FrequentQuestions

The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

Frequently Asked Questions

EmasculationOfAmerica.com

Q. Why have both the Departments of Education and Justice civil rights sections, and, more recently, the Secretary of Education and Justice failed to answer these appeals?

A. If these agencies had good legal reasons for denying the appeals, they, even more than the College, only need to spell-out them out and put the matter to rest. Hence, these agencies must have other reasons for not responding, which only they can explain. It is suggested their failures to reply validate, rather than negate the complaints. If the case is without merit, why not quash it by simply pointing-out its errors?

Do the people at the DOE, DOJ, and Cabinet-level know the case is valid, but hope silence will kill it because they are afraid of the political repercussions? Do they fear how some members of their staff or the press and powerful activist organizations will react? Do they fear how activist organizations like the NOW, NEA, and ACLU will react? From another perspective, is this not another example of males not receiving equal protection under our laws? Would a woman or Black be treated similarly?

Finally, the research facts, observational truths, and social issues being raised may be perceived as the political equivalent of a hydrogen bomb. Who knows how the public will react to learning they are mistaken and have been fooled about the natures of both sexes. It seems that along with the need for acceptance, the need to be right is a primary drive in human nature. If I were Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Spellings, or some of the others I might very well want to stay as far away from this case as possible. But none of this excuses allowing fathers, husbands, and boys to continue to be discriminated against; continue to receive unequal treatment under our parenting, marital, education, and criminal laws; and continue to die prematurely and unduly suffer psychologically without knowing why and trying to do something about it.

Q. Why hasn’t a civil lawsuit been filed? Does its absence mean the case has no legal merit?

A. Most legal firms in the St. Louis area and several specialized organizations have been contacted as well. Thus far, only a few have bothered to respond, and none of them have indicated interest in the case. Why? In the absence of feedback, the first consideration may be that the case is without direct legal precedent, and that it involves ground-breaking, far-reaching, and very complex issues. This measurably increases the legal risks, and renders less demanding competing cases more attractive. Second, this is a contingent-fee situation, thus tackling it involves a major investment of attorney’s time and resources. Finally, the case is very controversial, and likely to face substantial resistance at every turn. Organizations like the NEA, NOW, and ACLU may mount a major legal and media assault against the social and legal issues the case raises. This measurably increases the difficulty and cost of pursuing these claims as well.

Q. What about the media. Why hasn’t the media shown much interest in these issues?

A. The Media Release that has only recently begun to be distributed, and thus far has attracted little attention. Why? Isn’t the story credible or newsworthy? Claims about other forms of discrimination were and still are of interest to the media, so why not male-discrimination?

First, the issues being raised in this case are new, broad, and voluminous. Right or wrong, I have chosen from the beginning to try to deal with the full breadth and depth of issues involved in this case. The case is also a potential feature and longer-term coverage topic, rather than regular daily news items. Thus all of the information being provided requires substantial preliminary analysis. The case also involves a major relearning process and “attitude adjustment” period for everyone exposed to it. It took the author years to digest these facts and realities.

Second, some reporters may choose to see this as a legal dispute between two parties, rather than as a case of widespread civil rights violations, enforcement failures, and political issues similar to women’s rights during the 1960-70’s. If so, they would feel it is kosher to avoid the story in the absence of a lawsuit being filed. But didn’t the media aggressively and massively publicize issues related to discrimination against women in a similar context to this case? Didn’t the media play a major role in forcing government administrators and legislatures to enact a plethora decrees and laws so women could then file suits?

Third, unlike the earlier women’s movement, in this situation there are no widespread protests from men, no groups of male activists are marching in the streets, no ceremonial burning of jockstraps, and no classrooms or office buildings being occupied to draw attention to the issues involved. Finally, there is also the possibility of discrimination by people in the various publications and media industries as well.

The communications professions are among those likely to have been most greatly affected by the prejudices, biases and sex-stereotyping being taught in higher education. These fields were the earliest to support and most committed to Women’s Rights. In my view, these professions literally forced the inclusion of sex (i.e. women) into the wording of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other legislation supporting Feminism. On the other hand, they have been basically supportive of racial equality as well. It would seem that, if the media releases are just “passed around the reporters,” expecting to attract interest in getting involved, widespread coverage of this story will simply never happen. I doubt there is any more freedom, interest, or willingness to risk challenging conventional “politically correct” wisdom in “the newsroom” and radio or TV studio than there is in today’s higher education classrooms or most other social settings.

Q. You say men are the victims of 100% more violence or assaults, and then later that men are 100% more violent with non-intimates. Doesn’t that mean the males are inflicting all that extra violence on each other? Doesn’t that make this a man’s problem?

A. There is something about our socialization processes that leads people to automatically employ incredibly imaginative mental gymnastics in finding ways to blame men for being the cause of their own victimization in our society, for then discounting the importance of the problem, and finally failing to address the problem at all. Applying similar reasoning, one could make a very rational sounding case that women cause their own rapes, spousal abuse, or even breast cancer for that matter. Looking at things from that kind of perspective, why should we collectively care about any social groups problems? This is only one example, men hurt each other, so it’s men’s own problem. Another example is that psychological difficulties happen to include alcoholism—that’s sort of a self-inflicted illness some might argue, so men are causing their own higher percentage of mental diseases. But mental illnesses also include depression, which is a no less common or self-inflicted “woman’s” illness. Finally, the “bell-ringer” is that “men don’t go to the doctor like women do, so its their own fault they are dying early.” Meanwhile medical studies apparently find that one-half to three-fourths of doctors office visits are no due to actual physical illnesses.

Q. Is this site an example of Masculinism (AKA Masculism)?

A. It is suggested that the last thing our country needs now is more special interest group aggression, social separatism, and political polarization. It is proposed that every position presented on this site advocates egalitarianism, equal justice, and overall cultural balance; that is does not advocate anything benefiting males at the expense of females, and certainly not at the expense of our children. One of the first steps activists typically take is to label challenges as an “opposing” position, thus eliminating the possibility of all other positions, but especially a neutral, middle, or mainstream majority’s posture, which, it is suggested, is what this website seeks to be presenting.

Q. Is this case and website anti-feminist?

A. Yes. The positions taken here obviously and purposely challenge the entire Feminist perspective. In fact, it argues against just about everything that movement stands for and claims is factual, true, or real. But it is vital to understand that confronting Feminist ideology and goals is not the same thing as being anti-female because: (1) the arguments being presented support the best interests of the mainstream, moderate, and what might be called the silenced majority of women and—even more so—our children and grandchildren, as well as men; and (2) there appears to be no concrete evidence to support the Feminist assertion that they have ever actually spoken for, in fact represented, or truly sought the best interests of the majority of women.

Q. Is this case and website “backlash” against Feminism?

A. “Backlash” refers to a strong adverse reaction or backward movement. Feminists also use it in a way that implies “If you are not with me, you must be against me.” This has become one of what I think of as “confusion phrases,” often used to defeat, polarize, and divide, rather than reason, resolve and unify ideas and people. While, as discussed above, this material is opposes Feminism in its entirety, there is nothing “anti-progress” about it. To concede to such an argument inherently acknowledges that Feminism is a “forward moving” or otherwise beneficial movement, which is not an acceptable basic premise.

Q. Why isn’t the Feminist position reported to the same extent as the “other-side-of-the-story?”

A. Feminist perceptions of the facts, truths, and realities are all that the American’s hear and see in our classrooms, the media, and publications today. Thus the enclosed makes not attempt to again report those positions, just to “sell” the appearance of objectivity. Thus the data presented here focuses on telling “the-other-side–of-the-story,” hoping to help raise the awareness of as many people as possible.

Q. Are the author’s personal views about women distorting his views of sex and gender reality?

A. This site reports one male’s experiences with the Feminism since that movement emerged almost a half-century ago. It examines that social and political cause from the perspective of a life-time student and practitioner of the “art” of the social “sciences,” primarily in a business context. To the extent humanly practical, perceptions originating in the more personal realms of gender relationships are purposely excluded from this commentary. We are all, unarguably subject to the influences of our predispositions, whether we admit it or not. The author strives to keep these functioning at a conscious level, and openly disclose those that might affect the materials being presented for reader evaluation. Finally, it seems hard to reconcile the idea that personal female-prejudices or male-biases could be a major influencing factor in a philosophic context in which the sexes are perceived as one another’s equals in every basic respect?

Q. Why do the social sciences allow Feminism (and other activist causes) to “get-away-with” producing one-sided or false scientific data and erroneous psychosocial observations?

A. It is hard for people who haven’t studied several of these fields to realize that the social sciences are built on a foundation of: (1) legitimate, but very selective major observation-based theories that are then applied far beyond their original bases; and (2) unproven secondary consensus assumptions originated by groups of specialists within their ranks. The research supporting these high-level theories and hypotheses seldom satisfies the standards of holistic empiricism or pure science, respectively. While vast numbers of more detailed studies and statistical analysis are also conducted in these fields, most are grounded in and seek to prove aspects of the narrow major theories (which have never actually been proven to apply in the domains in which the reductionistic research is being conducted) and other consensus hypotheses.

These groups of theorists and specialists operate within an overall hierarchical belief system that might best be described as Social Scientific Materialism (SSM)—see next FAQ below. SSM and its research methods evolved over the last several centuries. SSM’s core beliefs are the indirect product of the major observations and assumptions the various social sciences. Each of these groups also share a sub-set of narrow observations and hypotheses built around certain common central themes. Freud and behaviorism, as well as multiculturalism and even evolution all exemplify these various sub-systems. This hierarchy of collectively accepted thematic beliefs is most often just presumed to cause all kinds of effects in human nature. They are more or less taken for granted without any actual specific scientific evidence.

Perhaps the most common and recognizable example occurs in most social-science literature. Actualities of every imaginable kind is simply declared to be the result of evolution without the slightest direct proof. The attribution is generally accepted because it is consistent with and reinforces the collective conviction that evolution is a proven scientific fact—if not an absolute truth. While evolution may very well be a high scientific probability, it certainly is not a proven theory—much less a philosophic truth. Evolution remains a scientifically unproven consensus assumption among various highly credentialed specialists, and the equivalent of a popular opinion shared by most intellectuals—especially those educated in the massive social science derived fields. Mechanisms to censor prejudiced and biased group assumptions, or test the integrity of individual scientists do not exist—unless one of them happens to deviate too far from the overall belief system. This is a perfect setting for groups of bright activists to operate with impunity.

Q. What in the world is “Social Scientific Materialism”?

A. Philosophers call the prevailing belief system in America, Scientific Materialism. It is a systematic way of perceiving and interpreting facts and reality. It is a set of assumptions that now take precedence over ideals from the nation’s heritage; notions that subtly and unconsciously guide the thinking of most of the nation’s culture-shapers—its professionals in government, education, counseling, business, and communications—and through them, the public.

Far more than advances in technology, social science has basically created this new paradigm by primarily propagating selective observations, unproven hypotheses, and partial truths. At their most basic and theoretical level, the social sciences includes politics, economics, and history, as well as psychology, sociology, and anthropology. They emulate the physical sciences (e.g. physics, biology, and chemistry), and profess the same expertise in human nature as the pure sciences have in nature’s other domains. But paradoxically, these “sciences” seldom employ pure science’s methods or detachment.

Instead, like Freud, most of their theorists observe a selected effect in nature, assume a probable cause, and then search for the existence or absence of confirming evidence. Other researchers—who typically share the same theoretical predisposition—repeat this proof-finding process until hypotheses are accepted as factual and true or rejected by group consensus. These “proven theories” are then used to explain aspects of human nature far beyond their original basis. This procedure is very human, but it is not empirically objective or very scientific. Real science first seeks to disprove (falsify), not prove assumptions. It eliminates all other possible causes or explanations. It prevents intellectual, social, and political bias from affecting its results. Finally, the pure sciences confine themselves to concrete discovery and probabilities. They leave certainty or truth, incorporeal causation, and creativity to philosophy, religion, and the arts.

For example, Materialism’s hypotheses say people are predominantly driven by brutish instincts and cravings; by the unconscious need for power; by self-interest; and their sex drive. It tends to primarily see humanity as hedonistic immediate-satisfiers; as compelled by the need to barter economic and social contracts at the expense of other people; as united by impassive bonds and physical attachments. But Materialist’s fail to also offer and equally advocate similar “proven theories” explaining all of the self-evident contrasting opposite dimensions of human nature—all humankind’s constant purposeful actions, their reoccurring ethical behaviors, their routine self-sacrifice and altruism, their habitual areas of delayed-gratification, and the overwhelming examples of their unconditional love and affection for one another.

Materialists typically ignore the facts of human nature proven through history, and their own basic law—that nature evolves. Hence its experts attempt to psychosocially reengineer or manipulate individuals and control entire cultures. Believers treat fact, truth, and virtue as optional and negotiable relative values; as situational variables unaffected by enduring principles or natural law. Thus its followers are prone to pursue comfort, cost-free benefits, and pleasure; to revere personality, impartiality, and plasticity; to seek conformity, sameness, and compliance; to respect and reward mediocrity; and to evade accountability.

Materialists believe their views are empirical, unaware that they worship a quasi-religion in which novices are imbued with certain unproven and contradictory underlying assumptions. One of these is the pretense that physical “five-sensory” experiences are the only realities—which is accompanied by the denial that any form of nonphysical causation exists in reality. They say all such effects are only imaginary, without realizing they are admitting the existence of something that is itself an immateriality.

Scientific Materialism also idolizes invisible forces—like energy, gluons, and dark matter; exalts creative powers—like the “Big Bang” and the human mind; and pretends that the nervous system is more than just another organ—like the circulatory or digestive system. They fantasize that the brain’s electro-chemical interactions somehow magically animate nonphysical thoughts and abstract feelings (but, inexplicably, not the equally intangible soul as well). Neurologists say that—just as a beating heart and breathing sustain, but do not create life—electrochemical events in the nervous system process thoughts and emotions, but there is absolutely no proof either are originated by the brain. One of Materialism’s major over-generalized assumptions is that most human attributes can be explained by Darwin’s still inconclusive hypothesis of selective adaptation (or survival-of-the-fittest). Finally, its believers fail to see that activism in the name of pseudo-science is exactly the same as evangelism on behalf of religion.

Q. Why didn’t the College answer these complaints?

A. In the absence of a response for the College, one can only speculate. They really need to be asked that question, not me. Their failure to reply certainly does not indicate that any of my positions are erroneous. In fact, it would seem silence tends to validate my arguments in the sense that the school has no scientific, empirical, or educationally valid arguments to support what they are doing.

One explanation may be that most of the College’s administrative staff are Feminist “true-believers,” or tacitly condone the College’s discriminatory practices. It seems that only a minority of today’s academic leaders could rise to the top of their professions without at least silently tolerating Feminist activism. A closely related motivation might be fear of losing their careers and social status. The recent fate of Harvard’s President illustrates both of these suppositions.

He was forced to resign after opposing some of his Arts and Sciences academic staff’s social and political ideals and teaching methods. But most of all, he lost his job because he dared to make an off-handed remark questioning one of Feminism’s basic tenets at a large meeting. This is a perfect example of how the freedom-of-speech and “academic-freedom” actually works on our college campuses today. Not even college Presidents—much less their students—are free to question “academic-group-think” in the social sciences related fields.