The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

IS THIS SITE OBJECTIVE?

This site contradicts what many American’s now believe to be “the actual facts and truths”: the Feminist sponsored version of conventional intellectual wisdom and popular “politically correct” thinking about the sexes and gender. The information presented here is certainly guilty of nonconformity, but it is just as certainly neither misogynist nor “masculinism”. While this site does offer concrete scientific and empirical evidence of male-discrimination, the overarching factual message repeatedly presented herein is that women and men are one another’s equal in every significant respect. On the other hand, while Feminism claims to believe in equality, just about everything its supporters say or do promotes the false, divisive, and polarizing overall belief that the sexes are inherently different and unequal.

This website is, however, “decidedly anti-Feminist”. Decidedly refers to arriving at well studied fact-based and reasoned decisions, as opposed to emotion-laden opinions and feelings about the movement. Of course, holding firm convictions on any topic makes everyone vulnerable to selective perception (see below), and thus subject to the risk of losing some objectivity about the cause itself.

Digesting the data on the information on this website requires readers to: [1] remain sex-neutral and gender-balanced; [2] control selective perception; [3] be aware of the dangers of special interest factions; and [4] understand modern social science’s essence.

About Objectivity: This site reexamines just about every Feminist-originated widely accepted belief about the sexes and gender, not from just the women’s point-of-view, but from the male’s, children’s, family’s, and overall culture’s perspective as well. Thus it requires readers to reach beyond Feminist-based “wisdom” and popular opinion to objectively consider previously undisclosed research and observations.

Sex-identity is at the very core of how we define ourselves psychosocially and how we comprehend our surrounding world. The phrase, “We create our own reality,” is to at least some extent a philosophic truth. Unlocking our most deeply held self-identities and vital convictions requires: [1] suspending our existing beliefs and defenses; [2] avoiding immediately rejecting, attacking, or discounting the data—i.e. “killing the messages”; and avoiding promptly “shooting the messenger” by doubting, psychoanalyzing, or discrediting its author before all the evidence is submitted and evaluated.

Selective perception: It is logical to ask: “How could an undetected culture of male-discrimination” possibly exist in a nation of intelligent people committed to equality and freedom, as well as facts and truth? One explanation comes from cognitive psychology—the human tendency to expend energy validating and filling gaps, as well as avoid inputs incompatible with in what we already know, understand, and believe.

Humans are impelled to see, hear, sense, recognize, process, accept, and seek-out information that confirms what they already comprehend, believe, and consider to be real. People also have what might be called a hunger-for-congruency and “need-to-be-right” that leads them to ignore, reject, deny, distort, block-out, bargain-with, and soon forget facts, truths, or actualities that are inconsistent with data previously incorporated. This combination of proactive and receptive selective perceptions can also produce the sincere conviction that one’s current perceptions are factual, true, and real—despite readily available overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

For example, suppose an objective person (or student) is told (or learns) one of Feminism’s theorems (e.g. husbands are wife-beaters) by an authoritative source (e.g. a college professor, textbook, reporter, official, etc.), but receives no evidence to the contrary (e.g. wives equally beat husbands). That person is likely to tentatively accept that idea, and thereafter be increasingly more attentive, receptive, and impelled toward additional reinforcing new information, as well as increasingly resistant to opposing data.

Selective perception is like building pyramid-like structures from “blocks” of knowledge and beliefs. Constructing these interdependent mental hierarchies requires investing effort. Energy is the mortar holding the structure together. Missing data causes discord that stimulates receptivity to and the search for new data. Accepting incongruous information forces the addition of new layers, reassembly, or constructing a new pyramid or cognitive dissonance. Thus it takes far more effort to accept and make the changes that accompany new contradictory information than to add confirming data to an existing perception. Finally, the absence of periodic “improvements” or “new construction” makes pyramids become rigid and unyielding.

Group members also share compatible pyramid “blocks” with one another, effectively forming collective selective perceptions. Group perceptions work the same as those held by individuals. Groups can be powerful agents of maintaining the status quo, as well as agents of change (i.e. group counseling). On an even larger scale, “conventional wisdom” among intellectuals and popular “political correctness” can be forceful enforcers of conformity and suppressors of individual freedom to think and act.

The Dangers Activism: In addition to the five characteristics of activism identified on the Home Page, we need to recall that the U. S. Constitution only protects the individual’s and the majority. Its clauses do not establish any group or minority liberties or rights. During the 20th century the Supreme Court has gradually reinterpreted the Constitution in ways that created protections for special interest groups that take priority over individual and majority rights. For example: [1] a cadre of professors usurp student’s freedom by succeeding in banning ROTC on a college campus, or [2] activists demonstrate for all military recruiting be prohibited from a given city and are therefore impeding individual citizen’s freedom of choice and action and imposing their will on the majority; and [3] a minority of atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians get majority’s traditional references to God removed from public property.

Why did the law-of-the-land exclude protections for groups and minorities? America’s founders were students of history. As a result, they feared the divisiveness, polarization, and anarchy that factionalism inflicted on every democracy ever established, leading in their eventual demise. In a pure democracy, its citizens directly elect their officials, or else take turns filling such posts. Our founders were also students of human behavior. As a result, they also feared humanity’s inclination to make short-term, emotion-based decisions instead of well-thought-out, principle-driven decisions. To overcome tendencies like these America’s founders avoided creating a direct democracy and formed a representative constitutional tripartite republic. Do special interests and opinion polls now control much of the media, election processes, and governmental decisions? Has the nation become a direct democracy? Are the distinctions among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches no longer clear? Whatever we may call our government, is it functioning effectively? Is it enhancing or eroding our civilization’s survival?

THE SOCIAL “SCIENCES?”

Why is false and male-discriminatory information being produced by academia? There are many reasons higher education fails to produce invalid and unreliable data about the sexes and gender today. Perhaps the best explanation overall is that the social “science” disciplines have lost control of Feminism and other activisms in the academe. The Discrimination Cycle explains how Feminism operates in complete violation of education’s mission in the classroom. Additional reasons include the unscientific essence of the modern social “science” and deficiencies in degree granting and peer review processes.

Social Studies Unscientific Methods: In earlier times the social “sciences” sought to distinguish themselves from the humanities by emulating the physical sciences. Unfortunately these disciplines no longer enforce the scientific method. [See “Social Science” attachment to DOE Add’l Complaint #5.] Feminists and other activists are allowed to present their collective opinions, ideologies, and politics as though it had equal or greater value to objective scientific and observational facts. In other words, there is not much real “science” in these disciplines because the standards of pure science are no longer enforced.

For example, Feminism’s sex/gender experts to get away with drawing dual-sex conclusions from single-sex studies; generalize findings from biased interpretation of case-studies to entire populations; treat one-sided conjecture and partial-truths as fact/truth; and report false or distorted data from major objective dual-gender research. They are also empowered to cunningly communicate in ways designed to persuade non-specialized peers, lay practitioners, and students that their speculations and pseudoscientific data is legitimate and real. These audiences trust and believe the data being presented because these activists are covered with an aura of presumed intellectual integrity; cloaked in the authority of their awesome credentials; and veiled in the public’s expectation of veracity from higher education. This is not science!

A reoccurring theme is revealed in higher-level Feminist literature. It is the astonishing accusation that the standards of scientific and philosophic inquiry are “genderized”; are the manifestations of males and masculinity. Feminists thus argue that female/feminine ways of discovery and thinking—including collective opinion and intuition—be incorporated into, if not replace these proven methodologies. Consider these excerpts from Anselmi/Law’s Questions of Gender...:

We (i.e. the authors)... take a critical stand on (psychological research and) empirical methods, which… are flawed. (F)eminist’s critique of science... articulat(e) alternate models of... knowledge… known as feminist methods. (T)raditional approaches… distort and ignore… the voices of research participants. (U)nstructured interviews and case studies are qualitative methods… (that) involve… few participants… and information that might be subjective (but)… such methods place the “voice” of the participants (and researchers) in the foreground.

There is absolutely no place in real science for the prejudiced and biased “voices” of activism. In addition, abstract systems of thought—like the scientific method, standards of logic and reason, or the principles of leadership—are asexual phenomenon. These “laws of thinking” serve a similar function to quantifiable formulas applicable to the material world, like gravity or electromagnetism. How likely is it that an airplane designed by subjective and qualitative methods—i.e. activist’s prejudiced and biased  “voices” or their opinionated and intuitive “unstructured interviews” and “case studies”—will actually ever fly?

That Feminists are able to write a 4-year college textbook based on the above premises illustrates how out of control activism is in academia is today, as well as how little real intellectual integrity exists in “psychosocial studies.” Current standards for publication do, however, require specialist’s to at least refer to some of the facts refuting their author’s major positions. Feminists willingly comply because “spicing-up” their work with selective portions or misrepresentations the actual sex-balanced and gender-neutral facts, and then overwhelming that information with their own data helps create the appearance of objectivity.

The physical sciences manage to rigidly enforce the standards of pure science and limit their work to the business of “discovery” of directly or indirectly observable realities in the material world. While there is considerable conjecture in astrophysics' mathematical descriptions of the universe (i.e. the “The Big Bang,” “Worm Holes,” or “String Theory”), similar undetectable “mysticism” has not widespread to other physical sciences. With relative few exceptions, the physical sciences have also managed to keep idealism and political activism from dominating their core disciplines and applied (i.e. engineering) professions. Medicine, law, and accounting have also found ways to maintain their profession’s performance standards. For example, they use creeds that must be sworn to, oversight boards, and well-documented enforcement processes. As a result, while certainly not perfect, professionals in these fields exhibit a considerably higher level of veracity and integrity in their work than those in the social science related fields.

Degrees in Bigotry: Committees of PhDs authorize most academic credentials by approving a thesis or project for a master’s and a dissertation for a doctorate degree. The social sciences fragmented into narrow specialties and these “experts” most often now comprise these “degree granting” committees.

In an environment in which all of the experts in sex/gender are Feminists (this restricting availability of disproving data), and the vast majority of professors in the Arts & Sciences are converts to the cause, degree candidates only have two realistic choices. They either write terminal papers supporting Feminism or avoid addressing sex/gender topics completely. Feminism’s recruits, of course, have no difficulty filling their committees with academics that will readily approve their female-biased and male-prejudiced papers.

If sufficient true-believers are not available in smaller schools, specialization still impedes objective evaluation of papers. For example, it is difficult for historians or even clinical and cognitive psychologists to criticize work on sex/gender topics because they are unfamiliar with the cited references in such papers as the other Feminists on the committee and the degree candidate. It is also far too time consuming, socially costly, and career impeding for professor’s in any specialty to criticize Feminists’ work. In sum, in such settings it is easy to envision how difficult, if not impossible it is for degree candidates to receive a sex-neutral and gender-balanced review of papers disproving major Feminist positions.

Finally, if members of these degree authorizing committees—like the sex/gender experts—decide to ignore or alter the standards of science (see above), there is now practical no means of preventing such actions. Similar censorship exists in academic journals and books as well. Editors typically use academia’s specialized experts to review and validate the content of their publications—i.e. the same Feminist true-believers. Finally, publishers are often staffed with Feminist supporters and are unwilling to face the rage and punishment Feminist inflict on anyone contradicting their male-discriminatory sex-stereotyping in print.

THE INFORMATION ON THIS SITE

The Feminist-side-of-the-story does not receive equal treatment on this site because their views are already well-publicized, and Feminist certainly do not give equal coverage to masculine perspectives. This website is also not an academic publication. It is a narrative report summarizing the author’s eclectic findings in from the social “sciences” (psychology, sociology, economics, history, etc.) and philosophy, as well as technical knowledge and firsthand observations of the workplace and numerous cultures.  

The statistics presented here are supported by major dual-sex scientific research—often covering thousands of subjects—as well as the accumulative results of several smaller objective scientific and empirical studies. These findings are typically common knowledge at the doctoral-level in their respective specialized fields. Facts are presented with sufficient references to establish their neutrality, balance, and veracity, but not to the extent of most academic writing, which result in cumbersome reading. The site endeavors to combine diverse information in ways that are understandable to the general public. Feminist critics may cry “foul” and criticize such “deficiencies.” However, Feminists’ extensive abuse of citations, research findings, and manipulative presentation of data renders all such complaints non-starters.

In any event, most readers will not go to the trouble to verify extensive references. The public seldom bothers to chase-down citations, thus they typically serve no practical purpose. Hence the goal herein is to provide references readers might actually use. Even within the academia community, the frequency of referral and verification of citations is typically limited to other specialists in the same field and instructors reviewing or students preparing topical papers. Indeed, Feminists often use citations of one another’s opinions and fallacious data to project an erroneous image of intellectual integrity and veracity.

The Observations: Many cultural and some behavioral observations reported here are the author’s. It is presumed that America’s “intelligent majority” (see below) has the capacity to both make and confirm observations about their surrounding world. Does it actually take a PhD to observe and decide what reality is? The real problem here is that academia has taught students to take such academic expert’s views on faith, and not bother to question/verify such points-of-view. Intellectual’s opinions are not scientific facts.

Original observations seek to satisfy the “reasonable person” standard or be verifiable with readily available data readers can access themselves. References are not provided for independent observations or technical knowledge gained from experiences in the workplace and education because such data are not available, not well understood, and not retained in academia, public libraries, or government sources.

A common belief in the educational community—thence among intellectuals—today is that facts and truth are “relative variables” that can be redefined, reinterpreted or re-perceived as one pleases to fit different situations and desired ends. The author rejects this premise, and instead believes the endless search for the most probable facts, actual realities, and philosophic truths are what knowledge is all about.

Conclusions are thus presented in a “beyond a reasonable doubt” status—in a conclusive, but always provisional state. If probabilities, actualities, and absolutes did not exist, expending energy on discovery (i.e. science) and reason (i.e. philosophy) would be a waste of time—even a form of insanity. It is self-evident that research and abstract thought produce beneficial concrete results and useful concepts. For example, airplanes do fly and individual freedom does tend to lead to prosperity and peace. Therefore the foundations upon which science and philosophy are built must exist in reality. In sum, this site is rooted in the conviction that facts, reality, and truth are universal and enduring, rather than situational or temporal variables—yet are also always subject to question, further study, and change as well.

Communications Assumptions: The author finds no tangible evidence for the hypotheses that human “attention-spans” have declined in the last 100 or 1000 years; or that writing ought to be “dumbed-down”. Today 36% of American adults have an Associate’s or higher degree, 17% more have completed some college, and they all live in one of the most information overloaded cultures in history. These assumptions encourage people to be lazy readers and avoid routinely using dictionaries to build a better vocabulary so they are able to think more efficiently. They are little more than self-fulfilling prophesies.

The public obviously allows Feminists, other activists, and extremists to use the media to exploit woman’s and other special interest group’s Supreme Court derived powers (above). The author believes the media is largely populated with intelligent, well-intentioned, and competent professionals—not the purpose-driven “liberals” or “left-wingers” conservatives claim them to be. He sees most professionals being unconsciously swayed by a systemic way of thinking students absorb in higher education, called ”Social” Scientific Materialism (SSM). SSM includes relativistic thinking (above), and portrays humanity as self-interest-, sex-, and power-driven materialists while failing to recognize people’s equal capacities for other-centeredness, unconditional affection, and quest for intangibles and to transcend. SSM is a quasi-religion that rejects pure science and gives equal or greater value to consensus opinions than to objective research and substantiated observations. It therefore trains professionals to believe and promote incomplete and/or erroneous information. Finally, SSM presumes humans, societies, and cultures can be manipulated and altered as major segments of the intellectual community sees fit. [See: DOE Add’l Complaint #5.]

After graduation the media and other professionals then proceed to transmit their SSM worldview to public. As a result, it has now become common practice for people to value popularity over character in selecting their leaders; believe opinion polls reflect people’s carefully considered judgment; and think special interest activist’s demands are a legitimate basis for making culture-wide policy decisions.

SSM also seems to be driving the media to think and act as though their primary functions are to: [1] shrewdly persuade and market—not just products and services—but themselves and their personal opinions; [2] sensationalize and emotionally stimulate their audiences based on fear, sex, and self-interests; and [3] entertain the public. These SSM-based beliefs suppress and replace these professions original mission to seek, observe, and report the all of the facts and opposing views about issues and events. These “new values” allow activists to exploit the media in service of their mission. The author calls this exploitation “Media-Terrorism,” which has become activist’s “WMD” used to threaten, pressure, bully, and punish decision-makers in business, education, and government into compliance with their demands. Comparable role expectations now seem to be widely accepted by teachers with similar consequences.

EmasculationOfAmerica.com

Last Updated: 8/15/08