U Not Gonna Like This

I found this piece posted at the Amateur Strategist (link) and have decided to repost it here in full. Enjoy.



Novaseeker may not be one of my original inspirations, but he's definetly an asset to hang on to once discovered. His realism and sensibility are hard to match, and the fact that he can put MRA in a religious perspective is a plus (Most of what I see is from Atheists or those who just avoid a religious context, that is, how to fight for Men's rights when you come from a white-knighting, collaborationist church). One of his few weaknesses is that he can be too pessimistic of the future. This piece itself speaks to me, there's no new content for myself, but it connects dots and puts things into words I had trouble with. Without further intro, I present Novaseeker's "Equality Redux"

This is a post I made on my blog several months ago, which I am resurrecting because it may be of interest to readers here.

Equality.


We often hear from feminists and their supporters that this is the goal of the feminist movement: true, full equality between males and females, and full freedom for all, in all walks of life. While I do not doubt that some of the Marxist radicals of the 60s and 70s honestly believed that feminism was aimed at bringing about equality for all, clearly feminism-in-fact — that is feminism as it has developed over the past few decades — has neither brought about, nor been terribly focused on, equality.

Oh? How can you say that? Haven’t women made great “gains” over the past few decades? Surely this brings about more equality?

It’s true that women have made gains in educational access and the workforce. But even these gains are quite revealing, in terms of new inequalities that feminism has instituted:

Women outnumbering men in college admissions and graduations, based on girls outperforming boys in elementary and secondary schools

Women having parity or majorities in all academic disciplines other than the STEM subjects, a disparity which is now the focus of measures to adjust it, while areas of female advantage and, in fact, domination, are ignored

Women virtually always obtaining custody of children in divorces, even in cases where their husbands have been the primary care-giver

Numerous fields being completely female-dominated (nursing, psychology, social work, primary and secondary education, numerous academic disciplines), with feminism not expressing any interest in adjusting such inequalities

And that leaves aside the substantial inequalities around reproduction that effectively give women totalitarian power over the means of reproduction, sidelining men as having only the decision as to whether to contribute sperm — so far, yet that right may itself be eradicated at some future point, in the interests of women and society, under some predictions.

What happened here? Why did feminism not succeed in its utopian goal of achieving “equality” between men and women?

The issue was that academic and radical activist feminism had to, at some point, come to terms with the concerns of women as a whole — and women as a whole had largely different interests from the academic and radical activist feminists. While the radicals and the academics sometimes talked about getting rid of female privilege (saying things such as “a pedestal is a small space”), this was never taken seriously by women as a whole, because the wider world of women had no interest whatsoever in shedding female privileges. Why would they? As Chinweizu points out in “Anatomy of Female Power”, these privileges and ideas were the ones that helped women control men behind the mask of patriarchal power and privilege. So, in fact, women as a group took a “cafeteria” approach to what feminism offered — taking what they wanted, and resisting what they did not want.

In effect, this meant that women accepted the gains women made in the areas of educational access, workforce presence and earning capacity, sexual freedom, reproductive power and so on — while resisting, tooth and nail, the abolition of any of the traditional female privileges (courtship and dating privilege, sexual power, military draft exemption, day to day deference, general conceptions of women being more moral, upstanding, empathetic, kind and so on, privileges around children). So, in effect, what happened was that the feminist leaders learned that women, as a whole, were interested in advances for women (as were the feminist radicals), but were not interested at all in giving up their traditional privileges. And so, in order to remain politically relevant for women, feminism largely confined itself, beginning in the 80s, to advancing the interests of women, rather than even attempting to achieve actual equality between men and women.

Because of that, we see the women’s groups thoroughly disinterested in the advantages women have over men outlined above. Where women are ahead, feminism defends the status quo, while where women are behind, feminism demands changes to ensure parity or better for women. The end result is that women will have parity in some fields, and domination in others … while men will have at best parity, and in many areas relegation to minority status. This is not only the case on the university level. It’s also happening in the workforce and the society in general. Women choose the fields they wish to focus on, and then they tend to dominate them. Men are increasingly relegated to the kinds of work women do not want to do — work that is either physically demanding, dirty and dangerous, or involves less life flexibility or longer working hours. And as between what was, prior to second wave feminism, the male sphere and the female sphere — women have consolidated their stranglehold over the female sphere while aggressively colonizing the male sphere … again leaving men with no space of their own, while reserving for women a huge space where their power is absolute.

In effect, one can say that when feminists speak of “equality” what they mean is equality in what was previously the male space. The female space was, by contrast, shored up by laws supported by feminism — laws covering the areas of marriage, divorce, child custody, child support, sexual harassment, and even domestic violence and rape, have all been altered in ways that decisively shift the power balance in any area relating to relationships, sex, marriage and children to women in a very substantial way. Equality was not the goal for the female space, but only for the male one. The female space, and female hegemony over it, was reinforced and substantially buttressed by feminist legislation, whereas the previously male space has been aggressively colonized, and it remains a key goal of feminists today to take over the highest echelons of power in the previously male space — again leaving men with nothing, no place where their power even comes close to the kind of total power women have over the female space.

Women may object, saying that they would be happy to cede a good amount of control over the female space to men in the name of equality, but this rings false. Even leaving aside the more controversial areas of rape and domestic violence law, family law indicates that this is simply not the case. There have been numerous cases noted by observers where a breadwinner mother and a stay at home father have divorced, yet the mother still insisted on mother custody, and succeeded in obtaining it in court. Even in cases where men are actually providing the main child care effort, courts, backed by feminist-inspired laws, award custody to mothers — ensuring that the power of women over children and divorce is absolute in nature.

This is hardly equality.

In fact, it’s female supremacy over all places where men and women interact relationally, combined with female colonization of the previously male space. It isn’t equality in any reasonable construction of the word, but an absolute power gain for women, at the expense of men, who are to be left with no space of their own, and a relegation to second class status in the female space as well.

In closing, I’ll note that it’s quite telling how this overall trend manifests itself in contemporary culture. Some of my readers may recall that feminists spent a lot of time and energy in the 80s and 90s eliminating male-only spaces, claiming the exclusion of women was discriminatory. Well, things in our species have a way of coming full circle. The recent trend of women’s only hotel floors — the creation of the type of sex-specific spaces that feminists so recently dismantled, when men were the “permitted” sex — almost perfectly demonstrates how feminism, and women more generally, are totally uninterested (in fairness, at least one feminist objected to these arrangements, but most women do not) in equality or exclusions, when men are the ones who are excluded or disadvantaged. Rather to the contrary, the movement today is simply about empowering women full stop, and if men suffer as a result of that, men be damned.

Posted at The Spearhead

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/05/equality-redux/

Here's another one for you. (Man, oh man, they're comming from everywhere nowadays aren't they?)

Rebuking Feminism

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/

Another blog to add to your bookmarks.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

http://antifeministtech.blogspot.com

Apparently much has happened in my absence. A magazine that maybe of interest to men called
The Spearhead maintained by Welmer , Whiskey, Elusive Wapiti, Ferdinand Berdamu, and Prime.
You ccan visit thier magazine at the link below:


http://www.the-spearhead.com

Here's a new guy on the block by the name of Nova Seeker:

Here's his current home at Wordpress:

http://novaseeker.wordpress.com/


Here's his archives:

http://novaseeker.blogspot.com/

Save Indian Family is a strong team of dedicated families comprising of victims of "misuse of 498a", including NRIs, Senior citizens who campaign and create awareness about gross injustice and abuse that happen in Indian Legal system.



We specifically fight against:



1) Abuse of old and sick people, especially by Legal means when
they are arrested and put in jail (without investigation) just by one
line of false complaint by their daughter-in-law. We want this law
for daughter-in-law section 498a to be changed.



2) Counsellors from NGOs forcing men to diswon parents and live as
slaves of their wives and in-laws.



3) Large scale Techie-NRI bashing by NGOs and by Media without
considering their great contribution to making India a global power.



4) Draconian laws which are abused by dishonest daughter-in-law to
victimise innocent mothers and unmarried sisters.



5) Daughter-in-laws mentally and physically harassing old, sick in-
laws and not providing them with proper food and healthcare.



6) We fight against NGOs/feminists who support jailing of old and
sick innocent people without investigations under section 498a.



Save Indian Family Foundation


http://www.saveindianfamily.org

This Digest will expose the loopholes and ambiguities in Indian Laws followed by our Legal System. It will empower citizens to be cautious of such laws.

On the topic of sexual harassment he posted these comments:


Women groups are really going at it. They are working more aggressively when they realized that now people aren’t blindly accepting their legal provision to protect women’s so-called ‘rights’. People are now opposing their biased laws. Their deception is exposed now. Women groups have already made a perfect formula in the name of IPC 498A and Domestic Violence Bill to ruin Indian families, and now they have their sight on the corporate world. They have shown to the people that women’s so-called rights are all about violation of fundamental rights of men. IPC 498A is rampantly misused, Domestic Violence Bill is open to heavy misuse and this sexual harassment at workplace law, too is composed in a manner appropriate for misuse. Women groups are not interested in protecting actual victims; they want to harass men legally.

You can check out the rest of his post here. (link)


Indian Laws

http://indianlaws.blogspot.com

Remeber in my last post I made mention of that fact that feminism seems to care so much for blacks.. Well, in the comments section of NY Bucks last post (MRA Equals Misogyny Homophobia and Racism) Khankrumthebulgar made this statement:



My younger Friend. I have watched what has transpired between the Genders for 5 decades now. Nothing has changed in Men, except our love for Women has been turned to an adaption to survive our interactions with them. What Angry Harry has postulated should be recognized.




US Feminism is Lesbianism. Lesbians compete with Men for Sexually desireable Women. Especially younger Females. They hate and dispise Men. Yet our Women seem to ignore the obvious. Life is not all about them.



Men have been reduced to disposable Beasts of Burden. The Duke LaCrosse case being a prime example. How can Men be in control aka. "The Patriarchy" when White Affluent Males are nearly destroyed and subject to 30 years in Prison on an accusation without merit by a Whore? And worse yet a Whore who changed her story 12 times? And could not remember ever being penetrated?



Men are responding to survival instinct. Heather needs to get a clue. Look at reality or go to hell. Black Men have been the recepients of a cruel social experiement, now foisted on all Men. The wholesale removal of Men from the family, with disasterous results. There can be no real Men's Rights Movement, unless Whites speak up for our Brothers of Color. Too many who languish in Prisons, the products of single Mother homes by White Liberals.




Khankrumthebulgar




Another commenter would answer Khankrum with these comments:

Ninjas 4 Jebus said...

"Men are responding to survival instinct. Heather needs to get a clue. Look at reality or go to hell. Black Men have been the recepients of a cruel social experiement, now foisted on all Men. The wholesale removal of Men from the family, without disasterous results. There can be no real Men's Rights Movement, unless Whites speak up for our Brothers of Color. Too many who languish in Prisons, the products of single Mother homes by White Liberals."

I find this genuinely distressing. Do you really think you see an element of racism in this mess? I am a white man, and I can assure you that such is not the case! Men of all races are suffering under this wicked and unnatural ssytem! Come on over to my house, Khankrumthebulgar, where you will drink my beer and we can discuss this in a more relaxed fashion. Deal?


Well where does Khan get the idea that there's racism in feminism...


I'll tell you where from this article at International Mens Network :

Book Review

"Women of the Klan – Racism and Gender in the 1920's"
by Kathleen M. Blee
University of California Press, 1992
ISBN 0-520-07876-4 (ppb.)

Available online at www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/5625.html

We often hear about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Suffragettes being the source of the women's rights movement. This has been repeated so frequently that the public believes this to be the true, veritable source of the present-day feminist movement.



"Women of the Klan" proves this to be untrue. Many of the Suffragettes, as we find out, were also deeply involved in the WKKK until well after passage of the 19th amendment. In political terms, women banded together in the WKKK to get the vote, using it to "blackmail" support from their husbands in the KKK.

Because this odd amalgamation, legitimate interests of women became dangerously poisoned with the sick paranoid agenda of the Klan, a problem that the legitimate women's movement has never come to terms with. (A point for understanding: In the present day, we do see a legitimate egalitarian women's movement hard at work, but its effectiveness is overwhelmed by the highly empowered radical feminist movement which over the years has gender-baited itself into a fortune in federal funding and the power that goes with it. We must now all come to terms with the fact that the radical feminist movement is an extremely dangerous movement, no less reprehensible than the racist movement, and these organizations and individuals must be called out on the carpet and rejected).

Observations and Conclusions:

"Women of the Klan" unquestionably demonstrates that racism was, and still is, first rooted in sexism. Despite the fact that public policy has been disinfected of the tangible appearance of racism, underlying sexist policies continue to run rampant in America's federal and state laws, driving discrimination against men of all races, but with a somewhat stronger impact on black males.

Today's black men are hit with with a "double whammy". While black men might not be discriminated against initially because of skin color, the sexual fears of black men operate strongly to assume that a black woman with a child is a victim who should be showered with public assistance programs, and the black man persecuted economically to support his own social demise. The welfare state has been segregating the black family actively for nearly forty years with devastating effect on family structures and mistrust between black men and women.



The substantial size of the gender segregation problem has resulting in deeply reinforced beliefs that black men are irresponsible, untrustworthy, sexual predators of women. These beliefs have become so extreme that a surprisingly large collection of public policy makers have called for the creation of "women only" welfare housing in which men are not allowed to live or even enter. It is this "sexism" and sex-segregation within the black community which directly prevents further advancement of the civil rights movement, sustainable economic advancement for the black community, and forms the dysfunctional basis of today's twisted style of "racist politics".



Due to the continuing work of the descendants of the WKKK, radical feminist public policy has been generically expanded to encompass all men, using the same gender-baiting tactics used by the KKK to destroy the families and civil rights of blacks. This expansion continues not only to disguise discrimination in the black community while keeping community morals, morale, and apathy at record levels; it has actively moved into all classes irregardless of race.



There's also this article from David R. Usher:

In a Wall Street Journal editorial “White Guilt and the Western Past -- Why is America so delicate with the enemy? Shelby Steele suggests that America’s inability to fight war effectively was caused by “the world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy and even sovereignty.”

Shelby’s theory is wrong. The collapse of white moral authority is not the problem.

The replacement of male authority with feminism is. To Steele’s credit -- he was gazing in the general right direction – but missed the real target. In America, there is one place where white supremacy and radical feminism existed: The Ku Klux Klan.

The crucial relationship Shelby missed is this: post-modern feminism (which has clearly admitted to being a supremacist movement) is the living granddaughter of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK), where second-wave feminism (as we know it today) was gestated and borne.

It is important to recognize that the WKKK was not in the mainstream of the suffragette movement, but did strongly support it.

Other articles on the subject of the Women's Klan and feminism:



Indiana History Women of the WKKK Documents

The Encyclopedia of Arkansas Women of the Ku Klux Klan (WKKK)

What Men are saying about Women. Feminism started in the WKKK

The Politics of Sex 1923

Dads Now Women of The Klan



So there you have it, proof that feminism does indeed have racism in it.

Until next time.....


Realted Post:

The 20th Century Anti-feminist movement

It's More Than Just Black and White

Again from Outcast Superstar's Happy Bachelor's forum:

All Men Should Not Marry
Thread Started on Sept 8, 2007, 8:58am

Here is a masterpiece written by tiredofit on the Don't Get Married Board.



Young men shouldn't marry... because they have their talents, dreams, and future to utilize. Women will marry young men as a sort of "down payment", a future retirement plan.



Old men shouldn't marry... because of their assets and wealth to be taken, and older women resemble mummies. Young women marry old men for the money when he dies.



Poor men shouldn't marry... because they will forever remain a wage slave, working, working, working, until the day he dies or retires in his sixties. If she divorces, he is enslaved to child support payments and often kicked out of his own house.



Rich men shouldn't marry... because most of the women will be gold diggers. During the marriage, she will siphon off much assets and wealth her way. If a divorce comes, she will take off with a good chunk of the cash.



Men with dreams shouldn't marry... because the wife will stomp on those dreams and say that your purpose on Earth is to please her. You should either be pleasing her or making money for her to spend. Dreams are for children, dear.



Men without dreams shouldn't marry... because all the pleasures you take in life, be it fishing, hunting, gaming, motorcycling, or football, will be diminished greatly if not removed entirely. Your hobbies become 'guilt trips' while your wife's hobbies become 'quality time'.



Religious men shouldn't marry... because marriage has nothing at all to do with being religious. Jesus didn't marry. Monks don't marry. Churches are not men's friends. Every church allows tons of divorces including Catholic Churches (under the skyrocketing annulments).



Non-religious men shouldn't marry... because you are getting married to the government. If you say, "That is absurd! Married to the government? Ho ho! I am married to my woman!" then watch how the State falls upon your head when a divorce comes. "But I will never become divorced!" Then you get to remain in the Government sanctioned sex program that is called "Marriage".


What!



You don't think it is a government program? Try having sex outside of marriage. You may get away with it for a while... until a child appears and you get slammed with child support. You could co-habitate, yes, but the state will declare you two married and then you become "institutionalized" into marriage. Threats to the government sex program, i.e. marriage, such as prostitution is attacked and removed at every point.


And the reason why the "free sex" exists out there in the first place is for the women, not the men, which is why media and even men say that getting laid is 'getting lucky' as if women have bestowed a favor on the guy.



What does all this mean?



It means DO NOT MARRY. It is not because women have a self-interest in regards to marriage. It is because male interests in marriage have been legislated out of existence. In Church, male interests have been moralized out of existence (while her interests are extolled).



Culturally, you will always be seen as a loser. Despite the gain of fame or wealth, you still remain a loser... only a USEFUL loser. Society will re-configure itself so that women are right... always... and forever... If a law says women should go to jail for murder... well, the courts will say, "She was distressed. It could not have been her fault," and behold how the woman goes free. If a woman is in an argument, society and everyone will shift so the woman, in question, is right. If religion contradicts women, those parts of the religion will be left out. If history contradicts women then history will be re-edited so women are right. If Nature contradicts women (STDs, cervical cancer, can't have children when 40), it is declared a "social crisis" and scientists are set to task of "fixing" the problem.




Not marrying won't make you free and happy. But it will keep you from the shackles. You may think being lonely and single is misery, but it is paradise compared to the TRUE MISERY of marriage.



Don't Marry!

More on the site from the FAQ section:


The purpose of NoMarriage.com website is to allow men to better understand two very important issues that get very little attention:

# 4 out of 5 men regret marrying.



Divorce rate is around 60%. Majority of remaining married men are stuck in sexless marriages with nagging and bitching wives, but they choose not to divorce because they are afraid of being wiped out financially during divorce. Furthermore, majority of relatively happy marriages are among very religious people, people choosing to live a simple lifestyle, people living in the rural South/Midwest, and recent Hispanic immigrants. If you are a normal American guy living in a large metropolitan area marrying a normal college-educated American woman who is looking for the American dream (a nice house, kids, good life), then you are extremely likely to either get divorced or trapped in a miserable marriage.

How/why did you start the website?


Around the year 2000 I was in my late 20s and I noticed that almost all American women around me are either already mentally unstable, or they become mentally unstable after marriage. So married men are forced to live their lives constantly trying to please their wife's ever-evolving needs and wants, as well as constantly trying to prove and validate themselves to their wives. I started doing surveys and researching it further. I then put together the website and wrote the book. This whole thing is a public service announcement more than anything else.



No Marriage

http://www.nomarriage.com

This article comes via Father Magazine:


Deceptions of a
"Gender Equal Society"
by Robert Sheaffer


It is now clear beyond any possibility of doubt that the supposed 'gender-equal society of the Montagnais-Naskapi', which is cited in feminist circles as one of the best evidences of a supposed "nonpatriarchal society", has absolutely no basis in fact. It was the deliberate deception of a Marxist feminist, created out of selective quotation and misrepresentation, yet uncritically accepted by her feminist readers. The fact remains that all present and past human societies are patriarchal, in spite of the many feminist lies and half-truths invented to obscure this. Indeed, the ease with which academic feminists will resort to deception to bolster claims such as this one about vanished "nonpatriarchal societies" is perhaps the best reason to doubt their claim that future societies will be nonpatriarchal.

You can read the reast of the article here...

A web log dedicated to getting the word out about abused boys and men:

Toy Soldier

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/

More about this site from the FAQ section:

Qusetion: Why did you start this website?





Answer: Although I never felt comfortable with the whole idea of daycare, I kept my opinion to myself.


As time went on, however, I became fed up with people continually hounding me to place my kids in day-care. I began to look for information to defend my decision.


The last straw came after my sister's eldest son suffered multiple compound fractures and his little sister almost died from a severe infection while attending daycare at a state-of-the-art facility at a prestigious university!


This got me so upset that I decided to put the information I collected on the Web, so that parents could easily find out about the serious problems with day care.





Day Cares Don't Care

http://www.daycaresdontcare.org

Articles on feminism from the Eagle Forum:

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/Feminism/index.shtml

This I came across while surfing some anti-feminist site. Here's the explanation for the webpages existence :


The SCUM Manifesto was published in New York City in 1967. The author, Valerie Solanas, later became famous for her attempted murder of Andy Warhol. This writing epitomizes (with artistic exaggeration) the fundamental attitude of radical feminism toward the male sex. It is replete with miscellaneous foreshadowings of themes and concepts that have been voiced by a variety of feminists over the years.



Most present-day feminists would deny that Solanas was herself a feminist. Yet plenty of declared feminists in the past have spoken highly of Solanas, and her work has been widely reprinted and anthologized in feminist publications. A movie called "I Shot Andy Warhol" is based upon the events of Valerie Solanas's life, and is widely available on DVD.



Millions of people have never even heard of Valerie Solanas and the SCUM Manifesto, and we believe that this state of affairs needs to be corrected. If you share that opinion, then we would like to enlist your help in making this author and her work universally famous to ALL people from ALL walks of life, EVERYWHERE.



Here's the site:



The SCUM Manifesto - by Valerie Solanas



http://snipurl.com/17lw2

The horror we all instinctively feel at these stories is the intuitive recognition that men are not uniform, that the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality.


An egalitarian society can only hope to achieve its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion; and, even here, we all believe and hope the human spirit of individual man will rise up and thwart any such attempts to achieve an ant-heap world. In short, the portrayal of an egalitarian society is horror fiction because, when the implications of such a world are fully spelled out, we recognize that such a world and such attempts are profoundly antihuman; being antihuman in the deepest sense, the egalitarian goal is, therefore, evil and any attempts in the direction of such a goal must be considered evil as well.

The above except comes from an article found at Lew Rockwell.com debunking the theory of equality. (Hat Tip: tba) If you would like to read the rest just visit Lew Rockwell's site to see the entire article:

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

by Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html

From Father's Unite (link):


By Free Congress Foundation: Stephen Baskerville on May 11, 2006



A problematic question for the next conservatism is the politics of “gender” (formerly known as sex). It is also urgent.



A critical change in the Left over the last few decades has been the shift from the economic to the social and increasingly the sexual. What was once a semi-socialistic attack on property and enterprise has become a social and sexual attack on the family, marriage and masculinity.



The consequences are incalculable. No ideology in human history has been potentially so invasive of the private sphere of life as Feminism. Communists had little respect for privacy. Feminists have made it their main target.



Like other radical movements, only more so, Feminism’s danger comes not so much from the assault on freedom (which traditional tyrannies also threaten) but specifically from the attack on private life, especially family life (which traditional dictatorships usually leave alone). “Radical Feminism is totalitarian because it denies the individual a private space; every private thought and action is public and, therefore, political,” writes Former Judge and Solicitor General Robert H. Bork. “The party or the movement claims the right to control every aspect of life.”



The Left’s brilliant move has been to clothe its attack on the family as a defense of “women and children.” Marian Wright Edelman openly acknowledges she founded the Children’s Defense Fund to push a Leftist agenda: “I got the idea that children might be a very effective way to broaden the base for change.” This climaxed in the Clinton Administration, in which radical policy innovations were invariably justified as “for the children.” Using children to leverage an expansion of state power by eliminating family privacy is succinctly conveyed in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s aphorism, “There is no such thing as other people’s children.”



This nationalization of the family under the guise of protecting it leaves pro-family politicians in a difficult position. One way out is to join in the demonization of those who literally embody the Feminists’ hated “patriarchy” - fathers. Relabeled “deadbeat dads,” “batterers” and “pedophiles,” fathers are now railroaded into jail through methods one recent scholar, writing in the RUTGERS LAW REVIEW, calls a “due process fiasco” and Bryce Christensen says is leading to a “police state.”



Knee-jerk calls to “get tough” on criminals have unintended consequences when the penal apparatus has been commandeered by ideologues who redefine criminality to include an assortment of gender offenses that bear little relation to what most Americans understand as crime.



The evolution of the Justice Department’s Office of Victims of Crime illustrates the deception. Proceeding from President Ronald Reagan’s 1982 Task Force on Victims of Crime, this agency has since been hijacked by Feminists, and most of the “crimes” have been redefined in Feminist terms. By definition, the “victims” are all women, the “perpetrators” are all men and the “crimes” are mostly political: sexual harassment, date “rape” (which is seldom rape), domestic “violence” (that is not violent), child abuse (that may be ordinary parental discipline), “stalking” (fathers trying to see their children), and so forth.



Far from softening the hard edges of male-dominated power politics, Feminism has inserted calculations of power into the most private corners of life and subjected family life to bureaucratic control. This is what makes the dream of a more “caring” public sphere through Feminism not only naïve but dangerously utopian. For as Feminists correctly pointed out, the feminine functions were traditionally private; politicizing the feminine has therefore meant politicizing private life. This is why the “totalitarian” potential which Bork senses is already being realized.



“All politics is on one level sexual politics,” writes George Gilder. At least sexual politics is the logical culmination of all radical politics, which is the politics that has defined modern history.



More than any other threat, Feminism demands that the next conservatism examine conservatives’ own reflexes and habits in a world in which radical assumptions have permeated well beyond the ranks of Leftist ideologues. It demands that a new conservative agenda challenges not just this doctrine or that, but the very concept of a politics defined by ideologies, activists, organizations, opinion-mongers, and a professional political class for whom politics is all-consuming (even when we agree with them). The next conservatism must try to recover a civic life of citizens, householders, parents, churches and synagogues, local communities, and values that transcend political calculation. Czech - dissident and later



President Vaclav Havel called this “apolitical politics”: a world where, contrary to Feminists and Communists and all ideologues, the personal is not political.





Stephen Baskerville is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. The views expressed are his own. http://www.acfc.org/