"Much of this is motivated by congressional defensiveness in the face of fierce feminist lobbying that is largely unopposed."
I read a short book from Encounter Books today entitled How Obama's Gender Policies Undermine America.
The book highlights how women are doing much better than men in today's America. They live longer, face a significantly lower unemployment rate, are awarded substantially more BAs, and MAs and have lower rates of incarceration, alcoholism, and drug abuse. Career feminists constantly harp on how women need government intervention and hand-holding because they are treated unfairly. For the most part, however, women in the academic world are treated better than men. The author, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, makes an important point:
Not that it would help, but maybe some of these "feminists" (more like female-privilege specialists) who insist on more and more affirmative action for women in the academic world should read a book that tells a more realistic account of what is really happening with many males in our society: Boys in Poverty: A Framework for Understanding Dropout.
I doubt it would help however, because boys--and thus, men-- in poverty is probably their goal.
My question is, why are "fierce feminist lobbyists" largely unopposed?
The book highlights how women are doing much better than men in today's America. They live longer, face a significantly lower unemployment rate, are awarded substantially more BAs, and MAs and have lower rates of incarceration, alcoholism, and drug abuse. Career feminists constantly harp on how women need government intervention and hand-holding because they are treated unfairly. For the most part, however, women in the academic world are treated better than men. The author, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, makes an important point: ...in some cases, women are treated better than men when it comes to academic tenure positions. Between 1999 and 2003, according to the National Academy of Sciences, although women only represented 11 percent of tenure-track job applicants in electrical engineering and 12 percent of applicants in physics, they received 32 percent and 20 percent of the job offers in these fields, respectively.
Not that it would help, but maybe some of these "feminists" (more like female-privilege specialists) who insist on more and more affirmative action for women in the academic world should read a book that tells a more realistic account of what is really happening with many males in our society: Boys in Poverty: A Framework for Understanding Dropout.
I doubt it would help however, because boys--and thus, men-- in poverty is probably their goal.My question is, why are "fierce feminist lobbyists" largely unopposed?
Labels: men's issues, men's rights
posted by Helen at 12:12 PM
35 Comments:
it`s not that they are unopposed, it`s just that the pendulum hasn`t swung far enough yet...
I think - and I hope - their days are numbered. Anyone who can't see that what's bad for men is bad for everyone is a myopic, grasping moron.
"more like female-privilege specialists"
What a lovely and accurate turn of phrase. Gender whores works too, but yours is the more elegant and facile.
Trey
I must add that the best predictor of boys being poor and dropping out is those boys not having their dads in the home. So I think if we are honest, we already understand boys and girls in poverty, some of us just don't like the reasons.
Trey
As I have written before, midsummer, I threw a tantrum to end all tantrums during our election cycle this summer. My rallying point was the large incarceration rates of young men in my city, the steep sentences for non-violent offenses, the enthusiasm of the judicial system to enter a criminal record for minor offense limiting job prospects for people and, lastly but not leastly, the lack of a male role model for 90% of the city's children. I felt that these points were resulting in the high crime and homicide statistics for the region. During the election campaigns I changed my approach from other years. I didn't write any letters. Instead I got in politicians faces, I raised my voice, I pointed my finger, I blamed them and told them I wanted some fast strong changes.
Now here's the thing, Helen, I talked to a number of politicians, some running for office and some helping others run for office. This was on both the local and state level. The more the conservative and Republican the politician was, the less likely they were to agree with me. The more liberal and Democratic the politician the more likely they were to agree with many of my points. They all disagreed with me on one item and that was my demand that we put daddy back in the house. They wanted to know how I planned to do that. I suggested that the first thing we needed to do was simply make the suggestion that daddy in the house was a good idea. They all curled their nose at that comment.
The conservative politicians didn't want to see any reduction in prison sentences for any type offense, they wanted to increase police patrols and arrest more kids. I guess my ideas fell flat on them. Over the summer the city organized a day where those with outstanding warrants could drop by a church, see a judge, and take care of whatever it was and get their records cleaned up. Out o 40,000 outstanding warrants 900 people turned themselves in. Out of 900 only 4 were taken to jail, so that was 896 with outstanding warrants who could potentially not have found employment our housing.
I'm not sure the Republicans are doing very much to help boys or men escape poverty and I'm not sure they want to do that. The Democrats might be more receptive to the idea. Take from this what you will.
Neither conservatives nor liberals want to touch the bulk of male/female issues with a 100-foot pole. That's why the feminist lobby goes unchecked. How does a voice that is counter to feminist orthodoxy find an ear? It really doesn't. Any politician who would directly criticize feminism would be signing his/her death sentence politically -- it's like running on a platform of saying "Yes, I am a racist, and you should vote for me". Being critical of feminism and its advocates is the equivalent of being a racist in 21st Century America -- the feminists have thoroughly and utterly won the public debate on these issues, such that they cannot be touched or approached at all -- it's like the issues are made of political dynamite.
So what we see instead are two approaches.
The first is a focus on specific "issues" -- relatively useful yet harmless ones like abortion or gay rights. Conservatives can come out hard on these divisive issues because they know it's still "ok" socially to be on one side or the other of these and, critically, women, who are both larger numerically and who vote much more than men do, are *also* divided on these issues. So by making abortion or gays a political issue, both the left and right benefit by throwing out a divisive yet motivating "wedge issue" which has substantial support among women on both sides. Now if you were to switch the issue to. say, the role of family law in fatherlessness and the need for family law reform, suddenly what you find is a much, much more lopsided divide among women *against* any such talk -- Suzy Suburbanite thinks "there but for the grace of God go I" in terms of reforming divorce law, and isn't interested at all in reforming it just in case she ever really does decide to leave her increasingly boring Stan Suburbanite husband. So all of a sudden Suzy, who was with you on abortion and gay issues, backs off when it comes to something that really impacts *her*, personally, as a suburban married woman, and goes all cold on you. So there's no point in making it a political issue if you are interested in winning. The same can be said for campaigning against unfairnesses in VAWA and the new proposed paycheck act and so on -- most women are alienated by that kind of talk, and so there is no political hay to be made by either side in making an issue of these things. The issue of school reform when it comes to boys is more complex, and tends to depend (in terms of whether you’ll find an ear) on whether the people have male or female children, and in what proportions. Studies have shown that families with mostly female children lean liberal democrat, because they know that this party supports pro-female and anti-male favoritism in the law, and that suits them fine because they have female offspring.
The second approach is to play the gender card from the conservative side and "redefine feminism" a la Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley and others. This is plainly an effort to counter any suggestion from the left that the right is spooked by empowered women -- no better way to do that than by presenting your own, right-wing, empowered women. From the perspective of political strategy this makes sense, given that men generally vote conservative whereas a certain percantage of women is more “up for grabs”, but from the perspective of the overall discussion of men/women issues it is a few steps back, from the right side of the ledger at least, because it takes certain issues right off the table. It's quite telling that women like Palin and Haley are out in front of the typical wedge issues that still have female support, like anti-abortion and so on, but are silent about any other feminist issue. They're basically saying the following: "the right is on board with feminism, pretty much, and supports its goals of empowering women at male expense (if necessary), but we're hear to tell you that it's okay to be feminist and pro-life and pro-lower-taxes." Again, the broader issues of the decline of men relative to women, and the causes for it, remain unaddressed, precisely because addressing them in any meaningful way is political snake-oil for most women (other than the minority of women who have only male children, and not even all of them are to be mobilized on this issue).
That isn't going to change anytime soon, really. The next phase is already upon us, actually, and it, predictably, involves blaming men themselves for the current situation, as in the new Newsweek article on masculinity that is making the rounds. We're going to see much more of that -- browbeating, shaming and doing everything possible to make men conform to the gender-correct -- than we will addressing any actual legal or social issues that may be at play here.
If they stop subsidizing familes without dads, they will have less kids in jail. Less obese children too. Less poor families too. Less dropouts too.
I just googled predictors of childhood obesity and most studies focused on maternal attitudes toward food and other similar variables and found that they did not account for the variance. No dad in the home is again a wonderful predictor of childhood suffering, in this case, childhood obesity.
It is a much stronger predictor than breat feeding. I am quite certain that our first lady will be talking about this any minute now.
Trey
Culture.
Our beliefs about women and men go back millenia. Furthermore, our enduring culture of chivalry means that nobody wants to "hit a girl", even when it's not in the physical arena.
Politicians are cowards for the most part. They're not interested in the truth or standing up for the truth, but only in sucking up to groups that will enable them to get elected. Feminist thought has become sacrosanct. To even question feminist thought is blasphemous and worthy a burning at the stake.
"Neither conservatives nor liberals want to touch the bulk of male/female issues with a 100-foot pole."
-----
My moment of truth was watching a woman beat on a drunken man - he was too drunk to defend himself - and watching the cops that were called "wait until she was done" (because she must have had a reason) - and doing nothing other than arresting the man for public drunkenness.
He just had the shit beat out of him in front of witnesses.
I even called the district attorney's office as a witness and was told to mind my own business.
You get experiences like that - that heavily conflict with the shit that feminists are preaching - and you start to develop hatred.
TO: Dr. Helen
RE: Much of THIS....
"Much of this is motivated by congressional defensiveness in the face of fierce feminist lobbying that is largely unopposed." -- Dr. Helen, citing some book
....is due to a lack of 'mmental toughness' on the part of the 'men' elected to Congress.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The feminist movement died, one millisecond after the first impact.]
TO: BarryD
RE: Don't....
....our enduring culture of chivalry means that nobody wants to "hit a girl", even when it's not in the physical arena. -- BarryD
....count on that one.
Any woman who strikes me is inviting retribution on a level at or, possibly, beyond that level. It depends on the situation. Someone, even a woman, pulls lethal weapons on me, e.g., a knife, is welcome to receive a round from a .45 ACP. Or whatever else I can get my hands on.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Wanna 'play' with the Big Boys? Game on! Gloves off!]
Chuckles,
In most cases, if you attack a woman, you are going to have to deal with the lots of chivalrous men who converge upon you and possibly the police.
While it's true that you can beat up everyone in the world, most men can't.
You have to have some understanding for men who aren't superheroes.
Any man who touches a woman short of being killed by her is ... stupid. Given the present situation. If that is ever let up on ... I say go get 'em. I am not a part of chivalry.
TO: Tether
RE: TRY....
In most cases, if you attack a woman, you are going to have to deal with the lots of chivalrous men who converge upon you and possibly the police. -- Tether
....not to be a total and complete fool.
Are you going to be attacked by a woman armed with a lethal weapon and just 'take it like a Man'?
If so....
....I hope your 'house' is in order.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Only a fool would bring a knife to a gunfight.]
P.S. Personally? Too many people are depending on me to give my life up to some fool woman stupid enough to attack me with a lethal weapon.
I've miles to go and promises to keep.....
Both major political parties in the US have demonstrated consistently their complete lack of interest or concern with the wants and needs of males of any age. They both bend over backwards to please the female voters, especially the single female voters, and assume that the feminists do indeed speak for all women. They have since given so much taxmoney to feminists, a substantial portion of which is then kicked back to the politicians who vote their way, that they now cannot afford to oppose them. Meanwhile, men have nothing even remotely similar to feminism. Even worse, while most women will side with other women in virtually all matters, even spousal murders or sexual mutilations of husbands, males rarely ever do the same. At least half of male voters toss their own needs and futures aside to push for more power and privilege for women. The imbalance of power has today reached a point where the feminists have a huge rolling political machine which virtually cannot be stopped, and men have a tiny little movement with no money and no power. What exactly it would take to change this, I haven't a clue. I don't see it changing any time during my lifetime. I see it getting worse. In fact, over the past year I've seen a dramatic increase in the number of television shows, commercials, and movies depicting sexual violence against males as humorous, heroic and good, one of the surest indicators of the high level of contempt for the male sex you could possibly ask for.
Maybe the Tea Party movement will change things? Otherwise, I see nothing stopping this.
Tmink says:
If they stop subsidizing familes without dads, they will have less kids in jail. Less obese children too. Less poor families too. Less dropouts too.
I just googled predictors of childhood obesity and most studies focused on maternal attitudes toward food and other similar variables and found that they did not account for the variance. No dad in the home is again a wonderful predictor of childhood suffering, in this case, childhood obesity.
I have some new forwarding thinking ideas about a solution rather than looking to the past. In the past we have shamed single welfare mothers. Now we don't shame them, we herald them for not getting abortions, forging ahead with single parenting and being a strong woman while their baby daddy decides they no longer exist, goes to prison or enjoys his drug problems while living with his mom.
I say we take another look at the challenge. We does criminal baby daddy have to go to prison? If he is guilty of a nonviolent offense he might be given the option of a little home monitoring but ONLY if he plans to serve his time in the same home of his biological children. Baby daddy would then be encouraged to take an active role in raising his own kids. Mind you, I am not saying mommy and daddy have to stay in a romantic relationship. They just have to exist in the same house. Crazy idea? Probably, but may be a good one.
This also might be a good motivator for mommy to think long and hard about who she lets impregnate her. Most women don't want some criminal begging to live in your house after they have been arrested.
Now regarding the obesity challenge. I have a solution for that as well. Each teacher should be given a $5 scale. At the beginning of the year each child shall be weighed. I don't want to spend hours arguing over petty BMI calculations, as far as elementary school children are concerned the BMI number is good enough.
If a child is morbidly obese a letter should go home saying this, "Your kid is fat, very fat. Your kid needs to lose weight and go on a diet. The sooner the better." We've got to quit sugar coating this and worrying about everyone's feelings.
If kids are too fat, getting into trouble, not attending school, committing crimes then the food stamps need to be curtailed, the subsidized rent needs to be curtailed, the welfare check needs to be curtailed, the disability checks need to be stopped, the WIC needs to be halted. There has to be consequences for bad parental behavior. If need be, we should be throwing parents and guardians in prison for their bad parenting skills until they are modified.
Go ahead, hang me for this. I don't really care. We spend too much time worrying about how mommy feels and not enough time worrying about the kids.
"In the past we have shamed single welfare mothers. Now we don't shame them, we herald them for not getting abortions ..."
--
That's not the case at all. It's your political agenda. Some of the public heralds them for their "brave struggle as single parent", hardly anyone (and no one I have ever heard of) heralds them for not getting abortions.
Everone ignores that issue. Single mothers are heroes because they have the little brats clinging to them; no one gives a rip how that came to be.
TO: Tether
RE: Speak....
Everone ignores that issue. Single mothers are heroes because they have the little brats clinging to them; no one gives a rip how that came to be. -- Tether
....for yourself.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Why is it everyone 'whines' about the predicament they got THEMSELVES into?]
P.S. We're talking about SERIOUS 'self-inflicted wounds' here.....
This comment has been removed by the author.
""why are "fierce feminist lobbyists" largely unopposed?"
Because mainstream conservative men are for the most part white knights who are too afraid to seriously attack feminism.
TO: TAS
RE: Indeed!
Because mainstream conservative men are for the most part white knights who are too afraid to seriously attack feminism.
But don't forget the so-called 'liberals' and 'progressives' who facilitated them.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Liberals aren't. Progressives won't.]
Cham, those are interesting ideas.
I think it would be direct and simple to just stop subsidizing single parents. But there are some intriguing aspects to what you suggest.
Trey
If I might add a few more thoughts, Memphis Steve seems to think the politicians are bending over backward to please the single female voting bloc. I am part of that voting bloc, that most certainly isn't true. As you can see from my actions I'm am certainly not on the side of the mommies. I did learn something this election cycle, a seasoned state senator was toppled by a young upstart. How did the upstart do it? He made friends with SICU, which is the healthcare workers union. Healthcare workers are often mothers, single mothers, married mothers, but usually mothers.
The only group that is openly and vocally standing up to some of these gender inequities and are fighting for the good of the children are black men. So the next time there is a "Million Man March" on Washington I would think long and hard about expressing derision and contempt. Black men are trying to something about gender inequities about how they are treated by the government. So rather than distancing yourself from concerned black men you might want to join up with them. Or, if you can't overcome your racism, do your best to keep your trap shut.
The book highlights how women are doing much better than men in today's America. They live longer, face a significantly lower unemployment rate, are awarded substantially more BAs, and MAs and have lower rates of incarceration, alcoholism, and drug abuse.
Pick any culture, any period of time, and you will find the average woman is living a better life than the average man.
Why are feminist unopposed? For the same reasons: we socially program men to protect and provide for women, and shame/ostracize those men who do not follow the programing.
How to solve it? Wait for the collapse. When even _pretending_ to be equal to men carries risk of life and limb, women will forget about this silly "equality" thing... they'd rather stay safe. Before that point, there is no real solution... you can't put Pandora back in the box.
Black men are trying to something about gender inequities about how they are treated by the government.
In just about every way, black men have it worse than the rest of us. Income, education, imprisonment, lifespan, you name it. All the liberal bullshit has ruined their lives.
Because mainstream conservative men are for the most part white knights who are too afraid to seriously attack feminism.
Even worse, they think sucking up to women will get them laid, even though it is easily observable in the real world that women are quite repelled by the needy chivalry that is typical of most conservative men.
This stupidity, particularly given how much easy information is available online about how to actually attract women, is why conservatism is fatally flawed.
It had been a dealbreaker for me, which is why I am no longer a Republican.
There is nothing worse than the needy, lusty chivalry that is the basis of modern conservative ideology.
The world is yet to see if a society can survive 100 years of giving women the right to vote.
I claim that a society either collapses or comes damn near to it, exactly 100 years after women are given the right to vote. If you disagree, let's revisit that based on the state of America in 2019.
When women get the right to vote, they very quickly organize to use the political process to strip men of rights. Also, they have no concept of 'going too far'.
I know I'm days late and a couple of dollars short, but I have a question to ask:
that daddy in the house was a good idea
Which daddy would that be? daddy #1 who's father to child #1 and #3, who's a meth head? or perhaps daddy #2, who's father to child #2 but sexually assaulted child #1 and is doing time? daddy #3 who is a the father to child #4 and #5 and is a pretty decent fellow but with a low-paying job that can't make up what baby momma #1 would lose in welfare if she settled down with him?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well, it's simple folks ... Just don't get married! Don't have kids! Don't even move in with somebody!
This might just be the greatest period to be alive in all of history ... As some great philosophers have remarked over the years, when a man get's married he keeps about half his rights, and has about twice as many duties to perform ...
Like I already said, this is a great period in time to be alive ... Take great care ... Don't do something that will potentially ruin your life, like it has ruined so many other men's lives in the past ...
Darth Aggie: Studies show that children thrive the best when their biological father lives in the house with them.
Good question.
Chivalry.
Boys don't hit girls.
Boys don't defend themselves against girls.
The near daily message that energy, vigor, contest, & pushing the limits are evidence of "something wrong", in early years when everything counts double.
erg... lots and lots come to mind.
Father custody. It keeps kids with bio-dad and solves the shortcomings Darth Aggie identified in Cham's suggestion.
Post a Comment
<< Home