’ authoritatively explains that men shun relationships because they dislike dealing with women's double standards; enduring hostile family courts; facing the Napoleonic, anti-male law-enforcement system; and being engulfed in a feminist-dominated society where male-bashing is socially acceptable. It’s time for society to hit the reset button on its views of men. Continuing in the current direction is taking all of us backwards. The time for change is now.”

Robert A. Fink, MD, FACS, neurosurgeon and founder of California Parents United, had this reaction to “Why Men Avoid Commitment”: “Excellent work. Rudov’s article should be required reading for any man contemplating an intimate relationship with a woman.” And, Ilene L. Dillon, MSW, author, psychotherapist, and coach, had this to say: “Marc Rudov has a very solid argument about the commitment avoidance of today’s man, and he’s articulating something that needs to be said.”

Rudov’s groundbreaking article is available as a bonus to those who submit proof of ownership of The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women. Specific instructions for doing so are at

Chivalrous men

09.03.05 (5:55 am)   [edit]




By Carey Roberts
August 25, 2005

I recently came across an article sporting the irresistible title, A Nation of Little Princesses. Author Christopher Healy explores the archetype of the princess, which he asserts “is one of the longest-lived in all of literary history.” [Read]

My first reaction was to think, “Here’s some Neanderthal guy trying to peddle outdated gender stereotypes.” But Healy points to the fact that the Disney Corporation has assembled a Princess brand consisting of eight animated film heroines including Cinderella, Snow White, Pocahontas, Belle of Beauty of the Beast, and others. In 2003 the Princess line racked up an astonishing $2.5 billion in sales, up from a mere $300 million in 2001.

And that’s just for starters. “We’ve gone beyond the dress-up and toys, and begun to look at the brand as a lifestyle, filling out all the other things girls need in life,” according to Mary Beech, Disney’s director of franchise management. Things girls need in life?

Healy, proud dad of a three-year-old girl, notes with an equal mix of astonishment and horror, “The ease and rapidity with which a princess obsession can take hold of a young girl’s psyche is mind-blowing.”

Eventually those little Jennifers and Bethanies grow up, go to college, and enroll in their first Women’s Studies course. There they learn that the kiss by their Prince Charming really represents non-consensual sexual assault, that Belle’s Beast is a closet bodice-ripper, and that the fable of the Princess talking to the Green Frog at the side of the well is an allegory of serial rape.

But the Women’s Studies gurus explain they can still make their dreams of tiaras and sequin-studded dresses come true: “Join the Sisterhood, and we’ll turn you into a real princess!”

According to the feminist fable, women were kept under heel for so many millennia that members of the fairer sex need to play “catch-up.” So now women should be the beneficiaries of an ever-expanding array of legal protections, government programs, commercial products, and lifestyle options. That’s the Victim-Princess Complex.

What princess who has just been betrayed by her Handsome Green Frog could resist that offer?

Before long these Wicked Witches of the North have cast a spell on their Little Pretties. These young women soon graduate from college believing that women are paid less for the same work, that women were routinely excluded from medical research, and a multitude of other tragedies that have befallen womankind. Victimization has become a mainstay of their self-identity.

It’s not just the feminist propaganda mill that endlessly replays the woman-as-victim mantra. Chivalrous men, acting out their fantasies of the White Knight in Shining Armor, are guilty as well.

Pick up a copy of your local newspaper and you will see articles – usually written by male reporters and columnists – that reinforce the notion of the downtrodden female. Accounts of women who are stressed-out, undervalued, and abused form the staple of daily news reporting.

Recently I attended a conference where a speaker blandly made the claim that 60 million women around the world had “disappeared.” He didn’t bother to offer any details or proof. And he certainly didn’t say anything about men who were never heard from again.

I imagine that catering to women’s insecurities makes these men feel gallant and proud. But chivalry is defined as being “considerate and courteous to women.” Slanting and distorting the truth – that’s chicanery, not chivalry.

Yet there’s a downside to the Princess-Victim Complex.

Myrna Blyth, former editor of Ladies Home Journal, reveals how women’s magazines turn female victimization into a hard sell for the latest beauty products or weight control program. Blyth decries how these magazines promote “narcissism as an advanced evolutionary stage of female liberation. Me, me, me, means you’re finally free, free, free.”

But the problem goes beyond self-absorbed narcissism.

In his Nation of Little Princesses article, Christopher Healy quotes a father who observes, “Well, that’s the magic of Disney: It’s addictive. It’s like crack for 5-year-olds.”


So the Victim-Princess Complex begins to resemble a dysfunctional habit in which the negative feelings of being a victim require ever-larger “fixes” for women to feel good about themselves. And those fixes come with a hefty price tag. Princesses “only find true happiness once they’re married off with royal expense accounts,” Healy laments.


These women are undoubtedly the most prosperous, pampered, and protected group in the history of the world. But they would still have you believe that women aren’t getting a fair shake.

What is the truth of feminism? A fairytale come true, or a royal deception that appeals to the most primitive instincts of men and women alike?

© 2005 Carey Roberts - All Rights Reserved

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts’ work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Besides serving as a regular contributor to, he has published in The Washington Times,,,, Men’s News Daily,, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

Roberts now works as an independent lecturer, writer, and consultant. E-Mail:

Science Daily

09.03.05 (5:52 am)   [edit]

It is notmen who are over reporting, but women who are under reporting, their sexualbehaviors.

Women’s Sexual Behaviors May Be Closer ToMen’s Than Previously Thought

Science Daily, (July 2, 2003)

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A newstudy suggests that men and women might not be as far apart in sexual behaviorsas previous research has shown.

In many surveys, men typically report engaging in sexat earlier age, more often, and with more sexual partners than do women.However, a new study shows that some reported gender differences might show up because womendon't always answer surveys honestly, but give answers they believe are expectedof them.

"Women are sensitive to social expectations fortheir sexual behavior and may be less than totally honest when asked abouttheir behavior in some survey conditions," said Terri Fisher, co-author ofthe study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State University'sMansfield campus.

In this study, the researchers asked men and womenabout their sexual attitudes and behaviors under several different testingconditions – including one in which the participants believed they wereconnected to a lie detector machine.

Women's answerswere closer to men's in some areas of sexual behavior when they thought liescould be detected. Men's answers didn't change as much as did women's underdifferent testing conditions.

"Before thestudy, we thought men would generally overreport their sexual behavior andwomen would underreport it under certain testing conditions," Fisher said."However, we found that women were more likely than men to have differentanswers depending on conditions when they were surveyed."

"Our results may reflect currently shiftinggender roles in which women don't feel as strong a need to meet certainexpectations about their sexual behavior."

Fisher conducted the study with Michele Alexander,assistant professor of psychology at the University of Maine. Their resultsappear in a recent issue of The Journal of Sex Research.

The study involved 201 unmarried, heterosexual collegestudents (96 men and 105 women) between the ages of 18 and 25. All theparticipants completed questionnaires that asked about their sexual attitudes,sexual experience and behavior, and the age at which they first had sexualintercourse.

The participants were split into three groups, basedon the different conditions under which they completed the questionnaires.

In one group, the researchers placed electrodes on theparticipants' hand, forearms and neck and the participants were told they werebeing attached to a polygraph (lie detector) machine. However, the polygraphwas an old model that didn't actually work. Although the participants filledout written questionnaires, they were told the polygraph was sensitive enoughto detect dishonesty even in written responses. The participants were leftalone in a room to answer their questionnaires.

A second group filled out the sex surveys alone in aroom and were told their answers would be completely anonymous.

In the third group, participants were led to believethat the researcher might view their responses and the researcher sat rightoutside the testing room with the door open.

In general, the researchers found that women whothought their answers might be seen by others tended to give answers that weremore socially acceptable than did women who thought they were connected to alie detector.

For example, women who thought their answers might beread reported an average of 2.6 sexual partners. But those who thought theywere monitored by a lie detector reported an average of 4.4 sexual partners.Women who were not attached to the lie detector, but who had privacy duringtesting, gave answers in the middle – an average of 3.4 sexual partners.

Men's answers didn't vary as widely. Men who thoughtthey were attached to a polygraph reported an average of 4.0 sexual partners,compared to 3.7 partners for those who thought their answers might be seen.

"Women appear to feel pressure to adhere to sexrole expectations that indicate women should be more relationship-oriented andshould avoid being seen as promiscuous," Fisher said.

Fisher said it is not entirely surprising that womenchanged their answers more than men.

"We live in a culture that really does expect adifferent pattern of sexual behavior from women than it does from men,"she said.

The study showed more differences between men andwomen in sexual attitudes than in sexual behavior. One reason that the studydidn't show more differences in behavior seems to be because the sexdifferences the researchers sought to explain aren't particularly stronganymore.

"Our results may reflect currently shiftinggender roles in which women don't feel as strong a need to meet certainexpectations about their sexual behavior," Fisher said.

However, the results show there are still genderdifferences and these differences need to be taken into account in a variety ofways, she said.

For example, many of the most widely respected sexsurveys are based on face-to-face interviews with participants. But these typesof interviews may lead women to give answers that they feel are more sociallydesirable, even if they are not completely honest. Having participants completewritten questionnaires anonymously may yield more honest results, Fisher said.

Also, medical professionals need to be aware of howwomen respond to questions about their sexuality.

"Based on these findings, a doctor may need toask female patients about their sexual behavior in different ways than theywould for male patients," she said.

This story has been adaptedfrom a news release issued by Ohio State University.

Feminism against science

09.01.05 (7:29 am)   [edit]
Feminism against science
Steven Goldberg
National Review, Nov 18, 1991 v43 n21 p30 (3)
Brief Summary: Feminist scholars have attempted in past years to use
Margaret Mead's work to justify sex-role reversibility. Even Mead stated
repeatedly that men have dominated societies as 'leaders in public affairs
and the final authorities at home.' Feminism seeks to impose its own
ideological interpretation.

IN 1935, when Margaret Mead published her Sex and Temperament in Three
Primitive Societies, the prevailing view was that the basic differences
between masculine and feminine behavior was owing to physiological
differences. In attempting to correct a view that was nearly as exaggerated
as the absurdly environmental explanation of sex differences that infuses
the social sciences today, Miss Mead exaggerated the degree to which one of
the societies she studied (the Tchambuli) associated what we would call the
masculine with women and the feminine with men.
Few social scientists bought this view. For example, Jesse Bernard, who
would have very much liked to be able to accept Miss Mead's conclusions,
pointed out that, if the reader ignored the adjectives, the Tchambuli did
not seem very different from other societies. "Effete" headhunters and
"comradely" women feeding their children are still male headhunters and
women feeding their children, and it is only the adjectives provided by
Margaret Mead that even begin to suggest otherwise.
In response to such criticism, Miss Mead wrote a famous letter to The
American Anthropologist in which she pointed out that
Nowhere do I suggest that I have found any material which disproves the
existence of sex differences. . . . This study was not concerned with
whether there are or are not actual and universal differences between the
sexes, either quantitative or qualitative.
Over the course of fifty years Miss Mead repeated her denial a hundred
times, in response to one or another claim that she had found a society
that reversed sex roles; in a review of my The Inevitability of Patriarchy,
she wrote:
It is true, as Professor Goldberg points out, that all the claims so glibly
made about societies ruled by women are non-sense. We have no reason to
believe that they ever existed. . . . Men have always been the leaders in
public affairs and the final authorities at home.
Finally, eight years ago I published--in the American Sociological
Association's journal of book reviews, perhaps the most-read journal in
sociology--a letter making all of the above points.
Now, one would think that all this would be sufficient to preclude even the
most ardent environmentalist's invoking Margaret Mead's study as evidence
of sex-role reversibility. And yet, a couple of years ago I went to Barnes
and Noble and located 38 introductory sociology books published in the few
preceding years. Of these 38, 36 began their sex-roles chapters with a
discussion of Miss Mead's work on the Tchambuli and how it demonstrates the
environmental nature of male and female behavior.
It is not clear how many of these 36 knowingly misrepresented the facts and
how many were incompetent as much as dishonest (uninformed cribbing from
other textbooks is near-standard procedure in introductory-textbook
writing). But it is clear why the textbooks misrepresent the evidence.
They, like the discipline whose work they represent, have an ideological
commitment to denying that masculine and feminine behaviors and emotions
are rooted in male and female physiologies and that all social systems
conform to the limits imposed by this reality.
My point here is merely that no case can be made for Miss Mead's having
even claimed to have demonstrated that the Tchambuli refute that
explanation. Yet 36 of 38 introductory sociology textbooks state it as
Ideology for Truth
ONE MIGHT think that this sort of substitution of ideology for truth, while
rampant in the social sciences, could not possibly threaten the physical
sciences. One would, as Margarita Levin demonstrates so stunningly in a
recent American Scholar, be wrong.
Mrs. Levin gives examples of accepted scientific findings whose putative
male biases are seen by feminists as requiring "reconceptualization":
["Feminist scientists"] see male dominance at work in, for instance, the
"master molecule" theory of DNA functioning; in the notion of forces
"acting on" objects; in the description of evolution as the result of a
"struggle" to survive; in the view that scarcity of resources results in
"competition" between animals--in short in any theory positing what they
deem destructive, violent, uni-directional, or hierarchical. . . . The idea
of dominance is directly linked to the notion of scientific objectivity,
which . . . is understood as "distancing oneself" from nature.
Let us ignore the fact that, as Mrs. Levin points out, there is an equal
number of scientific models that can be viewed as feminine: symbiosis,
feedback, catalysis, mutual attraction and the like. Much more destructive
to the feminist objection is the fact that these, like all successful
scientific conceptions, are held because they accurately explain nature;
they demonstrate their correctness by making correct predictions. In other
words, they work.
Because it is their success that validates accepted scientific
explanations, it would not matter even if it were true that (as one
feminist claims) our acceptance of the concept of inertial motion is rooted
in capitalism's need for the movement of money, or if it were true (as
another claims) that the replacement of a Ptolemaic system by a Copernican
system was a victory of the masculine over the feminine (because the
Ptolemaic earth-centered system is "feminine"). Mrs. Levin asks the
question that in one sentence trumps all the volumes of the feminist
critics: "Do they think we have a choice?"
We don't, of course. We believe in inertial motion because we find that,
ceteris paribus, objects in space keep moving along at an unchanging speed
and that inertial motion is our best explanation of why. We believe that
the earth goes around the sun not because this is the macho way of seeing
things, but because the earth does (speaking a bit loosely) go around the
Moreover, motives for and functions of a claim are irrelevant to the
truthfulness of the claim. Thus, the failure of "feminist science" (and
"feminist models") is not that it serves psychological, political and
social impulses and purposes. The failure of "feminist science" is that it
does nothing more than this; it does not explain anything. If it did, or if
it demonstrated a logical flaw or failure of prediction in models invoking
inertial motion or heliocentrism or anything else--if it were capable of
doing anything that cast doubt on any scientific conclusion--then it would
be worth taking seriously. Failing utterly to achieve this, "feminist
scientists" attempt to cast doubt on accepted scientific explanations
through endless discussions of "male paradigms." Such discussions tend to
be potpourris of irrelevant facts and misconceptions that have nothing to
do with any empirical question; they fool only the nonscientist, who sees
impressive-looking scientific references and incorrectly assumes that these
necessarily indicate that the person invoking them knows what he or she is
talking about.
It is not merely wish and ideology, however that lead feminist science to
such muddled thought; there is a tradition, embodied in semiotics,
hermeneutics and certain forms of phenomenology that feminist science is
reflecting (or perverting, depending on one's assessment of the tradition).
This tradition tends to deny that there is such a thing as truth and to see
perceived truths as merely shared cultural meanings that could, with proper
redefinition, be converted to their opposites. It tends to deny underlying
realities that set limits on what may be perceived as truth.
Whatever the virtues of this tradition in the humanities, its
fallaciousness in the sciences is, or should be, too obvious to mention.
Science leaves far less room for differing views of truth: someone who
believes that gravity is such that when he lets go of a bowling ball it
will float gently upward is simply incorrect, and someone who believes it
will fall to earth is correct. This is validated by correct prediction and
by the painful, swollen foot that accompanies the incorrect prediction.
If Wishes Were Horses
ALL OF THIS is as true of social science as of the physical and natural
sciences. But it is that former that first, most completely, and most
nakedly exhibited the contemporary tendency for ideological wish to replace
scientific curiosity. In a few major areas of the social sciences this
tendency has gone so far that there is but the barest pretense of
scientific objectivity. Truth is measured not by concordance of explanation
and reality, but of one social scientist's ideology and that of another.
Unlike the blind leading the blind, who are at least trying to follow the
right path, the majority of practitioners in some of the subdisciplines of
the social sciences do not in the slightest care about truth when wish is
to be served. If the majority agree on nonsense, then nonsense is truth.
Consider, for example, the fact that, among all the thousands of societies
on which we have any sort of evidence, there have never been any Amazonian
or matriarchal societies. The hierarchies of all societies have always been
dominated by males. Virtually anyone with a scintilla of scientific
curiosity responds to this empirical fact by asking, "Why?"
An answer that can be powerfully defended sees psycho-physiological
differences between the sexes as determinative to male and female behavior
and to the unvarying social realities that reflect this behavior. Feminist
attempts to explain the universality of patriarchy, unwilling to entertain
the possibility that psycho-physiological factors are determinative,
invariably display certain features.
1.     They are unparsimonious, claiming, for example, that patriarchy is
a result of capitalism, an "explanation" that requires different causal
factors to explain patriarchy in the thousands of societies--primitive,
socialist, and the like--that are not capitalist.
2.     They beg the question by giving causal primacy to the socialization
of boys and girls. This "explanation" fails to ask the central question:
Why does every society's socialization associate dominance behavior with
males? To give socialization causal primacy is like saying that men grow
facial hair because we tell little boys and girls that facial hair is
3.     They attempt to deny the universality of the male dominance
tendency and patriarchy by demonstrating that some other behavior or
institution is not universally differentiated. This is akin to denying that
males are taller on average by demonstrating that the sexes do not differ
in knowledge of history.
4.     They confuse economic cause with economic function. To see economic
factors as the cause of male dominance behavior is like seeing McDonald's
need for profits as the cause of the human need to eat.
5.     They spend much of their time attacking straw-man arguments that
play no role in the explanation we are discussing--for example,
sociological explanations of why males and females evolved the way they
did. The issue is no how male and female physiologies evolved, but the role
of the male and female physiologies that did evolve in determining the
differentiated psychologies and behaviors of males and females and the
institutions that reflect these.
6.     They make the mistake of treating the social environment as an
independent variable, thereby failing to explain why the social environment
always conforms to limits set by, and takes a direction concordant with,
the physiological (i.e., never does environment act as sufficient
counterpose to enable a society to avoid male domination of hierarchies).
This is easy to explain if one sees the environment as given its limits and
direction by the psycho-physiological natures of males and females.
Much Talk, No Science
MUCH feminist social science is not even bad reasoning about empirical
questions, but empty or confused discussion that substitutes terminology
for explanation. One would be hard put to find another group that talked so
much about science without ever doing any science. There are, of course,
many women scientists who do science: but these women never make the
arguments made by the "feminist scientists" and acknowledge, in private, to
being more than a little embarrassed by them.
The strongest impulse of the serious scientist is to eradicate the
ignorance that the unanswered question represents. The models that the
scientist uses serve this impulse. Because "feminist scientists" feel more
strongly the need for a picture of reality concordant with their wishes
than a need for a picture concordant with reality, they are incapable of
understanding the serious scientist. The history of science is replete with
examples of scientists who were impelled by emotional impulse to find one
thing, but who were forced by logic and evidence to find another. Where the
ideologue is content with the inappropriate model or false explanation as
long as it satisfies psychological and political desire, the serious
scientist cannot live with the awful gnawing of the explanation that
doesn't work.
But it is the success of the answers to specific empirical questions, and
not the difference of motivation between the scientist and the ideologue,
that is crucial to science. For science recognizes that even the most
serious of scientists is, like everyone else, vulnerable to nonscientific
impulses. This is why science has at its core the mechanism for exposing
the relevant manifestations of such impulses.
Moreover, it might be the case that, if the majority of scientists were
women, the selection of empirical realities to be studied would be
different. But even if this is true, it has nothing to do with the
corrections of analyses of that which is selected for study.
If "feminist science" develops a "feminist model" that helps us to answer
some empirical question, or demonstrates the scientific inadequacy of
accepted explanations, then it will be, as it should be, taken seriously.
It will not need the adjective; it will be science. But as long as
"feminist science" is nothing more than a failure to
explanations--explanations that make successful predictions, the test that
separates the adults from the children in science--it will be, correctly,
dismissed from serious discussion.
To this point, "feminist science" has provided nothing more than endless,
embarrassingly self-congratulatory discussion of terminology--discussion
that neither can explain why traditional terminology permits explanations
capable of making accurate predictions nor can itself make accurate
predictions. When its explanations manage to avoid refutation by a cursory
logical glance, they invoke bogus empirical evidence whose
misrepresentation can be exposed by spending ninety seconds with the source
invoked. (I have checked well over a hundred claims--never made by the
ethnographer who actually studied the society in question--that a specific
ethnography describes a nonpatriarchal society; it has never taken over
ninety seconds with the invoked ethnography to demonstrate the
ludicrousness of the claim. I have never found anyone willing to attempt to
back up such a claim once it became clear that I had checked the
ethnography that had been invoked.)
In any case, no one possessed by even the shadow of a scientific impulse
cares in the slightest whether an interesting hypothesis is provided by a
man or a woman or a goldfish. What matters is not who makes the claim, but
the claim itself and its accord with nature; for the explanation of nature
is the only justification for the existence of the claim.
Those who follow another imperative while pretending to care about
discovering nature's secrets--those whose dishonesty and incompetence have
muddled the process that has proved infinitely the best for discovering
those secrets--subordinate truth to an a priori image of how they would
like truth to be. This is indefensible for the scientist, or, indeed, for
anyone who cares about finding out what is true. It replaces curiosity with
narcissism and rationalizes the narcissism with a claim of humane purpose.
All this is obvious. Nonetheless, there is an astonishing number of
scientists who publicly acquiesce in a position that they know should have
long ago been laughed out of the university, while telling you in private
that they know what they support is jejune nonsense, but that they do so in
the service of the good.
We used to call this lying

Erik Rush

08.29.05 (5:06 am)   [edit]

The Feminist Infection

August 29, 2005

by Erik Rush

Of all the movements that sprang from the Civil Rights era, the feminist movement has probably been the single most damaging to our nation. While it is clear that certain issues of parity where women were concerned – such as in the workplace – proved to be as necessary as dismantling Jim Crow laws, it has also become clear that those who drove this movement were less concerned with women’s rights than expanding socialist policies in America. This is old hat to many of us by now.

But why such an unequivocal statement as “the single most damaging”? I say this because while the issues and subsequent “remedies” respecting interest groups during that period of time primarily affected those groups directly and impacted society as a whole to a somewhat lesser degree, the feminist movement primarily affected women – more than half our population – in very fundamental ways. The effect on the remainder of the population – namely males, and thus society as a whole – was, and will likely remain, incalculable.

Starting in the late 1960s, socialists in politics and the media characteristically targeted women as another dissatisfied minority who would be brought into the fold as advocates for the social engineering necessary to bring about a socialist revolution in the United States. Again, legitimate parity issues aside, the number of women who were dissatisfied – read “future feminists” – was very small indeed. However, using such well-spoken and high-profile trolls as Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and other predominantly East Coast libertines, Marxists were able to articulate their message very effectively.

As with minorities, gays, the handicapped, and other special interests, the promise was “we’ll look out for you”; to the rest of us, the unspoken mantra: “who wouldn’t want equality for these folks?” So, while the Neandertals – mostly fly-over state people – protested, most of us shut up while such wisdom as “it’s OK for women to be promiscuous if it’s OK for men”, and “fathers and mothers are interchangeable” became mainstream.

More women entered the workforce, less out of desire than out of the necessity generated by those the Left insinuated into legislative and regulatory areas of government, which eventually taxed and regulated business into subsistence mode. But enter the workforce they did, and as time went on, domesticity became a scarlet letter rather than a badge of honor. Women who thought they were doing the right thing evolved into lousy wives and mothers.

Not that men were blameless, of course. Leaving aside those males who were architects within the movement, many males - particularly young, ignorant ones such as I was back in the day – were more than willing to oblige the crop of “enlightened” women who now were perfectly willing to engage in sex within fifteen minutes of meeting a fellow. This of course led to all sorts of emotional malaise on both sides, shallow, doomed marriages and depressed, maladjusted children. It bears mentioning here that this was all part of the plan.

What also bears mentioning is that this “new wisdom” made for handy extrapolations regarding the Gay Rights agenda: If moms and dads are interchangeable, then two moms or two dads ought to be as good as one of each, and other such groundless propaganda. We’re admonished that homosexuals now have the right to their own social experiment, dismal and destructive though it promises to be.

Women continue to be propagandized and confused with inference that they ought to be able to have it all at the same time. With their innate drives supplanted by even more unreasonable cultural demands than prior to the Sexual Revolution, stress and yet more dissatisfaction results. In a relationship, they are instructed that sex is a weapon to be wielded, lest their men control them completely.

Men, as hard-wired to provide and protect as women are to nurture, balk inwardly at the prospect of emotionally becoming, well, women. They feel neglected, and at a deep emotional level, rightly so - but God help the husband so rash as to interfere with his wife’s pursuit of her inner Oprah. Their roles ridiculed and usurped, they displace their emotional needs through work or less healthy social outlets, or they leave, finding yet another female as confused as their mate, but without the familiar, tiresome baggage. If there are children, the stage has been set for the cycle to begin anew.

Previously indoctrinated low-income and minority groups proved the easiest to corrupt. With direct financial infusion into communities and households being weaned off of religion and traditional values and into the culture of victimization, substance abuse, and sensualism, women became self-hating, undereducated baby machines and men became shiftless purveyors of sperm. As with the rest of the males in society, what they need the most – to be needed – has become nearly unattainable, so why stay in a marriage or bother to raise one’s spawn?

So, here we are in the 21 st century. All of the arguments feminists made thirty years ago have been exploded, yet they (and now the sexual orientation movement) are still making them, even more vociferously. The legacy of a promiscuous populace has given us sexually-transmitted diseases we didn’t even know existed in the late ‘Sixties – yet the Left still asserts people have a right to their promiscuity. We’ve experienced the dysfunction that arises in families when either parent is physically or emotionally absent, yet we’re still told that either will do. In a “perfect” socialist state, of course, both are expendable.

Where does it end? You tell me? Like the addict, perhaps we will have to reach a level of demoralization and misery so profound that there will be no room left for the denial that a fundamental perversion of human society can somehow work. Or, like the addict who goes on denying to the bitter end, we will, as a society, die.

Erik Rush

Erik Rush is a black conservative columnist, author and sometime radio host.
Visit his website at

sex differences

08.27.05 (6:35 am)   [edit]

The Orwellian disinformation about innate group differences is not wholly
the media's fault. Many academics who are familiar with the state of
knowledge are afraid to go on the record. Talking publicly can dry up
research funding for senior professors and can cost assistant professors
their jobs.
Affirmative action in all its forms assumes there are no innate differences
between any of the groups it seeks to help and everyone else. The
assumption of no innate differences among groups suffuses American social
policy. That assumption is wrong.
It continues to be assumed that better programs, better regulations, or the
right court decisions can make the differences go away. That assumption is
also wrong.
The historical reality of male dominance of the greatest achievements in
science and the arts is not open to argument.
In a large sample of mathematically gifted youths, for example, seven times
as many males as females scored in the top percentile of the SAT
mathematics test.
It has been known for years that, even after adjusting for body size, men
have larger brains than women. One hypothesis for explaining this paradox
is that three-dimensional processing absorbs the extra male capacity.
In test scores, the male advantage is most pronounced in the most abstract
items. Historically, too, it is most pronounced in the most abstract
domains of accomplishment.
In the humanities, the most abstract field is philosophyâ and no woman has
been a significant original thinker in any of the world's great
philosophical traditions. In the sciences, the most abstract field is
mathematics, where the number of great women mathematicians is
approximately two.
Women have their own cognitive advantages over men, many of them involving verbal fluency and interpersonal skills for reasons embedded in the biochemistry and neurophysiology of being
female, many women with the cognitive skills for achievement at the highest level also have something else they want to do in life: have a baby.
The women with careers were four-and-a-half times more likely than men to say they preferred to work fewer than 40 hours per week.The most obvious reason why men and women differ at the highest levels of
accomplishment: men take more risks, are more competitive, and are more
aggressive than women.24
<; The word Testosterone may come to mind, and appropriately. Much technical literature documents the hormonal basis of personality differences that bear on sex differences in extreme and venturesome effort, and hence in extremes of accomplishment.Men and women are really and truly different, a fact so obvious that only intellectuals could ever have thought otherwise.

Article HERE

sex differences

08.27.05 (6:29 am)   [edit]

The Orwellian disinformation about innate group differences is not wholly
the media's fault. Many academics who are familiar with the state of
knowledge are afraid to go on the record. Talking publicly can dry up
research funding for senior professors and can cost assistant professors
their jobs.
Affirmative action in all its forms assumes there are no innate differences
between any of the groups it seeks to help and everyone else. The
assumption of no innate differences among groups suffuses American social
policy. That assumption is wrong.
It continues to be assumed that better programs, better regulations, or the
right court decisions can make the differences go away. That assumption is
also wrong.
The historical reality of male dominance of the greatest achievements in
science and the arts is not open to argument.
In a large sample of mathematically gifted youths, for example, seven times
as many males as females scored in the top percentile of the SAT
mathematics test.
It has been known for years that, even after adjusting for body size, men
have larger brains than women. One hypothesis for explaining this paradox
is that three-dimensional processing absorbs the extra male capacity.
In test scores, the male advantage is most pronounced in the most abstract
items. Historically, too, it is most pronounced in the most abstract
domains of accomplishment.
In the humanities, the most abstract field is philosophyâ and no woman has
been a significant original thinker in any of the world's great
philosophical traditions. In the sciences, the most abstract field is
mathematics, where the number of great women mathematicians is
approximately two.
Women have their own cognitive advantages over men, many of them involving verbal fluency and interpersonal skills for reasons embedded in the biochemistry and neurophysiology of being
female, many women with the cognitive skills for achievement at the highest level also have something else they want to do in life: have a baby.
The women with careers were four-and-a-half times more likely than men to say they preferred to work fewer than 40 hours per week.The most obvious reason why men and women differ at the highest levels of
accomplishment: men take more risks, are more competitive, and are more
aggressive than women.24
<; The word Testosterone may come to mind, and appropriately. Much technical literature documents the hormonal basis of personality differences that bear on sex differences in extreme and venturesome effort, and hence in extremes of accomplishment.Men and women are really and truly different, a fact so obvious that only intellectuals could ever have thought otherwise.

Article HERE

Times online

08.27.05 (12:58 am)   [edit]

Future perfect: how to be a 'real' man again
Carol Midgley
Women rule says Michael Buerk, and feminism is triumphant at home, at work, even in TV ads. The woman who coined the word 'metrosexual' explains how men can reclaim their masculinity, and we publish an extract from her new book WHO’D be one of you, eh chaps? Let’s be honest, your CV these days is hardly enviable. Outperformed by girls at school, emasculated by women at home and at work, shockingly dislocated from your emotions and the hapless joke figure in endless TV commercials and sitcoms whose message is that females rule and men are fools.

Well wise up, because apparently it’s time to say enough is enough; the ridicule of men must stop. The pendulum of power has swung too far into the female corner and you must stand up and assert your right to masculinity. Stop apologising for it, be comfortable with it, but while you’re at it try to embrace a few female traits such as compromise....

read article here

washington times

08.21.05 (7:16 am)   [edit]

The Washington Times

Forum: Foibles of feminism

Published August 21, 2005

Driving home from a high school mentoring luncheon held by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, I contemplated my discussion with the girls at my table.
    They were troubled by the information at the weekend conference. It seemed a few considered themselves feminists. Luce Policy Institute President Michelle Easton's speech -- aptly titled "The Failures of Feminism" -- worried them.
    Now a junior at Drake University, I couldn't help but think of my own high school days. For all I knew, I was a feminist. Packing up my belongings for that all-important first year of college, I never bothered to categorize myself as a Democrat or a Republican or even a liberal or a conservative. I was 17 and in the middle of that angst/rebellion stage, meaning I no longer went to church with my parents and had purposefully chosen a college 500 miles from home.
    Surprisingly, my otherwise mediocre public high school employed a teacher passionate about American history. Come to think of it, the man is the most objective instructor I ever had. My younger sister's revelation the teacher was a Kerry supporter came as quite a blow. Nevertheless, he taught my Advanced Placement U.S. History class and he did so fairly. We spent a good deal of time on the suffragettes at Seneca Falls, and I grew to respect the women who fought for equal rights.
    Thus, my view of feminism was neutral, if anything. There was a general appreciation -- "isn't it nice women have the right to work and vote." I didn't see modern feminism directly affecting me. Equal pay for equal work? Sounded logical. I was OK with claims that women should seek fulfillment outside the home.
    Naively assuming Women's Studies would be a thorough analysis of the obstacles women had overcome and, perhaps, a comparison of the rights American women have versus the rights of women in other countries, I followed my orientation counselor's advice and enrolled in Women's Studies 101. Call me gullible, but alongside courses titled Marxist Principles of Economics, Intro to Women's Studies looked harmless.
    "Harmless" is perhaps the perfect description of how feminist activity seems to those, like my high school lunch companions, who have yet to experience the hateful wrath of the actual movement. This movement is often glamorous and fashionable present but still ever-present in some shape or form on every American college campus.
    For three hours a week during my first semester of college, my tuition dollars were spent studying that oppressive beast, the white male. I don't exactly specialize in staying quiet, so for 12 long weeks I was known as the enemy by my Women's Studies professor and classmates.
    Soon after leaving home, I had an "Aha" moment. I stopped hating my mother for her selfless devotion to her children and began looking forward to having children of my own. I voiced this desire in class, in response to a question about any justification of heterosexuality, and it was not well received.
    If you haven't been in a Women's Studies classroom, just imagine a situation where open-mindedness is touted so long as everyone shares the same liberal ideology. Then multiply it by one woman with a Marxist agenda equally fond of saying "America entered Iraq unpre[expletive deleted]pared" and "King George II," to 30 impressionable and self-conscious peers.
    Combine that with assorted readings and film clips shining a positive light on self-centered, lesbian, anti-male existence, and you might see the feminist movement for what it really is: Anything but harmless.
    Most despicable in my view is the movement claim to represent all women equally. My professor could not get her mind around anyone disagreeing with her. Her open-mindedness simply did not extend to someone with pro-family convictions.
    The Women's Awareness Coalition at my school certainly does raise awareness -- the question is: of what? Trying to explain to a feminist that feminism furthers a leftist agenda, not the rights of all women, is something I think I'll have earned a minor in if I survive the second half of my college career.
    After the mentoring lunch, a ninth-grader wrote to me, "I learned that most feminists are very confused." I couldn't have put it better myself.
    Miss Sturgis is the recipient of the Phillips Foundation Clare Boothe Luce Journalism Award at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute. She is a junior at Drake University in Iowa.

Rachef Alexander

08.21.05 (5:42 am)   [edit]

Child custody has emerged as an area where men run into a glass ceiling. "It's awful to take a child away from its mother!" Sound familiar? That is because it is the message that has been repeatedly hammered at society by feminists, as well as from some conservatives. But you won't hear the equivalent, "It's awful to take a child away from its father," because the feminists aren't pushing equivalent respect for fathers. Instead, you are more likely to hear this mantra about fathers, "there's so many deadbeat dads." The feminists have successfully changed the law, the courts, and societal attitudes when it comes to the custody and care of children from split homes. Instead of looking at fathers' capabilities and indiscretions individually, the law makes sweeping assumptions and treats all fathers as second class. Women, if you are successful in no other area of life, read this article closely, because you can easily succeed here, the system is so weighted in your favor. Free money, free legal help, and kind court staff. If you don't work, or don't work much, you'll make out even better, so it is best not to work much. And all you need to do is get pregnant! Men, all I offer for advice to you is this: if you have children, you'd better pray that you remain a couple.

Sad as it sounds, this is where the law is at. When a couple that has mutual children splits up, the courts examine just a few factors to determine custody, known as the "best interests of the child." These factors make it very likely that the woman will get custody of the children and hence child support money. Two of the most important factors include who is better able to "take care" of the child and whether there has been domestic violence by one of the parents. Well, these factors "sound" good, but in reality, they have been specifically selected for their heavy bias against fathers. There are numerous other factors that address equally as serious issues, that could affect mothers for the worse, or at least equally affect both parents, such as drug abuse, but these factors are conveniently not found in the "best interests of the child" statutes (there must be an actual drug conviction - which is absurd - one drug-addict mother was able to take custody away from the father even though she snorted meth every single day - the courts had no knowledge of her drug habit!). "Take care" of the child has little to do with being able to financially support the child. It should, since almost as many women as men work outside of the home now, but because a lot of women with children who split up with the fathers aren't very ambitious and sit around the house watching soap operas, the law has been crafted to label this as "taking care" of the children, instead of earning money. Since most fathers work full-time, they lose here.

"Domestic violence" is another disguised way of guaranteeing that the fathers lose. Women are now trained by society to call the police anytime their boyfriend or husband loses his temper, and are using and abusing this taxpayer funded "helpline" at an increasingly alarming rate. Murray A. Straus, a sociologist and co-director for the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, reported that at least 30 studies of domestic violence, including some he had conducted, found that women were as equally culpable of domestic violence as men. Yet this information is not widely publicized, and is downplayed by both police officers and the courts. Women are also abusing restraining orders. A recent article in Human Events cited a government study that found that fewer than half of all restraining orders contained even an allegation of physical violence. Instead of working out their fights, or leaving the man, women are taking the easy way out and forcing taxpayers to pay for their "tattling" every time they take up the time of a police officer or court. Of course, many times it is the woman who caused the fight, but that is not going to end up in the court's minute entry. Men are laughed at if they are the victims of domestic violence. One young father attempted to seek free legal help from a domestic violence law clinic after his ex-wife continued to hit him, and the clinic turned him away in amusement. Another young father had the domestic violence of an ex-girlfriend, who had hit him, used against him in order to justify taking away his child.

It is easy for mothers to obtain free legal aid in pursuing custody of their children. There are flyers everywhere - in women's restrooms, in doctors' offices, and in government buildings, offering free legal resources for women to use. The Legal Aid clinics help out so many mothers with custody disputes and divorces that recently they have had to limit their representation of custody cases to cases alleging abuse. Domestic violence legal clinics are at many of the law schools now, and give women free legal help with divorces, custody disputes, and restraining orders. If there are low-income requirements, they are rarely verified; any woman can come in and say she makes very little money, and on her word alone she will receive free legal help (just like at Planned Parenthood).

The child support laws are crafted not just to provide for the cost of raising a child, but to bring the parent receiving the support to the level she would have been at if she were still with the father! The absurdity of this situation can be seen in this all too common example: A woman cheats on her husband and then files for no-fault divorce. She gets custody of their children, AND the benefit of his salary and payraises until their child turns 18 (25 in Massachusetts) - all the money benefits as if they were still married (and she may even get alimony on top of that, but that is a different issue for another column, and at least with alimony, once the mother remarries, the alimony goes away)! Why should an ex-wife be guaranteed, years after having been married, the same living standard of her husband? Absent unhealthy circumstances, why shouldn't the parent with the BETTER living standards be considered the one better prepared to take care of the child? That way, one parent isn't stuck paying for the ex-spouse too. Currently, though, most child custody laws do not consider financial responsibility of the parent as one of the "best interests of the child."

Child support is widely touted by governmental agencies as one of the most important things government does, and the duty of it is glorified almost nazilike to the level of a moral authority. Yet what exactly does child support do? The charts for child support award way too much money to the custodial parent - does anyone really believe that it costs $800/month to raise a child? In most situations, the mother has custody and makes considerably less money than the father. According to fairly standard child support guidelines, if the mother makes $20,000/yr and the father makes $40,000/yr, and there is one child, the father should pay $535/month in child support (the formula adds both parents' salaries together, then comes up with a random number of how much they think that child costs - here it was $800 - then has the non-custodial parent pay the percentage his salary is - here it is 66%). Does anyone REALLY THINK that many of the mothers who resort to going to court to collect child support are the types of mothers who would spend a full $535/month on one child, as well as another $265/month of their own money (particularly if the child is older than 5 and in school)? There is no monitoring of that money, and it is very difficult to get a court to order any type of accounting by the mother. One such mother of a 6-year old has stated that she is saving the money for breast implants.

Furthermore, the concept of child support money discourages personal responsibility and ambition. It penalizes the custodial parent for working harder and trying to get ahead, because a higher paying job would reduce the amount of free money they receive from the other parent. It is akin to welfare - if you work hard, you aren't eligible for it. And it is a double penalty, because it also penalizes the non-custodial parent for working harder. The more money the non-custodial parent makes, the more money is taken out of his paycheck to go to the residential parent.

Do we really want to heap benefits on mothers who split up with the fathers, essentially giving "reward" money to women who have sex, instead of letting them suffer the consequences? Everyone knows that sex without true commitment leads to broken down homes and emotional trauma, particularly for any children involved. Everyone also knows that when you have sex, you may get pregnant. In some ways, child support is merely a disguised form of prostitution - women are encouraged to have sex and receive money from any man who succeeds in impregnating them. After sex, the man then has no other contact with the woman except to give her money for the child, and any modicum of visitation he can squeak out. Instead of teaching women to avoid gratuitous sex, our society encourages sex with its condom education and giveaways, and easy access to taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthoods. Women realize they can have gratuitous sex without suffering any consequences, because the safety net of a man's pocketbook will always be there for them, thanks to the long arm of the moral authoritarian government child support agency that reassures them that they are right.

And what exactly are deadbeat dads? Many "deadbeat dads" are simply fathers who are going through a hard time economically; they may have lost a job, or simply are having a difficult time paying $800/month in child support. Sure there are some fathers who have completely rejected any responsibility towards their children, but that doesn't mean all fathers should be treated like criminals and rounded up by Sheriff's Offices and taken into jail. Why are the fathers held accountable while the mothers aren't?

Why this bias against fathers has been allowed to develop may be the result of conservatives' neglect of this area of the law. Conservatives have avoided domestic relations law, not wanting to get involved in this area because of their strong dislike of divorce as well as their old-fashioned view that mothers are better nurturers than fathers. Consequently, liberal feminists have had free reign here. What is interesting however, is the flavor of feminism which has prevailed - it is not the version that encourages men to be more sensitive, but instead the version that accepts prostitution and rampant sexual promiscuousness as a component of womens' equality.

The feminists' efforts in this area are no doubt driven by both their beliefs that mothers are better nurturers of children, and their resentment towards men who use women for sex and then leave them. But punishing all men equally fails to take into account certain things. First of all, those men eventually remarry and move on with their lives. The courts consider the new spouse's salary when computing child support! So punishing the father also results in punishing another completely innocent woman. Secondly, child support creates resentment and additional fighting between the parents, since the paying parent resents the other parent and will try to change the situation. This clogs up the family courts.

So what should the solution be? For starters, how about ending child support between parents who both want custody of their children? If someone really wants their children, they will find a way to make ends meet. It just doesn't cost that much to raise a child, no matter what people whine. The message we should be sending is, if you can't afford a child, then abstain from sex! Foster parents receive around $300/month per child. This isn't very much money. Nobody seems to complain about those children not receiving $800/month. Why not let the parent who wants to care for the child, and is more financially capable, have the custody, or at the very least cut out the child support? That way, no parent is stuck supporting the other parent. This would also send a message to parents that they should be ambitious and set good work ethics for their children, instead of the current message which encourages parents to be lazy and earn less. If the mother has to work during the day, and the father works evenings, let the father take care of the children during the day instead of putting them in daycare. There are better workable solutions than giving the children to the mother just because she is lazy and stays at home, utilizing the father only as a money funnel. One mother sat around the house getting high on her days off, yet still put her child in daycare, using the father's money!

Finally, "domestic violence," which has been abused by women, should be looked at more closely by the courts if it is to be a factor in determining child custody. There may be more to "domestic violence" than appears in a brief minute entry or police report. For example, the mother may have been racked out on drugs at the time she called the police, as well as every day of her life, yet this is not taken into consideration as part of the "best interests of the child" unless there is an actual drug conviction. The courts should also examine whether the mother is the type to move from abuser to abuser, which ultimately creates an unstable upbringing for the child. Is it really better that a child stay with a mother who cycles through violent or volatile relationships, or is it better that the child live with the father whose only "history of domestic violence" occurred when the mother obtained dubious restraining orders against him when she was having affairs on him? Unfortunately, the laws do not currently take these circumstances into consideration when considering the "best interests of the child." Unless a father has an excellent attorney who is able to get ahold of hard evidence proving these types of circumstances, and has success persuading a judge to give these factors some weight even though they are not in the law, a father is simply out of luck. He has reached the glass ceiling for fathers in child custody.

Rachel Alexander has done work with a domestic violence law clinic and has studied this area of the law in law school. She cannot respond to every email she receives about child custody, so she apologizes in advance if she does not respond to your email. If you need one of the best attorneys for child custody/support and you live in Arizona, she recommends Susanne Sternberg. She is inexpensive, aggressive, but nice. For male attorneys, we recommend Bernard (Phil) Lopez who can be reached at 602.253.4643. Both attorneys are affordable, Susanne practices criminal law as well and Phil practices almost all types of law. Also visit Arizona Fathers' Rights (even if you're not from Arizona, they have a very helpful links page).

women's whining

08.19.05 (4:25 pm)   [edit]

."Women and men look at their life, and women say, 'What do I need? Do I need more money, or do I need more time?' And women are intelligent enough to say, I need more time. And so women lead balanced lives, men should be learning from women."
Women choose more time because men are giving them money...That's because men endure relantlessly since the beginning of times women's whining.

Sailing with women

08.19.05 (4:13 pm)   [edit]

On Sailing with Women

August 19, 2005

by Tom Purcell

I had a bad feeling as soon as I got onto the boat.

It was a small rented sailboat that was piloted by two women. They women had taken a few sailing lessons and wanted to try out their nautical prowess on the Potomac River. I and two other fellows went along for the ride.


And what a ride it was. Shortly after we boarded, one of the women, a lawyer, began lecturing us on sailing techniques. She told us about the jib, the small sail up front, and how to move it from one side to another by releasing one jib rope and pulling the other.


She explained what it meant to “tack,” or shift the sails from one side to another to catch the wind and change direction. She lectured us with a seriousness you’d encounter at a sexual-harassment seminar.


No sooner did her lecture conclude than the winds whipped up and grabbed the sails. We were yanked out to the great unknown at the neck-snapping speed of two miles per hour.

“Let go of the jib!” she shouted to one of the men, who, being a man, felt the need to do something, so he grabbed the jib rope. I later learned he was her ex-husband and they still lived together.

“But if I pull the jib tighter, it will catch more wind,” he speculated. Men speculate, you see. A lack of actual knowledge never interferes with our perpetual quest to resolve problems.

“Release the jib now!”

“But if I --”

“I said let go of the damn jib!”

He let go of the damn jib. His surrender, and the embarrassment we felt for him, set the tone for the rest of the torturous outing.

No matter where you sit on a sailboat piloted by women, you are in the way. Your head is perpetually getting struck by ropes, pulleys and sail rods. If you attempt to do nothing, the women yell at you to pull the damn jib. If you pull the damn jib, they demand you release it. If you release it, they demand you pull it tighter.

I got to thinking about this episode after reading about Women’s Equality Day, to be celebrated Friday, August 26th. Congress established it in 1971 to spotlight women’s efforts at achieving equality. It is celebrated on August 26th, because that’s the day women won the right to vote back in 1920.

Things sure have changed since then.

It used to be that women were held back in this country. They had few options but to marry and become mothers, and they were then expected to stay home while the men went off to run the country.

Today, the potential of women has been unleashed and we’re all better off. Women are excelling in every profession. More women than men are enrolling in college and more are earning advanced degrees. Nearly 40% of all businesses in America are owned by women.

It’s true that women have not yet achieved parity at the top levels of corporate America. It’s also true that women earn 75% of what men do, though doesn’t this have more to do with the choices women can now make than discrimination?

Women can stay single and climb the corporate ladder. They can marry, have a family and hire a nanny to watch the kids. They can suspend their career, which will reduce their earning potential later when they return to work, to stay home with the kids. There are a million choices available and women are choosing every variation under the sun.

And they’re piloting sailboats.

It used to be that when five people got onto a sailboat, it was the men who sat in the back barking orders. They’d soon get to bickering and turn an otherwise delightful outing into a miserable affair.

Now it’s the women who are doing that. While they focus intensely on their piloting duties, it’s the men who are adrift at sea.

Men who aren’t sure whether they should pull or release the damn jib.

Tom Purcell



08.17.05 (5:32 am)   [edit]
And You Wonder Why There’s a "Glass Ceiling"

"Women who send flirtatious e-mail, wear short skirts or massage a man’s shoulders at work win fewer pay raises and promotions, according to a Tulane University study to be presented Monday at the Academy of Management annual meeting in Honolulu."

I should think so. But according to the above report from USA Today (hat tip to Glib and Superficial via our libertarian Catholic friend Kathy Shaidle), nearly half the women in America who hold MBA degrees believe that telling your boss that he looks "hot" (or engaging in similar behavior) is the way to succeed in business without really trying. Yup, the Tulane researchers report that a full 49 percent of the 164 female MBA-holders ranging in age from their mid-20s to 60s whom they surveyed ’fessed to having engaged in at least one of the following 10 on-the-job sexual behaviors in order to snag that promotion:

"I wear a skirt or something more revealing than usual around clients or supervisors to get attention.

"I flirt with people at work.

"I draw attention to my legs by crossing them provocatively when in meetings or sitting with a group of men at work.

"I hint or imply that I am attracted to a man (men) at work even if I am not.

"I purposely let men sneak a look down my shirt when I lean over a table.

"I massage a man’s shoulders or back while at work.

"I sent flirty or risqué e-mails to male co-workers.

"I tell male co-workers or clients they look sexy or ’hot.’

"I allow men to linger at certain places of my body while hugging them.

"I emphasize my sexuality while at work by the way I dress, speak, and act."

The good news is that such behavior gets you nowhere, indicating both that acting like a lady at work--that is, like a professional among professionals--pays off and that men on the job aren’t the drooling chauvinists or sex-obsessed fools that feminist ideologues paint them to be. As USA Today reports:

"The other half said they never engaged in such activity, and those women have earned an average of three promotions, vs. two for the group that had employed sexuality. Those who said they never used sexuality were, on average, in the $75,000-$100,000 income range; the others fell, on average, in the next-lowest range, $50,000 to $75,000."

Glib and Superficial comments:

"The perpetrators of the study conclude that this means that such provocative behavior is ineffective in getting ahead.

"It seems to us that there is a far simpler explanation. First, the study has divided these professional women into two groups: One group not only thinks this sort of thing is necessary or appropriate, but is willing to admit it to someone taking a survey. Let’s call this group ’idiots.’

"The second group behaves like intelligent grownups. We’ll call this group ’not idiots.’

"We think the study suggests that -- on average -- people who are not idiots get paid more than people who are idiots."

I’m still reeling, however, at the fact that the "idiots" category includes nearly one out of every two women who graduate from biz school. It’s something to think about the next time you hear a gal complaining about the "glass ceiling."


Glenn Sacks

08.14.05 (3:50 pm)   [edit]

New Study Finds Myths, Misrepresentations In Women's Studies Textbooks

by Glenn J. Sacks

A new study by the Independent Women's Forum has concluded that Women's Studies textbooks "ignore facts in favor of myths," "mistake ideology for scholarship," and encourage students to "embrace aggrievement, not knowledge." The study, Lying in a Room of One's Own: How Women's Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students, examined the five most popular Women Studies' textbooks in the United States.

The study's author, scholar Christine Stolba, used the textbooks because she sought to examine academic feminism's mainstream, instead of its oft-criticized fringe. She divided her study into three main categories, "Errors of Interpretation," "Errors of Fact," and "Sins of Omission."

The "Errors of Interpretation" occur in large part because the textbooks construe every study, statistic, or piece of evidence to mean that women are miserable and oppressed, and that men are privileged oppressors. Among the "truths" that the textbooks tell us are: women are under siege from virtually all sectors of society; little has changed for women in the past three decades; believing that women have achieved equality is "modern sexism"; and most women are not naturally attracted to men but are the victims of "compulsory heterosexuality" maintained through (male) "social control."

The textbooks also depict motherhood as a "burden for women, something to be overcome" and portray women who choose to remain home with their young children as dupes who buy into oppressive traditional female roles. In addition, bad fathers are described as the rule rather than the exception, the prevalence of sexual abuse and molestation are wildly exaggerated, and students are told that fathers represent a "foreign male element" that mothers and daughters must often unite against.

Among the many "Errors of Fact" Stolba cites are the belief that the government has ignored women's health needs at the expense of men's, and that the gender wage gap is a direct result of discrimination.

The women's health claim was made famous in 1990 by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who generated national headlines when she cited the fact that women-specific health research comprised only 14% of the budget of the National Institute of Health (NIH) and labeled it "blatant discrimination." However, only 6.5% of the NIH's budget went to male-specific research--the vast majority of the NIH's research was (and is) addressed to health issues affecting both sexes. Since 1990 the disparity favoring female-specific NIH research has grown even wider.

The claim that men are paid more than women for the same job has been refuted by studies by liberal, dissident feminist, and conservative organizations, all of whom have found that single men do not earn more than single women. The gender wage gap is caused by the career sacrifices that mothers make for their children, and the personal sacrifices fathers make (longer work weeks, more consecutive years of service, more hazardous jobs, etc.) in order to earn the money to support those children. Surveys which take these factors into consideration have shown that, for the same job, women earn within 2% of what men do.

In "Sins of Omission" Stolba notes that the textbooks airbrush all heroines to remove their flaws. For example, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is extolled, but her well-documented racism is not mentioned. Similarly, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is praised uncritically without noting her administration's corruption.

Powerful or heroic women who happened to hold conservative beliefs, such as Florence Nightingale, Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher, are either ignored or are portrayed as sellouts who "turned from other women." The power wielded by first ladies is praised in the wives of Democratic presidents and ignored in the wives of Republican presidents. Feminist dissidents, an increasingly numerous and vocal group, are dismissed briefly, if they are mentioned at all.

Alice Graves, a UCLA graduate familiar with Women's Studies, agrees with Stolba's depiction. She says:

"Much of what is taught in Women's Studies panders to us and insults our intelligence. I want to learn the truth about both women and men, the good and the bad. I want all women's voices to be heard, not just those who toe the party line. Do my professors believe that I can't be trusted to think for myself?"

Glenn J. Sacks

Glenn J. Sacks is the only regularly published male columnist in the US who writes about gender issues from a perspective unapologetically sympathetic to men. His columns have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Salt Lake City Tribune, the Los Angeles Daily News, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. He invites readers to visit his website at

Jail men

08.11.05 (6:47 pm)   [edit]
Canadian Feminazis Shock Plan To Jail Men For Questioning Feminism
Continuing abolition of human rights for males a worrying trend

by Steven Stevenson

A recent report from Status of Women Canada, School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for Masculinist Discourse, has created a "national tempest," according to one of the many websites which incites hatred against males.

Surprisingly, they got that almost right. The report has created an international storm, which may last for years.

The 150 page government-funded thinly-veiled attack against the feminist authors' political opponents, mens' rights advocates, has been criticized in the Canadian parliament and by many journalists in both the mainstream and alternative press.

Extreme femininity man-haters in Canada have reached a new nadir, not surprising considering how Political Correctness rarely goes unchecked these days, and that Canada is one of the most feminist countries in the world.

For instance, Ontario's Bill 117, enacted in the year 2000, requires that if a woman merely *claims* that her partner has been violent to her, he is ejected from their home, his assets are frozen, and he is jailed. It doesn't matter whether she manufactured the allegation, as is frequent with many angry partners on the verge of splitting. It doesn't matter if she has a history of frequent lying and if there is no evidence of violence from him. It doesn't even matter if she feels guilty about lying and withdraws the accusation. The man is automatically assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, forcibly removed, financially disempowered and jailed for the evening. He can wake to find his partner has applied for an intervention order, that he now owns nothing and has no place to go. He is not asked for his side of the story, because he is male.

A similar domestic violence law is being planned right now for Victoria, Australia. (link, and link)

It will probably end up being enacted since so few people here have as yet woken up to the totalitarian nature of the man haters, who have over the last few decades manipulated themselves into positions of taxpayer-funded power in a large number of government organizations in Western countries. It is not long after one group of them accomplishes another excess before it is duplicated in other parts of the world.

Such is the case with the report in question, produced by a self-described feminist and her two assistants with $75,000 of citizens' money. Only a fraction of the report addresses the material suggested by the title (females receiving a better education than males, and why that's good according to feminists, and how their should be more of it). The body of the report involves examining male-positive newspaper and web articles from a feminist point of view.

Any criticism of feminist revisionist philosophy at all, these extremists believe, supposedly oppresses all women (even proudly non-feminist women). This brings us to the real reason for this report. The authors manufacture some 'solutions' to the 'unacceptable' use of free speech, typically misandrous (man hating) in tone but shocking in their totalitarian extremity.

The removal men's basic right to justice is, if Canadian feminists have their way, to now be followed by the removal of our rights to free speech and association.

"We make a number of general recommendations for protecting the gains that women have made... there is [a] need to ensure closer monitoring of hate-mongering [sic] sites to determine whether legal action should be taken." - report excerpt

The feminists want feminists to monitor all men's rights activist sites, using government money to record, feministly analyze and report on all points of view expressed by individuals and groups which are non-feminist. We men's right advocates are categorized before it's even started as 'hate mongering.' This is so that existing Canadian hate crime legislation can be used to silence the man-haters political opponents.

The fact that we want only equality for men is irrelevant -- to extreme feminists any increase in men's rights before &*all* women get *complete* equality is 'discriminatory.' They have been trained by taxpayer-funded feminists Women's' Studies classes to believe this, and it is not in their interests to learn or admit the real truth. They are paid to oppress men and boys, who feminist lore has it, are responsible for every evil throughout history (a word that by the way was recently banned on campus at England's Stockport College. 'Herstory,' which isn't in the dictionary, is allowed. Nothing at all to do with etymology. Merely that extreme feminists hate all things male).

The small injustices against women which used to exist have been almost entirely abolished, and inertia will do the rest in a very few years. Of course, there will always be small pockets of discrimination against women, for instance most women are not aggressive enough pigs to make it to corporate boardrooms. The feminazi solution? A fairer social system to cater for the majority of men and women who have less than the few at the top? No, rather keep on discriminating against men, in every possible way, while *any* injustice against *any* woman persists, in other words forever.

That's feminist 'reality.' The real reality is that males in Western societies are severely and increasingly discriminated against in many areas, such as the school system, although masculist arguments receive of course only pooh-poohing in this anti-male compendium (some arguments about which reams have been written are not even discussed in the report but instead categorized under 'type of mistake').

Boys from the age of zero receive a barrage of matriarchal messages from TV programs, advertisements (when was the last time you remember seeing a male in an ad who didn't act like a fool?), and an education system tailored to the needs of females. More women enter universities and more women graduate, but it is not Politically Correct to suggest that too many feminist-initiated rules are the cause, so the problems are never addressed.

Statistics show increasing numbers of men being driven to suicide, a multiple of the female suicide rate. Even men dying of 'natural' causes these days live shorter lives than women. In many cities there are a multitude of women's health services, but no men's health services. Why? Because the latter help only males.

"In light of the growing use of the Internet by masculinist groups to develop misogynist sites inciting violence and the growing number of discussion groups used to promote hatred of women, we suggest that a monitoring organization be established, similar to Hate Watch, but focused solely on gender social relations. It would also be useful to maintain, publish, disseminate and update a list of misogynist groups." - - report excerpt

So contact details for all those with political views different to the report's authors will be 'disseminated' to feminist groups to enable easy harassment of us. But this will not be necessary for long:

"We have made a number of recommendations regarding monitoring of Internet sites. We also recommend that consideration be given to whether legal action can be taken under section 319 of the Criminal Code... Discussions should also be held with access providers to suggest a conduct protocol." - the report

After defining us masculists as 'misogynists' and 'hate criminals' (our opinion on these is irrelevant, being already 'prejudiced criminals') we would obviously be prosecuted by our government-employed feminist enemies, our Internet access would be removed (websites and e-lists abolished), protesters would be arrested, and those who persist in the unapproved speech would of course be jailed.

The report's misandrous authors have initiated this witch-hunt by listing the names of around 100 men's and fathers right associations and pro-male individuals (including health professionals) in a special appendix to the report. This clearly has nothing to do with "School Success by Gender" but everything to do with harassing political opponents using manipulative tactics.

How long before the 'final solution' one feminist I know of is already practicing privately becomes the norm - aborting all male fetuses in the womb. Does this sound extreme and paranoid? Is removal of both the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and of freedom of political speech extreme? Is being very concerned about this paranoid?

Millions of Jews were tortured and murdered by the Nazis in World War II. This didn't happen in one day. The Jews had all their rights removed, one at a time, smaller ones first, because they were presumed to be inferior to those in power, and a danger to 'good' people. They eventually lost the 'right' to life itself. Western men are the new Jews. Our minor rights have already been abolished, and now the major ones are being removed. Hence the term 'feminazi.'

If ever there was a 'hate crime,' government-funded feminists producing this report is it. Women have always been protected and nurtured by the huge majority of men. It is mostly men who die in wars. Men traditionally work the most dangerous jobs. Women were first off the Titanic, while men courageously died in their place. If the Canadian well-funded expertly manipulative bureaucratic bitches have their way, men will be effectively herded onto Titanic II and it will be forcibly sunk.

"We stress the urgency for women to 'take ownership' of the Internet." says the report. A search on Altavista shows vastly more "feminist" webpages (around 45,000) than "masculinist" sites (around 550). And a random selection indicates most pages in both categories to be pejorative against men (many of the hits on 'masculinist' resolve to hate sites by feminists).

Males and our female supporters receive zero dollars from government for promotion of the rights of men and boys. Feminist departments, organizations, individuals and projects receive many millions of dollars in total. Money and power corrupt, and the feminists in power are about as corrupt and misandrous as it's possible to get. It is time we in Western societies stopped paying them to promote their hatred and lies.

Here is a webpage by a men's right organization, which includes video of a parliamentary challenge about the report to a sneering government feminazi:

You may need to turn your browser text size down. Slightly amateurish hunh. Of course, men's rights advocates receive $0.00, not $75,000, for our research and its promulgation.

For those with a strong stomach, the misandrous report in question is here.

Please complain about it, and keep complaining until something is done. Men deserve freedom and justice too.

Steven Stevenson

Why Men Earn More

08.10.05 (2:07 pm)   [edit]

Why Men Earn More

Thursday, February 24, 2005

By Wendy McElroy

Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap And What Women Can Do About It is Warren Farrell’s latest book, and a fascinating read.

It has stirred vigorous and predictable debate about what causes the "wage gap" (search) by which the average female employee is said to earn approximately 80 cents for every dollar paid to a man.

But what I view as Farrell’s most controversial point remains undiscussed. Namely, should women use affirmative action (search)--that is, government-mandated preferences-- to ‘correct’ the free market’s wage gap and make more money? Farrell, who is usually associated with male empowerment, says "yes."

He provides detailed advice on how to do so, for example through tax-funded tuition and other programs unavailable to men.

The first part of the book revolves around refuting feminism’s explanation of the wage gap: namely that it results from rampant discrimination against women in the workplace.

Many arguments surrounding the wage gap are not addressed, however.

For example, women’s lack of access to various well-paying blue collar jobs due to union policies and attitudes. But addressing such arguments is not the book’s purpose. Refuting the specific feminist claim of discrimination is. And Farrell ably accomplishes this goal on two levels.

First, he cites research and extensive government data to demonstrate that women who compete for the same job often earn more than men, not less.

In Table 6, Farrell compares the starting salaries for women and men with Bachelor’s Degrees in 26 categories of employment, from investment banker to dietician. Women are paid equally in one category; in every other category, their starting salaries exceed men’s. A female investment banker’s starting salary is 116 percent of a man’s. A female dietician’s is 130 percent; that is, $23,160 compared to $17,680.

Second, Farrell analyzes the data that does reflect a wage gap. But rather than seeing oppression in the data, he perceives free choice.

He argues: women commonly prefer jobs with shorter and more flexible hours to accommodate the demands of family. Compared to men, they generally favor jobs that involve little danger, no travel and good social skills. Such jobs generally pay less.

Farrell rejects the conclusion of ‘discrimination’ because it does not reflect the fact that female employees express different preferences than males.

Men’s rights advocate Carey Roberts identifies one such difference. "[T]he sheer amount of work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time men clock an average of 45 hours a week, while women put in 42 hours. Men are more than twice as likely as women to work at least 50 hours a week."

Women’s lifestyle choices partly explain their absence from certain professions, especially dangerous ones. Roberts observes, "Men represent 92 percent of all occupational deaths. Why? Because if you look at a list of the most hazardous occupations -- fire fighting, truck driving, construction, and mining -- they have 96-98 percent male employees, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."

Farrell believes that women can make the same salaries as men and enter "male professions" if they are willing to make the same employment choices. Accordingly, he offers practical advice to women, much of which is extremely useful.

Nevertheless, I balk whenever Farrell offers advice on how to maximize government privileges at the expense of men, who must compete at a disadvantage and pay taxes for programs that exclude them from benefits.

For example, under the heading "Get Hazard Pay Without the Hazards," Farrell tells women to enter dangerous occupations. There they can reap the same salary as men while avoiding comparable risk because employers who are compelled to hire women commonly shield them from risks.

Thus, Farrell explains, women get a "’death professions bonus’ with not much more physical risk than in everyday life."

Using the military as an example, Farrell argues that women "comprise approximately 15 percent of active-duty military personnel, and 10 percent of those deployed in Iraq." Yet women constitute approximately 2.6 percent of soldiers killed in Iraq; men constitute 97.4 percent. Indeed, "in the Marines and Air Force it’s a 100 percent chance of returning." That’s because a daughter is "much more likely to choose, or be chosen for, the military’s safer fields."

Farrell offers an explanation as to why women’s safety becomes a priority. "Whether…on an Alaskan fishing boat or in the American military, men’s protective instinct toward women, and women’s protective instinct toward themselves (and children) keeps men more disposable than women."

In short, men will assume greater risk to protect a woman co-worker. Farrell calls this male protective instinct "touching."

(Of course, many women don’t wish to be "shielded" from the job they signed on to do. Others find it offensive for policies to assume women can’t or shouldn’t work on an equal footing beside men. Such women do not wish to exploit those policies; they want to change them.)

But quite another factor underlies the situations that continue to make men "more disposable": government policy. Indeed, even private industry commonly implements preference for women’s safety out of fear of lawsuits for harms such as exposure to chemicals or other stress during pregnancy.

A government that discriminates on the basis of sex or race violates a basic principle of justice. The law must apply to every human being equally.

This is the core of my disagreement: Farrell believes in affirmative action and, so, advises women to ‘game the system’ in order to make money. I reject affirmative action and, so, seek to eliminate the system in order to make justice.

Nevertheless, "Why Men Earn More" goes on my reference shelf as a book I will quote and re-read despite disagreements.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Liberal senators cut off debate on same-sex

08.10.05 (4:57 am)   [edit]

Good commentary on the removal of democracy in Canada -- including from Senator Cools.

Liberal senators cut off debate on same-sex
Tim Naumetz
CanWest News Service
National Post

OTTAWA - The government invoked closure in the Senate yesterday to limit debate on the same-sex marriage bill after only two hours of speeches from a handful of senators on both sides of the controversial issue.

The move, which means the bill will be sent to the Senate's constitutional and legal affairs committee today, infuriated Conservatives and sparked a heated exchange after Tory Senator Anne Cools accused the government of turning Parliament into a "dictatorship."

Government Senate leader Jack Austin also made it clear yesterday a Conservative amendment attempting to give special recognition in the bill to heterosexual marriage is doomed and unlikely even to make it through the committee.

"The committee won't adopt the amendment," he said. "If the purpose of the amendment is to create a definition of marriage, it would be rejected by the Senate."

Conservative Senator Noel Kinsella, a human-rights expert who said he was proposing the amendment to help heal deep divisions across the country, claimed the government had no intention of allowing amendments or extended debate even though the Senate allotted two weeks of additional sittings.

"They are obviously under orders to ram this thing through," said Sen. Kinsella, whose amendment would leave the bill intact while adding a clause saying Parliament continues to recognize traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

The bill is expected to clear the constitutional and legal affairs committee in five days of public hearings, meaning it could become law before the end of next week, thus making Canada one of only four countries, with Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands, to give gays and lesbians access to civil marriage.

But, while speedy passage will be welcomed by those who support the historic legislation, church groups and coalitions opposed to the bill were angered that the government invoked closure in the Senate after using the same tactic to get the bill, C-38, through the Commons last week.

"The reason for that is they know they do not have a mandate from the people," said Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition. "The only way they were able to pass C-38 was through threats and coercions, essentially against Cabinet ministers, but also against backbench MPs."

Thirty-two Liberal MPs voted against the bill when it passed in the House last week, but all 36 of Prime Minister Paul Martin's Cabinet ministers in the Commons were under orders to support it. Former Northern Ontario minister Joe Comuzzi resigned to vote against the bill, which passed by a margin of 158-133.

To ease fears the new law might result in churches being compelled to solemnize same-sex marriages, the Commons amended it to strengthen freedom of religion guarantees under the Charter of Rights and also amended the Income Tax Act to protect the charitable tax status of churches that refuse gay marriages.

A string of Conservative senators denounced the use of closure, saying the rush to pass the bill will further damage the Senate's public image.

"So much for democracy, when after one day, we invoke closure," Conservative Senator Gerry St. Germain shouted at the Liberals. "You're out to lunch."

Shortly before the Liberal majority passed the closure motion, government officials said the Conservatives made it clear they intended to stall the bill by adjourning debate twice and putting up no speakers early yesterday before moving the second adjournment motion.

The 22 Tory senators stand no chance of overcoming the 63 Liberal senators to defeat the bill, even though Sen. Austin said he expects a "small number" of Liberals to oppose it. There are five Progressive Conservative senators, one NDP, nine vacancies and five Independents.

© National Post 2005

double standart

08.03.05 (7:00 am)   [edit]
Young Boy Raped by Older Woman Must Pay Child Support

A 15-year-old California boy was seduced by a 34- year-old woman. The California Court of Appeals found that he is required to pay child support to the woman who raped him.

The Court of Appeals was swayed by the boy’s admission that he participated willingly in the sexual intercourse. This “reasoning” is bizarre, since the whole idea of statutory rape is that children are unable to give meaningful consent to sexual intercourse. Just as a 15-year-old girl may not fully understand the consequences for her, such as pregnancy, a 15-year-old boy certainly cannot fully comprehend the possible consequences for him, such as child support.

I guess we’ve gone back to Original Sin – he had sex. Worst of all, he enjoyed it, so he must pay.

Courts in other states have made similar decisions, including Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota and New York State. So far, we do not know of any states that have found the opposite.

The lunatic “Pay No Matter What” child support mentality gallops onward. The fuzzy thinkers will cry, “What about the child?” I ask, “Which child?”


BTW, one of the most important things that you can do as a member of this e-list is get other people to join. If you think of anyone who would enjoy or benefit from receiving our e-mails, please click on the link below that says "forward email."

Best Regards,

Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Fathers & Families