U Not Gonna Like This

I found this article several weeks ago (but lost it) and found it again days ago. I've been wanting to post this one for a long time but just couldn't find it. Now for yor reading pleasure an article from the Men's News Daily Archives:

Whiplash vs. Trueheart: The Politics of Melodrama

October 30, 2003

by Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.

The plot was simple: Snidely Whiplash versus Tom Trueheart for the love of Tess. Tess was young and desirable, torn between Whiplash and Trueheart.

It's a theme that's been played out before and since, but it took definitive shape in the American melodrama. Melodramas are not as popular
as they once were, but you can still find them at your
local dinner playhouse. And over at your local NOW headquarters.

Whiplash certainly had his appeal: wealth, power, cunning. He could provide much the fellow in the white hat could not. Inevitably Tess falls for Snidely, only
to realize it's a Faustian bargain. Yes, he's rich, but he desires her more than he loves her, and when she begins to withdraw because she sees his true
character, he resolves that if he cannot have her, no man can.

So he ties her to the railroad track, where tons of steel would render her delicate form lifeless were it not for Tom, who rescues her at the last minute and
does in Snidely.

In the good old days, melodramas were about the personal choices made by men and women.

For women, it was a choice between two types of men:

pure-hearted Tom or evil-hearted Snidely. Tom has a heart full of love but a wallet with more dreams than dollars. He loves Tess, for sure, but bad boys have
their appeal, so Tess picks Snidely.

For men, it was about what kind of man they wanted to be: Snidely or Tom, the villain or the hero. Snidely was a man who used his money and power to gain what he wanted, yet had no respect for women. Tom was a real man, the kind who respected women and treated them with respect. Not a SNAG, not a wimp, for he can take care of himself-but the kind of man a woman really wants because his heart his true.

The moral was simple. Women, choose the good guy. Men, choose to be the good guy-and good guy is good because he is good to women. He provides for and protects the woman he loves because he loves her. He is strong when
strength is needed and gentle when gentleness is needed. Just the type of man all men want to be. And the type all women want.

Of course, in the melodrama mercy and justice are doled out differently to men and women. Even though Tess chooses Snidely over Tom, she still hopes Tom
will rescue her from her tormentor, forgive her, and take her back. Tom does, of course, revealing the love in his heart that finds her more to be pitied than
censured. Tom doesn't hold her accountable for her mistake. Tess receives the mercy she deserves-largely, one suspects, because she is a woman.

Men, on the other hand, are accountable. Snidely is not simply forgiven and allowed to go away in peace; he loses his life at the hands of Tom, receiving the
justice he deserves.

All men want to be Tom Trueheart, to be the hero. All men also know there's a bit of Snidely Whiplash inside them, but that's why the choice matters. We can choose
to be Snidely or Tom, but most of us choose to be Tom. And the melodrama simply pointed out the wisdom of that choice. In the end, Tom, not Snidely, got the
girl.

This basic triangle of good guy vs bad guy for the love of a woman is very persistent, starting with Homer, when the Greeks take up arms against the
Trojans to bring back the fair Helen. In truth, most men despise wife beaters and rapists, and most men seek to protect women. And most men are very
uncomfortable fighting against women or finding they have to protect themselves from women. Men like to be the hero who saves the woman from the railroad track, but neither the victim nor the villain.

All of which is prelude to understanding that Snidely Whiplash of ideologies-modern, twenty-first century feminism.

Modern feminism turns women against men, turning the friendly battle of the sexes into full-scale war. It's a war men don't know how to fight, how to win, a war
that forces men to fight against women instead of for women. Of course, as the melodrama tells us, as soon as a man fights against a woman, he becomes Snidely
Whiplash. So if anyone opposes feminism, he's portrayed as a Snidely, a misogynist, a villain.

So how does feminism get men to do as it wants? By turning the melodramatic triangle into a political triangle: good politicians vs average schmuck for the
love of Tess.

Or at least her vote.

The feminist hero is a man with enough power to give women what they want: freedom from the consequences of their actions. To get the good politicians to do this, feminism portrays the average man as a wife beater, a deadbeat dad, an uncaring slob who hogs the remote, molests his kids, and only works to make money for himself. In short, the average man is Snidely Whiplash. The average politician is-or should be-Tom Trueheart, ready to rescue poor helpless women from the vile clutches of these everyday Snidelys.

It portrays women as Tess, tied to the railroad track waiting for the politician or the judge to come rescue her.

Even when she's tied herself to the railroad track. After all, a victim ideology needs victims. And the easiest way to become a victim is to make yourself
into one.

Feminism did not start a new game, but plays the same old game women have played for centuries. It's melodrama redux, poor Tess the helpless victim who is
not responsible for her actions expecting mercy from the man she rejected. But with a twist-the triangle now consists of woman, a man, and a powerful
politician.

That's why Bill Clinton is the iconic feminist politician. He treated his wife shabbily, his daughter worse, but the feminists adored him because he was
pro-choice.

And what do the feminists want? Primarily, as far as I can observe, choices without consequences. Freedom without responsibility. In a word, license.

That's why abortion is their flagship issue. Abortion means sex without consequences.

And what's their argument for abortion? Usually, compassion-for the woman who made the "mistake." Like Tess who selected Snidely over Tom, she's found
herself in a bit of a mess-and she needs rescuing by a friendly Supreme Court who will allow her to stay off that train due in nine months.

Abortion also denies the rights, even the humanity, of the other two parties-the unborn child and the father. By legal technicality, the unborn child has no rights.
By biological technicality, the father has no rights.

And that leads us to the primary triumph of feminism-that the needs of women trump the needs of men and children.

Most non-feminist societies are based on the following hierarchy of needs: the child's needs come first, the woman's needs come second, and the man's needs come last. It was because of this hierarchy that men went down with the Titanic.

In a feminist society, as the US has become, the needs of the woman comes first, the needs of the child comes second, and the needs of the man come last. In a
feminist society, the men and the children go down with the Titanic, the women get the lifeboats.

The feminists achieved this triumph with the oldest feminine game in the book. Like Tess in the melodrama, they played victim. No responsibility. No blame. No
guilt. Like Tess, they deserve only compassion and mercy.

It's a game that appeals to both liberal and conservative politicians. To liberals, it's about protecting and liberating women from the cruel Snidely
Whiplashes who ruin their lives. To conservatives, it's about dishing out justice to men who richly deserve it.

So men-at least the average, everyday Joe Sixpacks-are portrayed as, well, Joe Sixpacks, more interested in sports and beer and hogging the remote than in being loving husbands and fathers.

And yet most men are loving husbands and fathers, who do far more good than evil, who work longer hours than women, who die more frequently at work or on the battlefield, who give more time to their kids today than ever before.

But only by demonizing and denigrating men, by treating them legally as Snidely Whiplashes, can much of modern jurisprudence be justified.

Take domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act is based on the assumption that only men batter, yet studies show women are as likely to batter as men. And further, that women are more likely to abuse and murder their children than men. Yet when Andrea Yates killed her children, the feminists placed the blame on Mr. Yates.

And when Clara Harris murdered her husband, she still got custody of her kids-even though she's in a jail cell. Both were portrayed as victims.

Take divorce. Most divorces are initiated by mothers, who commonly receive the children, the bulk of marital property, and child support. Yet official policy is to
treat them as victims, to provide them with welfare and legal assistance, and to hound divorced fathers as "deadbeat dads." Women are treated as victims even
when they choose their victimhood.

Take work. Women benefit from affirmative action and are protected by sexual harassment laws. These make it easier from women to procure jobs and provide women greater protection, but it make it more difficult for men to procure jobs and provide men with less protection.

Take the military. Even though many women freely participated in Tailhook, only the men were held accountable.

The result is a system in which men feel increasingly alienated and in which women feel increasingly entitled, a system in which increasingly women have
rights without responsibilities and men have responsibilities without rights. No, we're not quite there yet-but the train is definitely headed down that
track.

Of course, the system is a house divided, and as it begins to fall, the government applies the only measures it has: money and force. It gives money to
the women and uses force on the men. Thus, a woman who can't support her kids is given welfare, but a man who can't support his kids is put in jail.

And yet the system has gone as far as it has because of a very basic reason: most men want to be and choose to be Tom Trueheart.

If the system rewards victims, canonizes victims, creates official classes of victims (mostly, women and minorities), then being a victim becomes desirable.

But men don't like to play victim. They prefer to play hero. And it's this very willingness to play hero that allows the system to continue. Men want to be the good guy in the white hat, often not recognizing that the system deems them the villain no matter what they do.

So they do the right thing, as men-at least true men-have always done. So the child support gets paid and the custody order gets obeyed, and the system
continues.

And though men can be victimized by women because women today have very real legal power-granted to them by Tom Trueheart politicians-men are very
uncomfortable in the role of victim. They don't like going to the legislatures and the judges with hats in hands to beg for relief.

They don't like being victims. They like being heroes.

And heroes never fight against women. Heroes fight to protect women and to provide for women. And to protect children and to provide for children.

And so men suck it up and do what The Man requires.

They play Tom Trueheart.

Because their other option is to play Snidely Whiplash.

By playing Snidely Whiplash they justify society's demonization of men-they are portrayed as angry men who deserve not to be heard. So many turn suicidal,
some turn homicidal, and others lapse into a half-life, their anger and hurt and sense of injustice muted by alcohol, drugs, sex, or too much work. Their
pain finds no voice.

But worse, the pain of children finds no voice.

After all, children don't vote. And women today have been seduced by a feminism that puts the needs of children second. Children easily become pawns to get
more entitlements-have children, play victim, get money.

Modern feminism has liberated women not so much by freeing them from the yoke of men, but by freeing them from the yoke of children.

You see, if women have responsibility for children, then women might have some restrictions on their freedom.

So, instead, the responsibility is placed on men, even when women make the choices.

If the children of divorce have problems, if the children of unwed mothers have problems, it's because men don't pay child support. Woman victim, man
villain.

If a single moms need childcare to work, the government provides that childcare. Woman victim, government rescuer.

It's the oldest con game in town-a free lunch. If you're a victim, you get a free lunch. To get a free lunch, become a victim.

Tie yourself to the railroad track, and trust you'll get rescued by some politician.

Sounds foolish, doesn't it?
It's exactly the kind of foolishness the melodrama warned against.

And exactly the kind of foolishness modern feminism embraces.