The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

EmasculationOfAmerica.com
Text Box: FEMINISM’S EFFECTS ON EDUCATION Male-Discrimination in colleges and universities reaches far beyond the classroom [See Discrimination Cycle]. It has become systemic in American education today. The StLCC/DOE sex-discrimination case reveals institution-wide male-discrimination in the College’s refusal to respond to a male-student’s grievance, as well as in its campus-wide implementation of sex-stereotyping courses. The latter activities take place at public-funded higher educational institutions throughout America. Pervasive male-discrimination is also revealed at the DOE/OCR in its overall handling of that case. Quantitative verification of institutionalization of male-discrimination in America’s education system—which thereafter spreads to professional employment—can be found in DOE’s own statistics. The following was compiled from data supplied by the DOE’s National Center for Educational Statistics. This is the same statistics used by the media and government to justify “additional” or “special” educational—as well as “affirmative action” efforts on behalf of females. This data clearly reveals how young women’s and men’s educational and professional career paths have changed under Feminists controlling influence over America’s education system: <<<< The 1960’s >>>> <<<< 2000-2004 >>>> <Approx. # of Males Females %M/F Males Females %M/F Males per Yr.> High School Dropouts as % of 16-24 Population (’67-9) 15.5 16.6 -6.7% 11.7 9.0 +30.0% 250,000 % of Total College Enrollees 54.6 45.4 +20.3% 42.3 57.7 -26.7% 850,000 In sum, considering pregnancy and early marriage, high school dropout rates were roughly equal in the 1960’s, but today four boys quit school for every three girls. In addition, five young women now attend college for every four young men, which means 1.1 million fewer young men now receive the same educational benefits provided to women and therefore are denied the same opportunity to enter the most contributory and rewarding professional careers as women. Other sources indicate graduate schools are now 60% female (~ 2 million) and 40% male (~ 1.3 million), resulting in 700,000 (25%) more young women than men qualifying to enter even higher pay/status careers. From another perspective, the National Education Association (NEA) reports male elementary teachers is in long-term declined—dropping another 50% in the last 20-years [from a paltry 18% in the 1980’s to 9% the 2000’s]. Male high school teachers also declined during the same period by 30% [from 50% to just 35%]. From birth to about age 12 is the period in which involved adults provide most of children’s developmental inputs. Their peer group (through the early 20’s), followed by society-at-large becomes predominant thereafter. Research indicates children that have had the opportunity to learn equally from both sexes in most major developmental domains during this period vastly increases the odds they will develop into stable, well-balanced and happy adults, as well as reach their full potential. While the trend has been emerging for single and divorced mothers to be providing ~2/3 of children with almost all of the parental inputs they now receive while growing up—women have been increasingly supplying what has now become 90% and 65% of educational and role-modeling inputs in our grade and high schools, respectively. [See: DOE Secy’s 1st Help Request, 2nd Help Request, and DOE Secy’s Appeal.] It is proposed that the above data did not represent female-discrimination in the 1960’s. Like today, above data actually reflected the collective educational, career, and lifestyle choices most women freely made—based primarily on influences from their own sex’s-subculture—their mothers, female-peers, women’s literature, etc. [See: “Patriarchy”, About Feminism—p2.] In the 1960’s women’s views and ambitions tended to reflect traditional views. Since then Feminism has substantially altered the views of the female-subculture—but it is still other women that largely direct young women’s choices in such areas today, not men. In other words, young women’s decisions in the 1960’s were not the product of female-discrimination emanating from the male-subculture any more than they are today. However, it is also proposed that the above data for the 2000’s for males does legitimately reflect male-discrimination in education and professional careers. While young men for the last 40-years have been equally free-to-chose, their decisions have increasingly been influenced by the obvious and verifiable campaign of male-discriminatory sex-stereotyping by the Feminist movement. The arguments supporting Feminist’s accusation that men have ever conspired to discriminate against women is, at best abstruse, inconclusive, and one-sided, if not totally fallacious—e.g. the “70-75% statistic,” “underrepresentation,” “glass-ceilings,” “patriarchy,” “harassment,” etc. More importantly, they do not provide evidence proving such collusion. But this website alone provides ample concrete verification that Feminists now have a loosely coordinated effort that results in male-discrimination in education and society; concrete proof that a group self-proclaimed and otherwise obvious Feminist activists and followers conspire to elevate women and denigrate women; and coordinate their efforts to typecast the sexes, psychosocially reengineer human nature, and redesign the American culture. Massive evidence of Feminist’s collusion toward these ends is documented in virtual libraries of written materials. Does this data in any way imply most teachers are sexists? No! It would be a grievous error to assume the majority of educators consciously and intentionally discriminate against males. Feminism applies many of the same methods to school faculty and administrators as students, and both were student’s once-upon-a-time as well. While most instructors willingly disseminate the activist minority’s data and worldview, they do so in the context described in the Discrimination Cycle. Instructors whom are not sex/gender specialist or psychology and sociology majors are subjected to the same cunning intellectual manipulation as students. They also face far more repressive forms of social and organizational pressure that effectively forces them to conform or acquiesce to Feminism’s “party-line.” In other words, the majority of educators seem to sincerely believe that what they are teaching is factual and true; that Feminism is a righteous cause. The remaining teachers seem to comply to avoid negative consequences of doing otherwise, including loosing their jobs. Even university presidents (i.e. at Harvard, Colorado, etc.) have been publically punished by their institution’s powerful Arts & Sciences faculties for doing nothing more than openly questioning relatively trivial aspects of Feminism’s dogma and data. There are additional, far less measurable indicators of discrimination in local school systems. They mainly derive from the DOE’s and schools’ legal authority to force equal (aka “the same”) financial support for girls in sports and other activities traditionally pursued by boys. While the wording of these regulations may be gender-neutral, their actual administration is completely one-sided. It is widely-understood that such efforts result in reductions in the financial support for established boy’s and other dual-sex programs. However, one rarely hears of similar reallocations of resources being mandated to attain equality for boys in girls’ traditional or other dual-sex programs. This policy is certainly physically beneficial to the young women it affects. While laudable, it also tends to pressure girls to participate in such activities. Would it be more beneficial if girls had complete freedom-of-choice without Feminism’s pressure? It is vital to note that there is no evidence from the 1950-70’s of widespread demand from either girls or their mother’s for such programs. In other words, the fact that females were not involved in male sports was not the product of female-discrimination by the male-subculture. It was the result of a lack of wide-spread desire and interest within the female-subculture. The demands for all such changes came from Feminists and their followers—not mainstream women. There is a seldom stated underlying strategy behind this DOE administered policy. Whether its supporters realize it or not, they are contributing to Feminism’s mission to psychosocially reengineer women to equip them with the most beneficial traditional attitudes and skills of men, while retaining the best historic qualities of women. In other words, the actual result of Feminism’s strategy is to inculcate females with most instrumental attitudes and competencies of both sexes. However, no similar efforts for boys to also develop the orientations and capabilities historically acquired by women, and therefore give men the benefits of both sexes’ qualities and traits as well. [See: Site Introduction.] Of course, if boys and girls are “redesigned” in such a manner, the long-term result will be the “redesign” of the entire culture consistent with Feminist’s vision of what that civilization needs to become. Whether or not these Feminist ambitious and publicly unauthorized strategies are actually beneficial to women and society-at-large, or are even humanly feasible, is another discussion entirely. Colleges are now feeding 35+% more well-educated women than men into the lower ranks of the managerial and professional labor market—a market segment that reached numerical parity by the 2000’s [See Equal Pay=Equal Jobs]. This flagrantly male-discriminatory continuing “progress” and “affirmative action” is somehow construed by the government and media—through Feminism’s rose colored glasses—as representing sex/gender “EQUALITY.” But what portion of mature women versus men are reaching the pinnacle of these fields. What about Feminism’s aspirations of overcoming the male-imposed “glass-ceilings” and “underrepresentation” of women in the highest pay/status jobs in the workplace? What about women directly ruling America? FEMINISM’S EFFECTS ON POLITICS In August, 2007, 16 of 100 U.S. Senators and 71 of 435 Representatives were women [See: Rutgers University Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) data]. Feminist convert this sort of data into the argument that “(Only) 16% of Congress are women”. Hence women are “underrepresented” in terms of political power. Why? Because the men who control the political system contrive keep women out of elected offices. Such propositions also imply that, since men hold most of these positions, they legislate and govern in ways that are prejudiced against females and biased in favor of males. They are replications of Feminism’s arguments that men dominate and self-interestedly exploit the highest status/paying jobs in the workplace, applied in a different context and setting. Claims of this sort are nonsense for two reasons. First, except for the impact of activists and lobbyists—and no such forces work on behalf of male’s interests—it is not feasible for women to literally be “less represented” than men by elected officials in America. Everyone of either sex who attains such positions must satisfy the majority of the people who initially elect, and then reelect them. Voting age women have constituted a political plurality compared to men by ~7% since 1920, and by ~15% in national elections over the last several decades. As a result, if elected officials are going to discriminate in favor of either sex at all, they will clearly be inclined to “over-represent” their female constituents, rather than males. In fact, an objective evaluation of legislative enactments that involve a significant sex/gender component since the 1920’s show a consistent pattern of female-bias and male-prejudice—e.g. divorce, child custody, parental rights, prosecution/sentencing, sex-discrimination, etc. Second, what Feminists are also referring to is women are being discriminated against in politics because men are somehow conspire to keep them out of and repressed in elected offices. Like the workplace, Feminists offer only wild-conjecture to support these accusations and zero concrete evidence. Thus using data of this sort is just as technically improper and malevolent as similar misrepresentations of erroneous statistics about the jobs/pay at work [See: Equal Pay=Equal Jobs]. Such claims are analogous to “Women (only) occupy 1-2% of CEO jobs” in the employment market. Thus data like the 16% above does neither reveals nor serves as proof of discrimination against women in politics. Like the pay/jobs argument, what this data certainly indicates the dramatically lower number and percentage of women compared to men that now fill such elected offices. But what is does not disclose is the comparative number and percent of both sexes who want and are unwilling to invest their lives in qualifying for and eventually attaining elected offices, how much funding each sex has access to, and what percent of each sex was actually elected. This sort of data would be far more indicative of whether discrimination existed against either sex. Rutgers’s CAWP (above) did not respond to several requests for such data. Another source could be found that offered anything but more data like Rutgers’s—i.e. statistics designed to create the false impression that female-discrimination exists in government. However, its data includes several statistics that indirectly reveal the percent of women—but not men—that enter primaries, become their party’s nominee, and then succeed in being elected to several important offices. While this data is neither complete nor definitive, it does provide certain generally valid and reliable insights: In 1992-2006 CAWP reports that 58.8% of women who chose to enter primaries for U.S. Congress were nominated. In 1974-2006, 42.7% of women so nominated were then elected to office. Similar data for state legislatures in 1994-2006 reveals 62.2% of women candidates for office were elected. Does this data strongly suggest that sex-discrimination exists? You bet it does, but discrimination against men—not women. Current Congressional office holders are 84% men, up to 1/3 of who typically run for reelection. The percent of new male candidates is likely to be closer to the percent of men in Congress than to the percent of men in the voting-age population (48.3%). In other words, the women whom win 43-62% of these elections are competing against and defeating far more men than other women—probably in a ratio of 4:1 to 5:1. Nondiscrimination would thus be indicated if women won something like 15-20% of the time. This analysis strongly indicates that the discrimination against men in election politics is a very probable and substantial—once again, in the range of a 33% to 50% advantage. Even if they ran against equal numbers of men and women, substantial male-discrimination would still be indicated by this data. It is important to note that the above exemplifies the ways Feminists in academia manipulate data to provide what seems to non-statisticians to be validations of their arguments—manipulations that in fact cunningly hides information that leads to just the opposite conclusions. It also illustrates how little control the social sciences and colleges have over Feminism’s on their campuses. Rutgers is a nationally known and highly respected University. CAWP is surely managed by faculty members with PhDs; educators whom certainly understand basic statistics well enough to recognize such blatantly erroneous and misleading data. But most of their faculties are Feminist activists, true-believers in the cause, or afraid to “buck-the-party-line”—i.e. take a firm public stand that challenges accepted “group-think” like Feminism in academia. To put these conclusions in voting terms—to the precise extent anyone (or any group) votes for a candidate because they are a woman, a Black, a Hispanic, or a man they are discriminating against everyone else. Neither sex nor race is a legitimate qualification for elected office in an egalitarian society. They therefore should not receive any consideration. And if American’s modern electoral processes and legislative history demonstrates sex-discrimination, it is against men, not women or minority groups. What percent of votes will be cast for Barack Obama because he is half Black? If Hilary Clinton was her party’s nominee, what percent of votes would be because she is a woman? Is it likely a comparable portion of votes cast for John McCain will be because he is a man? How many legislative acts intended to advance men’s interests were passed in the last 50-75 years compared to all other legally protected groups? FEMINISM’S EFFECTS ON JOBS There is only sketchy evidence available in the public domain to support the following observations. Feminism’s accusations about the men’s discrimination against women obviously provide justification for it to, not only be legal, but righteous for females to receive extra attention and resources to advance their interests in education. It seems almost unarguable that women’s failure to attain a larger portion of elected offices is a result of their collective choices, not female-discrimination. [See facts and data above.] Schools and government agencies also receive financial inducements and rewards for attaining a wide variety of “equal opportunity” goals. Similar allegations also provide the rationale for granting “special consideration” in the workplace as well. For example, the government’s requires businesses to routinely report on the “progress” and/or “affirmative-action-like” efforts on “protected groups” at risk. One such group is the nation’s majority—women. This can only mean own thing—that every other protected group advance faster than the white male minority. Similar equal opportunity reporting and economic systems exist in the workplace as well. These encouragements surely have just as significant an impact on decision-making in businesses as they do in education and government. Progress with any group can only occur as a result of unwritten policies and actual practices that are male-prejudiced and female-biased in hiring and promotions, if not pay as well. There is no other way to achieve such ends. How else can statistical “improvements” in the ratios among protected groups be achieved? [See: Equal Pay=Equal Jobs - p2 for more.] Is it not inevitable, the context of such “affirmative action” that a woman candidate with significantly lower qualifications, experience, or prior performance than an otherwise equal man candidate will be the person hired or promoted, perhaps at a somewhat higher salary? Is there any other pragmatic way “progress” can possibly be made? Finally, to the extent Feminism prompts additional women to pursue a job category already adequately populated by qualified workers without correspondingly reducing the number of men entering that category, economic theory tells us that the average earnings of everyone in that category will decline proportionally. One result of a widespread excess of available employees in many categories, and the corresponding reduction in both sexes average income is more couples finding it necessary to both work to maintain a desired lifestyle. This, in turn, results in less time spent together, and fulfilling parental duties. In the absence of available data, it seems logical to assume that the magnitude of discrimination against men in the workplace is about the same as that found in higher education and politics. In other words, figuratively speaking women probably benefit from an overall 30% to 50% overall advantage in terms of hiring, pay, development, and promotions in the workplace.

Last Updated: 7/23/08