|
The Emasculation of America |
|
The Case Against Feminism: |
|
Home Page |
|
Feminism is basically a fraud—and this site proves it. For example, Feminism has convinced most well-educated Americans—and through them most of the public—that men have conspired to: [1] pay women one-third less for equal work; [2] by-pass women for advancement (i.e. impose “glass ceilings”); and [3] cause women to be “underrepresented” in most professions and elected offices. The Feminist claim that “Women are paid 70-75% of what men earn” proves discrimination against women in employment is like saying “Grain averaging $2 and fruit $3 per pound” proves grain is undervalued 33%.” The primary reason for the earnings differential and fewer women being in higher status/pay jobs is not discrimination. The “wage gap” is primarily the product of equal numbers of women not choosing to pursue the same or similar valued professional and skilled labor careers in the past. It typically takes 15-35 years to prepare and gain the experience for the best rewarded positions in most fields. Young women now increasingly choose careers based on women’s, far more than men’s collective acceptance of Feminist ideals. In the middle of the 20th century it was also other women’s beliefs that largely guided such decisions, except it was their beliefs in tradition sex-roles. In other words, women collectively that have the greatest influence on female’s lifestyle choices, not men. Thus it is not so much discrimination by the “male-subculture” as it is the beliefs and customs of “female-subculture” that determine women’s “lot-in-life”. In addition, for four decades Feminists have promoted false stereotypes of both sexes. Feminism’s sex-typecasting has become a “politically correct” set of beliefs, customs, and laws that divide and polarize the sexes; denigrate men and fatherhood; ravage the family and child development; and deny males equal legal rights and treatment in education, the workplace, and society. For example, Feminist have propagated the popular beliefs that: [1] the sexes are fundamentally different and unequal (e.g. men more physically and sexually aggressive and violent—women their passive, controlled, and abused victims); [2] males are society’s most dominant and powerful group—females an impotent and economically exploited “minority”; and [3] men both conspire to and inadvertently cause widespread discrimination against women (as well as many other groups), which in turn infers [4] that any problems males have must have been brought upon themselves and are therefore up to them to solve. The above is all problematic. Any allegation that women are exploited by a modern “patriarchy” or that the sexes are inherently different and manifestly unequal is at least 96% pseudo-intellectual hocus-pocus. |
|
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 indeed socialized to express these underlying equal attributes differently. Physiological differences also establish behavioral orientations and certain obvious limitations.1 But all such acquired “gender” traits and roles and physical-derived differences are off-set by comparable qualities in the opposite sex. For example, while males tend to aggress and abuse directly and physically, females do so indirectly and psychologically. Women are also not “underrepresented” in politics. Elected officials can only gain/retain office by satisfying the majority of their voting age constituents, which for the last 75-years has been women by a plurality of 7%-15% because men die earlier. 2 And like the workplace, more men still fill such positions because equal numbers of women do not seek them. When women do run for office, data indicates they are elected far more often than men. Marketing experts also estimate females control ~75% of consumer purchase decisions, which in turn directs the overall economy and most business decisions. Economists say women own ~85% of estate wealth as well. Finally Feminism ignores the vast control women have over men emotionally, sexually, and due to motherhood’s saintly status vs. fatherhood’s abusive deadbeat abandoner image. The conjecture that a modern patriarchy has existed in America is nonsense. In addition, widespread collusion by men to discriminate against women in the workplace and society could not exist without prior socialization and widespread communications. The social “sciences” conclude that men are generally acculturated to give priority to providing for, protecting, and serving—even give their lives for—women, children, and their communities, not to themselves. And Feminism offers no tangible proof that men have colluded to discriminate against women in modern times. The only sex-based conspiracy for which concrete evidence of socialization and communications exists is Feminism’s prolific campaign of pervasive discrimination against men, boys, and fatherhood. In sum, Feminism has no basis in facts, truths, or reality. Thus this site offers objective scientific, readily observable, and logical evidence refuting Feminism’s major claims. It is long past due for the pendulum of sex/gender perceptions to swing back from its current female-centric unsubstantiated wild-speculation and psychosocial myths toward a midpoint of sex-neutral reality. Hence, this website first seeks to help build a better balanced view of the sexes by offering “the-other-sides-of-the-story”. Feminism is also not passé. It now covertly thrives far more effectively and devastatingly than ever in America’s education system, government agencies, businesses, and other institutions. Its true nature and mission are misunderstood as well. Feminism is a psychosocial ideology and political activist cause. Its activists are a special interest minority of mostly well-educated and privileged women that “elect” themselves as the sole representatives and spokespersons for all women.
Second, this site describes many of the effects all activisms have on their members and the overall culture. Feminism is the most visible, popular, and readily understood form of activism today. Since almost everyone is one sex or the other, as well as lives with sex/gender issues every day, it is probably easier for more readers to intimately understand the nature and nuances of sex/gender than it is race, ethnicity, religion, and so forth. It also employs most of the methods and leads to similar results that most special interest causes have in common. Therefore, what we learn from dissecting and analyzing Feminism is likely to apply to most other activisms as well. This critique of Feminism reveals how all activisms: [1] impose their leader’s self-interests on group members, other groups, and the public; [2] distort people’s perception of reality; [3] distract people from seeing the overall picture and considering all-sides-of-the-arguments they raise; [4] encourage members to blame obscure outside forces and other groups for their situation-in-life; [5] inhibit members from facing-up-to their own shortcomings, and what they need to do to change their circumstances; and [6] result in other individuals’ and the majority’s liberties being usurped by that group’s “rights” and “entitlements.” For example, activist’s demonstrations and “shouting” prevents individual freedom of choice and action and “silences” other people’s “voices”; and the majority’s will and best interests end up being superseded by activists’ demands. Special interest activism and lobbying ultimately leads to anarchy and dissolution. An example of activism diverting the public’s attention in ways that indirectly result in discrimination having life-and-death consequences is Feminism’s impact on public health and medical research. Since the 1964, 44 million men died an average of six years earlier and prematurely than women.1 Males also suffer from 20% more psychological illnesses. 3 While 260 million years of men’s lives were needlessly lost, Feminists induced: the government to spend billions on imaginary female-discrimination; colleges to offer dozens of courses teaching women’s health and Feminist dogma; and researchers to give priority to women’s physical and mental health—breast cancer, heart disease, feminine psychology, etc. Third, a male-discrimination case in higher education is reported herein. The claim began in 2005 when two grievances filed with St. Louis Community College (StLCC), followed by a series of complaints against the College submitted to the U.S. Dept. 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 a single valid legal justification. The U.S. Dept. 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 dogma and propaganda; 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 graduates then transmit the same data to public in their roles as professionals in the media, government, counseling, teaching, business, and so forth. Finally, the case illustrates how Feminists in academia employ shrewdly worded and disguised misinformation, unsubstantiated conjecture, and partial truths to create and sustain an unrecognized “culture-of-discrimination-against-men” in America. The actual objective facts about sex/gender do occasionally appear in some textbooks in higher education, but colleges do not proactively refute or even encourage students to question Feminist data. It is vital to understand the sort of information college students typically 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 excerpts from the textbook’s 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. 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, thus far more enter the nation’s most contributory and rewarding careers. However, females continue to avoid studying many key high income potential fields like the pure sciences, engineering, business, and accounting in equal numbers. In other words, the same indicators used as concrete evidence of female-discrimination now reflect male-discrimination ~75% greater than 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? 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 was found to have absolutely no foundation in sex-neutral research or gender-balanced observations. It is built on a minority group of activists idealism, unsupported conjecture, and pseudo-scientific data. 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, holistic philosophy and history; to observe reality and discover probabilities; and to arrive at their own conclusions by thinking things through for themselves? The reality today is that: “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, government agencies, and hence its entire legal system. The case illustrates how government agencies misinterpret the literal meaning of regulations to conform to Feminism’s ideology; and how they thereafter use the regulations to illegally deny equal treatment and protection to males. 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? A 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 were they not successfully pursued under civil law? After many long months of legal research on this case and prior experience with labor relations lawyers over several decades, possible explanations for the case’s failure to be accepted by an attorney are discussed herein. In sum, the author could not afford to prosecute this case. Of course, how many other male students have sufficient resources to fight the government to attain equal 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 its 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. Thus men cannot have babies and will not become supermodels and ballerinas; and women cannot be fathers, a Michael Jordan, or be 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 the 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. |