The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

DOE Secretary’s 2nd Help Request

EmasculationOfAmerica.com
Text Box: Margaret Spellings Secretary of Education U. S. Department of Education (DOE) 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 Reference: OCR Docket # 07052042 The Case Against Systemic Male-Discrimination in American Education Dear Ms. Spellings: Several weeks have elapsed since my letter of August 26, 2007 asking your office’s help in expediting a gender-neutral adjudication of the above. It is hard to briefly reinforce the reality, urgency, and significance of this case for America’s children, the mainstream of women, as well as men. Male-activists are certainly not trying to force their views and will on authority figures and the public by organizing marches, burning their undergarments, or taking over buildings through sit-ins like Feminists in the 1960-70’s. But that does not mean the majority of them are not keenly aware of the devastating discrimination affecting their sex today. Most simply do not recognize the forces affecting them—like the legal prejudices in parental rights, spouse abuse, prosecution/sentencing, etc.—as sex-discrimination; do not see how the sex-stereotyping and bigotry becomes manifest in our society and laws. They are now smothered with so much misinformation authenticated by academia—thence the government and media—about the sexes that they believe it must be the true. Social science also tells us men are socialized to be “provider-protectors” of women, children, and society—up to and including giving their lives—as well as be more direct, physical, “macho,” group-oriented, and so forth (while women are acculturated to be “expressive-nurturers” and have contrasting traits in other areas). Males are thus unlikely to perceive or portray their sex as being the exploited, disadvantaged, or powerless victims of abstract cultural forces; unlikely to use the media’s vulnerability to extremists and sensationalism as a psychosocial weapon to inflame other males, manipulate the public, and threaten or intimidate decision-makers like Feminists activists in the 1960-80’s. Thus the question is: “Has the DOE’s female-biases and male-negligence reached a stage at which the only way the male-minority can stop colleges from teaching male-denigrating sex-stereotyping and get equal educational benefits to the female-majority is to employ media terrorism and other tools employed by activist-anarchists groups throughout history?” Since the 1970’s the DOE has proactively (and very successfully, I might add) been persuading America’s elementary and high schools—as well as our colleges and universities—to: Focus extra energy on female education; focused on “needs” derived more from Feminist’s claims related to imagined discrimination in the workplace and society than within America’s school systems per se* —attention that, based on educator’s time limitations, is often supplied at male or other minority group’s expense; Inculcate females with gender-specific male attitudes and abilities, many of which are innate or acculturated (i.e. not learned in formal education) - which in practice means females would acquire both sexes’ roles, strengths, and talents, but equal efforts to infuse males with females’ qualities and skills (or legal rights) do not exist; Redirect academia’s attention and research toward: the physical and psychological needs; elevating the social status and roles; increasing the workplace skills and opportunities; augmenting the legal rights and entitlements; and advancing the political and cultural power of women—which has led to a general failure to study and teach the comparable facts, cultural realities, and disenfranchisement affecting men; Take funding from programs that primarily benefited male-students (e.g. sports) and mandate equal expenditures for females (e.g. 20 USC 1681b); a demand—like many others conceded to by our schools—originated primarily by Feminist activists, rather than the initiatives of mainstream parents and/or their daughters; Allow Feminist’s: (1) opinions, cultural speculations, and propaganda to be treated the same as objective empirical studies; (b) pseudo-scientific facts and methods to be considered legitimate research (e.g. Guilligan); and (3) both to pervade the social sciences and their powerful applied fields, which has led to Feminist’s sexual politics to become a dominant force in the shaping and delivery of education, as well as a basis for repressing student’s, faculty’s, and administrator’s freedom to think, speak, and act in classes, on campuses, and in public. (e.g. Harvard’s president). The most egregious example of male-discrimination in higher education is the treatment of the sexes’ comparative physical/mental health. This topic is not referred to directly in the core complaint because it is only tangentially related to teaching sex-stereotyping. Overall incidence and morbidity rates of broad categories of illnesses—not sex, race, etc.—should control the allocation of attention and resources to the discovery, prevention, and cure of all forms of illness. But everything Feminists touch gets “genderized,” and women’s health is now getting a disproportionate share of the gender-specific academic/medical attention and research funding as a result. Examples of activist’s genderization include vastly more resources being applied to breast than prostate cancer, and psychology seeing male substance abuse more self-inflicted than female depression. Feminists have even managed to get the Supreme Court to manufacture “a Constitutional right to privacy,” a new freedom that inexplicably only applies to elective abortion and the mothers—i.e. not to fathers who supply half the fetuses’ genes and are held financially responsible for 18-25 years after birth. Unplanned pregnancies involve voluntarily and irresponsibly partaking in a pleasure producing activity and/or substance that can produce health and life/death consequences. And the perpetrators of DUI accidents or drug-motivated crimes do not have the “right” enjoyed by single women to claim: “Its my body, I can do what I want with it regardless of the effects on other people”—and thus relieve them of accountability to their victim, victim’s family, and the public. Nor do terminally ill person’s have the liberty to end horrible agony through euthanasia. More specifically, St. Louis Community, like most other colleges, offers numerous “Women’s Studies” classes; courses like women’s health, female (AKA “gender”) psychology, Feminist theory, women’s history, etc. Some schools have major/minors in such classes; even require students to pass one such class to graduate; and have written policies limiting male’s speech and conduct to that females find non-intrusive. But no comparable offerings of “Men’s Studies” exist; no mandates that females study the male’s perspectives and facts; and no policies prohibiting female’s obtrusive speech or mannerism, erotic/revealing clothing, and other indirect forms of aggression are to be found. Hence male-student’s “voices,” point-of-view, and masculinity are being suppressed as a matter of school (and DOE) policy—but not female’s. And these same principles get transferred to our culture, and academia’s Feminist’s are empowered to propagate divisive theories like diversity (which means and exacerbates differences, not accommodation) and multiculturalism (which refers to and promotes distinctions and separatism, not equality or unity) in the workplace and public domain. But the destructive results of such practices in higher-education cannot be fully appreciated until we consider the actual facts about the sexes’ comparative health. For example, when adjusted for infant mortality the natural life expectancy of the sexes is equal (see 1800’s U.S. Census data). Yet, since the 1960’s, an average of one million men have died six years earlier than females annually. In other words, while Feminists have been leading colleges, medical research, business, and governments to give priority to women’s health, ~50 million men have died unnecessarily ~300 million years prematurely. In addition—according the only major, truly objective study apparently ever conducted* —20% more males than females experience severe psychological illnesses. Meanwhile, psychology has established an entire specialized field—called feminine or “gender” psychology—focused on women’s mental health (and teaching Feminist propaganda), but offers no comparable discipline or extraordinary courses similarly dedicated to the needs of the male-sex. Finally, what portion of college student’s (thence the public) know that males are the victims of, not only equal spousal abuse, but twice as much (i.e. 100% more) overall violence as well? Why does all of this male-discrimination exist in our education system? What explanation can there be except the DOE/OCR proactively supporting what Feminists call the “deconstruction/reconstruction” of our culture: a process cunningly disguised as removing purported workplace and social barriers imposed on a disadvantaged, suppressed, impoverished, and politically disempowered social group against their will—i.e. women; a process centered on the experimental reengineering of society’s gender roles and psychological makeup. It is an experiment because these steps have no foundation in any proven scientific theories, and no major culture so designed has ever long-survived. When taken to its logical conclusion, what sort of society are actions like the above leading to? Are they, in effect, creating a matriarchic culture, dominated by a minority of female intellectuals? Two of the primary underlying Feminist-inspired myths are that: (1) women were/are systematically being paid less than men for equal work and by-passed for advancement; and (2) a modern patriarchy exists (i.e. men are the most politically, legally, and economically powerful social group and use these advantages to advance their own self-interest). With regard to the first myth, the reality is that, prior to modern Feminism, neither girls in sufficient numbers nor their mothers and peers (i.e. the female subculture) wanted the same lifestyle or were willing to invest their lives in the same careers as boys. When went to college in 1961 and finally earned a BS in 1975 after attending five schools, young women who choose to attend college were divided into three roughly equal groups: the ones who went to find a high-potential provider husband; who went with no specific career in mind and either later chose a career or dropped out for variety of reasons; and who enrolled to actually pursue a serious career. But most young women who did select a professional career freely choose one that fit the female-subculture’s preferences, which centered on the more flexible, environmentally pleasant, and care-giving-oriented professions. Few were interested or willing invest their lives in fields that required a virtual lifetime commitment to careers likely to lead “the executive suite” after 20-30 years of experience, like the pure sciences, engineering, economics, a CPA, an MBA, the law, or politics. Nothing prevented most young women from majoring in such fields in college—except the powerful influence of other women. Fathers did not generally discourage their daughters from pursuing such careers, their male peers did not taunt or condemn girls who had such ambitions, and the whole idea that women were or are discriminated against in the workplace is simply unsupported by gender-neutral scientific research or observational studies. I managed compensation in corporations until the 1980’s, and challenge the DOE to produce major studies employing standard job evaluation tools and actual labor market data showing that women were/are generally paid less for equal work; or produce extensive studies indicating equally qualified and experience women being by-passed in hiring and promotions. The only purported “proof” seems to be the claim women earn 70-75% less than men on average. Anyone who has taken Statistics 101 knows such data does not prove unequal pay for equal work any more than women birthing 100% of children proves men’s unequal legal rights and status in parenting. With regard to the second major Feminist myth (i.e. Patriarchy), in a representative constitutional republic, politicians gain—and can only retain—office by satisfying the majority of their constituents, which is women—not men. Females are 4% more numerous and live six-years longer than men, thus when they gained universal suffrage in 1920, they constituted a 7% political and legal plurality. But women only began voting in mass with the election of FDR (who permanently altered our nation’s political economy in “female-like” ways). In recent decades, women represent a voting majority by ~15%. Hence, if we are to attribute qualities in our current culture (e.g. the world’s policemen, etc.) to either sex, it must be more to women than men. Marketers also estimate that women have ~75% influence over all purchase decisions, thus effectively control our nation’s domestic economy. If a patriarchy ever existed in America—which is certainly debatable—it disintegrated after World War II. When data like the above is combined with the facts like: (1) one-third of children now spend most of their rearing years parented by single, usually working mothers; (2) one-third grow up in homes with a stepfather, where the natural mother is dominant psychosocially, if not in full physical control; and (3) only the remaining one-third spend their lives in households that include a fully-motivated natural father and day-to-day male role-model—but one who is substantially disempowered by the underlying threat of certain loss of his children in a divorce. Thus, since teachers are overwhelmingly female, most of America’s young men are growing-up in a world dominated by the female-subculture and Feminist propaganda, with very limited opportunity to learn how equal the sexes actually are; to learn the “the-other-side-of-the-gender-story;” or to be equally exposed to male role-modeling in general. The above also makes it clear that the DOE, whether intended or not, is empowering Feminists to use our schools to eliminate a meaningful psychosocial identity for the male-sex; to stimulate in the gradual emasculation of our society according to the dictates of an activist minority’s ideals and political ambitions; and to undermine the learning efficiencies, emotional well-being, and prosperity that results, like jobs in the workplace, from the sexes specializing in different social roles—specialization that also minimizes culture-wide anarchy and conflict. If the DOE were to thoroughly (i.e. analyze the workplace, family, childrearing, men’s legal rights, and so forth), objectively (i.e. consider the actual facts and cultural realities from both sexes’ point-of-view), and critically evaluate the results of Feminism over the last several decades, what might they find? Might it conclude that the BIG winners from Feminism have been America’s most privileged and best-educated women? Would it discover that the MANY losers in the “war-between-the-sexes” Feminists have waged against the male-sex over the last several decades are: (1) our children—who no longer get adequate daily parenting from either sex, or sufficient male role-modeling during their most formative years; (2) Blacks and Hispanics—whose needs have “played second fiddle” to those fabricated by activists supposedly representing the group most accountable for their discrimination—i.e. the female plurality; (3) the male-sex—as explained in this case; and finally (4) working-class women—who have only “gained” a lot more low-paying child care and cleaning jobs in high-income households (but not the capacity to hire such services for themselves) and incredible pressure trying to be “superwomen”—i.e. to do and be all things to everyone else n their lives? Finally, will history ultimately judge Feminism to be among the most important and successful, but divisive and devastating nonviolent cultural revolutions in the history of Western Civilization? Assuming the content of these and the other letters in this case are at least a half-truth overall, what legitimate reason can the DOE have for allowing the systemic biases in favor of females and prejudice against males being described therein to continue in our education system? Regardless of how egalitarian the DOE’s intentions may have been, its policies have primarily advanced the interests of a small special interest minority; have led to extra-attention and resources, preferential treatment, and excessive educational gains for young women; and have resulted in the neglect of the developmental needs and measurable loss of prosperity and legal rights for countless millions of young men. Doesn’t this case offer an unprecedented opportunity to begin addressing these trends in a minimally confrontational way? Your early attention to expediting the objective adjudication of the above case is once again requested. I hope to hear from someone in authority at the DOE in the near future. Sincerely, Doug Baker CC: David Black

`

Street Address

City, State & Zip

Phone & Fax

Email Address

September 15, 2007 (R)

Doug Baker

SEEKING

UNCOMMON TRUTH...

*   The only major internal education-related hypothesis I’m aware of is Harvard’s Carol Guilligan claim of female “voices” being “silenced” in the classroom. This study’s methods were not scientific, and its analysis failed to consider female’s socialization to generally employ more indirect forms of normal behavior and aggression. If the DOE wants to observe the actual suppression of speech and academic freedom, observe males (or any other students for that matter) who dare to challenge Feminist dogma class.

**  Robins & Regier, 1977. Psychiatric Disorders in America. National Institute of Mental Health (20,000 subjects) Free Press, NY.
Text Box: