The feminist movement, like all female behavior, is decayed with hypocrisy-Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda have not chosen to marry sensitive dishwashers. As we have seen, the central thesis of feminist ideology is that a male "patriarchy" enslaves women and robs them of personal power and choice. But does this accusation have any basis in fact? It has already been pointed out that we live in a sexist country, entirely biased toward women, and this anti-male prejudice expresses itself in cultural consents. An illustration might be that if a young woman marries a wealthy man three times her age, society just nudges and winks-no one brands her as the prostitute she really is. But it is an altogether different story for her husband. He is generally degraded as a "dirty old man" or a "cradle-robber". If a young man dates an older woman, he has to be a gigolo with his eyes on her estate; but if a woman lusts after a man twenty years her junior, its "you go, girl". And if a man has an affair, he is a "typical jerk"; but if a woman cheats on her husband, she is striking a blow for sexual freedom. There is never any acknowledgment of such flagrant double standards. When a woman doesn't marry, she is "empowered" or a "career woman"; but if a man chooses to stay single, he is either maligned as a philanderer or considered gay. On television, and in the theaters, men are regularly portrayed as serial killers, abusers, and rapists (not to mention brainless), while women are depicted as innocent victims. This hardly seems an environment conducive to the wielding of "male power". In fact, it's just the opposite.
A feminist slogan reads, "Anatomy is not destiny". But in many respects it is, and for men, their anatomy hands them a burden of health disadvantages which women don't have to share. Male infants suffer a higher death rate and more birth defects than females; emotionally disturbed boys outnumber girls 4:1; and boys are twice as likely as girls to be victims of physical abuse and twice as many die from these injuries. A man's life expectancy is shorter than a woman's (72 years for males as opposed to 79 for females). The mortality rate for heart attacks is 80% higher for men than for women, and men suffer an increased death rate for major diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Men die more frequently from prostate cancer than women do of breast disease (prostate cancer research is awarded one-sixth the funding of the breast cancer research). Moreover, a far greater number of men lose their lives to murder, accident (males account for over 90% of work-related deaths), and suicide. Again, the power is in the hands of women. Women are the true rulers of society, although they work very hard to suppress this eternal truth. Like the Wizard of Oz, they hide their manipulations behind a curtain of deceptiveness and presumed virtue, so that no one can expose them for the charlatans they really are. Women can secure high-paying positions through affirmative action policies, simply because of their gender, not their qualifications. They can curry favor and rise in rank by exerting their sexual tools in the office and then screaming "sexual harassment" when the time has come to pay the piper. Female sportscasters have lobbied to be allowed to conduct interviews in male locker rooms (but never the reverse-another double standard); and women have been granted the privilege of membership in mens' clubs (although women want to join these institutions not for the cause of equality, but to exploit the "old boy network" for business deals). Girls are winning lawsuits to enter male-only schools (only to drop out when they aren't accorded privileged status and find out they actually have to work hard to be accorded equality); but if a boy were to want to enroll at a girls' school, the case would never even get to court. In divorce proceedings, women regularly steal half a man's assets even if they themselves are the agents of separation, through boredom, an affair, or pure greed.
Yet feminists continue to harp about an all-powerful masculine conspiracy which frustrates their potential and keeps them "sexually enslaved". In psychological language, this is projection, because just the opposite is the truth. But to maintain such an intentionally one-sided view of the world, feminists require "proof" of their assertions, and they find corroboration in statistics largely of their own manufacture. Radical feminists insist that rape is a crime of violence and power, but the majority of rape victims are young and attractive, which argues forcibly that this assault is a crime of frustration. Interestingly enough, a recent survey of high school students found that over 50% of females and 75% of males believed that forced sex was permissible in some circumstances; and among 11-14 year-olds, about half of both genders assumed that forced sex was acceptable if the boy spent a lot of money on the girl.
Men are condemned as batterers and killers, inherently violent, but a quick scan of a history text will outline: the blood-soaked reigns of Mary Tudor and Elizabeth 1; the diabolical Countess Bathory, who shackled peasant girls into iron cages before slaughtering them and drinking their blood; a host of female mass murderers; not to mention women who hire professional killers to get rid of their husbands. The feminists don't acknowledge the fact that the majority of child abusers are women, and a number of nationwide sociological studies have proven that well over 50% of battered spouses are husbands, and that an equal number of battered women admit that they initiated the violence, usually with a weapon. They certainly turn a blind eye to the world-wide practice of infanticide (carried out by women) and abortion, both in ancient times and still today. It has been estimated that during the Paleolithic period as many as 50% of newborns were killed. In 18th century England thousands of mothers regularly tossed their babies into the Thames, wrapped them in clothing infected with smallpox, or dumped them in rubbish heaps. In our own day, infanticide is still widely practiced in undeveloped countries as a way of stabilizing population growth, especially when food resources are scarce. And practically every day there is a newspaper report of a baby thrown in a dumpster (by the mother) and left to die of the elements.
Likewise abortion was (and is) a commonplace means of birth control. Primitive women drank concoctions poisonous to the fetus or a friend of the pregnant woman would jump on the mother's abdomen until blood spurted out of her vagina. In Europe and America, women would "accidentally" roll over in bed on top of an unwanted infant to smother it. In the 19th century, one out of every six babies was aborted. So the notion of the instinctively pure, passive, nurturing female is pure mythology. If women are allowed power and freedom of violence, they are vicious.
Equal rights advocates refer to the "feminization of poverty", even though society permits women to grow fat off the resources of men. In fact, more women than men have a net worth of more than half a million dollars, due to "marrying well" and outliving their husbands. They have leveraged sex into a fortune. Feminists grumble that women don't earn the same salaries as their male counterparts, but men are pressured (by women) to shoulder the financial responsibilities of dating and marriage. Therefore, a man is forced to be more ambitious, to work longer hours, and to accept more undesirable or dangerous positions. Women work at lower-income jobs because they are easy, safe, and require less rigorous training-they are really just marking time until they can snag a man with cash. Society grants women the choice to raise a family at home or to pursue a career, but men enjoy no such option. In the military, women demand-and get-double standards. They are regularly granted passing scores for partial completion of obstacle courses, endurance runs, and forced marches (this is euphemized as "gender normalizing"); and unfit and unqualified women are allowed to pilot aircraft to pander to a feminist agenda, sometimes with tragic results. If a male officer visually appreciates a female form, or passes a woman over for promotion, he can be accused of "sexual harassment", leading to the ruination of his career, even if the charge is whispered anonymously.2 As for the "glass ceiling", the mythical barrier which blackballs females from rising to top corporate positions (the only real barrier is hard work), no feminist ever refers to the "glass basement", whose surface is caked with dirt and smeared with the sweat of janitors, busboys, and laborers; or the darkest ceiling of them all, the fact that men die far earlier than women (because females live off their stress and toil). Women want to start out by owning the restaurant, not clearing tables in it, and they want it handed to them on a silver platter. When women do work hard and achieve financial success, they certainly don't spend their money on men-instead they buy shoes.
2 For a fuller discussion of this topic, see Women In The Military: Flirting With Disaster, by Brian Mitchell.
All of this underscores the powerlessness of men, not their dominance. If men are so powerful, then why do they spend their lives slaving at jobs they hate, just to satisfy a woman's mercenary demands? Why are they pressured to submit to sexual blackmail, to become cringing supplicants before a woman's sexual tyranny? Men endure a secondhand existence, degrading themselves as failures when they can't live up to women's impossible standards. They live the shadow lives of servants, obliged to pander and cater to the female gender.
Was this article helpful?