Women Are Not Oppressed

Well said. I can’t read enough of these type of artcles so I can stay in touch with reality. I live in Minneapolis, and our recent adventure with a lesbian fire chief produced 4 sexual harrassment lawsuits from subordinate women in the department in 1 year! Of course she was not fired as ANY man would have been at the mere accusation, but was on paid leave for months at $10,000/month while the charges were “investigated”. She was only demoted to captain 1/2 million dollars in taxpayer paid legal fees later.

Feminists like black race-hustlers (Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Al, NAACP) will never admit to any kind of “equality” in this country. Nope, this is the “grievance industry” and whining and bellyaching about how “racist” and “sexist” America is has paid off very handsomely to these frauds and their “groups”.

Another great piece Bernard. I have to echo the previous two posts. Articles like this keep me sane. I need them. And here’s what Kim Gandy recently sent out to the NOW Cow’s:

Reign of Contempt Is Almost Over

Below the Belt: A Biweekly Column by NOW President Kim Gandy

January 24, 2007

“Decades from now, when this country finally catches up with the rest of the developed world with regard to women’s rights, we will look back on the Bush presidency as a temporary detour from our long history of building democracy one right and one freedom at a time. The eight years of mis-rule by this President will be seen as a profound embarrassment that was eventually overcome. I guarantee it. But the past three days will be particularly difficult to reflect upon without shame or woe:”

To read more go to:

http://www.now.org/news/note/012507.html/

The feminists can never admit to the privileged place that women in America hold. They may even enjoy wallowing in their hatred of men and all things male.

and now it seems we are about to put one in the whitehouse. nothing and i meen nothing has more adversely effected this world than baby boomer limp wristed, pink shirted, men who have supported the anti-men movement for 40 years. my generation of men need to be shot at dawn without a blindfold. women laugh at us behind our backs…indeed in our faces. we do nothing. chapin said it all: “we work or we die”. end of story!

I have to echo you as well donnieboy57. Baby Boomer “men” have been a disgrace of epoch proportions. Their inaction these many decades have ruined this country and have certainly ruined the prospects of their sons and their sons sons. Damn them all.

Hey, the drive to feminize and homosexualize the country has been led by the perverts (homos/lesbians) and the liberals with the help of Hollywood and the old media. The problem is that too many people have succumbed to what is clearly a marketing-of-deviance ploy. The opposition is painted with names such as chauvist pig, homophobe, bigot, etc. Sadly, too many men have bought this load of crap for pennies on the dollar. Check the Reyes writer on this site — he calls children brats but deleted my posts when I called homosexuals what they call themselves, homos, queers, and the like. Reyes called me names like homophobe, bigot, etc; all the stuff marketed to weak-minded public by Hollywood, libs, and the deviants.

s baker. i agree with you on reyes. i believe in open discussion, but his posts are predictable and getting frankly….just plain old. i can here what he has to say 5 days a week at work and have been for the last 25 years. i am of the opinion that if 100% of his articles are ignored, he would find another forum. of course, he will shortly post here saying i am a closed minded robot of the right or some such, but who cares. not me.

Thanks for reading my piece my brothers.

S Baker, I’ll write my long overdue piece on homophobia within the next month for you, my man. It’ll be way better than the last one. Sorry for the delay but the book has to come first.

It boggles me to see that many of us so oblivious what is actually happening to us as a gender. As much as I hate to say this ,perhaps things have to get worse in order for us to wake up and take action. When I think of men I envision “Boxer” from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. Worst of all is that overwhelmingly the freedom we enjoy in this country has been paid overwhelmingly by the blood of young males. As a man it gets harder and harder to find anything worth defending in this country in its treatment of men. I never thought I’d imagine myself thinking such a thought.

Yikes! Why didn’t I screen before sending out my last comment? Sorry for the grammatical errors folks. It won’t happen again.

Bernard Chapin said,

“S Baker, I’ll write my long overdue piece on homophobia within the next month for you, my man. It’ll be way better than the last one. Sorry for the delay but the book has to come first.”

I have yet to meet anyone with a phobia for homosexuals. This is a word generated by the homo agenda, along with “gay” to couch their deviant behavior as some sort of oppression. There is no phobia, but indeed, much disgust with practices with rodents, rimming, felching and the like and worst of all, the incredibly high incidence of pedophilia among gay males. The staggering cost to health care is another subject found in great detail in publications such as the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly.

Bernard Chapin, thank you for another fine piece of writing.

It’s always a pleasure to read someone’s work who has the cujones to address feminazi bilge from shrill-but-ignorant man-haters like Dumbrowski.

Denis, as always, it’s a pleasure to read your words. I wish that you had enough time to write for Vox Populi (not the least reason being that you “get it” about the nature of the NOW-sows and their manipulations far better than most of the current contributors.

I know that you have limited time, related to your business.

Bernard, please write more!

cheers

Chapin, you are getting louder by the minute. A voice louder still may yet get heard above the shrill chorus of the likes of Ms. Dombrowski. Keep yelling, mate.

To yours I would add one or two points. BC quote – “She is so emotionally and intellectually fragile that she once had to flee the classroom rather than listen to a student contradict her about the need for a men’s movement. Here we have an individual so privileged that she can make her intolerance, cowardice, and incompetence publicly known without fear of reprisal. Clearly, being a leftist academic is nice work if you can get it.”

Teachers’ aides learn from the best in the business. That shrill woman, Professor Nancy Wossname at Harvard who threatened to vomit and faint when a hypothosis was put on the table is a star in this woman’s eyes, I’m sure. Reprisals? 50 Million bucks came her way. While we get responses like that from the rich donors of Harvard, what chance a kick up the arse for emotionally blackmailing women at the lower levels?

BC – “Most women are either motivated by or indifferent to visual representations”. Women love looking at other women. Clothed ones, unclothed ones, walking, talking ones, being f*cked stupid ones, any woman is visual game for a woman. Women objectify women far more than men do. Women usually don’t even bother looking at the men.

This sounds just unreasonable. Why on earth would women want to look at other women you might ask. They don’t look at men half as much, naked or otherwise. Are women queer? (Whoops, sorry RPR if you are watching).

Easy explanation. Its a form of Sympathetic Magic. Her unspoken thought pattern is, ‘I am a woman. If I look at women, other people will look at me’. Primitive, I know, but that’s about the sum of it. Sympathetic magic is an infantile thought-form stage that all humans all human societies go through at around five years old. What they think/believe, makes it so. (I know a woman who swears she can break bits off clouds, just by staring at them! True). Women just don’t advance past that stage in any great number. Some societies stay stuck at tribal level too.

And they latch on well before five. They are lifting their dresses and showing their knickers to Uncle Tom Cobbly et al from around two. That’s what women are refering to when they say girls mature faster than boys. They mean that girls find the money box and the guilt-tripper switch quicker than any boy could. And they rarely move on.

Which leads to Porn.

BC – “Erotica doesn’t oppress women.” Of course not. Porn is ’secret woman’s business’. It is an enormous money-maker for them. Porn is also a ‘Game’, that is a psychological game ala Transactional Analysis. They love to complain about men while raking in the cash from their performances. To them it is akin to being paid to wash their hair. A woman will shed her clothes if she has a hint that a camera is within 100 yards. Then demand money. And blame a man.

Quotations from famous every-women:

” I have a right to do anything I want with my body”.

‘I am 16 and not ashamed of my body’.

‘Don’t look’.

‘Look at me’.

‘Pay to look at me’.

‘Do you like my knickers?”

‘Perverts’.

‘You just can’t help yourselves, can you’

‘Men are all little boys’.

“You bastards ‘objectify’ me. Pay up, pay up, pay up”.

What fun. If you are five.

Bernard, you do a great job in answering the rants of these minifeminazis, but frankly, we all have to get down to their five y/o level for them to understand. We are talking to children.

And you spelled Ms. Dombrowski’s name wrong. It DUmbbrowski.

Dear Mr. Chapin, et al,

Clearly, you have some issues with feminism. I think what concerns me most about your article is your misdirected hostility and contradictions.

You first state that any suggestion that women are objectified in our society is absurd, dismissing the claim. You then go on to suggest that such objectification does occur, but is actually the fault of women themselves. In particular, you argue that “If women are so inundated with snapshots of perfection in check out lines then they need look no further than to themselves for the placement of blame.” Well which is it – do you argue that women are objectified, or that they are not?

Now with regard to your imaginary rebuttal, I think you fundamentally misunderstand feminism. Many feminist scholars would absolutely agree with the notion that women are part of a consumer culture which objectifies women. It’s hard to objectify 50% of the population if there isn’t some level of participation by women themselves. Your assumption that a patriarchal system is a Planet of the Apes style enslavement of women with men whipping their backs of women as they cook dinner is part of a larger misunderstanding you have about feminism, which is better referred to as gender studies. Both men and women are part of a larger patriarchal system, and how men and women are perceived is a cultural and social phenomenon, not an exclusively female problem. Men are harmed by a patriarchal society as well as women by creating standards of masculinity which ostracize and demean those who don’t conform to those standards. By extension of this misunderstanding, you do a poor job of representing men in your whole equation. For example, you suggest that the existence of gay porn (and thus male objectification) somehow balances out the universe for straight porn. And yet, both forms of objectification have negative consequences. By definition, the objectification of a person means reducing them to their sexuality rather than as a whole individual person – a dehumanizing exercise. You can hardly suggest that because gay men (regarded as “feminine” men, btw) partake in objectification; it challenges any damages to women done by pornography. A reasonable person is against any form of objectification regardless of whom is being objectified (which I hope we can agree is a bad thing).

Secondly, I think your viewpoint of the “choice” women have is also obfuscated by your prejudices. Historically speaking, the EXISTENCE of that choice is a modern opportunity which you take for granted as the defacto law of the land. You complain that men “work all day or we die.” Mr Chapin, it’s a dilemma and not a choice. Men rarely if ever have to choose between having a family, and working full time. The women you “envy” for their “choice” must choose between dying without children, and pursuing a career. Moreover, the existence of this “varying priority” between men and women I think greatly disproves your disbelief in the wage gap. If it were true than women easily earned as much as men or more, then by statistic distribution with some frequency we would see relationships where women would be the higher wage earner than men (just as cases exist in the reverse). In those situations one would assume men would stay at home to raise their children while the primary wage earner makes the most money for the family. But that doesn’t happen (rarely), we almost always see women taking time off to raise children, as a socially constructed standard. Women are expected to raise children, a fact which you assume is necessarily internal, and biological, as part of some feminine priority barometer. Not every woman in the world would trade her art career for soccer practice, Mr. Chapin. I can assure you that if a woman earned 100k and a man earned 60k, it wouldn’t make sense for her to stay at home at an economic shortage of 40k. But over and over, in the reverse case, it makes good sense for women to stay home while the higher wage earning man works.

That being said, feminism also speaks to those women who do stay at home, but whose reproductive labor goes unappreciated by men. While you get a wage for your labor, most women cook and clean, and a market value (maid + cook) of tens of thousands of dollars per year, but are many times denigrated by their spouses because they don’t “put food on the table.” Simply put, while you take for granted that it’s a luxury for women to cook and clean for you all day, some feminists suggest you look at a woman’s sacrifice to raise your children and get your dinner ready, as a serious time commitment that is not the vacation your article presupposes.

Thirdly, it cannot be denied that there has been a monumental advantage to society due to the greater inclusion of women in the economy and political process, a feat in part thanks to the advancement of women’s rights groups in America who fought so hard for the advancement of women. In fact, economists can clearly show that societies which utilize the other 50% of its labor force more effectively have far greater overall productivity than those societies which restrict the labor of women. There is demonstrably a social benefit to the liberation of women which underscore the importance of striving towards equity between genders. Moreover, international organizations like the World Bank consistently strive towards gender equality as a means to challenge a host of social ills, noting in a Sept 2006 report on Gender Equality as Smart Economics, “Women’s lack of economic empowerment, on the other hand, not only imperils growth and poverty reduction, but also has a host of other negative impacts, including less favorable education and health outcomes for children and a more rapid spread of HIV/AIDS.” Societies which lack these vocal and persistent groups which advance the rights of women have a variety of social problems related to that inequality.

Lastly, you argue not that an unequal society is a good thing, but that we in fact live in an equitable society, noting “They came, they saw, they won.” But there again you conflate the issues. You attempt to rebut feminism by citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but your article initially dealt with women’s social problems like objectification rather than their legal woes in the workplace. That being said, the Civil Rights Act has been historically hard to use, because you have to prove a pattern of discrimination – how does one prove a woman was passed over for promotion on the basis of gender? Employers are more sophisticated than that, they can easily cite another reason. Moreover, the Civil Rights Act applies to covered employers, and not necessarily to all the places in which women interact with members of the opposite sex. And as Chief Justice William Rehnquist suggested, the Civil Rights Act leaves courts “with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act’s prohibition against discrimination.” So you see, not only is the Civil Rights Act only marginally effective at legislating equality, but it ignores all the family and media issues you began discussing.

In that regard, I leave you hopelessly mired in your confusion as to the rights of women, feminism, and the status of women today.

Regards,
Steven

Steveng, now there is an image that has never flashed between my ears. Just hilarious. “Your assumption that a patriarchal system is a Planet of the Apes style enslavement of women with men whipping their backs of women as they cook dinner is part of a larger misunderstanding you have about feminism,..”

Nothing like a straw man Steveg. Got any more old son? Maybe you should re-read BCs opening para, – “Is there any greater act of cowardice than ignoring the opinions of your foes? Pundits who set up straw men, pretend that their opposition does not exist, and/or shout down their peers, do not so much as win arguments so they do in promote mass confusion.”

By the way. We are all objects in someone else’s vision.

Amfortas, did you actually read all that drivel ?

Even this ….

“In that regard, I leave you hopelessly mired in your confusion as to the rights of women, feminism, and the status of women today.”

Isn’t marvellous when we are all incorrect and it takes a mangina to tell us our fortune.

Read it all? Of course. It took a while, what with all the tears and shaking shoulders. Hilarious. I am hoplessly mired in the mirth.

amfortas said, Her unspoken thought pattern is, ‘I am a woman. If I look at women, other people will look at me’.

Maybe, but I think it is more like cutthroat competition. They don’t look at another women and comment on her good features, they tear her apart. Show any woman a babe on the cover of Cosmo and she will find a flaw. Every single time. And the better looking the babe is, the more hateful the response will be.

As for “StevenG”, how long have you been taking women’s studies courses? If you stay in those classes much longer your testicles will shrivel.

Not to mention, I can rebut you completely just by quoting from “I am woman, hear me roar” (the quintessential woman-power anthem). There’s a line in it that says “If I have to, I can do anything”. The fact is she doesn’t have to. She can choose. When is the last time YOU had a choice whether to support yourself or not? Oh yeah, you probably still don’t. You’re obviously still a kid, and dad still pays your way.

If you would just realize that taking all those “womyn’s studies” courses never gets you anywhere with womyn, much less gets you laid, you just might grow up with your manhood intact. I sincerely hope it’s not too late.

Wow, I like “mangina” and wish I would have been clever enough to think it up myself. I’m not done with the chapter so his comments are helpful. I’ll take him apart now and hopefully I’ll post the response today as I’ll be gone all night until tomorrow early.

amfortas – first of all, there’s no cowardice in ignoring the “opinion” of your foes. An opinion is quite irrelevant. It’s cowardly to ignore facts, and to distort someone’s argument (a straw man, as you point out).

It’s not an “opinion” of mine that Mr. Chopin doesn’t understand feminism, it’s a fact. No where in his piece does he truly show an understanding of what feminist scholars believe, and instead rebuts these little bits and pieces which he thinks disregards feminist theory.

And with respect to this idea that I’ve spent too much time in a woman’s studies class, I have to ask you: how can you discuss the issue of women’s studies classes if you haven’t spent a significant amount of time there? Aren’t you essentially admitting that you haven’t researched this topic enough to discuss it?

You are free to go forward with the ad-hominems, but it doesn’t rebut a single point I made.

I am curious if any of the commenters have a daughter? If so I am hard pressed to understand how such an extreme post, no less extreme than a feminist engaged with a similar bias, could actually be experienced as fine writing.

I am amazed that such a comment…

“Are women treated as objects in our society? Of course not”

…could even be seen to hold any truth within the context of “our society.”

As men I’m not convinced that our work on a global basis is anything to stand-up and celebrate as our most common dialog is that of war and confrontation.

It is only within recent years that women can vote, and today claim positions that many men only see with envy.

Any correction such as that which feminist seek to address will most likely move to the extreme opposite as they seek resolution as a group.

For me this writing feels like nothing more than throwing a rock at another because offense was taken.

I wonder if resolution was truly sought in a spirit of openness and caring what words would be shared or is that there is no desire for resolution that such a piece is writen.

I wish for my daughter a much kinder and caring man than what I have read within these comments.

Cooperation and collaboration are not born out of opposition rather acceptance and openness.

With hope,

James

One of the most impressive ideas I’ve ever heard was put forth by Christopher Hitchens in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian. He believes that we always profit from debating our opponents as the act of responding to one another propels us towards the ultimate truth. Based on my experiences, Hitchens is absolutely right. Just as doing sets of bench presses cause our muscles to grow, the mind is strengthened by the process of intellectual exchange. Interaction makes us fitter, and it can be educational as well.

All of this is undeniable and essential to the marketplace of ideas, but, sadly, the situation today is far different than it was in the past. Political correctness has eroded both civility and the possibility of dispassionate contention. Should one contradict the inflexible views of the cultural Marxist, then one is dismissed as a spouter of “hate speech” as opposed to someone who may have a legitimate point-of-view. There’s little likelihood that this will ever change as unfettered response negates the possibility of indoctrination which is exactly why PC became practiced in the first place. Only by labeling their foes with a name—such as hater, racist, homophobe, sexist, and/or misogynist—can leftist anti-liberals win the moral high ground allowing them to overlook the arguments made against them. The tossing of isms is a horrific replacement for logic and accuracy because they are rehearsed and tell us nothing about real people. Resorting to such a tactic only illustrates weakness; a weakness of which we on the other side have long been aware.
Their strange perception of the world is rarely an outcome of reality or reason. I think that a lot of their positions satisfy psychologically for one reason or another. Their skewed predilections supply with a crutch throughout life. Spinning webs of conspiracy and fable alternately stimulate and sooth them, and also a way in which to control their environment. For this reason, we can never hope to convince them of anything. The battle with our opponents can only be indirect. Our engagements are merely a way in which to persuade those who intentionally or unintentionally observe. Hearing us or seeing our words may be the only intellectual diversity which some students every encounter. We should not blame younger people for repeating mindless non-sense if mindless non-sense the only information they have ever received. We offer them an alternative; without it, they’ll think that submission to white guiltists, female supremacists, emotioniacs, socialists, racists, and those who think that Majdanek is a synonym for America is their only option.

In no area is debate more tenuous than with feminists and their myth of women’s oppression. Their privilege renders them far above any fray. We make logical arguments while our foes brand us woman haters and sexists. Our responses to isms are ignored as they continue to go about the business of remaking the justice system, society, and our personal relationships. Yet, like most other situations, there are always deviations from the set pattern. One such irregularity occurred today when I got a response to a piece that I wrote about the ridiculousness of regarding women as oppressed. I have no idea who or what the person is, but one of the guys termed him a “mangina” which is probably true enough. At any rate, I thank him for his rejoinder because his words helped crystallize my positions and I’ll respond to him momentarily.

Ironically, the idea that women are not oppressed received independent confirmation from the Baltimore Sun. If there were any truth to the idea that men sit atop the social hierarchy then one would not expect Ms. Dombrowski’s scathing criticism of the patriarchy to appear in a mainstream media publication, but it did. My response, however, was rejected. submitted my response to them of the Jenny Dombrowski piece which was rejected. The editor there told me, “Thanks for the offer, but I can’t use this on the op-ed page.” How could this be? Shouldn’t my genitalia have opened the door to privilege.

Are Women Objectified?

Let’s go over this again: women are not objectified by men…period. We know this to be true as men do not gaze or interact with women in the manner they do objects. Allow me to ask my brothers who read this about which objects they affix their “male gaze” to in the same manner as women? I cannot think of any. We behold women as we do nothing else on earth. One examines the fairer sex far differently from the way one studies a monitor, an oven, a refrigerator, a hose, a book, a building, a car and everything else on this earth. Women are clearly not objectified by men. They are completely unique. No object absorbs a man’s attention like a woman. One becomes habituated to most things but never women. Objectification is an argument so poor that it cannot even stand up to a puppy’s first breath.

The argument was raised that women looking at pictures of themselves in magazines is also a form of objectification [I know, I can’t believe it either] but this is false as well. Those women who gaze at other women are perfectly aware of their being flesh and blood as opposed to objects. For whatever reason they stare at pictures, their eyes do so with the realization that what’s on the page is a person and not an objects. Being a compulsive shopper or consumer is certainly is shallow in my estimation, but one does not become an object by participating in such activities.

If we define objectified as meaning “appreciated for” then we can find some common ground on the topic. Men appreciate women for their youth and beauty, but they are not dehumanized by our doing so; no more than men are dehumanized by women appreciating them for the wealth, status, and security they offer.

The Comfy Patriarchy Means…

That there is no patriarchy. Radical feminists pathologically refuse to acknowledge how blessed and easy their lives are, but, when pressed, they’ll admit that the patriarchy is not an oppressive system in any traditionally oppressive way. One made mention that we do not live in a Planet of the Apes society but remain a patriarchy nonetheless. If the patriarchy commits crimes that we cannot see, hear, or catch then it isn’t much of a patriarchy at all. Unfortunately, one cannot be oppressed in a society in which one has been given every right and benefit. If it looks like the good life, feels like the good life, but one’s own internal inadequacies prevent the enjoying of it, it still remains the good life. These feminists should learn to me more critical about themselves and take it easier on everyone else around them. They’ll be much more happy and productive as a result.

Some, like Susan Faludi, argue that men are harmed by the patriarchy, but this cannot possibly be true for the reasons she outlines. Pressure to conform to the standards of masculinity troubles few men. That we somehow cannot be competitive, vigorous, or manly. What we really long for is the right to be ourselves which is exactly the opposite of what Faludi and others describe. Competitiveness, vigor, valor, and responsibility are manly virtues even if they are found in some women as well. With therapism and emotion celebrated over bravery, honor, and effort, our society is the complete antithesis of a patriarchy. That our society is closer to being a matriarchy than anything else is a very real cause of frustration.

The Real Misogynists:

That women wish to raise children is not a social construct. It is an effect of biology shaping personality. This was known to Simone de Beauvoir who said: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” Things haven’t changed since she died and they won’t for as long as we remain humans. Linda Hirshman wrote Get Back to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World in which she insists that women stop putting their own needs and desires before her leftist-socialist ideals. Here we see once again why “feminazi” is such a rich and valuable means of description. When women, or anybody else for that matter, disagree with these totalitarian types are quick to dismiss contrary opinions as being a result of false consciousness. It’s their way or you’re an ism. Why can’t they just respect other people’s diversity? Thinking that women don’t know what’s actually good for them is the height of condescension and misogyny. That they need imbalanced feministas to make these decisions for them is absurd. In this way feminists, the self-proclaimed protectors of women, are the people who debase, disdain, and despise most. Free men, who only expect women to be no more or less responsible than ourselves, are falsely accused in the hopes of obfuscating the issue. If women want to stay home or work they should make the decision for themselves, and not out of a concern about what the media, society or some pathetic harpies think.

Steve, not bad having these arguments here. You too James, I appreciate it. Send anything else you want to my email if you don’t feel like posting. I need the practice.

Bernard, you really hit the nerve this time. Well done.
All those points or similar have been repeated so often it’s almost less affective, but where did these feminist apologists come from ?

Must be a mangina forum about, that discusses topic such as this from the left/pc/feminist POV without any dissent ofcourse.

Keep up the good work Bernard, it refreshes the spirit and continues the fight.

well actually I have no problem with dissent, and in fact it seems i’m one of the few people on your boards offering that. In that regard, I’ll assume your thankful for my POV.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely…

Are we a patriarchal society that creates standards of masculinity that ostracizes and demeans those who do not conform to those standards? I’m curious as to what the standard is that you elude to? I was raised in a manner consistent with the times and values of my father. Right or wrong it is what I was provided and later, up to me to determine how much of it was valid, shortsighted or off the mark. Speaking up verses being mousey is a learned trait as much as the makeup of the individual from birth, so does this cluster one into the masculine group and the other into the effeminate? My dad would have to have said I was part of the second for the first fifteen or so years of my life, part of both groups the next five or so years and my friend from India now jokes about his “redneck” friend for the last so many years of our acquaintance. It is a running joke with the both of us, more as a result of our desire to be leaders of our homes helpers within our communities and bold initiators within the public arena whether at work or civic duties. Does this fall into the categories that you mention? I have yet to discover a “mens” national platform that has as its purpose to promote men into equals with women! Now my wife may say I moan and cry when I’m sick, but she has no other way to voice her admiration of me except when I mow the yard, paint the house, plant the garden, wash the cars and change the oil, cook dinner six nights a week, work a full time job with cut throat liars and greedy b____st___ds, pay the bills take care of my diabled brother and watch out for my widowed mother, check in on my older sisters who have had a hard time understanding why men are so averse to a woman who just can’t her up her mind to be either the princess barbie or Hulkgina or Manbo, the killing machine!

As for your statistics on productivity….HHHmmmm…where to start? Let’s start with the creator of that survey. Certain assumptions are made to define the parameters, correct! The assumptions would most likely refer to output in units and monetary volume, followed closely by the numbers in the workforce, followed closely by the breakdown of that workforce, followed by industry, region, even age. What will that report tell you? Just that you have established a “baseline” that others will be measured against..nothing more. And to assume that this measurement is valid because of sheer monetary output is ludicrous! For every report that comes out of this variety, I can provide one that shows a bell curve related to divorce, to marital affairs(broken down by the sexual initiator no less) and on and on. Having worked in a financial environment for most of my adult life, your reference to this is laughable and lacking in ingenuiety. It proves absolutely nothing except that a political entity contracted a report with specific parameters…and…the parameters were closely defined to provoke marginal thinkers who would not have moved from their positions had they been provided a full and comprehensive reporting! This is called an agitators report as it serves to invoke anger and provoke movement!

As for your suggestion that women must choose between staying at home or having a career, well, this is truely just that…a choice. Only in America could one twist the role of procreation within the sexes to allow for “choice”. Yes, it is nice when it can be accomodated for all concerned..men and women. Yet somehow, this has been contrived to mean women are somehow, someway, shortchanged! Who you appear to defend is the minority. I have managed many, many women of differing ages, and few have the guts to deal with the day to day issues and difficult choices inherent in management, and that comes from the mouthes of those I’ve managed.! Why? It is far easier for them to get medium range or even “comfortable” incomes without having to put in the hours, tolerate the bs of employees and superiors not to mention the gyrations of the customer and clients! Less than 1% of all women I have encountered really, really want to get into the trenches. You appear to promote the idea that women should somehow have the choice to do both! And just where does that idea come from? The small population of women that have managed to do this effectively and who are now run up the flag pole for all women to envy?! It is the writers and editors of the womens magazines that are women, who promote this idea. The US advertising business has had a field day promoting,that in the USA, you can have anything…remember, “just do it”? These simple suggestions have percolated into business mantra on both sides of the isle as if achieving the the gold ring, CEO, will all make it better! We all abhor the gross mismanagement of OUR corporations and the outrageous wages laid at the feet of the CEO’s! This is the lie that has been subtly laid before women and that lie is what has enabled these corporations to move operations overseas in the name of “competition”. For the record, there is no validity in outsourcing for economic gain at the base level. The gain is at the extreme upper level of OWNERSHIP! The gain has little to do with equality and more to do with slight of hand! Put your basic mathematics teaching to work as well as accounting 101, then add intro to psychology. It is very simple and women have wholeheartedly bought into it as you appear to have also.

As for women having to cook and clean for “tens of thousands of dollars”! Well, if you are getting this done for that amount, I suggest you find a cheaper alternative or buy into that franchise! A man and woman work together, and their labor results in demonstratible gains twenty or so years down the line when junior or missy gets out on their own. The work mom provides is known in the business world as “value added”, without the income, mom cannot do her part and without mom, dad cannot do his part. What you also fail to address here, are the many families that HAVE choosen to invert the marital roles due to income variations, but because they are a minority in the statistics, I’m sure it is easier to omit them for the greater good,right?

I can fully appreciate your varied approach to defense of women, but, won’t you just cross the isle? It’s high time to take off the veil and really see what many other men and, startlingly, many women are beginning to see…the contrary “suggestive” nature of values vs equality vs political correctness vs men vs women vs big business! Come and see a side of the “masculine” that many desire, some aspire to and others have gained and achieved!

“A defiant and rebellious attitude is found in women only where they occupy a position of considerable vantage and influence; it is not found where their status is really one of oppression.” – Robert Briffault

Bernard, trying to reason with feminists (radical, pop, or otherwise) is like trying to eat soup with a fork.

Remember, as Harry Mansfield pointed out, a woman’s advantage over men is her total disregard of ’some God of Abstract Justice’ to which men are unable to be indifferent. They use ‘equality’ as a weapon because they know it’s some cherished belief among men, that it’s a vulnerability on our side in our dealings with them that they can exploit. Better to put it aside in such circumstances because they do not respect it the way men do.

In other words, I think you’re giving them way too much credit for being civilized, or for caring about the social fabric – another abstraction they are dimmly if at all aware of.

This piece rings true.

It helps expose the hypocrisy in feminism that they are victims. Today woman enjoy privilage in academics, government, courts, police enforcement, family, work, and dating.

For example, while the feminist screams unfair during her divorce from the man, she steals the man’s kids, property, liberty, and eighteen years of income.

While she cries foul on equal wages, she works only soft, low risk jobs, and working about forty hours a week.

While she says I want to make money, she does so not to be a provider of a family, but to shop recreationally.

While she says men are violent, most police let woman off with a verbal warning or worst ask the woman for their telephone number.

When a woman molests a child, our culture does not say as such and the court lets the guilty woman go with a warning.

Who’s the victim? Who’s at a disadvantage?

White male privilege in America is a myth.

For the real men?

Complaining, saying “not fair” does absolutely nothing.

Get back to me when you, you, and you, are willing to protest…

Get back to me when you are actually willing to go to jail for your beliefs…

Eric Ericson

In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne meets an old friend while he is acting the playboy for the tabloids so as to draw attention away from the possibility that he might be the Batman. Not wanting her to see him in this light, he tries to explain but is cut down by her observation that “It’s not who we are inside, it’s what we do that defines us.”

“

It’s not an “opinion” of mine that Mr. Chopin doesn’t understand feminism, it’s a fact. No where in his piece does he truly show an understanding of what feminist scholars believe, and instead rebuts these little bits and pieces which he thinks disregards feminist theory.

”

SteveG sees in Bernard Chapins work the reflection of feminisms deeds and like Bruce Wayne, tries to wriggle out of Bernards concentration of real world deeds by appealing to who feminism is inside.

In my opinion it is not Bernard Chapin who doesn’t understand feminism but steveg. He is so mired in scholarly tomes and discourse that he cannot see beyond his ivory tower to the practical actions, effects and outcomes of feminism. Theorists and scholars can declare the sky green until the cows come home, but until I can go outside and observe a green sky, I’ll ignore the theorists and scholars in favor of the reality of blue skies.

At MND, nothing could be more irrelevant than a theoretical body of work which is not reflected in reality. If feminisms theories promote fairness and equality yet calls for fairness in custody decisions are regularly denounced by the National Organisation for Women then we can conclude that feminist theory is either ineffectual or a lie (unless we suppose that the national organisation for women is not a feminist organisation, which would be passing strange, to say the least)

Such theories are considerably less important than the real world consequences of the philosophy that they claim to describe. It is the deeds of feminism and of feminists that define feminism, not who it is inside.

oops: “tries to wriggle out of Bernards concentration of real world deeds” should read “tries to wriggle out of Bernards concentration on real world deeds

In reply to comments #6 and “7

PROFANITy JEOPARDIZES GOOGLE SYNDICATING MND

I believe in open discussion, but I replace profanities with “expletive deleted”. I also replace anti-gay slurs and racial slurs with “slur deleted”.

If a writer continues to post comments with profanities or slurs, I delete his entire comments. I have never deleted a comment, without first warning offenders that their comments will be deleted in the future if they continue using vulgar words.

Mens News Daily is syndicated by Google News, which gives this Web site a huge audience. If MND publishes pages that contain profanites or racial slurs , Google may drop MND.

MND posters who use profanity may ruin a good thing for all of us.

Erin Pizzey made it clear.

People, men and women are violent. Who is more violent does not matter, as she has seen battered wives who are co-equals in violence, mouth and fist.

So there is no female opression. There is just opression. It is a game that people play.

It has been going on for eons, and for some reason, until recently, civil authority decided that it was going to stay out of it.

I think it had something to do with the 4th Amendment, consenting adults, and the Castle doctrine.

So, the woman or man (like I did) can leave the the terrorist, but the man is not allowed to be made whole and start over.

That is unequal application of the law in a sexist manner. That is unconstitutional and a violation fo civil rights and undermines the legitimacy of our Rule of Law.

But women are still oppressed. (Right Mr. Guess?) (lackey filfth)

By the way, love the new Burger King Commercial where the metrosexual mangina’s all revolt for some real food. LOL!

I submit that women are opressed because of their higher estrogen content makes then sexually aroused by violence.

Yes, they want to be beaten. The rise in female consumption of pornography shows that they like objectifying otehr women too.

Mr. Guess is trying, like all feministas, to hold back the ocean with a boogie board.

Wonder why he can post here, but it sure has been amusing to participate.

Hey RPR,

Wha! Wha! Wha!

By the way, I refuse to read your otehr stuff no mattter what the title is. Just in case you are keeping track of readership losses.

I agree with much of the article. One I’d like to add is it doesn’t matter so much what people like Jenny Dombrowski think. The women you ought to talk to is young women just embarking on the dating/mating time of their lives. Or better yet, children. Maybe someone should produce a cartoon that speaks to this, or color books. What about a website with free games that promote equality, with printable coloring pages and free downloads of music with this theme?

I’d like to remind you that when you speak directly to individual women about inequality of the genders in regard to parental rights, after awhile, they get it.

It saddens me greatly when I see some of you blurring the lines between the radical feminists and average women. I know a lot of single moms. Most of them, other than for their children to be healthy, safe and happy, want nothing more than a loving relationship with a male partner.

Seeing you insult all of them, as if they’re your enemy, is hard to take. Maybe there is bitterness from yet-to-be resolved issues with women?

Even some women who bought the story and took advantage of their children’s father by blindly going along with “the system” have realized their errors. And some of them are even liberals! Yeah. Like me.

Teri
Feminist4Fathers
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/author/teri

“Seeing you insult all of them, as if they’re your enemy, is hard to take. Maybe there is bitterness from yet-to-be resolved issues with women?”

Terri: I can agree with most of what you say, but the kind of bullshit phsychoanalysis I’ve quoted above is exactly the kind of stuff that is going to drive men away from the rest of your ideas.

The rest of your post was insightful, thoughtful and a valuable addition to this debate. Was it really necessary to add gratuitous denigration to otherwise high quality debate? It stinks of the kind of thinking we see coming from our enemies and functions only to identify you in the minds of any man who has spent any significant amount of time in gender discourse as one of our enemies.

Let me rephrase “Maybe there is bitterness from yet-to-be resolved issues with women?” I meant absolutely no degradation or insult.

Okay…let’s ee…

Some of you are dealing with unresolved, ongoing or permanent issues, right? By that, I mean the injustices you have to deal with, and the anger, frustration, hurt and impact that has on your health. I know what it’s like to have an open wound, to be surrounded, controlled, sometimes overcome by injustice.

It’s hard sometimes, but please don’t let it color your view of the rest of the world or the possibilities available for the future. When I was a foster parent I started to distrust all parents. I think this can happen to fathers very easily when they think about women.

If you can trust enough to lose the negative and insulting assumptions about women, I can show you places where you can influence individual and groups of women, who can then take that knowledge to more women. Don’t think it’s possible? I’ve done it and can prove it.

Please don’t ever assume anything I’ve written is an insult to men or women in general. I’m an egalitarian, a Sagittarius, and an INFP. I love everyone. (That’s why I have to be a liberal.)

; )

Teri

I can live with that, the phrase tends to get used in a considerably more derogatory fashion IME

Steve, there are so many things wrong with your reasoning I am quite convinced u are actually a woman. No offence intended of course.
Here for example, is a man’s dilemna; I don’t get to chose between having children or a career. I don’t get a choice at all. By your logic, women should be forced back into homes to raise children & the dilemna will be solved. Right? Or is a devoidity of choice the type of resolution to dilemna only fit for suppsedly, your own gender?
Women should thank men for their dilemna as after all, they would still be in caves without us. Which brings me to your claim that monumental benefits wrought by the advent of Feminism are undeniable. I say pffff!!!. How about, wouldn’t it be great if women one day reached a point where they actually put back into society, something like what it costs to give them “equality”? Perhaps then, there may be some money around to spend on genuiune issues. In “Gender Studies” do they teach that the Universal Suffrage & the move from home to factory for women coincided with the Industrial Revolution in the 1st wave & advent of corporatisation/globalisation in the 2nd? If not, u should ask why. What u may not realise is that it is Capitalism that has gained from women taking on the belief that not working is oppression. The same as it is Consumerism benefitting from the fact that women have so much disposable income. Sure, u may believe the feministas who claim otherwise, but I assure u advertising – 80% of which is aimed at women – doesn’t lie. There is too much money at stake to play politics.
Modern women in fact – faced with the once male-only propsect of a life in the workforce – now commonly lament the liberation feminism has bestowed them & over here – where the whole life plan of around 70% of women comprises getting pregnant, collecting child-support & maybe working some pretend job, eventually – there is little cause to believe the majority of women have ever wanted to work.
Also, your sentiments felt for our daughters is touching. Pity though, such a capacity for human empathy was noticeably absent when my daughter was ripped from me & taken to live interstate 2 years ago. Dunno about the US for sure, but over here in Australia a mother need only dream up some slander & whammo, she’s got your house, kids, car & a large slice of your pre-tax income. And if her imagination isn’t that good, well we have an army of misandronistic social workers to help along with the fabrication process. After all, those girls haven’t gone to all that effort to do away with the burden of proof because they actually have any, now have they?
If that’s oppression, I want some too.
How about though, if I like objectifying women? How about if – as a man -it turns me on? Are u going to tell me I am less valid or less human than u? My understanding is that lesbians represent one of the highest demands for porn – on the internet at least – & I am wondering how that fits into the scheme. It is a bit like, since men are doing it & women are doing it & gays & lesbians are doing it, who on Earth had the right to call it bad in the first place? Since my mind is able to objectify & humanise freely & I am able to discriminate between the processes & everyone else seems to be more or less the same, could u explain exactly why it is bad?
The thing u are missing Steve, is real world context & experience. Within academia, I am sure the arguments all seem so balanced & reasonable. Maybe u notice a bit of misandry here & there, but u are a big man, right? Above all that. Its only when the mother of your children is baselessly painting u as a monster, alienating you from your children, literally throwing u onto the street from a home u have worked long & hard to own & demanding that from a lonely existence in a bedsitter, u work even longer & harder to maintain her expectations – amplified in turn by consumerist exploitation of her more limitted mental faculties & endless capacity to believe she is a victim – that u realise what ruthlessness & oppression are. Atm – with due respect – u have no idea.

“Seeing you insult all of them, as if they’re your enemy, is hard to take. Maybe there is bitterness from yet-to-be resolved issues with women?”

Sorry, I forgot to address this tact. It may pay to recall that women declared us their enemy long ago, so can that one & Feminism is bitterness from apparently, yet-to-be-resolved issues with men. Women are encouarged to proudly express their bitterness, which has seen them invent numerous abusive titles for men like chauvinistic pig & so on. Women in fact, are encouraged to express bitterness on behalf of other women they have only met or even, merely read of. In this way, Feminism has become mostly mythology & bigotry.
We accept this amongst women, yet here we have what, an insuation that a man is somehow wrong to feel emotions based on his real life experiences? It is a mind game & part of the censorship of masculinity that will find little support here.