|
|
|
VIOLENCE
Michael Kimmel writes how men are so violent. Here is the truth: Nicholas Davidson wrote an excellent article in the National Review (5/31/1989) titled "The Myths of Feminism." He is the author of The Failure of Feminism and the editor of an anthology, Gender Sanity: The Case Against Feminism. He writes, "Over the past twenty years, feminism has successfully ensconced itself as the national philosophy of gender. In consequence, economic and cultural warfare against traditional sex roles virtually defines gender policy today. This onslaught is furthered by a series of false beliefs, which can be described as the "myths of feminism.'
"Myth #4: 'There is an epidemic of male family violence.' According to R.L. McNeely, a professor of social work at the University of Wisconsin [Milwaukee], reports on domestic violence frequently rely on studies of clinical populations, composed of women in shelters, rather than on survey studies that examine the general population. As a result, such reports inevitably overstate the relative incidence and severity of male-instigated violence. A number of studies based on the general population indicate that women commit roughly as many assaults against spouses as men do. Women apparently make up for their lesser physical strength by using weapons more often. (There it is: culture can overcome biology.) Males commit 52 per cent of spousal killings, females 48 per cent -- a ratio that has held constant for the past fifty years. In general, the grim facts of domestic violence do not support the contention that females are its especial victims, or males its especial perpetrators. Women commit two-thirds of child abuse. Boys are twice as likely to be abused as girls. A majority of the perpetrators of infanticide are female. Most child abuse is committed in households headed by a single female. Statistically speaking, a child's best protection against abuse is the presence in the home of its biological father. Men are, of course, typically far more aggressive and stronger than women. But violence by men is typically directed against other men. Within the home, male protectiveness and chivalry -- obnoxious to feminists -- appear largely to cancel men's violent propensities relative to women's. This is by no means to deny the existence of habitually violent men. It is to say that the media's focus on violence by men misrepresents the cause of domestic violence, attributing it to "patriarchy.'' In reality, the incidence of domestic violence (and every other social pathology) is lowest in intact traditional families where the husband is clearly regarded as the head of the household."
At a website (http://www.omnimag.com/archives/chats/br120696.html) Kimmel was asked if there are any difference between men a women. He said, "I think there are some differences, but I think we need to be careful about overemphasizing them at the expense of the similarities. For example, I can't think of any job in the world for which men or women are uniquely qualified, except, perhaps, for surrogate mother or sperm donor. Last year, I was asked to testify in the case about the Citadel and VMI and was asked if there are any significant differences between men and women and whether it would be appropriate for women to go to a formerly all-male military school. My argument was very simple: Throughout American history, women have said We want to do something: We want to go to college, We want to vote, We want to be able to drive, We want to join unions. And every time men have predicted that women wouldn't want to do it, and that women couldn't do it. And every time, women have done it, and they've always succeeded at it. I can think of no case in which women, once they entered the field, turned around and said, 'You know what? They were right. Let's go home.' So my philosophy is very simple. Instead of asking the experts what women can or cannot do, ask the women." Spoken like a true wimp.
Kimmel and his fellow feminists never get around to what those "some differences" are. He can't because if you put women into the Citadel and then make them generals while men are ironing at home there are no differences. Feminists don't want androgyny or unisex values but that is the only conclusion to their logic.
CARING
The politically correct thinking is that feminism makes men more caring. He says, "I think the women's movement has been one of the most powerful movements of our time and it certainly offers enormous possibilities for men as well as women. In part, the argument that I make in my book is that men are terrified of feminism because they are afraid they will lose their ability to prove their manhood. But I believe that feminism offers men enormous possibilities to become more nurturing and caring fathers, friends, partners." The truth is the opposite. It makes men less caring.
SURROGATE HUSBANDS
Dennis Prager explains how liberalism goes along with feminism in an article titled "Dems and the Single Woman: A disturbing relationship":
|
An analyses of the last presidential election — and polls measuring the current election — one group stands out as disproportionately Democratic: unmarried women. Single women's support for Democrats crosses all racial, ethnic, and religious lines. White and black, Hispanic and Jewish, rich and poor, single women all vote Democratic. It is tempting to attribute this to the support of women in general for the Democrats, but that is inaccurate: Married women favor Republicans. Nor is being single a predictor of Democratic support — unmarried men also prefer Republicans. The most obvious reason for the single woman's support of Democrats is the party's unconditional support of a woman's right to abortion. But as valid an explanation as this may be, it is not necessarily the most important reason. If it were, why would so many of these women vote Republican once they marry? Many married women believe in the right to abortion, and many of them even seek abortions. (On the other hand, it is possible that many women have a different view of abortion once they marry and become mothers.) One explanation is that the Democratic party offers itself — and the government — as the protector of, and provider for, millions of single women. The Democratic party offers its governance as a surrogate husband — and it is so regarded by many unmarried women. Most women have a primal desire to be protected, and, if they have children, to have their children protected. To make this observation is neither insulting nor sexist, any more than it would be insulting or sexist to speak of men as being innately more physically aggressive or less naturally inclined to monogamous commitment. Whether because of evolution, socialization, nature, divine design, or an amalgam of all of these, women have a powerful need to feel ecure (the shift of American priorities from liberty to security can be regarded as one example of the feminization of American society). For the vast majority of women in history this need was met through marriage. That is why almost no woman marries "down." Virtually every woman wants a man who meets her primal desire for a protector/provider. This is why it is often so difficult for a professionally successful woman to find a mate. There are few single men more successful than she is, and most of those men are quite happy (indeed often prefer) to marry women who are far less successful than they are. The Democratic party regularly uses the rhetoric and offers the promises of a protecting husband: "I will take care of you"; "I will fight for you"; "I will fight for your children." We will provide your child's health care, we will provide day care, we will provide pre-school education. We will do most everything for you and your children that a husband would. This has long been viewed as one of the reasons for the absent husbands and fathers that plague the black inner city — the need for them has been reduced thanks to welfare and government. A second possible reason for single women's support for the Democrats is that married women, especially those with children — like married men with children — are generally more mature than when they were single. Virtually every married man and woman will acknowledge that marriage is maturing. One consequence of this maturation is a desire not to be treated as a child. The Democratic approach to the populace is often like that of a parent to a child. Take tax policy: We will keep your money because you do not know how to spend it. But we will give you an allowance when we see fit. Or take its attitude toward black Americans: Without us you cannot make it. America is too tough for you to make it on your own. Another consequence of the maturation that accompanies marriage and having children is leaving behind the self-centeredness more characteristic of the premarital state. A married person is therefore more likely to ask, "What is best for the country?" Whether or not one accepts these explanations, what is unquestionable is that there are two very undesirable social consequences of unmarried women making Democratic victories possible. One is that more and more women will choose government as their surrogate spouse, thereby depriving themselves of the personal and moral growth available through marriage and depriving more and more children of a father. The other disquieting consequence is that just as single women have become dependent on the Democrats, the party has become dependent on the single woman. We thus have the terrible reality of one of the two major parties depending for its success on the decline of the nuclear family. Married men and women who have children are the least likely Americans to vote Democratic. At this time in American history, Democratic victories necessitate weak amilies. That is not good for America. |
Paul Weyrich wrote the following article titled 'Who's Nuts?": (http://usconservatives.about.com/blc0325nuts.htm)
In December 1997, Free Congress Foundation celebrated
its 20th anniversary with a gala dinner. The guest speaker
was Charlton Heston. He gave one of the finest speeches I
have been privileged to hear, on the subject of the culture
war (not guns). For those who just arrived from some other
planet, a culture war has been raging in this country ever
since the 1960's. Mr. Heston offered a thoughtful and at
times passionate defense of our traditional, Western,
Judeo-Christian culture, which is variously denounced as
oppressive, insensitive, patriarchal, and just plain mean,
mostly by the forces of Political Correctness, a.k.a. the
Cultural Marxists. Frankly, I was somewhat surprised to see Richard Cohen
abase himself so thoroughly before the PC pantheon as he did
in his attack on Mr. Heston's speech in yesterday's
Washington Post. Not only did he hit all the usual buttons -
racism, homophobia (the word itself is a lie: moral
disapproval is different from an irrational fear) - he even
hit Political Correctness' equivalent of the nuclear button.
Mr. Heston, he announced, is "nuts". Political Correctness is an ideology. The classic
hallmark of ideology is all over it, in that it demands that
people live a lie. In fact, it demands we all accede to many
lies: that men and women are interchangeable, that there are
no differences among races or ethnic groups within races
(when those groups are taken as wholes, as PC demands), that
homosexuality is normal. This is, in fact, the unholy
trinity that Political Correctness requires we all bow down
and worship: "racism, sexism, and homophobia." If the sad history of the 20th century teaches nothing
else, it teaches the danger of ideology -- all ideology.
Ideology littered that century with somewhere around 100
million corpses. Is Richard Cohen content to watch America
too become an ideological state, a state with an official
ideology, enforced by the power of the state? Make no
mistake -- that is where all ideology leads, because in the
end there is no way to compel people to bow to lies except
by the threat of the concentration camp and the
gulag.
