The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

Home Page

For four decades Feminism has promoted false sex-stereotypes that are now the basis for a politically correct set of beliefs, customs, and laws in America. This typecasting divides and polarizes the sexes, as well as damages children, the family, and society. It is long past due for the sex/gender pendulum to swing back toward a midpoint of equality. Hence this site first seeks to help build a better balanced view of the sexes by offering “the-other-side-of-the-story”. 

For example, Feminism: [1] alleges the sexes are fundamentally different and unequal (e.g. men are physically and sexually violent and aggressive—women are their passive, abused, and exploited subjects); [2] portrays men as society’s most powerful and dominant group—women as an impotent and discriminated against “minority”; and [3] advocates that women and many other groups are discriminated against; which, in turn, [4] infers men are accountable for all such discrimination; and implies that [5] any problems men may have must have been brought upon themselves and are therefore up to them to solve.

The above is all problematic. Any claim implying women are victims of a modern “patriarchy;” or the sexes are inherently different and manifestly unequal is at least 96% pseudo-intellectual hocus-pocus. This website offers objective scientific and observable evidence refuting every major Feminist claim.

Feminism is not passé. It covertly thrives in America’s education system, government, and other institutions. Its true nature and mission are misunderstood as well. Feminism is a special interest minority of mostly well-educated women whom “elect” themselves the representatives and spokespersons for all women. It is also a psychosocial ideology and political activist cause.

 

 

Second, this site discloses many of the effects activism has on their group members and society. Feminism is the most visible, easily understood, and popular activism today. Since people are one sex or the other, as well as live with sex/gender issues in their daily lives, it is easier for more readers to intimately understand their nature and nuances than race, ethnicity, religion, and so forth. Feminism also employs most of the methods and leads to similar results all special interest causes share. Therefore, what we learn from dissecting and analyzing Feminism is likely to apply to other activisms as well.

This critique of Feminism reveals how all activisms: [1] distort the public’s perceptions of reality; [2] distract the public from seeing both-sides-of-the-story and the overall picture; [3] encourage group members to blame obscure outside forces and other groups for their situation; [4] inhibit members from facing-up-to their own shortcomings and what they need to do to change their circumstances; and [5] result in individuals’ or the majority’s liberties being usurped by special interest groups’ “rights” and “entitlements.” For example, activist’s “shouting” and demonstrations “silences” individuals’ “voices” and prevents their freedom of choice or action; or the majority’s will and interests are superseded by activists’ demands .

Third, a male-discrimination case is reported in its entirety. The case began with two grievances filed with St. Louis Community College (StLCC), followed by a series of complaints against the College submitted to the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The College refused to respond to its grievances, and the OCR stonewalled its complaints for three years while thrice denying them without legal justification. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to intercede with the DOE as well. These documents allow those so inclined to examine the case and arrive at their own conclusions about the illegality of the DOE/OCR’s rulings.

The case describes the male-discriminatory sex-stereotyping most colleges in America now systematically teach students, as well as the far reaching effects such practices have on society. It discloses how topically naïve and trusting students are effectively force-fed and indoctrinated with Feminist information; how a minority of tacitly coordinated activists in academia cunningly manipulate and pressure their peers and decision-makers into condoning and advancing their cause; and how college graduates thereafter transmit the same data to public in their roles as professionals in the media, government, counseling, teaching, business etc. Finally, the case and other pages report how Feminists employ shrewdly worded and disguised misinformation, unsubstantiated conjecture, and, at best, partial truths to create and sustain an unrecognized “culture-of-discrimination-against-men” in America.

What? Men Discriminated Against? You’re Kidding, Right?

Yes, first reactions to male-discrimination are often some version of the above. Why? For forty-years Feminists have bombarded America with a vision of the sexes and gender that is now widely accepted. These views now originate from, are reinforced by, and are absolutely not proactively refuted in academia. It is vital to know of the sort of information college students learn today. Excerpts from the StLCC and another a four-year college textbook, as well as quotes from several activist leaders can be found at Feminist Quotes.  Please read at least the College’s excerpts before proceeding. 

These examples are but the tip-of-the-iceberg of the male-denigrating and female-elevating data being taught in dozens of courses on colleges nationwide. They offer insight into how Feminists speculate about the sexes and gender, and then manufacture manipulated, erroneous, and inflammatory data cleverly designed to convince less-well-informed people that their accusations have intellectual integrity.

From a legal perspective, it is probably irrelevant that Feminism’s claims about men are false because, even if true, they would still be discriminatory. For example, would the law allow employers (much less schools) to adopt policies and teach their staff (much less students) that “Blacks or Hispanics are less intelligent and motivated, or more criminally inclined than Whites;” or “Women are less team-oriented, managerial, technological, dispassionately analytical, and tough-minded than men?” If not, how can colleges systematically teach students male-prejudiced and female-biased data like that cited above—especially if that data is overwhelmingly refuted by objective research and observations?

The author searched for many years—not to disprove—but find legitimate scientific and empirical evidence verifying Feminism’s major claims. But support for its allegations primarily comes from citations of other activists’ opinions and emotion-stimulating rhetoric; or else from misrepresentations of major sex-neutral research, and smaller female-only studies conducted by Feminist sex/gender “experts.” The latter tend to be specialists in feminine or gender psychology, health, history, and so forth. These specialists seldom refer to anything but one another’s work, except in the effort to create an impression of objectivity. Science and philosophy also prohibit people acting in such capacities from trying to mix activism with intellectual detachment, but these experts admit or otherwise make it clear they are Feminists.

In sum, Feminism has no foundation in sex-neutral research or gender-balanced observations—it is built on a minority group’s idealism, unsupported conjecture, and pseudo-scientific data. Please consider the following objective evidence that negates several major Feminist claims; actual facts that refute some of today’s male-prejudiced and female-biased conventional wisdom and popular opinion:

· Objective research overwhelming finds no significant differences (i.e. > 4%) in the sexes’ fundamental psychosocial characteristics—e.g. violence/aggression, competitiveness, intelligence, emotionality, altruism/nurturing, sexuality, etc. However, the sexes are socialized to express these underlying equal attributes differently. Physiological differences also establish certain behavioral orientations and obvious limitations. ¹ But the sexes’ acculturated gender traits/roles and physical-derived differences tend to be off-set by comparable qualities in the opposite sex, thus are equal overall as well.

· In neither the 1960-70’s nor today are women paid less than men for equal work or by-passed in hiring/promotions based on sex. For example, claiming “Women are paid 70-75% of what men earn” proves discriminated against women in employment is like saying “Grain costs $2 and fruit $3 per pound proves grain is 33% undervalued.” In general, Feminist’s activists use statistics to deceive, manipulate, and inflame.

· Claims that a modern patriarchy exists in America are nonsense. Women are not “underrepresented” in politics. Elected officials gain and retain office by satisfying most of their constituents. For 75-years voting age women have been political plurality by 7%-15% versus men. ²  And, like the highest pay/status jobs in the workplace, the only reason more men occupying such positions is equal numbers of women have not chosen to pursue and invest 30+ years of their lives in such careers. Marketing experts also estimate females control ~75% of all consumer purchase decisions, which in turn directs the overall economy and business decisions. Finally, economists say women possess half of all personal assets and ~85% of estate wealth (see the last factor). Is this patriarchy?

· Social science finds men acculturated to give priority to providing for, protecting, and serving women, children, and their communities—not to themselves.

· Since the 1964, 44 million men died an average of six years earlier and prematurely than women.¹ Males also have 20% more psychological illnesses. ³ While 260 million years of men’s lives have been needlessly lost, the government spends untold billions on the Civil Rights Act to overcome nonexistent female-discrimination; colleges offer dozens of women’s health and related courses; and researchers give greater priority to women’s physical and mental health—e.g. breast cancer, heart disease, feminine psychology, etc.

How can falsehoods and male-discrimination be produced in academia? Isn’t higher education’s mission is to seek-out, validate, and teach students the actual facts and truths; uncensored history and philosophy; and how to observe reality, find probabilities, and think for themselves? The answer can be summarized as: “Outside of the pure sciences and engineering related fields, most American colleges and universities no longer serve such purposes.”

Fourth, the blow-by-blow exchange of correspondence in the StLCC/DOE case provides an opportunity for the public to see the astonishing control Feminism has over America’s educational institutions, other government agencies, and its legal system. In other words, the case reports how government agencies misinterpret the literal meaning of regulations to conform to Feminism’s ideology; how they thereafter use the regulations to illegally deny equal treatment and protection to males.

Perhaps the best indicator of Feminism’s dominance over higher education and the overall education system in America is reflected in the following statistics:    

In the 1960’s, the DOE reported that 20.3% more young men than women attended college. This was considered proof of female-discrimination in education, as well as the professional fields that follow. Yet in the 2000’s, 35.5% more young women than men attend college, then enter the nation’s most contributory and rewarding careers.

In other words, the same indicators used as concrete evidence of female-discrimination now reflect male-discrimination 75% greater that of women in the 1960’s. This data has gone unnoticed by the DOE, other government agencies, and the media. There has been no sign of any corrective action being taken, much less anything comparable to that on behalf of women. Can it be what this data also illustrates is Feminism’s vision of what “equality between the sexes” actually means in the real world?

A more specific example is the DOE/OCR’s reasons for “refusing to investigate” this case. Its primary argument was prohibiting teaching the specified data would violate educator’s speech and academic freedoms. This is a ruling the DOE/OCR is not legally authorized to render. At the same time, it refused to explain why the reported suppression of student’s freedoms to freely study, think for themselves, and speak-out did not similarly violate student’s civil rights as well. In sum, the DOE/OCR’s legal authority is limited to administering sex-discrimination laws on behalf of students. Why would the DOE enable the OCR to exceed its authority in ways that increase teacher’s power in the classroom and violate male-student’s civil rights? How about activism and lobbyist? The NEA and teachers unions have a tremendous impact on DOE funding, don’t they? What political influence do male-students have?

The applicable statute in this case is Title IX. The only regulation OCR is delegated to enforce is the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 34, Part 106 [34CFR 106.1]. Title IX and 34CFR 106 cover all forms of sex-discrimination, and does not mention sexual harassment. By publishing policies in the Federal Register, Agencies can imbue them with a quasi-legal status. The only policies the OCR has chosen to so legitimize apply to Sexual Harassment (SH). [See: SH Guide 1997 and SH Guide 2001.]

A secondary set of reasons the DOE/OCR’s denied the case came from its SH Guides. These policies state they do not apply to nonsexual complaints like the subject case. In addition, OCR’s SH Guides are inherently male-discriminatory because they “criminalize” many of the ways males are normally sexual proactive, and virtually none of those commonly employed by females. In sum, this case illustrated how the DOE/OCR used every device imaginable to keep a legally justified male-discrimination case from seeing the light-of-day—factual misrepresentation, legal mumbo-jumbo, and outright evasion.

The fifth and final topic addressed here is how the DOE/OCR and probably other government Agencies misinterpret the spirit and intent of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA is intended to prohibit the government from withholding information unjustifiably, or covering-up improprieties and its own illegal conduct. The DOE applied the FOIA in ways that it actually accomplishes the opposite—protected the Agency from releasing suspect information that was harmless to third-parties—at least to private citizens. Businesses and other organizations may not encounter such practices. But finding and paying specialized FOIA legal counsel to argue with government agencies is something most students and private individuals are unlikely to be willing and financially able to do.

It is reasonable to ask: “If the above acts are truly illegal, why these allegations were not successfully pursued under civil law? After many long months of legal research on this case and unrelated experience with labor relations lawyers over several decades, possible explanations for the case’s failure to be accepted by an attorney are discussed elsewhere. In sum, the author could not pay to prosecute this case. Of course, how many students have sufficient resources to fight the government to attain the same protection as women? More importantly, the case was far too ground-breaking, complex, unprecedented, controversial, and costly for most civil rights attorney’s to handle on a contingency-fee basis. In addition, the rare attorney with expertise in education was probably currently employed by one or more schools, thus unwilling to take the case regardless of its legitimacy because they feared losing such clients.

NAVIGATING THIS SITE

Readers are able to participate in a logical and legal skirmish between author and the institutions involved in the above sex-discrimination case by sequentially reading the exchange of correspondence. To do so, start with the Case Overview, then 1st StLCC Grievance, and follow the hyperlinks on each page thereafter. The above “Legal Case Guide” navigation bar may also be helpful. Readers only interested in the central legal issues in the case should go directly to 2nd DOE Appeal, which summarizes both sides of most legal arguments. Non-legalistic oriented data can be found in the: The Discrimination Cycle, About Feminism, Equal Pay=Equal Jobs, Sexes Different & Equal, Feminism’s Effects, Supreme Court Rulings, DOE Secy’s Help Req. 1&2, DOE Secy’s Appeal, and President’s Appeal.

This site is copyright protected, but subject to “fair-use”—it can be freely cited for reporting, research, or educational purposes]. In addition, reproduction is also authorized for use in not-for-profit-group discussions in school, church, or service groups—provided credit is given. Students may also use the site as a model and general reference in filing male-discrimination sex-stereotyping complaints against other schools where similar content is presented in the classroom. Please note an (R) following the date in the heading is entered on many documents on this site. This indicates that typing/editing errors and minor wording improvements have been made to the original document without altering it meanings.

REFERENCES:

1. The sexes have different body structures, biochemistry, and reproductive organs. Physical factors either place firm boundaries on or serve as powerful forces for developing certain psychosocial qualities in each sex—i.e. men larger/more testosterone and women smaller/more estrogen, which tends to induce different, not unequal capabilities. Thus men do not have babies and will not become supermodels and ballerinas; and women cannot be fathers, a Michael Jordan, or truly equal in some occupations.

2. See U.S. Census Bureau or most popular almanacs. During the 1800’s, the sexes’ life-expectancies were equal after adjusting for infant mortality. Note that 5% more males are born annually. See same source for various combinations of childbirth data.

3.  Robins, Lee, & Regier (1991). Psychiatric Disorders in America. Sponsor: The National Institute of Health. NYC: Free Press.

Next Page: Site Introduction and About Feminism or Case Overview.

EmasculationOfAmerica.com