The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

The male-prejudice, female-bias, and sex-typecasting that now pervade the American culture follow a circular, helix-like or spring-like path. These perceptions began with activists in the public domain during the 1960’s, but then gradually moved to their current origin—Feminists in higher education. From academia, the ideas pass through college students, reaching student’s family, friends and the broader public in their roles as professionals. The ideas are thereafter incorporated in customs and laws before feeding back to education in the form of tolerance or approval and resources.

It is reasonable to argue that some male-discrimination is based on tradition, as well as indirectly from modern standards of masculinity and directly from social pressure from other men. Higher education’s mission is to propagate intelligence. Instead it is very busy exacerbating, and doing nothing to dispel such ignorance. Hence, it seem appropriates to hold it accountable for perpetuating those traditional views.

Higher Education—The Source: Most Feminist information about sex/gender today emanates from academia’s publications, faculty members offices, and classrooms study materials. The decision to teach such content is seldom made by an individual instructor. It is typically systematic. Such data is part of the curriculum, course content, and instructional materials prescribed by department heads and administrators.

Dissemination of male-discrimination is most detectable in: [1] gender/female psychology or women’s health and history courses; [2] the sex/gender-related sections of core social sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology, history, etc.); and [3] the papers prepared by students, when they rely upon journal articles and books for references on sex/gender. But far more importantly, Feminist’s perspectives also spread—most often in more subtle forms—to [4] an array of social science derived fields. These “applied social sciences” prepare students to enter “culture-shaping” professions like politics, law, teaching, counseling, business, and communications. The latter group includes influential vocations in the media, publishing, advertising, PR, and entertainment. Finally, male-discrimination also covertly arises from [5] the college’s or university’s administrative policies and practices that give preferential treatment to females—aka affirmative action.

At least some of the neutral and balanced facts—like those provided on this site—are also typically presented. Such data most often serves as a token to create the impression of objectivity to legitimize Feminism’s prejudiced and biased propositions. But, in any event, Feminist’s data is so cleverly presented, heavily emphasized, and continually reinforced with mostly valueless citations that students are overwhelmed by the shear mass and force of the Feminist worldview on sex/gender.

The primary initiators and reinforcers of male-bigotry are the Feminist gender/sex “author-experts” who prepare the literature and study materials most often used in the classroom. The secondary initiators are the faculty whom design the curriculum and choose content for classes. These expert’s and faculty leader’s mission has nothing to do with the advancement of fact-based knowledge about men and women; or teaching students to inquire, observe, and think for themselves. This group is dedicated to advocating their shared social ideology and sociopolitical ambitions; to persuading, manipulating, or indoctrinating students so they will convert, or at least become compliant with to a prescribed worldview—Feminism.

The curriculum and content organizers use the remaining faculty as instructors for the multiplicity of classes they design. It is important to recall that teachers were also previously students that had similar experiences to those described below. But faculty members are subjected to far greater suppression of their speech and academic freedoms than student’s face. The tactics Feminists use to force their beliefs on other faculty members include professional ridicule, social “excommunication,” personal insults or gossip, and influence on or control of staff assignments, research-funding, and tenure. The result of such methods is typically conversion, compliance, quiet acquiescence, or repression of doubts and dissent to Feminism.

The degree and scope of suppression of scientific facts, cultural observations, and personal views contrary to Feminist ideology and data in academia is probably hard for outsiders to believe. Public visibility of the astonishing repression faculty faces daily in higher education is rare. Feminists forced the president of one university (Colorado) to formally apologize, and another to resign (Harvard) for the “capital offense” of questioning one of the cause’s minor tenets in public.  Events like these and the above keep faculty and administrators aware—in no uncertain terms—what awaits them if they “cross-the-Feminist-party-line”. It is important to note that most of the commentary about higher education on this site does not apply to the theoretical physical sciences or applied engineering disciplines on most college campuses.

In sum, educators now function as Feminism’s priests and crusaders; members of “the activist cloth” whom recruit vast armies of topically naïve and trusting student converts. Students carry the movement’s major themes and data to the cause’s ultimate audience—the people and public policy. The American public has the where-with-all to attend to and either advance and sustain—or put a stop to all such activist causes.

The author estimates Feminist activists and believers in academia are ~30% of faculty members; another ~30% of instructors are disciples and willing supporters of the cause; about 30% chose to comply and go-along with the institution’s systemic expectation for them to support cause; and the final 10% are “silenced critics” who occasionally reveal skepticism and disagreement in private. Overt rebellion against Feminism or the other major activist belief systems by faculty on most campuses is rare to nonexistent.

Students–The Messengers: The textbooks and study materials Feminist’s activist-experts write are designed for students and non-specialist educators’ consumption—audiences that take-it-on-faith that the data being presented has intellectual integrity. After all, the information was prepared by specialist PhDs; is agreed with by hundreds of other sex/gender experts; is published under auspices of social science; and is endorsed by higher education. Such readers do not consume such data as vigilant skeptics on an equal intellectual footing with their authors, but as trusting learners—especially the undergraduate student.

Students are required to learn only one version of sex/gender “story”—Feminism’s. Doing so is not an act of volition. Materials exposing students to the-other-side-of-the-story or a more neutral and balance portrayal of the facts are neither assigned nor readily accessible. Potential recruits are seldom made aware a different or more objective view even exists.

In most cases Feminist information is initially a homework assignment. Students thus consume such information in isolated settings, where questioning or discussion is impossible. In any event, they are not very likely, under such circumstances, to be very vigilant or critical and thus challenge ideas that carry the full weight of academic authority and endorsement in a written document they are studying in private.

When classes meet to cover such assignments, instructors that support Feminism (i.e. 30%+30%) may devote 5-10 minutes to lecturing on the homework. Lectures convey the significance the instructor sees in aspects of the study materials, which expands upon and generally further legitimizes the overall assignment. Several questions may then appear on a quiz and the final exam. In this context, how many students would be likely to ever openly challenge or outright reject any of Feminism’s key propositions? What grade would students whom do so probably receive compared to those who remain silent?

Many of the compliant and unconvinced (i.e. up to 30%+10%) instructors may comment or ask for questions in class, and include a questions on a quiz. But these low-key actions do not mean students have not received the author’s messages. It takes time and energy to digest dozens of pages of study material, and students seldom know an instructor’s views beforehand, so they must take all assignment seriously.

Male-students “voices” are effectively “silenced” as a result of several additional dynamics. First, Feminism’s faithful instructors seldom encourage discussion, almost never encourage questioning, or allow debate on the cause’s themes. Such teachers also subtly let-it-be-known one-simply-does-not confront academia’s accepted “conventional wisdom” on any topic, much less Feminism. Their covert repressive methods include the scolding look, halted speech, disapproving gestures, critical comments, and notes papers. The same prohibitions apply to any area of academia’s conventional wisdom, as well as its public manifestation—popular “politically correct” thinking. Less enthusiastic instructors also prefer to avoid open discussion of such topics in class. Hence, the extent to which students disagree with Feminism’s positions is seldom expressed in the classroom.  Despite the lack of opposing views and stimulation to observe or think for themselves, it is likely at least some students do have suppressed thoughts about Feminism’s views because so many of its assumptions are obviously contradicted by observable reality.

Second, on the rare occasion student discussions do occur within or outside the classroom, the atmosphere tends to become contentious, emotion-laden, and unruly. Sexual identity is central to the psyche, and Feminists tend to wear their emotional commitment to the cause on their shirt-sleeves. Student true-believers are also far more aggressive and forceful in suppressing other students’ freedom of speech and thought than instructors. Many students now enter college convinced of Feminism’s righteousness due the cause’s influence in local education systems and the public’s “politically correct” thinking.

Feminism’s student converts try to “talk-over,” “out-argue,” and use social pressure to suppress opposing views. They use derogatory laughter, verbal put-downs, emotional outbursts, the “silent treatment,” and social rejection. Such tactics mean fact-based discussion and rational disputation are impossible. Thus vigilant and skeptical student’s freedom to speak, study, and think (their “voices”) are effectively repressed—or “silenced”—by such tactics. The same techniques are used to suppress resistance to other “pet” belief systems—like diversity, multiculturalism, anti-transcendentalism, and, of course, evolution—as well.

As a result, students are unlikely to think about, much less freely ask really tough questions. For example, students never ask questions like: “Where is the proof equally qualified and experienced women were/are paid less for equal work?”; “What is the evidence a modern patriarchy exists?”; and “What percentage of women versus men chose to run for office and then get the elected?

Few of the instructional methods commonly practiced in today’s “Arts and Sciences” departments stimulate vigilant inquiry or doubt on any of Academia’s “pet” positions. Instead, the overall system and most instructors lead students who aggressively question or openly criticize academia’s belief systems to think their personal “objectivity,” “skepticism,” and intellectual capacities are suspect. Student converts treat dissenters like fools for failing to conform to conventional academic and politically correct thinking as well.

Feminist author-experts also publish studies, journal articles, and other books that are studied by their sex/gender specialist peers, as well as specialists in other social science related disciplines. Students also access these publications when they write essays, term-papers, theses, or dissertations. Such data serves as authoritative sources that establish the legitimacy of student’s work. Student’s from undergrad though doctoral studies are expected to get most of the concepts and data they include in their papers from such publications. Students must give credit to the author for originating the ideas via citations, as well. The absence of ample references in the body of a student’s paper is understood to mean the paper does not have a viable intellectual foundation or else has been plagiarized, and is therefore unacceptable.

Feminists not only suppress the expression of opposing views in the classroom, study materials, and textbooks. Opposing perspectives have been driven out of academia’s archives as well. In preparing a master’s project on a sex/gender topic Feminists consider central to their cause, the author concluded that only 15% of research, studies, and other literature in academic libraries was sufficiently sex-neutral and gender-balanced to be of value in arriving at valid and reliable conclusions about both sexes. In less diplomatic terms, this observation suggests that 85% of the data on sex/gender topics available to students is originated by Feminism’s activists experts whom provide only one-sided and false data.

The data student’s use to create their papers on any subject primarily comes, first, from the publications of specialists on that topic. Second, student’s use the references those authors provide as additional sources of information—which in the case of Feminists is overwhelming the opinionated work of other Feminists. Since an equally prolific group of specialists advocating an opposing point-of-view do not exist in higher education, what students necessarily learn in preparing papers on any such topic is the Feminist worldview and male-discriminatory sex-stereotyping. Personal observations, experiences, and original thinking, as well as data from nonacademic sources, are also typically prohibited in body of student’s writing (especially by undergraduates). Students may include such data in concluding commentaries, but at that point the data lacks of required concurrence of other academics, and is unlikely to be very convincing.

As a result, identifying and then finding concepts and data to support any non-Feminist point of-view is far more time consuming and laborious than locating information reinforcing the cause’s key positions. Most students have heavy workloads, and prefer to avoid wasting energy on work that does not contribute to their main goal—earning a degree. Even the rare student willing to risk being greeted by a negative reaction from their instructors or a thesis/desertion committee is, as a practical matter, discouraged if not effectively prevented from writing papers offering an opposing perspective that can satisfy academia’s standards.

To summarize all of the above, it is vital to recognize that, in general, Feminism is effectively denying the students their freedom of speech and academic freedom, as well as systematically brainwashing them with its ideology, data, and politics.

In addition to serving as a tool for indoctrination by Feminists, the way the citation system works in social science fields also maintains the status quo; inhibits innovation or creativity; and impedes work on concepts not widely accepted within academia. It may be helpful to think of social science’s the citation system as a sort of “token-economy,” like that often found in prisons and mental institutions. In such systems “chits” of some sort or cigarettes serve as a medium of exchange. Academics gain self-esteem, “bankable credits,” recognition, and power for every paper or book they publish and each time their work is quoted and cited by others. In this manner, social scientists accumulate intellectual wealth and influence. Feminists did not create the system, but they are masters of exploiting its inherent weaknesses.

The way Feminism is taught to students exemplifies how social science related fields no longer: [1] teach students to independently observe their own surroundings; [2] skeptically study original research and holistic philosophy: [3] challenge or dispute the collective opinions of academia’s “experts”; [4] demand valid/reliable scientific, empirical, and observable evidence; [5] discount popular opinion and resist social pressure to conform; and then [6] arrive at their own conclusions.

In general, most undergraduates seem to accept most of the Feminist information they are being taught as basically credible—but not necessarily true in all respects. After all, the data is presented by PhD’s in institutions students believe convey the facts and truths. However, many students also seem to treat the data as just more “rote-learning” to be fed back on tests to earn a passing grade, and then be more or less “shelved.” But even in the latter cases, the data’s implications have not been discredited, and thus are not completely forgotten. Finally, some student’s go much further and become Feminism’s lay evangelists or missionaries; carry their acquired belief system with them into their personal and professional lives; and thereafter proactively spread the Feminist sex/gender worldview to their intimates and the public-at-large.

The Public—The Target: College graduates join their professional peers in the workforce, many of whom have also been taught the Feminist worldview. Coworkers not yet converted to the cause’s perspectives are offered further training by their believing colleagues; coworkers who are able to speak authoritatively as representatives of academia’s activist-experts and true-believing faculty. The same ideas get reproduced in the professional’s work.

Based on the normal curve, the author estimates Feminism’s proactive supporters in managerial and professional jobs to represent ~25%; ~60% are likely be compliant or passive followers; leaving a small minority of ~15% of “silenced” skeptics and dissenters. Thus the impact of this vast army of supporters on the overall culture is far greater than higher-education’s faculties. The sheer number of these practitioners is huge in comparison to those in academia, and these followers often influence vastly more people in their roles as journalists, teachers, counselors, and in government, law, accounting, medicine, personnel, etc.

Feminists have been conveying their views from higher education to the public since the 1960-70’s. Their ideas are now “politically correct” in America because 36% of adults have an Associate’s or higher degree, and an additional 17% have completed some college. College educated people are essentially America’s intelligentsia; are its primary culture-shapers; are the vast majority of the nation’s political, business, legal, and education decision-makers. Students have taken what they learned about the sexes in higher education and translated it into a culture-wide “politically correct” popular belief system; converted it into “unarguable certainties” and “selective perceptions” that have no foundation in fact, truth, or reality.

The breadth and depth of academic and popular support probably makes the cause’s ideas too overwhelming for most people to openly challenge or completely resist. On the other hand, it is unlikely that America’s “intelligent majority” has bought into all of Feminism’s key positions. Considering their formal education and continuous emersion in mass communications, most of people are likely to be too smart and well-informed to be completely duped. It seems indisputable, however, that Feminists now control how society basically perceives and evaluates the sexes; control which rights and liberties are granted to each of the sexes; and control the effective “silencing” of most “voices” of any serious opposition to their cause.

Most opinion polls today are often “doctored” with purposeful designs and loaded questions. This is especially the case with those measuring Feminism’s popularity. Combining such sources with considerable judgment, the author estimates about one-third of women are enthusiastic supporters of Feminism, about half passively think the cause is beneficial to women, and the remainder are quietly dubious. Guesstimates for men are configured differently—with about one-third “silenced” and passive anti-Feminists, about half compliant, but quietly think the cause is detrimental to men and society, and the remainder supporters. 

Finally, the fact that the same male-discriminatory ideas are present in both the classroom and society-at-large cannot be a coincidence. There is no indication that the majority of the American’s imposed their preexisting male-prejudices, female-bias, and sex-typecasting ideas on higher education. On the contrary, Feminists claim the opposite—that society (aka men) imposed female-discrimination on education, the workplace, and entire culture. Thus academia is surely the origin of such ideas.

In any event, higher education’s mission is to promulgate actual facts and probabilities, objective observations and enduring truths, and constructive knowledge and skills. Academia does not exist to spread falsehoods, promote censored or destructive philosophies, and inculcate ignorance. Nor does its charter include the psychosocial “reengineering” of humanity or “redesign” of entire societies and cultures. In conclusion, Feminism’s sociopolitical activism has no legitimate place in public-funded education.

EmasculationOfAmerica.com

Last Updated: 7/19/08