Why is it so difficult to effect policy change for issues that affect men, and why have feminists been so successful in effecting policy change for issues that affect women?
Clue: the feminists aren't sitting at their computers preaching to the choir or writing essays on why men are flawed. They are putting their belief that men are flawed into action.
Dr. Hoff Sommers noted that there are approximately 112 important centers for the study of women. It is, she noted, an "elaborate empire of . . . activism" that produces volumes and volumes of research, some good, but "much of it ideological." That, of course, "is problematic."
But since they are the groups addressing issues, Congress listens to them, and journalists call them when they want to write stories.
Read this next sentence carefully: "If there's any social policy practice that has a disparate impact on women, they're right there to make it known and to correct it."
In contrast, for men, there is virtually nothing.
Yes, she said, there are fledgling groups, but in comparison to the women's groups, essentially nothing.
The result? "There can be outrageous injustices against men, and these go almost unnoticed. . . . Just to give one notorious example, the Duke lacrosse case, where there was a persecution, like a witch trial, and it took a very long time [to react to it]."
"Imagine," she said, in perhaps the understatement of the year, "if the genders had been reversed." She concluded: "This is the first thing we have to correct," because the organizations that do exist are largely ideological, and many of the researchers feel that if there is a disparity that favors women, it is to be celebrated as a triumph of equity. Never do they admit victory. And "it's young men who pay the price."
[Very soon we will be announcing an advocacy effort for false rape claims that is set to launch through a coalition of like-minded bloggers, yours truly included. It is my goal that we start trying to effect policy change. It will not happen without cooperation, and perhaps doing something a lot of males are loathe to do -- working with others, even if it isn't exactly the way you'd do it. Stay tuned for details.]
Posts
14 comments:
"Imagine if the genders were reversed." Yeah, no kidding. If genders were reversed then Crystal Mangum would have been charged with three counts of attempted murder for what she did to those boys. But because her victims were just men she was able to commit this horrible crime without anybody getting upset about her getting away with it.
That is the level of female chauvinism and naked injustice we face.
For those of you who might be unaware, Sommers wrote two excellent books, Who Stole Feminism, and The War Against Boys.
"Dr. Hoff Sommers noted that there are approximately 112 important centers for the study of women."
Part of the problem is that they are largely funded by tax dollars.
Just came across this via Dr. Helen Smith's blog:
New Duke Policy Renders Students Unwitting Rapists; Removes Protections for Those Accused of Sexual Misconduct
"DURHAM, N.C., April 7, 2010—Duke University has instituted a new "sexual misconduct" policy that can render a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered "powerful" on campus. The policy claims that "perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion." Duke's new policy transforms students of both sexes into unwitting rapists simply because of the "atmosphere" or because one or more students are "intoxicated," no matter the degree. The policy also establishes unfair rules for judging sexual misconduct accusations. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is challenging the policy."
well, at least it appears to apply equally to both genders - on paper, that is. It remains to be seen if it will applied equally, in practice, as it is most likely intended to "target" those men who are seen as "powerful" on-campus (and who, accordingly, attract a lot of female sexual attentions).
To say that injustices against men are ignored because only women are organised and lobbying for their cause seems to ignore the underlying point: why are women so much more organised than men?
A significant reason for this has to do with evolution and natural selection, and once you understand even a tiny bit of sociobiology these things are easy to understand.
To a large extent competition in most societies is within the sexes rather than between the sexes. Men compete with other men for resources, social status, access to women etc. Women compete with other women for the favors of powerful men etc.
But here is the difference. Because men are more biologically disposable than women, and because the male role is less guaranteed, men have to compete with other men to a greater extent for the limited number of successful alpha male roles. While women compete with other women to some degree, they don't have to compete quite as much with each other. For example, in a society that allows polygamy women can share a successful man. But men will have to fight like Bengal tigers to be one of the few successful alpha males and not one of the marginalised men with no status or access to women.
Because the need for women to compete with each other is not quite as strong as it is with men, it is much easier to get women to cooperate towards goals that benefit women generally.
It's because men are divided. Men like to form patriarchal structures and then go out and wage war against other patriarchal structures. We're hunters. We aren't designed to compete against women, or even to recognize them as a political threat, because in nature women are helpless. Meanwhile women are doing what they are designed to do: cooperate (usually) with each other and win sympathy from men. Men love to fall for this game because they get to play the white knight and show up other men.
The only way we'll ever win this and take our society back from the mendacious, totalitarian feminists is to close the divisions between men. The next patriarchal society must be all-inclusive and recognize the dignity of men everywhere, as well as individual rights in general.
www.savethemales.com
The "Sugar Daddies" Behind Feminism
April 4, 2009
by Richard Evans
The "Patriarchy" is the Plutocracy and it's Funding Feminism!
When big changes happen, follow the money. Feminist funding comes from big foundations. Google "Women's Studies" and Rockefeller Foundation and you'll get 132,000 links. Google "Women's Studies" and Ford Foundation and you'll get 217,000 links. Carnegie Foundation yields 197,000 links. They frequently acknowledge foundation funding and expose a massive social engineering program designed to reduce population, emasculate men and undermine the institutions of marriage & family.
Yet, horror to tell, these foundations are dominated by men, not women. Feminism, ostensibly dedicated to "smashing the Patriarchy," is bankrolled by the Patriarchy.
* A 1990 report by Women and Foundations/Corporate Philanthropy found that 23% of foundations surveyed had no women or people of color as trustees. Furthermore, women of color made up only 5% of all foundation trustees.
* 71% of foundation members are male. A similar bias exists among foundation directors. At 14%, women are better represented among chief executive officers of foundations, but they tend to head the smaller foundations. The largest independent foundations are headed by men.
If you take the time to really trace NGO funding, the faces change from radical chic hell raiser women gradually into very old white men.
Feminists drawing large salaries in universities and NGO's, all have these unseen sugar daddies. The rank and file don't know this. They're too busy picking on men who don't pull any more strings in this culture than they do.
Start with an organization's website and where possible, find who funds them, and the list of their board. Save to a notepad or word.doc. When you've collected a lot of donors names, most you won't recognize, some you will, but you'll see names crop up over and over again. They're not all American names either listed on these US foundations. You'll find many names listed in Who's Who in America consisting of mostly Anglo-Americans, Jews, and a smattering of Spanish, German, Italian, Japanese, and some Russian. But nationalities don't matter. What binds them more powerfully is that they're all Plutocrats.
When you have the names of the foundations that fund them upfront, check those foundations websites to find who their donors are. As you go, check each foundation with the Grants Foundation Index. This will tell you what other organizations they fund.
During the 20th century funding up through the 1970's feminist/population control organizations used to be relatively easy to trace to two 'prime mover' sources. These could be found either funding directly or through one or two 'conduit' foundations.
The big two were (are)
* Rockefeller Foundation (primarily funding US based feminism/population controller NGO's in the Western hemisphere.)
* Carnegie Foundation (US based international NGO's)
Sure, I agree that all Patriarchies are not being "Broken" equally.
The poor working class send their children to public schools where the only males around are the men frisking students for knives at the door.Over the last 30 years the New gender feminists have removed males from public schools, and in effect have turned them into schools full of out of control kids in a perpetaul underclass of matriarchal violence.
Has anyone read this tripe?
Feministing Blog: 'Boys Crisis, Men's Violence Against Women one of the same'
http://community.feministing.com/2010/04/boys-crisis-mens-violence-agai.html#more
What BS!
"However, if we wish to progress as a movement within the feminist community, if we wish to truly empower women, more emphasis needs to be placed on working with men and boys, to give them the emotional tools to deal with the struggles of being inundated with messages about gender roles that are ultimately harmful to themselves, and to women. After all, what good is the feminist movement that strives to empower women with choices, and succeeds in doing so legally and legislatively, yet, on personal levels, women still live in fear of the violence cast upon them?"
* * *
(Note that this feminist defines "violence" in such a way as to include "emotional violence" -- in other words, disagreeing with anything a feminist says!) Well, here's the problem, sweetie pie honey bunch:
#1/ The gender roles that men have to cope with WERE CREATED BY YOU PEOPLE. We are all a bunch of abusive, adolescent apes who can barely control our natural urges ACCORDING TO YOU AND YOUR TOTALITARIAN IDEALOGY.
#2/ You can't teach us tools for coping with the problems that you've created for us. You are emotional basket cases. The inmates of an asylum can't help the orderlies. In short, you can't teach us anything because YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
#3/ You will never be able to address the issues related to the dysfunctional boys you are producing (not MRAs, but criminals; the ones our prisons are clogged with) because the only way to raise a boy properly is in a traditional household -- a PATRIARCHIST CONSTRUCTION.
Get that? Patriarchy isn't the PROBLEM, it's the SOLUTION. The solution to the problems that were created by FEMINISM.
That should read "totalitarian ideology," sorry.
"if we wish to truly empower women, more emphasis needs to be placed on working with men and boys, to give them the emotional tools to deal with the struggles of being inundated with messages about gender roles that are ultimately harmful to themselves"
How very paternalistic.
How about this: YOU don't tell ME what harms ME; I tell YOU what harms ME?
Another reason it is harder to get men to cooperate for their own progress is that men are more individualistic and varied than women. Whereas women are herd creatures who tend to go along with whatever they think is socially acceptable or the done thing.
Getting women to all sing from the same hymn sheet is easy. Getting men to do so is a lot more difficult.
That's right.
Post a Comment