American women should be outraged. Not because of their supposed oppression over the years, not because of over inflated rape statistics that are always being beat into their brains, but because American women have been starved of one of the greatest values open to them while living life on earth – masculinity.

Before the malicious feminist revolution, women had wide spread access and viewage of not just men, but masculine men. Popular actors included the masculine Paul Newman, the gentlemanly Clark Gable, the cool and confident Sean Connery. Women could line up military bases to watch their favorite men in uniform. Up until just before the women's liberation movement, women used to faint after seeing their favorite men in concert. In my lifetime, I've yet to see such a health concern at a concert – unless the raped, dehydrated and mud-covered women of the second and third "Woodstock" count.

For the past 30 years, the dirtiest most politically incorrect concept to talk about has been masculinity. It has been pushed under the rug, twisted, turned, and manipulated. In our newly feminized nation, few want to talk about it or define it. I am now going to define it.

Masculinity, like men, is simple. (I say this affectionately). Masculinity is efficacy. I hasten to add that man's source of efficacy is reason. While strength and athletic ability are not unimportant in defining masculinity - the primary source of efficacy and masculinity is reason.

However, man is not a ghost. Man learns, understands, and imagines – and then his creations must be materialized in the world. True efficacy is reason materialized into concrete existence. And it is in this particular area, the construction of those things that man’s mind created (chopping wood, building skyscrapers, flying airplanes, what have you), in which men by nature outperform women, and is the genuine source of female to male admiration.

Today, it is popular to look at police men, soldiers and fireman as the ultimate symbols of masculinity. While these are certainly masculine figures to be admired (and are driven in many ways by reason), the most eloquent and visible example of rational masculinity, i.e. one who uses reason for productive effort is the modern day business man.

Masculinity as such is the primary source of erotica for a heterosexual woman. The ability to look up to a hero, i.e. a masculine man, is the fundamental source of sexual arousal for a woman. Without it, a heterosexual woman is lost.

Young women are constantly being ripped from such erotica. They are not being taught that men’s strength is to be looked at in admiration, but fear.

This is, in short – all feminist’s fault.

Masculinity is never identified with anything positive by feminists. They consistently equate masculinity to violence.

As a prime and openly revealing example, Gloria Steinem gave several speeches in 2002, preaching that terrorism, NAZIism, and school shootings were a product of “male dominance.” She says "The cult of masculinity is the basis of every violent, fascist regime. … We need to raise our sons more like our daughters, with empathy, flexibility, patience and compassion." (emphasis mine)

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of these events knows the reasons are not as simplistic and sexist as Gloria Steinem makes them out to be. However, her analysis is spot on for feminist theory. Masculinity is not identified with the men who stopped the NAZIs or the men who built the skyscrapers, but the men who killed 6 million Jews, sprayed their fellow classmates with bullets, and flew into buildings with civilian planes.

Feminists are always presenting the lower end of the spectrum with men, never the high end. An article in the US News and World Report boasted that boys now succeed in areas such as low grades and frequent disciplinary problems. The article concludes, boys are, “the weaker sex” (which is also the title of the article). The article showed no signs of compassion for the boys, or any inkling to want to improve boys. It was taken as plain, simple fact that boys are nothing but delinquents.

In fact, the only time I can think of that the physically stronger nature of men is brought up by feminists, or even popular culture anymore, is in domestic violence issues. Both men and women may hit each other, but men can do more damage. This is the only place feminists seem admit men are stronger women; all other physical things they seem to think women can do equally as good as men. The message is clear. Male strength accomplishes one thing – doing damage to females.

Indeed, violence imposed on society by men is one thing, but nothing compared to the violence men impose unto women. The worst thing a woman can do, in feminist eyes, is enter a relationship with a man, or at least one who hasn’t been effectively emasculated. Feminists do not make their stance on heterosexual relationships a mystery – inherently violent/masculine males will only serve to abuse women.

As such, in their activism, feminists were quick to pounce on domestic violence issues. And they were quick to show that violence upon women was not a product of random, individual cases of violence, but rather something that was institutionalized in society. This message is captured in the haunting title of an article written by feminist Liz Kelly: ‘It’s Everywhere: Sexual Violence as a Continuum.’ (emphasis mine)

In their effort to show men as violent and women as victim, feminists produced studies, which unfortunately gain widespread popularity, claiming such things that one in four women will be raped in their lifetime. One in four. Walk into any restaurant and that means at least 5 out of the maybe 20 women there have been raped. (The author of this study, Mary Koss, admits herself that seventy percent of supposed rape victims did not themselves believe they were actually raped).

Or, if all men aren’t violent, they can always project unto all men the trait of violence. At a popular feminist event, Take Back the Night held yearly on college campuses, a group of women parade on campuses, hitting dorms, frat houses, and apartments, yelling at all men “No means No; Yes means Yes; Wherever we Go; However we Dress.”

I spoke to a head of a woman’s shelter once, and asked her why they targeted all men on campus with their chanting. I was told, like all feminists will tell you, because the number one variable in all rapes is the attacker is male, and “men need to be held responsible for their actions.”

Well, it is true that most rapists are men. But this does not mean most men are rapists. Imagine a study found most thieves were black, and therefore a group of white people paraded in black communities, chanting slogans, pinning this crime on the blackness of a person. The racism in this is obvious, and anyone who did so would be trying to incite an ungrounded hatred of black people. Feminist’s method is no different. They are taking the base behavior of an embarrassing few men, and projecting it on to the male gender at large, furthering the message of institutionalized male on female violence.

Common flirtation is not being defined as cute, but increasingly as “harassment.” It will not be long before heterosexuality itself is criminalized. And if you think sexual harassment was an innocent measure to protect unwarranted abuse of women, consider that the woman who successfully enacted sexual harassment laws in the United States, Catherine MacKinnon, believes that just as the capitalist exploits his workers, so man exploits women. Just as labor is exploited by a capitalist in search of profit, so a woman’s body is exploited for men’s sexual pleasure. She argues in her article, Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State, “Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away.” A woman (and a blatant Marxist) who thinks all heterosexual activity is exploitive and needs outlawed championed current sexual harassment laws in the United States.

The message is always that masculinity is nothing but violence, but the argument is specifically that men have an uncontrollable desire to hurt women (which is slightly different than their argument about the “exploitive” nature of say, the capitalist-worker relationship). In feminist theory, women are always portrayed as the trembling victim, who is the victim not just of abuse, but abuse directed at her femaleness. When women are murdered or abused, in feminist theory it is never seen as the product of irrational greed, coercion, or an over-inflated sense of self (common reasons for abuse/murder), but rather as an institutionalized desire of men to control and hurt women. It is epitomized by feminist’s popular, but unsupported claim that rape is about control, i.e. a man’s desire to hurt a woman, as opposed to sex, i.e. a man’s desire for sexual gratification, which is a highly doubtful claim at best. (For further research against this feminist claim, and an honest inquiry into the reasons for domestic violence, I enthusiastically refer you to “Gender and Violence Re-examined” by Richard Felson.)

Everything a woman might enjoy about a man – his strength, flirtation, a relationship with him etc., is not seen as erotica, but a source of fear. Even the male genitalia is not presented as a source of pleasure, but violence. One feminist describes, “[A]utoeroticism is disrupted by a violent break in: the brutal separation of the two lips by a violating penis.” Violent, brutal, violating. These are the words used to describe intercourse.

At Harvard, after a crew team built a giant snow penis as a joke, some females on that school were in an outrage and tore it down. A Harvard’s Women’s Studies professor summarizes, “The ice sculpture was erected in a public space, one that should be free from menacing reminders of women’s sexual vulnerability.” These were not radical 1970s activists, but girls on an elite college in 2003.

Probably the most laughable is feminist architects, who make it their goal to build building that look like the female genitalia, to counter the vast buildings that look like the violating male penis, such as skyscrapers.

Feminists do whatever they have to to pound home the message that the male female relationship is marked by violence – by oppressors and the oppressed. This is not a dead radical feminist philosophy, either. To this day modern campuses and theatres nationwide throw the “Vagina Monologues” on Valentine’s Day. Their new term for this day is “V-day,” which stands, among other things, for “violence.” Valentine’s Day, a day meant to celebrate male female romantic love is now being turned into a “consciousness raising” day about how men beat women up. (This is done in similar fashion to the way they co-opted Columbus Day, and Americans are told they can’t celebrate the founding of the greatest civilization ever, but must remember white violence upon Native Americans). The very title of the Vagina Monologues, which is presented partly as a method to teach women to pleasure themselves, shows they want women to turn from the violating penis, and towards the soft vagina – either in autoeroticism (masturbation) or in lesbianism. (The author of the Monologues, Eve Ensler, herself is a lesbian).

The message is clear – men are violent, especially when around women. Feminists do their best to show that it is inherent in men to be violent. They do not argue that to eradicate violence, one should eradicate violence, but rather - masculinity. As the conclusion to an article written by Deborah Cameron and Elizabeth Frazer entitled “The Murderer as Misogynist” begs us, “It (the solution to male on female violence) also involves … a struggle to once and for all overthrow the structures of male power and masculinity.”

What may (or may not) surprise most is, none of what feminist’s propagandize was based on fact. Men are not being throttled, silenced, and bullied on a daily basis anymore because they are genuinely violent. Men are being throttled, silenced, and bullied on a daily basis because they are men, i.e. they are strong.

Disgruntled their economic policies collapsed, many Marxists were quick to dig their knives and scalpels into the male female relationship. Just as Leninists (which sounds eerily like “feminists”) believe that America and Israel, by sin of being “economically and militarily stronger” are thus by definition always wrong, and Palestine and those that are weaker are always right; so feminists decided men, by sin of being stronger are always wrong and women, by virtue of being weaker, are always right. (And this, the fact that men are the metaphysically dominant sex is the reason why, as Ayn Rand says, feminists were capable of yielding compassion for their movement).

And just as Leninists are not interested in the facts, for their bizarre theories already dictated to them the conclusions, so feminists are not interested in the facts of domestic violence. If you ever wanted to see the results of Kantian a priori reasoning, in pure ugly form – this is it. No facts ever supported what feminists had to say about domestic violence – they merely believe by definition men are always wrong and women always right. As an example, Ann Oakley in an article entitled Sexuality says, “Women are psychologically, no less than anatomically, incapable of rape.” Yet, when a more honest feminist performed a study, and used the feminist definition of rape, which she took to men, she found that one in four men, just as they had found one in four women, had been “raped,” i.e. had unwanted sex. (Please keep in mind the loose definition feminists use for rape.)

If they did investigate the issue of domestic violence honestly, which they did not, feminist results would have looked more like Erin Pizzey’s work, the woman who started the first domestic violence shelter ever.

Pizzey was the entrepreneur in domestic violence shelters, yet today she is denied access on all current domestic violence websites and shouted down when she speaks. Why? It had to do with the fact that she said women could be violent also, and that many victims of violence were “addicted to pain,” i.e. they actively sought out violent situations based on their troubled childhood. Her solution to domestic violence included advocating strong families, a realization of a woman’s fundamental role in solving her own situation, and even allowing men into shelters to teach women not all men are violent. As such, she is suffocated and silenced by modern feminists.

Pizzey documents in her work the Marxist takeover of domestic violence issues, including attending meetings with posters of Mao on the walls. Feminists used domestic violence, primarily, as a tool to spread Marxism.

A friend of mine received an email once, about a young woman doing a study on people’s “perception” of domestic violence. Why would one do a study on people’s “perception” of anything? Why wouldn’t the study be targeted at perpetrators of domestic violence, their victims, and understanding the problem as to find a solution? The reason why one would do a study to find the perception of people is because the issue is being used as propaganda to influence the public a certain way, not to find solutions to the problem.

Indeed, feminists are not, and have never been, interested in helping unfortunate victims of domestic violence. They are interested in using the issue as a method of class warfare – to make women a protected class, showing them as the victim class of the male oppressor class. That was made painfully obvious when feminists not only failed to condemn, but ostracized and stigmatized those in their own organization who condemned OJ Simpson, a man who beat his wife for 10 years and eventually murdered her. The feminist reaction to this case is well documented in Tammy Bruce’s The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. In this case, feminists did not come to Nicole Brown Simpson’s defense because protecting a class, in this case a class that they give higher priority to – race, is more important than protecting the victim of assault/murder. (And Nicole Brown Simpson was guilty of something which feminist could never forgive: she was a beautiful woman.)

Rampant male on female violence is a blatant lie. Read any honest research on the matter, and you will find men and women abuse each other at roughly the same rate, for roughly the same reasons (again I refer you in particular to Richard Felson’s work).

The issue is being framed, however, as such. Why spread this lie? Simple – to gain entitlement. This is a universal theme in all hate movements, as is documented well in Paul Berman’s Terror and Liberalism. Identify yourself as the victim of an invasive, oppressive dominant group – then demand retribution (read: money). The NAZIs had the Jews; the communists had the bourgeoisies; Islamic terrorists have Western civilization; feminists have men. The goal of all of them is to rip the moneyed class of their money. (It is unfortunate feminists had to pounce on real issues, such as rape, which they have permanently tarnished and given far less credibility to any genuine victim of that crime.)

This lie of masculinity equated to violence has also created a false dichotomy, as Objectivist Robert Garmong has pointed out: the jerk vs. the wimp. If masculinity is defined as violence, either a man embraces his masculinity, and abuses women, or he becomes the nice guy, and allows women to abuse him. Indeed, there are countless feminist speakers and thinkers who go around, describing masculinity as violence, and then begging men – please, please, please don’t be afraid to lose their masculinity for fear of being “sissy.”

Of course, this is a blatant lie. It rests on the bigger lie that men are inherently violent. Men do not have to be the jerk, or the wimp they can be men. Masculinity doesn’t need eradicated, but managed. A far more rational solution than begging men to completely lose their sexuality would be to work with a man’s masculinity to turn him away from violence, i.e. making it manly to respect women. (And I do not want to hear any complaints from men about not getting girls because you’re a “nice guy.” Suck it up and become a man).

Actually, begging men to become the “wimp,” may serve something else. By demanding men become feminized, does this not make men even more likely to rebel? More likely to become violent, such as in the movie The Fight Club, where effeminated men rebelled and started an underground consensual fight club? Masculinity cannot be suffocated. As such, they create the self fulfilling prophecy. Men thus become violent, which perhaps is exactly what they want (hence the fact that despite all their activism, rape and sexual assault have skyrocketed post 1970s).

Masculinity is not tied up in abuse or violence. Masculinity is strength. Period. And that is the only definition of masculinity.

I caution you against people trying to “redefine” masculinity. There is only one definition of masculinity – and that is efficacy. The concretes of efficacy might change, but strength is always the standard. As an example, in Ancient Greece, which was under threat of military attack frequently, masculinity was primarily tied up in those with military ability. Whatever is the most needed trait for any particular region’s prosperity will always be eroticized. In America, that is the one who can make the most money, i.e. the business man. (Perhaps that is why feminism was particularly virulent and destructive of the male female relationship in America).

As an example of those trying to “redefine masculinity,” at Penn State University, an art exhibit on display for 6 weeks featured a show called “In The Company of Men.” It boasted itself as “revisiting masculinity” after 30 years of feminism. A newspaper write up of it said the photographer visited military bases and wrestling practices to capture shots of men. When visiting this art exhibit, one would expect shots of heroic men, winning wrestling matches, preparing for war etc.

What was at this exhibit was far from that. The photographs included primarily men (most looked no older than 18) standing around bored, in line staring mindlessly in the cafeteria, on the sidelines lost in thought at wrestling practice, some young boys looking bored at Prom. Worse, however, was many of the pictures had men in homo-erotic positions, which was easy to do at wrestling practice. Two men were shot in a split, with one’s head being pulled towards the other man’s penis. Men were caught slapping each other’s rear ends at Prom. Worst of all, though, was a picture of a 20 something yr old man and a 7 or 8 yr old boy in what appears to be an erotic mouth-to-mouth kiss. Most shocking is the fact that Susan Faludi, the woman who re-popularized feminism in the early 90s and wrote the book, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, in which she sneakily suggests she supports men, endorsed this art exhibit (in the artist’s statement) of pedophilia and homo-eroticism.

The only real, and unfortunate result of feminism has been the division of the sexes. The women’s “liberation” movement had only one intent – to “liberate” women from men. Did you ever wonder what women were supposed to be liberated from – in the freest, most liberated nation on earth? Keep in mind whenever you hear their garble that it is men they wanted liberated from.

Well, if it is the case that women are oppressed by men, as feminists say – then let me be enslaved. Like Dagny’s bracelet which gave her “the most feminine look: the look of being chained,” chain me, tie me, submit me. Better yet – exploit me.

Feminists often gain sympathy for their cause because the dance men and women do when interaction is not dominated by open verbal talk, but gestures and innuendoes. It is not flagrant, and open, and mutually understanding (nor should it be). They are quick to come in and cry rape because of this. Well, if it is the case that the dance men and women do is rape – then rape me, too.

Neither of the sexes really remember how to appreciate the other. Just as they told women femininity was tied to weakness, they told men that masculinity is equated to violence. In the process, they made women masculine, men feminine, and both unattractive to the other.

Women, in particular, often fail to appreciate masculinity anymore. They are not too sure what it is about a man that is particularly exciting. That probably comes from the feminist belief that sexual desire is entirely socially constructed – and they’ve done their best to confuse it as much as possible.

I did an informal survey among people about their thoughts on sexuality and masculinity. The response I got from one woman in particular was interesting. She said that there was nothing inherently natural about a woman responding sexually to a man or a man to a woman. If we were "conditioned" to be aroused by earlobes, then we would all be attracted to earlobes. Although this response would be seen as largely bizarre to most Americans, her answer was honest. Many young women today just don't see how or why men should be considered erotica.

Well, let me tell them. What turns women on to men is their masculinity. Normal heterosexual women do not see a man’s sexual initiative as harassment, but flirtation. Men’s strength is not a source of violence, but admiration. And a man’s genitalia is not invasive, but most definitely pleasurable. And if sexual desire is socially constructed, then let’s do the logical thing – and socialize them into heterosexuality.

And if they want to put the ability of a woman to have a vaginal orgasm to trial – let me be their first witness on the defense.

Of course, feminists consider romantic love to be a mere “choice” at best, as a sign of fraternizing with the enemy at worst. A woman’s desire for a man is considered passé. Feminists can be considered the anti-Romeos. You certainly won’t read any feminist literature, affirming charming long lasting relationships among a man and a woman. They write “[N]o feminist would dream of saying that women’s desire for heterosexual romantic love was natural and valid.” Tell that to the literally thousands of lonely girls out there, denied male affection because of the gender division over the last 30 years.

Feminist’s constant pounding of the female as victim hasn’t empowered women, it has turned them into ultra fragile, ultra sensitive, emotionally vulnerable wimps. They are literally afraid of the dark. If this is what you think is “empowerment,” then so be it, but I for one will not be apart of it.

However, I see a new era. It will be hard for feminists to continue the lies they started in the 1970s. They cry in their literature about male on girl pedophilia, but the most visible form of pedophilia today is male on male. They cry about the lack of justice for female rape victims, but the most visible cases of injustice of rape in the media today are women falsely accusing men of it. And feminism will not remain as popular, because unlike NAZIS and Jews or terrorists and Western civilization – men and women fraternize far too much.

This is not the hippy world of our mothers. This is not the time of radical liberalism, but rather a post 9-11 world. The feminist generation is the generation that dodged Vietnam. We are the generation that will go down in history as eradicating terrorism. Old feminist hags will soon hit their graves, and it will be an opportunity for young women, my generation, to define what we want, not what they handed to us.

Women have been starved of genuine erotica for far too long. Women line up at events such as The Vagina Monologues in hopes of capturing that erotica, that has in fact been swept from under their feet. But things such as The Vagina Monologues do more damage than good, turning them away, not towards a woman’s genuine source of erotica – a masculine man.

Gloria Steinem tells us we need to turn away from masculinity, and towards humanity, as if masculinity is inhumane. But, she is a liar. Masculinity is not tied to violence. It is tied to strength, and it should be seen as erotica, not fear.

And let it go on record that my favorite type of building, without hesitation, is the skyscraper.

Amber Pawlik