OU to pay $225,000 in sexual harassment settlement
WDTN - Dayton,OH,USA
... Ohio University will pay $225000 to a former student who said the school dragged its heels when she accused an art professor of sexual harassment. ...
There have been some men involved in MRM who dislike the term feminazi. They feel it's wrong and cheapens the memories of victims of the Genocide during World War 2. However, there is some interesting insight on why the term feminazi might not be too far off the mark.
This from Exposing Feminism:
‘A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.’ - Gloria Steinem
The famous feminist author is raising an interesting point here, but it’s not the obvious point in relation to Playboy magazine.
Feminist speakers often use nazi imagery in their rhetoric. It’s an easy way to stir up passion in the listener - there are few who are ambivalent of the horrors of World War Two.
I would like to draw my own parallel.
A perpetuation of a myth of national victimhood was one of the tools the Nazi party used to push its agenda forward.
Contrary views were quickly silenced, first with derison, then with force.
This ’victimhood’ inspired a great zeal that led many people to do terrible things in the name of ‘revenge’, or ‘righteousness’ - or, in other words, because at the time these actions were deemed ‘politically correct’.
Does any of this sound a little like feminism to you?
More from this post:Recently I received “A Message From Liberal Opposition Leader Stephane Dion” entitled “Conservatives Turn Their Backs on Women’s Rights.” (View the full article)
The pamphlet is an obvious campaign tactic to woo women voters to the Liberal Party. Mr. Dion’s message focuses on attacking the Conservatives’ treatment of the Federal Government Agency the Status of Women Canada. The largest text in the message, other than Mr. Dion’s name, is a quote from Mr. Dion reading “Without gender equality, we cannot have a safe and secure society.”
This is completely bogus.
First, what is “gender equality?”
Stealing yet another post from the MGTOW Forum:
Mark
Nov 29 2007, 01:46 AM
Folks,
This post is not mine; I wish it were, because it is so good. It's from Lech Walesa's Fax Machine, a blog written by Bryce; you can find his blog in my link list. Unfortunately, he hasn't updated his blog in a long, long time; that's a pity, because he had many good things to say. At least he hasn't taken down his blog, nor has he announced plans to do so. I'd like to save this post, and preserve it for posterity in case he does. Anyway, Bryce makes an excellent case for the thesis that feminism is harmful to EVERYBODY, and indeed it is.
In the near future, I will repost this post, but I'll do so with my comments inserted amongst Bryce's thoughts. I have a lot to say in response to his points. Before doing so, I'd like to feature this post on its own. Usually, if I feature an article, I intersperse my comments throughout the article, while furnishing a link to the article for those who wish to read it sans my comments. That said, given the rash of blogs that have closed during the year, I'm concerned that a similar fate will befall Lech Walesa's Fax Machine. Therefore, I'm posting his piece by itself now; in the near future, I'll repost this piece with my comments. Thank you, and enjoy!
I won't rehash the whole notion that feminism is at its core a totalitarian hate movement akin to Nazism, Communism, or Islamic radicalism. Even so, those who make this comparison have overlooked one particular commonality between these movements/ideologies.
Feminism is like Nazism, Communism, or Islamic radicalism in that innocent Germans, Russians, and Muslims who wanted nothing to do with these dysfunctional ideologies were nonetheless tarred with the same broad brush as those who subscribed to them and had to pay the same price in treasure, blood, sweat, and tears as the "true believers."
Perhaps the greatest harm done by feminists is the harm done to women who are opposed to feminism and women who want a traditional lifestyle.
So, what kind of harm is feminism doing to women? Specifically, how are men responding to feminism and how are men's responses making life worse for even non-feminist women?
1. Many men are making the very rational, but untrue assumption that all women subscribe to feminism tenets. So many men think that every Western woman hates him and will disrespect him, just because he's male.
2. Just as as feminists treat men as potential abusers and rapists, men are treating women as potential plaintiffs and false accusers. This means that men are wary of any type of business and professional involvement with women as employees, supervisors, business partners, tenants, co-tenants, proteges, clients, etc.
3. Men are increasingly avoiding marriage and even cohabitation, leaving women who desire a loving relationship with a man alone.
4. The flood of women into the workforce has doubled the supply of labor while the demand for labor has stayed the same and even decreased. This means that real wages have stagnated or fallen. At the same time, the cost of living has gone up because of the increased demand for transport, real estate, etc. Therefore, many women who work
have no choice but to do so.
5. Men are eschewing the feminists educational establishment. Fewer men with advanced education means fewer educated men for women to partner with.
6. Men are "taking it easy" and leaving women to be high-achievers without the"acvhievement" of a loving family.
7. Men are abandoning the corporate rat race for entrepreneurship. They're not hiring women because of #2.
8. Men are paying fewer dollars into the tax coffers to be doled out to women.
9. Men at the low end of the economic totem pole see that they are no match for the welfare state as providers. Low-income women are therefore stuck raising their families alone.
10. A few men are choosing to leave the Western Hemisphere entirely to live in man-friendly Eastern societies. This means fewer men around in general for women to partner with.
At the same time, feminists have directly harmed women in several ways:
1. Feminists have suckered women to buy into the notion that having a loving family is not a goal worth pursuing. Sadly, women who want a loving family can't have one.
2. Feminists have duped women into denying their biology in terms of their natural desire for hearth and home and in terms of the time limits on their fertility.
3. Feminists have conned women into thinking that they are so equal to men that they can enlist in the military with no ill effects to themselves or the military.
4. Feminists have infiltrated and debased academia such that a degree in the humanities is worth less and less in the marketplace.
5. Feminists have misled women that all men are dangerous, causing women to inadvertently make themselves unapproachable to men.
6. Feminists have ignored men's physical and psychological health needs and encouraged women to do the same, leaving women widowed or left with damaged or dysfunctional husbands.
7. Feminists have encouraged men and women to compete with each other when they really want to cooperate with each other.
8. Feminists have oversexualized society much to the dismay of modest women.
9. Feminists have shoehorned women into roles that they aren't well suited for, leading men to suspect all women of being incompetent.
10. Finally, feminists have cast conscience, morality, and ethics as victimization and oppression, thus coarsening society's morality and exposing innocent women to immoral activities.
In short, women who aren't feminists will end up alone and miserable because of the actions of a few highly dysfunctional people. That is why non-feminist women are critical to resisting the onslaught of feminism. posted by Bryce at 12:19 PM
More link bait. I just got this from a low-fi version of the MGTOW Forum:
This is a must-read site for all those folks interested in the sordid details of how feminists have doctored and continue to doctor statistics to suit their own agenda.
Breaking The Science
http://www.breakingthescience.org
You may have seen this before on other MRM forums and blogs. However, for the benifit of those new to the scene I'm going to repost the catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics. That way you'll know where the anti-male trolls on these forums and blogs are comming from.
"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Men's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists (aka mangians) use them, too.
Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man's insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.
Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men's issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.
Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable. Examples:
* "You're bitter!"
* "You need to get over your anger at women."
* "You are so negative!"
Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.
Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women. Examples:
* "You need to get over your fear."
* "Step up and take a chance like a man!"
* "You're afraid of a strong woman!"
Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and &%^&*&^%. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis.
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing "Chicken Little"). Examples:
* "Stop whining!"
* "Get over it!"
* "Suck it up like a man!"
* "You guys don't have it as nearly as bad as us women!"
* "You're just afraid of losing your male privileges."
* "Your fragile male ego ..."
* "Wow! You guys need to get a grip!"
Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male. Examples:
* "Grow up!"
* "You are so immature!"
* "Do you live with your mother?"
* "I'm not interested in boys. I'm interested in real men."
* "Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children."
Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) - The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target. Examples:
* "You guys are scary."
* "You make me feel afraid."
Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man's legitimate freedom of expression.
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) - The Sour Grapes Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems. Example:
* "You are just bitter because you can't get laid."
Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) - The Brown Shirts Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples:
* "You're one of those right-wing wackos."
* "You're an extremist"
* "You sound like the KKK."
* "... more anti-feminist zaniness"
Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").
Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question. Examples:
* "Are you gay?"
* "I need a real man, not a sissy."
* "You're such a wimp."
Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women. Examples:
* "I'm not like that!"
* "Stop generalizing!"
* "That's a sexist stereotype!"
Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men. Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.
Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples:
* "You misogynist creep!"
* "Why do you hate women?"
* "Do you love your mother?"
* "You are insensitive to the plight of women."
* "You are mean-spirited."
* "You view women as doormats."
* "You want to roll back the rights of women!!"
* "You are going to make me cry."
Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zero-sum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of "argumentum ad misericordiam" (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or "argumentum in terrorem" (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).
Charge of Instability (Code White) - The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable. Examples:
* "You're unstable."
* "You have issues."
* "You need therapy."
* "Weirdo!"
Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.
Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits. Examples:
* "You are so materialistic."
* "You are so greedy."
Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, "So you are saying I shouldn't spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you ---and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?"
Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) - The All-That-Glitters Charge
Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences. Examples:
* "If you didn't go after bimbos, then ..."
* "How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?"
Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, "high-maintanence" women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife).
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) - The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned. Examples:
* "I bet you are fat and ugly."
* "You can't get laid!"
* "Creep!"
* "Loser!"
* "Have you thought about the problem being you?"
Response: This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target's negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target's anger or fear, but on the target's supposed attitude of resignation. Examples:
* "Stop being so negative."
* "You are so cynical."
* "If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat."
* "C'mon! Men are doers, not quitters."
Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) - The Pink Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate. Examples:
* "No woman will marry you with that attitude."
* "Creeps like you will never get laid!"
Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Pink Whip" is to realize that a man's happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).
I've stolen yet another post. This time from Dump Your Wife Now who gives some good insight on understanding the minds of western women.
The key to understanding modern American women is to realize that, starting from a very early age, basically from about the time they start learning to talk, every event and experience in their lives takes on a very powerful emotional subtext. This is not to imply, of course, that men’s lives do not have emotional subtexts. It is merely to state that, for women, the emotional subtext of everyday events and experiences is often much more powerful than it is for men. For a woman, nearly everything that happens in her life, including things that most men would consider to be trivial or mundane, is heavily freighted with significant emotional meaning.
There are many important consequences to this, but for men, there are certain key implications that are very important to understand. One of these is that women are always “right”. By the time they reach early adulthood, at about the age of 25 or so, women develop a very strong sense of moral rectitude. They are certain they know what is good and bad, and what is true and false, because the feelings they have in their hearts and guts tell them so, and their feelings are always genuine, always valid, and always accurate, even if those feelings change 180 degrees from one moment to the next. When a woman “changes her mind”, she’s not really changing her mind. What really happened is that her feelings changed. And no matter how many times her feelings change, whatever she’s feeling right now, at this moment, is always “right”, because her feelings are always valid.
Now, part of this is our fault as men, because, when we’re young, we’re so overpowered by how beautiful so many of them are, and even when they’re not particularly beautiful, we’re still so eager for their approval and for their affection and for sex, that we’re generally willing to agree with just about anything they say and go along with just about anything they want, no matter how silly or trivial or just plain idiotic it might be. So of course it should come as no surprise that most women begin to develop a very strong sense of moral rectitude. But, of course, it’s not really our behavior towards them that’s the main culprit here…women are this way intrinsically.
Another key consequence is that, by the time they’ve reached early adulthood, most women have developed a very elaborate system of rules for how people are supposed to behave. And a woman considers these rules to be “obvious”, because they are based on her own personal emotional subtext, which she considers to be the ultimate validator of all that is right and wrong: “of course” you’re supposed to do “this”, “of course” you’re not supposed to do “that”. And because these rules of conduct are so self-evident, anyone, as far as she’s concerned, (and especially anyone who claims to know her or care about her at all), should just intrinsically understand what these rules are…no explanation should be necessary. Anyone who doesn’t just implicitly understand these rules is either a fool or a jerk.
A woman will always listen to her feelings, before and after she will listen to anything else (and also usually while she is listening to anything else). This means that, in order to get along well with a woman, a man must also constantly be listening to her feelings, and anticipating his behavior accordingly. In effect, women become emotional tyrants in relationships: everything in her life, and, by extension, in the life of anyone involved with her, ultimately ends up being ruled by whatever she happens to be feeling, whatever she thinks is right, and whatever she happens to want, from one moment to the next.
My favorite story about this relates to a radio program with a segment in which the host likes to go out into the audience to meet people, and find out simple things about them, like where they are from and how long they’ve been married, just to try to get to know them a little bit. On meeting a couple who’d been married for 50 years, the host stated that, whenever he met such a couple, he always liked to ask them what they considered to be the secret of a good marriage. When asking one particular couple this question, the woman (of course) was the first to speak up, insisting that it was a matter of “having similar interests and tastes, always discussing everything, everything always being shared and everything always being equal, etc. etc. Finally, after a couple of minutes, the woman piped down just long enough for the host to turn to the husband and say, “And what about you, Herb, what do you consider to be the secret of a good marriage?”, to which the husband instantly replied, “Oh, that’s simple, just do whatever she wants.”
It’s also important to remember that, no matter how far you may have risen from wherever you started out in life, no matter hard you may have had to work your ass off to get where you are, no matter how much discouragement you faced, no matter how many obstacles you had to overcome along the way, and no matter how successful you may be, no matter how much you may have accomplished, and no matter how self-sufficient you are, chances are that just about any American woman you meet these days will still consider herself to be a more thoughtful, more considerate, more conscientious, just plain better person than you are. And this will probably still be true, even if major portions of her life have just been a total train wreck.
And she will demonstrate this to you on a daily basis, by providing you with a constant stream of unsolicited questions and commentary about everything you do and how you do it, all based on her very powerful sense of moral rectitude.
What all of this adds up to is that, if you’re an average looking guy, and you’re willing to:
1. Live your life based pretty much entirely on whatever some woman happens to be feeling, right now at this moment, and,
2. You’re not too particular about what those women look like, and,
3. You’re the kind of person who would rather live that way than be single,
Then you’ll probably have no trouble at all finding a wife (and in fact you’ll probably end up being happier than you would be if you were single).
But if you’re not willing to make all three of those compromises, you’ll probably have a pretty hard time finding a date, let alone a steady companion. And if you’re like me, and you’d actually rather be single than make any of those compromises, but, unlike me, you go ahead and make those compromises anyway, you’ll probably end up being miserable. And you’ll deserve it. And there are millions of men who live their lives just like that every day.
Of course, if you’re really handsome, and especially if you’re handsome and have plenty of disposable income, then all of that just goes right out the window. You can behave pretty much any way you want, and women will basically just keep coming after you no matter what. And if you don’t believe that, just look at how many women write letters to Scott Peterson in jail begging to f*ck him.
And of course, you can never really have an honest discussion about these things with a woman, because if you attempt to raise this particular topic with her, her preferred mode of discussion will be to wait for you to assert something, and then proceed to tell you, at exceedingly great length, all about why you are wrong. This is why women insist that men will never understand them. They prefer having us believe that we can never figure them out, because it allows them to constantly rule our lives without ever being accountable for anything. The only way to get along with them is to just go along with whatever they want.
So my advice to men in their twenties is, date as many women as you can, f*ck as many women as you can, but don’t ever let one of them insult you or walk all over you, even one time. And for God’s sake, don’t marry one, at least until you’re into your thirties and women have started to lose some of that charm and sexual power that they have over us when we’re younger. Hopefully by the time you’re around 33 or so, you’ll start to realize that you’re actually better off staying single.
Written by dataguy: Don’t Get Married Forum
If you're going to be at home all day doing nothing you might want to try a bit of classic gaming with MAME.
Right now I only have a handful of links. If I can ever find the rest of the sites I had bookmarked I'll post 'em.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAME
http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/arcade/
http://www.emulators.cc/
http://www.mamedev.org/
http://www.arcadeemulator.net/
http://www.daphne-emu.com/site3/index_hi.php
http://www.arcadeathome.com/
http://www.mamechannel.it/
Here's an article from International Mens Network called Invisble Men (link):
by Bruce Walker
Ralph Ellison, the great black author, more than fifty years ago wrote a poignant, haunting book, The Invisible Man, which describes how black Americans were invisible to the rest of American society during that long period of Jim Crow and segregation. The great horror of white mistreatment of blacks was not so much deliberate and vicious crimes, but rather the general indifference of whites toward those black Americans who did the dirty work of society.
Womenists are identical in amoral passivity today. Who collects the garbage and drives the garbage trucks? Who cleans muck from the sewer lines and drains the septic tanks? Who spends freezing nights repairing power lines? Who buries the dead? Men, like Helots of an earlier age, do the work that is dirty and thankless.
Women do much valuable work in modern society and much of this work - nurses, for example - is hard and demanding. But it is not invisible. Nurses are rightly respected in modern culture as important parts of medical care. Less likely to be noticed, except as the butt of a joke, are orderlies. Unlike nurses, who are overwhelmingly women, orderlies are overwhelmingly men.
Teachers are glorified almost obsessively by our culture. Good teachers are great benefactors of society, without any doubt. But what about the school bus drivers, who get up for work much earlier than teachers and who receive hoots from students and complaints from parents? These workers, overwhelmingly male, are unpersons.
What about the janitors, who mop up vomit and clean the restrooms of public schools? Whose absence would be noticed more quickly, the Assistant Principal or the school janitor? Which is more likely to be a woman and which more likely to be a man? The janitor is much more likely not only to be male, but more likely to be suspected of some sort of deviant sexual behavior.
If men do the essential, unpleasant and unappreciated work of modern life, do they not also do the glamorous and dangerous work? Is this not all part of the "guy thing" about us men liking physical hardship? Perhaps, but this certainly does not show up in my young son's early reader books.
These same early reader books - like Sesame Street shows, Disney Channel programs and all the other politically correct media of entertainment, education and information - do not show fathers as acting as nurturing parents. Instead, mothers are celebrated and teachers (almost invariably female for younger children) are celebrated. Men are invisible...or worse.
Those noble professions of life in which men actually predominate - scientists, policemen, firemen, astronauts and surgeons - invariably have a perfect balance of women and men in modern entertainment and education. This is pure fiction, of course, but deception that portrays women as contributing equally with men in, say, the liberation of Afghanistan or the suicidal heroics of New York firemen, is a "good" lie according to Womenists.
If the notion thirty years ago when Womenism because to consciously engage in pious lies about the composition of society was to provide equal opportunity in all aspects of economic and social life for both sexes (i.e. if Womenism meant what it said: both sexes had been held in constricting roles) then the logical consequence would have been to have books in which children come home from school saying "Hello dad. I sure love you."
Evening television programs would show vicious mothers abusing children, who were protected by courageous fathers. Not only would this particular characterization rectify any stereotyping of men and women, but it would in fact reflect reality. Most physical abuse of children is committed by the mother; most victims of physical child abuse are the sons; and fathers are the most common protectors of children.
Womenists, of course, are more than happy to let a false stereotype exist and persist, if the consequences are merely misery and injustice to men and to children. They are even willing to exaggerate a dishonest portrayal. All human life, except adult women, are untermenchen to Womenists, or as their philosophical mentors put it so succinctly, men and children are "Life unworthy of life."
So where are the ditch diggers, the road crews, the water purification workers, the long haul truck drivers, the hazardous waste technicians, the sanitation engineers and all those other people whose work is really important to our lives? These are invisible men, who spoiled suburban housewives and secretaries in air conditioned office buildings look right through.
 |
 |
 |
 |
