The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:
Text Box: All of the above qualities are represented in James & Gilliland work. Thus the disproof of many of their positions is either briefly mentioned (typically “in-passing”) or furtively disguised within the broader thrust of the sections. Some of the more sex-balanced observations and facts about violence, abuse, and aggression (VAA) are: (1) In Chapter 7 (pp. 285 & 314), several brief sentences are inserted that literally contradict the chapter’s central theses. “In their 10-year study of family violence in 1985, Straus and Gelles (1986) found an overall decline in husband-to-wife violence of 6.6% and severe husband-to-wife violence decreased by 26.6 percent… (while) wife-to-husband violence had increased to a rate higher than that of husband-to-wife violence. Other studies support this increase in the 1990s, particularly when courtship is involved. (Where) the percentage of violence… closely parallels that found in samples of married couples and that this violence is reciprocal in nature.” In other words, almost every major dual-gender study reports that: (a) historically, husbands and wives are more or less equal perpetrators of physical abuse; (b) recently, wives are more violent than husbands; (c) violence begins in courtship, thus both partners know what they are getting into beforehand; and (d) VAA between the sexes is neither a new nor escalating epidemic, it has most recently been declining. Further: men seldom call for help or report VAA to authorities; it is comparatively rare for them to seek medical or counseling services; and shelters for males don’t exist. In sum, the author’s early paragraphs grossly distort the raw data provided by all forms of sex-balanced research, but they also alter the fundamental meaning and implications of these studies. (2) The discriminatory formatting of the above chapter is justified by asserting that women suffer from more severe domestic violence and injuries than men. Like other feminist claims, these false and unproven contentions have been taken on faith and replayed in academia and the media so often that they have become conventional wisdom. But at least with respect to the sexes, popular opinion is not always based on the actual facts. For example, Strauss and Gelles (1986) – by far the leading research in this area – found that wives initiate/sustain the severest forms of violence at the rate of 4.8% and husbands at 3.4%. Thus, incorporating the data above, wives have been 10% to 40% more injuriously violent than husbands for the last several decades. Without success, I invested several days trying to find a single dual-gender study proving women are more often severely injured in domestic conflicts. But dual-sex studies most often find the sexes inflict roughly equal severe physical abuse upon one another. 6 Thus the author’s entire rationale for their one-sided presentation is a façade based on blatant falsehoods, and they undoubtedly had access to the actual facts. (3) Beyond the sexes being equally violent in their dating, cohabiting, and marriage relationships, my master’s research 7 revealed that females perpetrate substantially more overall VAA in intimate relationships than males. Why? Because women physically abuse children about 50% and elders 100% more than men. Women’s violence with intimates is further exacerbated because females are also twice as emotionally or indirectly abusive (i.e. manipulative) as males in all relationships. But the higher female differential with intimates is counter-balanced by male’s being twice as physically violent among non-intimates (primarily between the ages of 15-25 and largely with other males). Thus the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly indicates that males and females are equally violent, abusive, and aggressive in general, as well as with respect to rape. 8 (4) I could find no way to extract illustrative wording, but the entire thrust of the Partner Violence chapter encourages women involved in domestic abuse to promptly and permanently leave their mates. No guidance is offered about what men should do, or what women’s role ought to be, in the half of all cases in which it is the women who is the physical abuser. Thus the author’s totally ignore the abused person’s role as a codependent, an enabler, or a non-boundary-setting participant in the aggression. Studies in substance abuse suggest that 75-85% of partners contribute to chemical dependency through such behaviors. The chapter also says nothing about non-physical abuse, where women are twice as violent. Perhaps these author’s approach in part explains why, while husbands are stereotyped as abandoning their families, two wives actually file for separation or divorce for every husband. (5) Chapter 6 states (above) that “1 in 6 women and 1 in 10 men” report being sexually abused as a child. Later, the authors cite another source indicating that “1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men” (p. 242) so report. These seem odd ways to say that somewhere between 2 males for every 3 females and 3 males for every 5 females report having been raped in childhood. But the authors also go on to casually mention that one study found that “men are more reluctant to report rapes than are women,” and that another researcher found that “female pedophilia is underreported and that females offenders are typically mothers and other caregivers who abuse young boys (p. 231).” The actual research in these areas spans volumes of data. In general, it reveals that: (1) the author’s facts are proportionally accurate, but on the high side for both sexes; (2) little boys report rapes by women 2 to 3 times less frequently than young girls report rapes by men; and (3) adult men report all forms of sexual aggression by women 5 to 10 times less often than women report such acts by men. Thus what the authors fail to make clear – no, purposefully disguise – is that when sex stereotyping, gender socialization, cultural insensitivity, and reporting differences are all considered – females of all ages are certainly at least as sexually abusive of boys and grown men as males of any age are with respect to girls and mature women. I could find no reliable data on the prevalence of female-to-female rape. Based on the data above, it seems safe to hypothesize that the rate is about the same as male-to-male assaults, both within prisons and in society-at-large. And for the authors to subtly infer that men, not women, primarily rape boys is contrary to both the actual evidence and simple logic. Finally, without offering proof, how can it be assumed that a boy being raped by a woman or a man being assaulted at any age (but especially in prison) is significantly less traumatic or warranting of attention than the rape of women and girls? (6) In general, claims that a “patriarchy,” a male power differential, or masculine cultural dominance and biases have existed at any time during the 20th century are nothing but incredibly one-sided observations, purposely selected to mislead. The same can be said of any contention that males are inherently more dominant, controlling, or competitive and/or females a more submissive, passive, and cooperative. No major dual-sex basic research or objective observational studies supports such claims. And the very idea that these factors directly cause VAA between the sexes is even more incredible. First, even if such observations were valid, they do nothing to explain the equal woman-to-man physical violence; the higher physical abuse of intimates-by-women; and the greater overall non-physical aggression of females. Second, when the cultural evidence is evaluated from a more equalitarian perspective, the fallacy of all these claims becomes even more apparent. For example: (A) When the comparative cultural power of the sexes is objectively examined, the belief that women have been less influential during the 20th century is a myth. For example, politicians gain/retain office by complying with the will of their constituents. Women (who are a 4% population majority and live six years longer) have been the political majority in America by 7% for the last 85 years; they have outvoted men by ~15% since the 1980s. It is this very power advantage that the Feminist minority has so successfully: (1) obscured; (2) used as a threat with decision-makers; and (3) exploited by activist tactics, especially in persuading the media to take action on their behalf. (B) In marketing circles it is widely accepted that women control 75% to 85% of consumer-purchase decision-making. Which sex would most likely have the greatest impact on America’s overall domestic economy? On product offerings and designs? On advertising strategy and themes? On magazines, newspapers, or literary content? On the storyline in most movies and programs on TV or radio? (C) Similarly, women have far greater control with respect to the nation’s most precious culture shaping resources; childrearing and classroom education. For example, childrearing has become feminized: ~1/4th of America’s children are effectively reared by single, mostly employed women and another 1/3rd with largely marginalized stepfathers, while ~2/3rds of natural fathers are basically disenfranchised. 9 Motherhood is now stereotyped as sainthood and fatherhood is “nonessential” (or a joke).10 Just about every major parental “choice” and means of influencing children – both before (i.e. abortion) and after marriage (i.e. daily decisions/role modeling) or in divorce (i.e. 85-90% of control in child custody) – is now a virtual “women’s right.” Today, both the unborn and the living child are envisioned and treated (socially/legally) as the mother’s sole or primary possession. Beyond the familial factors affecting childrearing, while school administrators were once mostly men, 85-95% of K-12 teachers are women. Which sex had and now has the greatest impact on child development and education? (D) It is unarguable that men once dominated the workplace, technology, and the arts; but their actual power was highly circumscribed and constrained. Prior to the 1960s, every businessman’s, engineer’s, and artist’s freedom to act was immeasurably guided and restrained by women’s tremendous social and purchasing power; and politicians had to act consistent with the majority’s will, which is mostly women. But, when overall cultural power is objectively evaluated – social and legal power over children, relative social status, and preferential treatment under law (i.e. employment/sexual discrimination) – which sex actually has the greatest momentum today? Was our culture in the 1950s actually more or less egalitarian? Since the 1960s, has our society become male-prejudiced and female-biased? Has we shifted from being a balanced culture, to one in which it can be legitimately said, “Feminists rule America, they just let men (and the mainstream of women) pretend to do so?” If so, is it good for us – or our children? (7) In general, the preponderance of dual-sex evidence overwhelmingly reveals that the sexes (as well as most races or other major groups) are basically equal in almost every fundamental respect. In other words, there are no significant statistical differences (i.e. greater than 4%) between males and females in any of the most ubiquitous underlying forces that actually cause human thinking, feelings, or behavior. Thus research has found no consistent distinctions between the sexes’ in intelligence/reasoning, energy/motivation, altruism/nurturing, emotionality, dominance/control, or aggression. In a meta-analysis of 1500 studies in 1974, Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin found only four areas of differences between the sexes: verbal ability (+F); spatial relations (+M); math ability (+M); and physical aggression (+M). Since than, differences in verbal and math abilities have disappeared; 11 and physical aggression was found to have been equal. (Note: This summary does not incorporate the effects of non-physical forms of aggression.) Science tells us that humans evolved from a common ancestor (probably from Africa). It also tells us embryos are the same sex for the first five weeks after conception (i.e. both sexes apparently begin life as females). And DNA studies have produced no useful predictive evidence with respect to mental illnesses, much less the more detailed ways people think, feel, and behave. In this context, just how fundamentally different can males and females actually become due to developmental or environmental forces? And is it really possible for us to alter the basic aspects of human nature very much? It is unarguable that individuals and groups are socialized or self-taught to express their core of equal attributes dramatically differently (up to 96%). And the sexes do have physiological, reproductive, and chemical distinctions that powerfully affect the probabilities of the ways the sexes’ core equalities are manifest. But none of these factors have proven to substantially alter human nature at its most fundamental levels. The evidence that human beings are created equal is simply too overwhelming to be ignored, denied, or distorted. Saving the most contentious issue to last, the freedom-of-speech has been taken to astonishing extremes today. But should teachers (or reporters) be allowed to use our classrooms (or newspapers/network) to promote their opinions and data without restraint (or editorial review)? Should not the exercise of such liberties be redirected to people’s private lives and personal resources rather than public (or stockholder) funded facilities and times? Under any circumstances, is subtly and surreptitiously “selling” a prescribed set of sociopolitical beliefs to impressionable, trusting, and unwary people justified? While the following comments invite accusations of “McCarthyism,” the fact is that most feminist thinkers and many leaders admit supporting Marxist ideals. Holding such personal beliefs is everyone’s right. But using the public educational system to shrewdly promote such views – especially under the guise of equality, scientific integrity, and philosophic truth – especially to unwarned and unsuspecting people – is wrong. But activists see very little distinction between their sociopolitical opinions and objective observations or facts; between selective and holistic data; between their emotions and reason; between their ideals and reality. Some feminists even postulate that a mythical masculine intellectual force now dominates our intellects; that this male way thinking must be redesigned to incorporate equally mysterious feminine cognitive powers. 12 Thus, just like Marxism, from the very beginning, a vital part of Feminist’s leader’s mission has been to: (1) instill as culture-wide sense of “class warfare” between the sexes; 13 (2) deconstruct our historic family and gender-based structures; 14 and (3) reconstruct a genderless communal society.15 These goals were innately anarchical because they included neither a specific plan-of-action nor vision of how such a society would actually function. Thus Feminism’s approach was Humpty-Dumpty psychosocial reengineering – i.e. shatter America’s cultural egg, then figure out how to reassemble it into a square later. Has Feminism’s Phase I now been accomplished? If so, what now? Historians may judge Feminism to be one of the most successful minority activist movements in the annals of Western Civilization. But if they do, they may also find it to be one of the most culturally destructive in history. Correlations never prove causation, but as misinformation like the above gained momentum in America, relations between the sexes have concurrently become dramatically more divisive, non-committal, selfish, and irresponsible. Major trends like: divorce plus permanent separations (~2/3rds of marriages); single-female births (1/3rd of total, 1.3 million/Yr); in an age of contraception, ~1.2 million single-female birth control abortions annually;16 and the feminization of childrearing and paternal/parental deprivation (discussed above) all threaten the very survival our civilization. Patterns like these affect everyone’s life and are top priority concerns to most Americans. 17 How have such trends come about? Is one of the most likely primary causes spreading misinformation like the above culture-wide? Finally, would most of the target audience recognize that the way these authors describe the nuclear family is exactly the same as Marxist portray the repressive role of the family under democratic-capitalism? Would they grasp the implication that our nation’s historic family structures ought thus must be eliminated; that both parents need to work outside the home (in our tradition, to pursue separate- and self-interest; in Marxism, for the good of the state); and that childrearing should to be relegated to third-parties (here, reared mostly by low-paid women; in Marxism, by the state)? Would they grasp the class-conflict analogy between women uniting to oppose suppression by men and the rallying-cry of Marxism that workers-of-the-world-unite to overthrow the presumed oppression of capitalism? Specific themes like these are repeatedly spelled out by the feminist “thinkers” and more recent leaders. But Russia’s (if not also China’s) attempts to apply them suggests they do not work, and may do more harm than good.

EmasculationOfAmerica.com