Time to Scale Back the Pedestal?
Has the pedestal has gone the way of the bustle, the bobbie sock, and the beehive hairdo?
It’s a question that liberals instantly dismiss — after all, we’re all supposed to be absolutely equal. And conservative men shrink from serious discussion of the issue, preferring to seek refuge in their chivalrous instincts.
But let’s ask the question anyway: Do we need to down-size the pedestal?
I’m more than happy to hold the door open for a lady or tote a doddering grandma’s bag. And last I checked, no is talking about dispatching a squadron of rosy-cheeked G.I. Janes to root out the Iraqi insurgents. So let’s take that off the table.
Some will recall that back in October 1971, the House of Representatives approved the Equal Rights Amendment, which passed by an overwhelming 354-24 margin. Everyone knew it was just a matter of months until the necessary 38 states came on board.
But four months later, Phyllis Schlafly penned her history-altering essay, “What’s Wrong with Equal Rights for Women?” Schlafly pointed out that American women are the most privileged of all classes of people that ever lived: “We have the most rights and rewards, and the fewest duties.”
Abundant rights and rewards, with fewer duties – that’s the pedestal.
Schlafly then posed the question, “Why should we lower ourselves to ‘equal rights’ when we already have the status of special privilege?” That one sentence spelled the demise of the ERA. In the end, it was wrath of millions of American women who, fearing the loss of that special privilege, brought down the Equal Rights Amendment.
After the ERA heaved its last breath in 1979, feminists bitterly accused Mrs. Schlafly of “hating” women. But in truth the bra-burners took their next cue from the conservative icon.
This was their ploy: Instead of striving for mere equality, why not seek to expand women’s special privileges – all the while claiming to be working for equality? And that proved to be the winning formula.
Over the next 25 years, the fems engineered the passage of a series of laws and programs that afforded ever-expanding legal rights and services to women. Those laws included the Violence Against Women Act, the Women’s Educational Equity Act, women’s health programs, the 1996 welfare reform, and many more.
How did the Girls of Guile get away with their equality ruse, when in fact they were duplicitously scheming behind the scenes to foist a hierarchical society on the rest of us?
First, they relentlessly shaded the truth – consider Hillary Clinton’s laughable canards that women suffer from wage discrimination, were routinely excluded from medical research, are more likely to be the victims of war, and so on.
Before long the liberal media, beholden to the mantra of victim-journalism, became a shill for feminist ideology. And the conservative media, reflexively bound to the chivalrous ideal and emasculated by the ideological assault, never arose to challenge the falsehoods.
The real target of this blitz, though, was the traditional family. Women were hectored into thinking motherhood is unfulfilling and were rooted out of their homes to ascend the corporate ladder. Babes still in diapers were shunted off to day care.
Fathers were told they were superfluous and made to feel guilty for wanting to protect and provide for their families.
Then a stunning series of legal developments steadily eroded men’s roles in their families. In 1992 the U.S. Supreme Court decreed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that a wife didn’t need to inform her husband of an impending abortion. Domestic violence laws allowed women to send men packing without any proof of abuse. And divorced dads were reduced to mere visitors in their children’s lives.
No surprise, word soon leaked out and young men began to lose interest.
Three years ago Rutgers University conducted a national survey of our nation’s most eligible bachelors — single, heterosexual men ages 24-35. The researchers were in for a shock: 53% of men said they were not interested in getting married anytime soon, and 22% declared they had no intention of ever tying the knot. [http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2004.htm]
Marriage rates began to plummet. For the first time in our nation’s history, single-adult households now outnumber traditional dad-and-mom families.
So let’s revisit our modest proposal — is it time to scale back the formidable pedestal that the rad-fems have foisted on us in recent years?
Chivalry certainly has its place, and yes, women sometimes need special protections. But taken too far, chivalry can weaken the bedrock institutions of free societies and leave supposedly “liberated” women dependent on the neo-paternalism of the Nanny State.
Men and women need to band together in common defense of the family. Time is running short.
| More from Carey Roberts
Stumble It!
August 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Well I am for whatever gets the rights of men back the quickest. If it takes cultural wreakage to do so, then so be it. Women for decades have either intentionally sought to wreak the family or stood by and let it happen because they selfishly thought this would end up giving them advantages over men. The women forgot to think about the prospect of men waking up and simply deciding to not play that rigged game anymore. What I WILL NOT ACCEPT is any strategy that involves men once again being expected to do the “heavy lifting”, to “pay any price”, to take yet another “cost” just so we can get to where some leader thinks it the right place to get. THE WOMEN WILL PAY THIS TIME.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
It is time to break that pedestal into a million pieces, burn it, and send the ashes to Antarctica. Chivalry is the thorn in every man’s foot. It must be removed so that men can walk without a limp (or weakened state). If you would not hold a door open for another man, then don’t do the same for a woman. Of course, doing kind things for your wife or girlfriend would be perfectly acceptable as long as she reciprocates.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
The main obstacle in men seeking to reverse the anti-male hysteria, and subsequent cultural chaos..Is the main stream media are afraid to publish anything that challenges feminist Klan hedgemony!!
Well there are creative ways to reach out to the masses without main stream media…Ray Blumhorst actions…and now very soon..college activism!!
The web site is being constructed, and there are a few bold, dedicated college activists who are going to hit campusses ..Hard!!!
In light of the DUKE LACROSSE lynchings..The time is ripe for a massive reach out to universities accross the country!!..I’ve started allready, and the students are all ears!!….
August 29th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Great piece. Thank you.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“Women for decades have either intentionally sought to wreak the family or stood by and let it happen because they selfishly thought this would end up giving them advantages over men.”
And for what? What drives this tsunami of resentment and destructiveness? The little schoolyard bully-girl with the smirk has taken over and the boys line up to carry her books.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
” What drives this tsunami of resentment and destructiveness? ”
envy, because envy would rather destroy what it cant have so no one can have it.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
oh.. sorry, forgot to mention..
no one has to dismantle the pedestal, they cant grow infinitely. the higher they go the less stable they are and they come crashing down on their own.
which is why the men are making this choice with no “movement” or anything like that. by their action and the feminists own actoins, the demographics of the population will change.
probably the real thing that made it all happen when in the past it didnt was that it made us seem so safe we could dismantle all the systems that kept us safe. which countries are at the front of all this? the neutral ones, and the ones which werent invaded. which ones were much slower to adapt things and havent adapted them as far? those who had strangers marching through their streets. with the states in almost constant war or potential of it, having almost none of it.
like police cameras… the better they work the more things you need to find to make them work on to justify their existence when no one does anything. without the solid reminder of a real threat we finaly stop and try to clean house. when at war or war reminds us of what counts, we dont have the time or resources to welfare things, to protect them and nanny them… but like a standing army, it cant just stand and not do anything.
those jacking up the pillar will not quit… therefore, they will eventyally go too far in some way… if they go to far good, then there will be a backlash and things will go towards center. if they go to far bad, then we will vote in someone and they will do what chavex will do in about 18 months after there is a huge network of people with their self interests firmly planted on the teat of state. with that mas that has an easy ride being on his side, they basically lock him in as leader to keep the juice flowing.
so good, we end up moving to the middle and something better.
bad, we get a socialist state, doing what they eventually do when the situation gets bad enough that it feels it has to act.
there is a third option.. though its also bad… our fertility drops more and more and another group over runs the place… of course it will be interesting to see what they will want then. its a visceral case of you cant have your cake and eat it too.
however no matter what, dont worry… the human race will go on… and the ones that care to have families and such are the ones that will end up winning. and the meek shall inherit the earth… and inherit the earth again, and again, and again.
and if it doesnt go on, will there be a greenie there to smile?
August 29th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
The “femterrorists” have been robbing the bank of morality for a long time, and will continue to do so as long as we capitulate. Societal Stokholm Syndrome has reduced us to zombies, providing the necessary support our captors need to infect our growing society, perpetuating the lie.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Excellent piece, but I think you held back too much:
“I’m more than happy to hold the door open for a lady or tote a doddering grandma’s bag.”
I hold doors for old people, and for other men.
“And last I checked, no is talking about dispatching a squadron of rosy-cheeked G.I. Janes to root out the Iraqi insurgents. So let’s take that off the table.”
Actually, I am advocating exactly that. Either we are equal or we are not. Anything else is special treatment. You are exactly right that women are getting special treatment in the guise of equality. Women are enthralled with the idea of having their cake and eating it, too. Who wouldn’t be? I am in favor of genuine, total and complete equality. Want to have a “career” in the Army? Being in the Army is about living outdoors, eating the same crap for months on end, not knowing what the hell is going on, killing people, and getting blown up. Welcome!
“Chivalry certainly has its place, and yes, women sometimes need special protections.”
No, chivalry has NO place, and women are entitled to NO special protections.
“Men and women need to band together in common defense of the family. Time is running short.”
I absolutely positively agree 100%.
August 30th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Oh my. Now it really does sound like we are touching more then the fringes of a couple of things I have been routinely slapped down for mentioning.
When the now historical EG debates ensued I suggested there needed to be negative reinforcement towards women. I was admonished that no, we must deal with ourselves and the poor little things would just fall into line. If I outright hinted at any action that could be construed as taken “against” women I was told that was the reaction of bitter recently divorced men and harmful to the overall movement.
While I completely understood the underlying thoughts behind those proclamations, I simply could not, cannot, see any way to go around the problem. It is a simple thing really. If you make privilege , something for nothing, available, it will be taken by a majority of those who find it available. Taking it away is in the truest sense against those who will suffer its removal. Basic really, and NOT born of bitterness at all, nor need it be.
Remember an article here a few months ago where a woman attorney had a female client that was being forced to pay alimony. The lawyer said well, this is what equality looks like. That is scary to some, and effective.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Carey, you are the man! Brilliant article. This one will be saved in my archives for when the truth of the last 40 years has been realized so I can then begin to demand reparations for what was stolen and deprived from my life by spoiled, selfish, and envious women.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Carrey
“Schlafly then posed the question, ‘Why should we lower ourselves to equal rights when we already have the status of special privilege?’ That one sentence spelled the demise of the ERA. In the end, it was wrath of millions of American women who, fearing the loss of that special privilege, brought down the Equal Rights Amendment.”
The new ‘wrath of millions of American women’ will be felt when Schlafly tells all women that the Rockefeller Foundation funded ‘women’s lib’ for the same reason that the CIA funded Gloria Steinem and Ms Magazine: 1) To force the other half of the American population to pay income taxes, 2) To break up families to allow the indoctrination of the children at an early age to accept the State as their family. (see Aaron Russo interview: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=1263677258215075609)
Since there is no law that requires US citizens to pay income tax on their wages, and since every nickel of income tax is used to pay interest on the Federal debt – I believe that these scorned women may choose to abide by the law and stop filing an income tax form, and with equal outrage and in support of their cause, men may choose to do the same.
August 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
gentleman..It’s the highlight of my day to read the thoughts of kindred spirits!! It is time for actions to be taken individually and collectivelly to broaden the scope of interested parties to mens activism!!
men need the facts and not feminist Klan propaganda!!
August 30th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
“for the same reason that the CIA funded Gloria Steinem and Ms Magazine:”
this is an un-fact… feminism was a communist concept… Ms Magazine, your right, didnt have funding… after all ladies home journal and redbook were the queens of the lady set (though stewart shows that this desire is not gone at all).
you see they were promoting unisex, militant feminism, no makeup.. etc… so the fashionistas didnt want a part of it… so where would they get their money.. it was NOT from the cia…
no… it turned out to be big tobacco and big alcohol… and you came a long way baby… from there its just a circle jerk of them patting each other on the back no matter what each of them says… (unlike the men)
the CIA is not for a socialist state… in fact, if you pay attention closely to history, thy have been quite the opposite.
in case you didnt notice, the big heads of the tin hat set, always have info against the US, but for a country who the venona archives have shown compromised all the way up to the president of the US, and senators, and so forth..
however, its as if that country doesnt exist… you hear nothing from the tin hatters on that.. meanwhile, many defectors and such haave admitted that much of the secret societies stuff is just another front.
its like candy… the idea is to get you to eat sugar… so there is mars bars, and gummies, and everything under ths sun… however the one common denomitator is sugar… dressed up till you dont recognize it anymore.. and in so many flavors that there is a flavor for just about anyone.. there is feminists for porn… feminists against porn… those for life, against life… there is even a large cadre working to scoop up the disgruntled male front…
same old same old..
and aarons stuff is sensational and does not cover the details… in fact, its funny actually… not because bankers and such arent powerful… but that they are omnipowerful, and we can stop them… and a whole bunch of other stuff.
meanwhile most who watch the video and read.. never crack and do there own research… they just look for ideas that they like.. and when they find the sugar they like, they try to spread it to others.
study history… not revisionist history… look at archives… aaron is not going to report things that will make his work fail.. he makes too much in his little place steering people to hate hteir own country.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Comment on Chivalry: I work in the loop in Chicago at a very progressive/liberal organization. It is expected to open doors for women, to hold elevators, ladies first. I find it funny that there is a womens committee for career advancement/guidance, no man group.
The city buses have a recorded message that asks that you give your seat to the disabled and elderly (does not mention women). Yesterday I was on a crowded city bus where I worked my way to the back of the bus where there always is standing room. I upset some woman as I got to close to her as I passed, the bus was packed. I thought I was doing a courtesy by trying to move to the rear. When I got there another woman was complaining that all the seats were taken by men, but none of the men got up for her. I assume they felt damnd either way so didnt bother.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:40 am
Schlafly enraged the left because she spooked women into opposing the ERA. Just as the “civil rights act” actually was about DENYING civil rights to whites and men, the “Equal Rights Amendment” was planned to do the same. The little ladies were so terrified of even the HINT of maybe going to war, that the ERA was quickly scuttled.
Indeed, as Roger points out it’s usually the LEFT that has extremist ideals of women’s chivalry while right winger working class slobs often have higher demands of women. Want to see women working hard? It will typically be a red-stater woman working as a waitress and then carting groceries and laundry up the stairs, without complaint, while the blue stater “equal rights” gals bitterly gripe about having to hold their own doors while blabbing on their mobile phone…
Before we totally trash chivalry, let’s consider that it’s part of the foundation of our liberal democracy (liberal in the classic sense). When chivalry works, women are sensitive, emotional, caring, etc. and can assume a gentle role. But it carries a price and the original feminists wanted to get out of paying it and claim they would be willing to give up chivalry. In the 80’s, that facade was abandoned but it was always a facade.
Denis, about war: I had a discussion with a leftist who revealed their happy-plan which was to make white men into scapegoats all for a more happy world. Old formula, of course. He then expressed regret that my hostility to his neat plan, at my expense, made it sound like “war” to him.
I then realized something: It annoyed him that his utopia wasn’t achievable because not all the men (and women) were laying down and handing it to him on a silver platter. The only reason he continued to believe in such nonsense was because he thought we’d be reasonable and “try to get along.”
So I suspect if you tell leftists that we’re going to act like jerks, like them, they might think twice. Ask them if they genuinely believe in global warming and if they do, say that you’ll let the Earth go to hell because we’re interested in our survival first and to hell with the planet. Why should we care about their precious planet when they don’t care about our civil rights or the democracy they live in?
I suspect that these cowardly, sniveling, dishonest creeps will start to back off if enough men stand up for themselves and even hit back a few times (within the law and social limits.)
August 31st, 2007 at 9:21 am
“I suspect that these cowardly, sniveling, dishonest creeps will start to back off if enough men stand up for themselves and even hit back a few times (within the law and social limits.)”
Yes. Which is why it is undermining the movement for men’s rights when an MRA soft-pedals his message so as not to alarm certain groups. I agree with the limits you provide, but we men will advance our cause faster and farther when we project an aggressively hostile and uncompromising posture to the opposition.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
If a man desires to influence a feminist, then ignore her.
Feminist want you to hold the door, give up your seat, pay for dinner, and lust, as it is a sign that you are giving them attention.
Do not even give a feminist your hate. By getting angry and or hating her, you give them attention.
If you want to fight back – ignore a feminist, but also write your congressmen and media short emails based on what you observe; share your experiences with unbelieving men; commit to giving money to men’s groups regularly; and, honor your mom and dad.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Mruffolo wrote:
and honor your mom and dad.
Quite frankly, Mruffolo, this is what caused a lot of problems in the first place.
My parents were FDR and union democrats whose family sold out during the great depression and bought into all the populist notions of “get the rich”. Later, when I complained to them about feminism, reverse discrimination, and other democratic racist and anti-male agendas they told me that none of it mattered because the Republicans were ‘For the rich”.
Christianity did a lot of good things, but from my experience I would rather have been raised by wolves than by “Christians” using Christ’s name and repeating “Honor thy father and mother!” all the time (they even got me a lamp switch cover that said this so I would see it every time I turned the lights on and off.) I had to sacrifice all of my dreams to their agenda of telling me what to do (whatever it is, was wrong because I wasn’t first born.)
Our culture is saturated with madonna worship as single mothers are treated like the Virgin Mary and birth is regarded as a magical, holy event while working for a living to raise children and treat them properly is secondary to a mother’s ego. It’s this western, Christian, chivalrous tradition that is the foundation of that.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Vintage Roberts: Right On!
Women need to hear the truth part of which is that they expect to be deferred to and taken care of. No man mentions this. The draft is another issue that needs to be brought up. At some time sooner or later it will be needed.
So far women have gotten awy with the “Chinese Lunch” variety of equality: pick what ever you want.
There has to be more things are forced to do or denied doing.
For instance woman are given much more latitude in being aggressive socially than men are. When a woman complains, the owner jumps; when a man complains, they call the cops.
The most important point of all in this is that we American men have let this happen. Silence implies consent.
Why is “The War Against Boys” still the best book on the war against men and why did it have to be written by a woman, Dr Christina Hoff Sommers?
September 4th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Hello Gus,
In answer to your question, because Sommers is a feminist and therefore got automatic publicity for being a woman and going against convention. If she had been a man, like Farrell, it would have made less impact.
Despite criticizing radical feminism, Sommers is a true believer feminist and more of an apologist than someone who truly opposes the war against men. She might want to see better condition in Guantanimo, but make no mistake, her loyalties lie with feminist interests ahead of men’s and women’s and society’s.