The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

President’s Appeal—Page 1

EmasculationOfAmerica.com

Website http://EmasculationOfAmerica.com/ — Copyright © 2000-08. Doug Baker. All rights reserved.

`

Street Address

City, State & Zip

Phone & Fax

Email Address

December 6, 2007 (R)

Doug Baker

SEEKING

UNCOMMON TRUTH...
Text Box: George W. Bush President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500 An Opportunity to Begin Reversing the Escalating Activism in America? Reference Dept. of Educ. Dockets: OCR #07-05-2042 (& FOIA #07-00031-A) “The Case Against Colleges Teaching Male-Discriminatory Sex-Stereotyping” Dear President Bush: Your foresight, courage, and tenacity in waging “The Battle of Iraq” in the Islamic Extremist’s War that is now jeopardizing America’s long-term survival from without will surely be lauded in the annals of history. But our culture may also be facing a comparable threat from within—the covert erosion of our education, social, and political systems by factionalism. For over 2 1/2 years the above case has been illegally adjudicated and stonewalled by the Dept. of Education and its Office of Civil Rights. I have tried to get Ms. Spelling’s support several times, but to no avail. In sum, the DOE/OCR’s staff has done everything imaginable to “see-to-it-that-this-case-never-sees-the-light-of-day” because it has been knowingly interpreting our nation’s laws in a unconstitutional manner for the last 30+ years, and the DOE’s goals of enriching female-students has resulted in education-wide male-discrimination. (See three MS letters enclosed). The gender-neutral evaluation of the above case is likely to do much more than stop colleges from teaching male-discrimination. It may very well offer an unparalleled, “low-cost” way (i.e. financially and politically) to take the first catalytic step toward eliminating all activism in higher education that thereafter spreads society-wide. It may also indirectly help improve our nation’s educational performance and return control of our schools to the public. I believe the Supreme Court would adjudicate this case in favor of the claimant because the DOE/OCR has offered zero legitimate arguments justifying its denial. Further, no one in a position of authority needs to endorse the basic theme or take sides on the plethora “hot potato” issues raised in this case. All that needs to be done is see to it that existing laws are objectively enforced. Activism’s Impact on American Education: It is widely accepted that our grammar and high schools are failing to educate students in a globally competitive manner in the sciences, math, and literacy. Many observers report that similar deficiencies exist in most other areas of instruction. This case reveals how the these shortcomings extend to, and are perhaps even greater in our colleges. The patterns of worldwide discoveries and patents, when adjusted for our comparative prosperity, indicate that even in the higher-level physical sciences we are more “innovative application engineers” than pure scientists, basic researchers, or discovers. Why is so much of the education being delivered by the world’s wealthiest and most advanced nation second- or third-class? While other valid explanations may exist, a vital, but largely unrecognized reason our school’s do not realize their full potential is that, since early in the 20th century, major activist-driven causes have increasingly distracted educators from providing the best possible education for the majority of students. Regardless of how worthy one might believe the anti-creation/-religion/-spirituality, racial equality, women’s “liberation”, and environmental movements may be, “problems” of this sort are created in the family, in community life, or by the forces of nature. None of them were ever formally taught or primarily caused by our schools. More importantly, “solving” such issues requires psychosocially “reengineering” children, redesigning an entire culture, or altering nature itself: capabilities that are simply not among the proven competencies of our educational institutions. Has education ever had a measurable constructive impact in any activist domain? For example, America’s historic vision was to become a people united, as in a “melting pot”. The modern social “sciences” have surreptitiously replaced this with the separatism innate to their ideologies of “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” Has assimilation and tolerance among major groups measurably declined or actually increased in the interim? Reducing spirituality is an unstated goal of the anti-religion cause, but research shows ~95% of Americans continue to have strong religious inclinations. Equality between the sexes is supposedly Feminism’s objective, but the data presented in this case verifies that male-discrimination is now pervasive throughout our culture. And how many major environmental issues are in fact caused or resolvable by human intervention? Most of all, while all such issues may warrant additional attention and research, exactly how much of our educator’s and student’s time, as well as our schools’ instructional resources should actually be invested in addressing such topics? It appears that the Federal Court’s support of the pure science’s anti-creation cause—which social “science” has converted into the anti-religion/-spirituality movement—is what empowered activists to wrench control of our schools out of the public’s hands because their rulings give educators the legal right—even the duty—to “edit” religion out of not only biology or science classes, but all instructional materials. Since most of history’s great thinkers had a lot to say about such topics, this led social “science” to first censor all references to spirituality out of the philosophy. But like pregnancy, there is no such thing as “a little-bit” of censorship. Hence it is now common to “edit-out” and manipulate of all sorts of data that does not conform to “group-think” in the social “science” related fields.* The abuse has gone so far that activists now freely rewrite history as they see fit; the study of “unfiltered” philosophy has practically disappeared from higher education; and philosophy books now occupy but a few shelves buried among the vast social “science” offerings in bookstores—all evidence of how the “parent” of all knowledge is being used to indoctrinate students and the public, and being subordinated to academia’s ever-changing “group-think” and “relative truths.” It is these very legally authorized common practices that activists cunningly exploit to their maximum advantage. Objectively adjudicating this case may very well publicize and force a confrontation with such abuses. The vital issues here are not evolution vs. creationism, or physical vs. immaterial reality, or atheism vs. religion as the defender’s of such causes claim. The key concerns are using the extra-constitutional concepts of: (1) “protecting special interest groups rights;” (2) “separation of church and state”; and (3) educator’s freedoms “to-teach-whatever-they-want”(including violating students civil rights) to justify activists manipulating philosophy, research, observations, history, and so forth to advance their own sociopolitical agenda and self-interests. What is happening in the social “science” related fields in our colleges is not a “liberal” education in the classical sense. Students are neither free or encouraged to study deep philosophic questions; debate contradictory hypotheses; question academia’s unproven collective opinions; independently observe reality; challenge popular views and, most of all, arrive at their own conclusions—traits that can now be widely found in the public domain as well. Taking Feminism as a model, this case illustrates how most activisms are originated and/or reinforced by a small minority of specialized PhDs in certain fields. This activist-minority is empowered by on their status as credentialed “experts.” They exploit the underlying consensus opinion foundation** of the social “sciences” to shrewdly “market” their shared sociopolitical positions to other educators, “converting” many into “true-believers” in their cause. They present their data in highly selective, misleading or fallacious, and inflammatory manner. They are also skilled in repressing the freedom-to-think-speak-and-act of all sorts and levels of dissenters. These “educator-converts” then use their position authority, academic credentials, and college’s status to force-feed the activist-expert’s opinions and misinformation to students, and suppress student’s freedom to study and discuss alternative views or data, hence converting many students into true-believers. Upon graduation such students become the activism’s proactive disciples in their roles as the nation’s “culture-shapers” and decision-makers. They copy and use the activist-expert’s strategies, tactics, and methods in their new roles. An even larger group of students innocently conform or simply acquiesce because they assume these causes are based on scientific facts, empirical truths, and innately righteous because their instructors, college, and our educational system have all effectively vouched for their authenticity and worthiness. Mind you, these processes most often occur without the educator’s or student’s realizing they are being used. In sum, the initiators and sustenance for most of today's activism is academia and the indoctrinated intelligentsia they produce—not students or our “grassroots” citizens. In general, our social “science” related graduate schools (which I attended periodically from 1982 to 2001) employ the same censorship, intellectual manipulation, and indoctrination tactics as undergraduate schools, but at a higher-level. Over the last 40-years I personally witnessed the gradual transition of the social “sciences” from seeking the scientific facts and observational truths to the current practice of pursuing activist’s fabrications and propaganda. These activist-experts take many of their strategies from political thinkers like Machiavelli and Marx. For example, Feminism’s “Racial minorities, homosexuals, and the disabled unite with women against the dominance and suppression of the white-male patriarchy” is analogous to “Workers of the world unite with Communism against capitalist exploitations”. They have also acquired many of their tactics from the nonviolent Civil Rights Movement. And most activists tend to share the same methods for creating misleading data by distorting scientific research, using partial observational truths, historical revisionism, and so forth. Today’s College administrator’s and faculty are being intimidated into giving social “science’s activists” campus-wide free-reign—e.g. the forced the resignation of Harvard’s president. The aggression finds expression in the public domain as well—e.g. Duke’s Arts & Science’s faculty publicly “trying and convicting” student’s on the school’s lacrosse team of rape. But these well-publicized examples only reveal the tip-of-the-iceberg of activism’s actual control over our educational institutions and students. Like students, faculty who do not comply are routinely subjected to social pressure, ideological browbeating, and suppression of their academic freedom. It is understood by students and faculty alike—one simply does not dare to challenge Feminism’s dogma/propaganda, “diversity/multiculturalism,” or any other of academia’s endorsed activist’s political agendas. Activism’s Impact on America’s Political System: President Bush, you know far better than I how our culture is being ravaged by the divisiveness, polarization, and diversions that result from activism and factionalism. Not only does most of the ideology and data originate from our college campuses, but the intellectual processes inculcated in students—primarily by the social “sciences” and their vast derived fields (see footnote p. 2)—provide the basis upon which such movements thrive, regardless of whether the activist-trained and -inspired graduate leans to the liberal or conservative side of the continuum. I know we could both come up with a list of the right’s and left’s aggressive ideologues and spokespersons, most of whom use the same “tools of the trade” largely modeled after those employed by the activists-experts and educator-coverts in higher education. Contrary to the ACLU, NEA, NOW, etc, I propose that modern activism is not the exercise of individual’s free-speech contemplated in our Constitution. It has become the primary means by which special interest groups “silence” individual’s “voices;” suppress the majority’s will and best interests; and force compliance with their demands on society. In addition to power-politics, lobbying, and propaganda, activists use one-on-one social pressure as well as demonstrations, civil disobedience, outrageous or illegal acts, and so forth that exploit the innate weaknesses of the media, who then proceed to broadcast, sensationalize, misinform, and inflame the public, as well as become a tool for intimidating or “punishing” decision-makers into acquiesce. Such tactics constitute what I call Media Terrorism or Activism’s Cultural WMD: the primary means by which activists gain control over major social institutions—like education, legislatures, the courts, and business. If we are to overcome today’s escalating factionalism, I believe we must first see through—and rise above—the “politically correct conventional wisdom” being directly and indirectly instilled by “activist-experts” in the minds, emotions, and behaviors of the nation’s well-educated—and through them the public-at-large. And the best place to start seems to be the most visible, successful, fallacious, and in fact culturally destructive of these modern causes—Feminism. And prosecuting this case—which in itself is limited to beginning to enforce our nation’s sex-discrimination laws in educational institutions for male-students—offers a high probability opportunity to trigger this very process on a widespread basis because academia’s activist will almost certainly turn this case into a “media war,” as well as try to turn me into nothing but a misogynist, a brain-dead kook, and/or arch villain of the 21st century. Thus this process needs to begin with the realizations that—contrary to the sex-stereotyping our colleges now predominantly teach their students: (1) the sexes are, as a matter of scientific fact, equal in virtually every fundamental respect, thus; (a) men are not any more violent and abusive with intimates, rapist and sexually assaultive, family committed and financially irresponsible, or dominant, competitive, and exploitive than women; and (b) females are not the victims of such forces any more than males; (2) the myth that the modern American culture was/is a “patriarchy” that discriminates against women is nonsense, because; (a) objective empirical evidence indicates that for almost 100-years it is women, not men, that have been the nation’s most political/legal, economic, and socially empowered group; and (b) despite these imbalances, America in fact had a relatively gender-balanced culture prior to modern Feminist activism, which in turn means the female majority was/is not; (i) a disempowered, dominated, or exploited “minority” group; or (ii) underpaid for equal work or held back in the workplace; and (3) men are in reality generally acculturated to protect, provide for, revere, invest their lives/careers in, and, if need be, even give their lives for women, as well as children and their country. In other words, in mid-20th century America, like men, women were basically in control of their own destinies and chose their own roles or “lot in life”—they just wanted a different life-path at that time. These assertions are explored at length and supported in documents submitted as part of this complaint or on my website (see below). Another important step seems to be to reeducate ourselves as to why our founders feared and purposely avoided establishing a “pure” direct democracy—and established a representative constitutional republic instead. Did they not believe that direct democracies had historically proven to inevitably lead to factionalism (i.e. the empowerment of special interest groups, minorities, lobbyists, the media, etc.) and separatism, majority or plurality exploitation of minorities, anarchy, mob rule and dissolution? Are these not among the key reasons they originally had all Federal officials, except the House, chosen by state or other officials who, in turn, were directly elected by the public? Are they basically why government was divided into three distinct, relatively equal branches; the Constitution made the ultimate protector of the majority of individual’s and majority’s liberties—not minority or special interest groups; and a Bill of Rights was created to basically further limited government infringement on such rights and liberties? Have we not eroded our founder’s system of government, and effectively evolved it into a direct democracy in which the tripartite separation of power is no longer very distinct or equal (i.e. congress commonly infringes on the executive and the judiciary on congress). Hasn’t the Constitution been reinterpreted to give priority to protecting minorities and special interests instead of individual’s and the majority? And would it be inaccurate to say that Feminism epitomizes of the very factionalism, separatism, exploitation of other groups, and propensity for anarchy our founders feared? Although not well-formulated or well-articulated by the adult population, and certainly not reported in opinion surveys or by the popular media, I believe that most attentive and responsible American’s—whether conservative, independent, or liberal—are deeply troubled by: (1) the widespread divisiveness and polarization that now characterizes our culture; (2) the dominance of special interest activism (e.g. sex, race, left vs. right, age, etc.) and powerful lobbyists (e.g. AARP, NOW, NEA, ACLU, “Big-Money” individuals, etc.) in our political system; (3) these group’s manipulation of the short-term focused, one-side-oriented, sensational, and inflammatory nature of most of today’s media; and (4) how all of these forces are: (a) subtly suppressing the will and best interests the “silenced majority” and individual citizens, and (b) gradual undermining the foundations of our original unique form of government. While America’s greatest immediate physical threat is certainly Islamic extremist’s jihad and quest to gain control of the vast resource-endowed Middle East, could our greatest long-term nonphysical threat be the very factionalism our nation’s founders believed was so vital to avoid at almost any cost? Do we need to step back and look at the “big picture” to realize how sociopolitical activism is influencing our intellectuals, decision-makers, and thence the public’s minds, emotions, and behavior—and changing our political economy and culture? When we do so, won’t we be forced to realize how far out “we-the-people’s” control our educational and political systems have become? Feminism, which from this case’s perspective will be seen as what it truly is, as little more than an political movement grounded, at the very best, on partial truth as well as the activism that most visibly exemplifies all such movements. It will become clear that it is the major driving-force behind: males failing to receive the extra medical attention and resources needed to stop them dying six-year prematurely and having 20% more severe psychological illnesses compared to females; being denied a college education and corresponding careers far more than females were in the 1960’s; and for the escalating workplace gender-conflict, delayed, avoided, and dysfunctional marriages, divorces and permanent separations, child neglect and physical abuse; and the one million or so birth control