Socialism &

Carey Roberts is a social commentator on political correctness. He has been widely published in newspapers and through the internet. You can contact him at E-Mail.

Bias Suit Reveals the Truth Behind the 'Boy Crisis'

Six days after graduating from Milton High School, Mickarl Thomas tragically died in a single-car accident. Affectionately known as Mikey, he was the co-captain of his Boston-area football team and the only black male in his honors classes.

Growing up in a family with two sisters and no father, Mikey had a strong need to hang out with other African-American guys. It’s that old thing about men needing to learn about masculinity from other men.

As chance would have it, a few years later his mother Carole, now a successful consultant, was hired by the school to do a diversity assessment. Her report acknowledged the sudden death of her son and then pointedly noted, “The ultimate question is finding a way to encourage black males to succeed academically in a way that does not demean the ethnic trust and respect they so desperately need.” [ ]

But it turns out the problem of male achievement at Milton H.S. is not limited to minorities.

Last month Doug Anglin, a white 17-year-old senior at the school, filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education. His allegation: Milton High discriminates against boys.

At his school, girls outnumber boys 2 to 1 on the honor roll, and about 60% of Advanced Placement students are female. Only 36% of teachers are men. And in one class, students are expected to fancy up their notebooks with glitter and feathers.

Ignoring the statistics and oblivious to the heartfelt plea from the diversity consultant, school administrators seem to view the “boy problem” more as an inconvenience than a crisis. In a recent Boston Globe interview, Milton High principal John Drottar would only concede, “We’re aware of it. We’re looking into it.” [ ]

Twenty years ago the boy crisis did not exist.

True, boys didn’t do as well as girls in reading and spelling, but they compensated for that with higher science and math scores. Similar numbers of men and women graduated from college. All in all, things seemed pretty equal back then.

But everything changed in 1992 when the American Association for University Women released its intellectually-dishonest, self-serving report, How Schools Shortchange Girls. The document charged that girls were treated as second-class citizens in the nation’s schools, which made them suffer from a crippling crisis of self-esteem.

But some had their doubts. One New York Times reporter interviewed Diane Ravitch, former assistant secretary of education. Ravitch shook up the educational establishment when she revealed, “The AAUW report was just completely wrong. What was so bizarre is that it came out right at the time that girls had just overtaken boys in almost every area.”

Smarting under criticisms of bias, the AAUW commissioned a second report in 1998 called Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail our Children. This time the AAUW decided to come clean with the truth: “National data indicate that girls consistently earn either equivalent or higher grades than boys in all subjects at all points in their academic careers.”

But that admission could not undo the damage. Because four years before that Congress had been stampeded into passing the Gender Equity in Education Act, which singled out girls as an “under-served population.” The Act pumped tens of millions of dollars into advocacy research and feminist-inspired programs, all based on the fraudulent claim that girls were lagging in an all-encompassing patriarchal society.

This past week the front cover of Newsweek magazine announced “The Boy Crisis.” The article did not admit that boys are lagging because our schools have been turned into feminist re-education camps. Rather, we’re told the problem is with male grey-matter, what Newsweek dubs the “boy brain.”

But the boy brain theory doesn’t explain why two decades ago, boys were doing just fine. And why has the number of boys saying they don’t like school sky-rocketed 71% from 1980 to 2001? Well, that question stumped the Newsweek reporters.

It’s one thing to acknowledge the God-given neurological differences between the sexes. But somehow the boy brain theory reminds me of the KKK-types who once claimed that since the brains of certain races were slightly smaller, those people had puny intellects.

Four months from now Carole Thomas will commemorate the ninth anniversary of the death of her only son. Let’s hope we come to recognize that Mikey’s story was not merely one of a life brimming with promise that was cut short by a terrible fate, but rather an object lesson in why boys are falling behind in a glitter and feathers world.

Women Who Make Things Worse for Other Women

Who is harmed more by the radical feminist creed: men or women? I have long believed that men are more victimized. But after reading Kate O’Beirne’s recent book, Women Who Make the World Worse and how their radical feminist assault is ruining our schools, families, military and sports I’m beginning to reconsider.

As editor of National Review Online, O’Beirne showcases her formidable research and writing skills in exposing how the feminist movement has polarized relations between the sexes and made life worse for most American women.

In my town, billboards feature a newly-engaged woman showing off her sparkling diamond ring, nearly shouting the words, “Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, YES!” Despite the fact that married women are healthier, happier, and more economically-secure than their single sisters, feminists are hell-bent on obliterating this bedrock institution.

Feminists want you to believe that the urge to conceive and nurture children is a patriarchal construction. Can you guess who came up with this gem? “Motherly love ain’t everything it has been cracked up to be. To some extent it’s a myth that men have created to make women think that they do this job to perfection.”

Yep, that comes to us by way Ruth Bader Ginsburg, member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And shame on all those stay-at-home moms who are shirking their civic responsibility to “contribute as professionals and community activists,” according to University of Texas professor Gretchen Ritter. Worse, “Full-time mothering is also bad for children.” Why? Ritter explains, “It teaches them that the world is divided by gender.”

Child psychologist Sandra Scarr takes the argument farther, claiming a child’s desire to be with his mother is actually a psychiatric disorder. Scarr calls it EMA Syndrome – exclusive maternal attachment syndrome.

Ms. O’Beirne takes on the notion that women should delay childbearing until after their careers are established. She cites research that among women earning more than $100,000, nearly half -- 49% -- are childless. So much for having it all.

But feminists are not satisfied to merely lay a guilt trip on women who are contemplating marriage, motherhood, and child-rearing. They patronize and insult the intelligence of women by making the most ludicrous of claims.

Like the old chestnut about the gender wage gap. Feminists go around cherry-picking wage statistics and then claim that society undervalues women’s work.

O’Beirne shows little patience for such loopy logic. “They sell women short. They hold that women aren’t smart enough and tough enough to flourish when given an equal chance to compete with men,” O’Beirne thunders.

Then there’s the bogus statistic that men commit 95% of all domestic violence. As a result, former women’s studies professor Daphne Patai notes that “years of exposure to feminist-promoted scare statistics have succeeded in imbuing many young women with a foreboding sense of living under the constant threat of predatory men.”

And that’s promoting female self-empowerment?

There’s retired Air Force brigadier general Wilma Vaught who argued for moving women into direct combat: “There’s been an acceptance of the fact that women…are in harms way and they are being killed.” The families of the nearly 40 female soldiers killed in Iraq no doubt would find those words consoling.

The NRO editor goes on to quote this nihilistic statement by representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) at last year’s March for Women’s Lives: “I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion.” And Ms. Waters is supposed to be a role model for smart, ambitious women?

And sometimes rad-fems come across as vindictive shrews. A female dean at Vassar College who had this to say about men falsely accused of rape: “They have of a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.”

So after 30-plus years of liberation feminista-style, are American women better off? O’Beirne has serious doubts.

Now, thanks to the Sisterhood’s mantra that men are redundant, many of the nation’s most eligible bachelors – 22%, to be exact – have turned their back on marriage, leaving millions of women desperate to find a good man who’s willing to commit. [ ].

As a result of affirmative action programs, professional women have been put under suspicion that they owe their position to something other than merit.

And the very fabric of maternal virtue has been indelibly stained by the feminist message that “the only thing a woman can do with a child is abort.”

Throughout her 200-page exposé, Kate O’Beirne shows how feminists have used deception, manipulation, intimidation, and old-fashioned propaganda to victimize men and women alike.

Women Who Make the World Worse and how their radical feminist assault is ruining our schools, families, military and sports – it’s the gutsy and shocking must-read of the politically incorrect for 2006.

Comic Relief from the World Health Organization

Feeling a little bored, maybe suffering from after-the-holiday blues? The World Health Organization never fails to provide a moment of levity in our otherwise hum-drum lives.

Take the AIDS epidemic. After all these years of seeing the epidemic spread unchecked, I’m beginning to wonder if the world health body views AIDS as its stealth population control strategy.

If that statement seems a bit harsh, consider the WHO’s “safe sex” campaign which pushes this Russian-roulette message: “Go ahead and enjoy no-fault sex with multiple partners, just so long as you use a condom.” As we know, condoms fail 15% of the time. []

And if you want a real belly laugh, check out the WHO Sex Work Toolkit, designed to make prostitutes feel good about themselves as they service their AIDS-infected clientele. Just in case you were worried, the Toolkit comes with this disclaimer: “In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use.” [ ]

Then there’s the malaria epidemic that claims the lives of millions each year. Spraying tiny amounts of DDT on the walls of houses is highly effective in killing malaria-infected mosquitoes. But the WHO won’t allow household spraying because – you guessed it -- that might offend the environmentalists.

And last July the WHO added two abortion-inducing drugs – RU-486 and Mifrepex – to its list of “essential medicines.” At least WHO won’t have to worry about providing so many vaccines and vitamin pills to little kids.

Here’s the most recent laugh-getter from the World Health Organization. Can you imagine the world body doing a study that cherry-picks its participants and relies on flawed methods in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion?

That’s exactly what the WHO did with its recent “Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women.” [ ]

Every study I’ve seen shows that domestic violence is an equal opportunity problem. Professor Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire interviewed over 8,000 men and women in 16 countries around the world. He found high rates of assault “perpetrated by both male and female students.” []

And recent reports from Canada [ ] and Australia [,5744,17051698%255E1702,00.html ] likewise reveal that women are equally likely to assault their male partners.

But that rendition of gender equality didn’t sit too well with the lavender ladies at WHO’s department of Gender, Women, and Health. They solved that problem by designing a study that – you guessed right again – only interviewed females.

Then the WHO asked radical feminist organizations around the world to conduct the surveys. That’s like doing a study on persons’ opinions about wearing animal fur, and letting PETA run the show.

Since the interviewers knew nothing about how to do surveys, they were put through a 3-week indoctrination – er, training – program. The training was based on a manual called “Researching Violence Against Women” [ ], which, not surprisingly, had very little to say about domestic violence against men.

Of course they ensured the survey not ask any questions whether the woman had ever injured her husband or boyfriend – that might get a little embarrassing. To top it off, they did a little definitional hocus-pocus, absurdly claiming that “abuse” is the same as “violence.

To no one’s great surprise, the survey found that there’s plenty domestic violence around the world, and of course it’s those brutish men who are at fault. Predictably the WHO apparatchiks blamed it on the all-powerful patriarchy: “Violence against women is both a consequence and a cause of gender inequality,” laments the report.

Then they got the boss to give a headline-grabbing endorsement. “This study shows that women are more at risk from violence at home than in the street and this has serious repercussions for women’s health,” according to WHO director Lee Jong-wook.

Of course Dr. Jong-wook never mentioned that men are twice as likely as women to die from violence-related causes. That fact didn’t quite fit into the punch-line.

As if that wasn’t enough, the WHO had the arrogance and chutzpah to bill the fraudulent survey as a “landmark study.” [ ]

It may be true that laughter is the best medicine, but this time the joke’s on us -- the U.S. taxpayer.

In order to support this misguided comedy routine, each year the United States sends the WHO $95 million for assessed dues, and another $45 million for so-called “extra-budgetary” contributions. That money is funneled through the Office for Global Health Affairs in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Eventually your hard-earned money winds up in the Swiss bank account of a UN bureaucracy that lacks fairness, accountability, or intellectual honesty.

Winner of the Covented 2005 Award for Political Incorrectness

Leftists believe the Truth is an intellectual fraud designed to prop up the existing techno-patriarchal-capitalist power structure. That’s why the neo-Coms will tell you with a straight face that Saddam Hussein was a courageous freedom fighter, and that the New York Times usually gets the story right.

No wonder George Orwell once said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

This year three stalwart truth-tellers stood up to a tsunami of prevarication to make the short list for the 2005 Award for Political Incorrectness.

Our second runner-up this year is…Michael Kinsey, opinion-page editor of the Los Angeles Times. You may recall last February when Susan Estrich, former presidential campaign manager for Michael Dukakis, threw a temper tantrum because only a fraction of the LA Times op-eds were written by women.

Mr. Kinsey curtly replied that if more female editorialists wanted to be published in his newspaper, then they would need to write better articles. [ ]

Bravo, Mr. Kinsey.

The first runner-up is Mr. Ken Bode, ombudsman for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Last month Mr. Bode reviewed the PBS program Breaking the Silence and concluded the incendiary show was little more than an anti-father cant. [ ]

Well done, Mr. Bode.

And the winner of the 2005 Award for Political Incorrectness is…(pan of vast audience with expectant expressions)… Phyllis Schlafly.

This past year Mrs. Schlafly took on the federal government’s deepening alliance with radical feminism. In the process she debunked many of the Left’s pet explanations for family break-down. To do justice to Schlafly’s contributions, I have quoted from several of her columns.

In January she started off the year with a column about “Children Made Fatherless by Family Courts.” The article revealed that “fathers are systematically discriminated against by family courts which nearly always award physical custody to the mother even when the father has committed no fault.” [ ]

Schlafly continued in the same vein in her February column about the “Fatherphobia of Family Courts.” In that article she took divorce courts to task for ignoring a “mountain of social science research” by failing to award joint physical custody to fathers. [ ]

In March she highlighted the plight of National Guard Spc. Joe McNeilly who was called up for service in Iraq. Upon completion of his tour of duty, McNeilly was greeted with the news that a family court, during his absence and without his knowledge, had awarded full custody of his 10-year-old son to his mother. [ ]

In May she turned up the heat, exposing how “Federal Incentives Make Children Fatherless.” Schlafly warned, “Follow the money. The less time that non-custodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they must pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.” [ ]

Mrs. Schlafly doesn’t mince words, does she? And it only gets better.

In her June column on “How to Celebrate Father’s Day,” Schlafly took aim at the feminist Big Lie: “For 30 years, feminist organizations and writers have propagated the myth that women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society and that marriage is an inherently abusive institution that makes wives second-class citizens.” [ ]

Then beginning in July, Schlafly took on the hotly-debated Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which came up before Congress this past fall for a five-year renewal.

In “Time to Defund Feminist Pork,” Schlafly wondered why the US Congress funnels “a billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money into the hands of radical feminists who use it to preach their anti-marriage and anti-male ideology, promote divorce, corrupt the family court system, and engage in liberal political advocacy.” [ ]

Mrs. Schlafly’s pièce de resistance came in October. While our elected officials were buckling under the feminist intimidation tactics, Schlafly released an exposé with the sizzling title, “Time to Defund Feminist Pork – the Hate-Men Law.”

First Schlafly ridiculed the feminist urban legends such as “a woman is beaten every 15 seconds” and Super Bowl Sunday is the “biggest day of the year of violence against women.” She deplored how VAWA rides “roughshod over the constitutional rights of men.”

Schlafly then scolded our elected officials in Washington: “Shame on Members of Congress who lack the courage to stand up to feminist outrages.” [ ]

For 30 years the Leftists have waged a tenacious assault on society’s bedrock institutions, including fatherhood and families. As the rest of us silently stood by, feminists branded dads with epithets such as deadbeat, abuser, and patriarchal oppressor.

And now Phyllis Schlafly has shed the light of truth on their evil scheme.

The Leftist-Feminist Brief Against Nominee Roberts

President Bush surprised everyone, including wife Laura, with his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States. It seems the First Lady has been taking law classes during her spare time, making her qualified to advise the President on the importance of gender in judicial selections. “I would really like him to name another woman,” she explained on NBC’s Today show.

Everyone from Sandra Day O’Connor to the nattering nags at NOW had decided that the now-vacated seat was destined to be filled by a woman, regardless of her training, experience, or judicial temperament.

Why? Because “something is lost when there is only one female in the room,” according to a weepy-eyed article in the Chicago Tribune. And what is that unique “something”? The article answers, it’s that “special bond that mothers have with children.” [,1,3231904.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true ]

That tender maternal bond no doubt explains why Sandra O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg have consistently voted to uphold abortion laws throughout their Supreme Court careers.

Bush’s nomination of a white male represents more than a slap in the face to the affirmative action mentality. Mr. Roberts, you see, does not believe that true meaning of the Constitution lurks somewhere in the decrees of the International Criminal Court. Rather, his approach to interpreting the U.S. Constitution hews to the notion of “What you see is what you get”– WYSIWYG in computer parlance.

When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, Americans were still smarting from the memory of King George’s boot-heel tyranny. The bitter after-taste of that experience compelled our forefathers to strictly limit the powers of the nascent federal government. And they did it right up front, enumerating its responsibilities in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

But the notion of enumerated powers of the federal government has become eroded. And now we’re paying the price. Look at the draconian policies of government bureaucracies such as the Office of Child Support Enforcement or Child Protective Services, and you realize that’s exactly what the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were seeking to avoid.

Roberts’ constructionist views of the Constitution represent a direct threat to the Leftist creed, which seeks to highjack the federal government in order to impose its classless, genderless vision on the rest of us. To a Leftist, individual differences are an anathema that need to be rooted out by government fiat.

But it’s the feminist Left that’s really having a hissy-fit. According to the National Organization of Women, Roberts has long promoted an “anti-woman, anti-civil rights, and anti-worker agenda.”

This guy must really be a monster. Yes, just see for yourself.

In a 1999 radio interview Roberts voiced his opposition to the Violence Against Women Act: “We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we’re serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else.” Obviously the Supreme Court nominee doesn’t appreciate that Big Sister government should be the cure-all for our social ills.

In NCAA v. Smith, Roberts argued against Title IX, the law that shuts down men’s athletic teams because not enough women have been signing up for synchronized swimming. What’s wrong with imposing Soviet-style gender quotas on college sports programs, so long as they bring about gender equality?

But it’s Roberts’ discomfiture with abortion that has most provoked the Sisterhood. As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts once argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that “we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”

Then there’s the matter of Roberts’ wife Jane, who served for four years as the executive vice president of Feminists for Life, a pro-life group. But folks are trying to pretend that does not reflect in any way on nominee Mr. Roberts’ views on abortion. Both John and Jane are active members in their local Catholic parish.

Years ago the feminist Left came to realize that they would never achieve their socialistic goals if they had to rely on normal democratic processes. So their solution was to impose an abortion litmus test on the nominations process, seize control of the judiciary, and short-circuit the notion of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

We should all be shedding crocodile tears over the impeding demise of judicial activism and the socialistic schemes that march under the red banner of progressive government.

Chivalrous Men and the Victim-Princess Complex

I recently came across an article sporting the irresistible title, A Nation of Little Princesses. Author Christopher Healy explores the archetype of the princess, which he asserts “is one of the longest-lived in all of literary history.” [ ]

My first reaction was to think, “Here’s some Neanderthal guy trying to peddle outdated gender stereotypes.” But Healy points to the fact that the Disney Corporation has assembled a Princess brand consisting of eight animated film heroines including Cinderella, Snow White, Pocahontas, Belle of Beauty of the Beast, and others. In 2003 the Princess line racked up an astonishing $2.5 billion in sales, up from a mere $300 million in 2001.

And that’s just for starters. “We’ve gone beyond the dress-up and toys, and begun to look at the brand as a lifestyle, filling out all the other things girls need in life,” according to Mary Beech, Disney’s director of franchise management. Things girls need in life?

Healy, proud dad of a three-year-old girl, notes with an equal mix of astonishment and horror, “The ease and rapidity with which a princess obsession can take hold of a young girl’s psyche is mind-blowing.”

Eventually those little Jennifers and Bethanies grow up, go to college, and enroll in their first Women’s Studies course. There they learn that the kiss by their Prince Charming really represents non-consensual sexual assault, that Belle’s Beast is a closet bodice-ripper, and that the fable of the Princess talking to the Green Frog at the side of the well is an allegory of serial rape.

But the Women’s Studies gurus explain they can still make their dreams of tiaras and sequin-studded dresses come true: “Join the Sisterhood, and we’ll turn you into a real princess!”

According to the feminist fable, women were kept under heel for so many millennia that members of the fairer sex need to play “catch-up.” So now women should be the beneficiaries of an ever-expanding array of legal protections, government programs, commercial products, and lifestyle options. That’s the Victim-Princess Complex.

What princess who has just been betrayed by her Handsome Green Frog could resist that offer?

Before long these Wicked Witches of the North have cast a spell on their Little Pretties. These young women soon graduate from college believing that women are paid less for the same work, that women were routinely excluded from medical research, and a multitude of other tragedies that have befallen womankind. Victimization has become a mainstay of their self-identity.

It’s not just the feminist propaganda mill that endlessly replays the woman-as-victim mantra. Chivalrous men, acting out their fantasies of the White Knight in Shining Armor, are guilty as well.

Pick up a copy of your local newspaper and you will see articles – usually written by male reporters and columnists – that reinforce the notion of the downtrodden female. Accounts of women who are stressed-out, undervalued, and abused form the staple of daily news reporting.

Recently I attended a conference where a speaker blandly made the claim that 60 million women around the world had “disappeared.” He didn’t bother to offer any details or proof. And he certainly didn’t say anything about men who were never heard from again.

I imagine that catering to women’s insecurities makes these men feel gallant and proud. But chivalry is defined as being “considerate and courteous to women.” Slanting and distorting the truth – that’s chicanery, not chivalry.

Yet there’s a downside to the Princess-Victim Complex.

Myrna Blyth, former editor of Ladies Home Journal, reveals how women’s magazines turn female victimization into a hard sell for the latest beauty products or weight control program. Blyth decries how these magazines promote “narcissism as an advanced evolutionary stage of female liberation. Me, me, me, means you’re finally free, free, free.”

But the problem goes beyond self-absorbed narcissism.

In his Nation of Little Princesses article, Christopher Healy quotes a father who observes, “Well, that’s the magic of Disney: It’s addictive. It’s like crack for 5-year-olds.”

So the Victim-Princess Complex begins to resemble a dysfunctional habit in which the negative feelings of being a victim require ever-larger “fixes” for women to feel good about themselves. And those fixes come with a hefty price tag. Princesses “only find true happiness once they’re married off with royal expense accounts,” Healy laments.

These women are undoubtedly the most prosperous, pampered, and protected group in the history of the world. But they would still have you believe that women aren’t getting a fair shake.

What is the truth of feminism? A fairytale come true, or a royal deception that appeals to the most primitive instincts of men and women alike?

Rape, Hysteria, Redux

Can you imagine the German Bundestag issuing a formal apology for the Nazi atrocities, but then leaving out the fact that Jews were the primary victims?

Earlier this summer the U.S. Senate apologized for its earlier failures to approve anti-lynching legislation. The resolution was supported by liberal senators such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Biden of Delaware, and others.

The apology notes, “at least 4,742 people, predominantly African-Americans, were reported lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968.”

The resolution is well-intentioned, but it air-brushes out one essential fact: Virtually all of the victims were male, many of whom were accused of ravishing well-to-do white women.

Men so charged were summarily dragged away by the mob and strung from a tree. Once the crowd had gathered, men were stripped of their clothes and their dignity. Many had their bodies riddled with bullets. In the most gruesome cases, the men were burned at the stake.

The hysteria that surrounded these incidents was stoked by inflammatory headlines about “big black brutes” and “monsters in human form.” Newspaper articles featured caricatures of Black men with insatiable sexual appetites for white virgins. As Philip Dray notes in his book At the Hands of Persons Unknown, “the cumulative impression was of a world made precarious by Negroes.”

The fear of marauding male predators reached a fever pitch during the early part of the last century. In 1910 Congress passed the White Slave Traffic Act, which forbade the interstate transport of white women “for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.”

That law was used to prosecute championship boxer Jack Johnson for taking his white girlfriend, Lucille Cameron, to Chicago for “immoral purposes.” Even though the two soon married, Johnson was convicted in 1913, but fled to Europe to avoid serving time for a crime that he knew he had not committed.

Rape hysteria became a flashpoint in America’s broader race relations problems. Those relations reached their nadir during the Red Summer of 1919, when race riots broke out in more than 20 cities.

In Washington DC, news of the sexual assault of an officer’s wife triggered the spectacle of hundreds of uniformed sailors and soldiers who chased and beat Blacks, all within view of the US Capitol building. The report later turned out to be a hoax.

The slaying of innocent Black males continued for many years.

One of those innocents was Emmett Till, who one day pulled up to the grocery store in Money, Mississippi. On a dare, he took the hand of the cashier, a local beauty by the name of Carolyn Bryant, and asked, “How about a date, baby?” Mrs. Bryant was offended by the overture and word soon reached her husband.

A week later, the mutilated body of Emmett Till floated to the surface of the Tallahatchie River. He had been shot through the right temple and his skull had been struck with an ax.

That was August 1955. Emmett Till was 14 years old.

In 1991 Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court. He came to the post with a Yale Law School degree and broad legal experience. But then he was ambushed by Anita Hill, who claimed that Thomas had made sexually inappropriate remarks several years before.

Smarting under the allegation, Thomas complained to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was the victim of “a high-tech lynching.” Mr. Thomas was saying that the fear of male sexuality that fueled the lynching of Black men decades before was the same hysteria that now drove people to obsess over Anita Hill’s over-blown allegation.

On June 9, 2005 Sen. Joe Biden introduced the Violence Against Women Act, a bill that aims to thwart sexual and physical assaults of women. A reading of the proposed law describes a world made precarious by men. Sadly, the Act appeals to the same chivalrous instincts as when the zealotry surrounding virtuous womanhood swept our nation a century ago.

Only four days later, on June 13, the Senate expressed its “deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets” to the victims of lynching and their descendants.

And why did the Senate resolution forget to mention men in its apology?

Because the last thing that presidential hopeful Biden wants is for persons to draw historic parallels between the Violence Against Women Act which portends the widescale curtailment of men’s civil liberties, and the injustices that befell wrongly-accused Black men generations ago.

Another Scandal Brewing at the U.N.

In a long-awaited decision, President Bush finally named tough-talking John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. And not a day too soon, as the U.N. General Assembly is set to reconvene in September.

The problems at the United Nations are legion: the Oil-for-Food scandal, the sexual escapades of the U.N. peacekeepers, the laughingstock that the Human Rights Commission has become, the U.N.’s utter failure to stem the AIDS epidemic, and many others.

But there’s another scandal that people are trying to keep under wraps -- the fact that dozens of agencies and offices sprinkled throughout the vast U.N bureaucracy have become base camps for ideological feminism.

Feminists view every human issue through the lens of gender and power. So whatever the problem -- poverty, disease, or a shortage of parking spaces – the standard refrain of the Sisterhood is “Down with the patriarchy!”

At the U.N., benign male-bashing has become distant memory. What now passes as normal feminist discourse at the United Nations ranges from outright gender prejudice to high-octane bigotry that resembles an Andrea Dworkin rant.

The bias begins at the top. At a 2003 International Women’s Day observance, Louise Frechette issued this categorical imperative: “all our work for development -- from agriculture to health....must focus on the needs and priorities of women.” [ ] But not men or children?

Ms. Frechette, by the way, is Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and reports directly to Kofi Annan.

Carol Bellamy, former UNICEF director, once made a similar plea for Africa: “Women are the lifeline of these southern African communities. They put the food on the table, and they're the ones that keep families going during such crises.” As a consequence, according to the UNICEF press release, “Women and children must be at the center of response to Southern Africa's humanitarian crisis.” [ ]

Last December the UNAIDS published its report, Women and AIDS. It is not possible to describe the gender vilification that oozes from this document, but suffice it say that it reads like a master’s thesis from a Women’s Studies program. [ ]

The U.N. refugee program issued the following plea on its website: “The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees...One million women and children...homeless, hungry, helpless...Their only help is you.” ( ).

Does that mean men are never homeless, hungry, and helpless? Or that their plight simply deserves less sympathy?

When it comes to domestic violence, the U.N. subjects men to the most pernicious stereotypes. It has been shown that women are fully the equal of men when it comes to partner aggression. [ ] But the WHO report Violence and Health dismisses that fact with this disingenuous remark: “Where violence by women occurs, it is more likely to be in the form of self-defense.” [ ]

More disturbing is the casual way that the U.N. regards the lives of men.

In years past, the rallying cry for the World Health Organization was “Health for All.” But now, the WHO’s goals have become somewhat more modest: “Make Every Mother and Child Count.” [ ]

Should we now conclude the lives of men no longer count?

One WHO report offers this explanation why women outlive men in countries around world: “as many societies have undergone economic and industrial development, a variety of social and cultural factors have combined to allow women's inherent biological advantage to emerge.” [ ]

“Inherent biological advantage”? I thought a certain European war taught us a lesson about the evil that lurks when persons make claims about persons’ inborn genetic advantages.

In 2000 the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution Number 1325 which makes the claim, never supported by hard numbers, that, “civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict.”[ ]

Apparently the Security Council had forgotten about places like Srebrenica, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Cambodia, and elsewhere where millions of innocent civilian men were specifically targeted for elimination. [ ]

The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights advocates that quality health care and essential medicines be provided “especially for the health of women.” [ ]

So why not quality health care and essential medicines for men?

Ignoring the life-and-death needs of men, categorically blaming males for the woes of women, and claiming women are a biologically-superior species – these are the hallmarks of a morally-bankrupt organization that is destined to go the way of the League of Nations.

VAWA: Making Divorce Easy, Profitable and Fun

Man-hating feminist Andrea Dworkin once admitted to The New Republic, “Senators don't understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.” Dworkin was referring to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a law that is now up for reauthorization in the U.S. Congress.

In case you’re wondering, here’s the meaning of VAWA: the Violence Against Women Act is a $1 billion-a-year law that turns every marital tiff into a hate crime against women.

The linchpin of the VAWA marriage wrecking-ball is a series of state-level laws enacted at the behest of local N.O.W. chapters. These laws define “violence” in the broadest possible terms. For example, the Illinois Domestic Violence Act defines any action that causes a person to experience “emotional distress” to fall within its umbrella of abuse.

Then the VAWA propaganda mill revs up to bombard women with a series of perverted messages that amount to a how-to divorce manual:

1. Wife-battering is rampant, and “the patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself,” as Gloria Steinem once put it. And since women are powerless, they are obviously incapable of inflicting violence on their partners.

2. Remain on constant alert for the dead give-aways of impending domestic violence, such as, “My partner acts one way in front of others, and another way when we are alone.” [ ] Yes, abusive men are lurking behind every bush.

3. If you think there’s a slight possibility of being abused, call 911. That will instantly bring a couple squad cars roaring to your rescue. VAWA encourages police departments to institute “mandatory arrest” policies, so just huddle in the corner of the room and put on your pouty face -- that will take care of it.

4. If a 911 call sounds too messy, get a judicial protection order. Restraining orders are the handy, “no-fuss” solution to the problem of husbands who can’t remember to put the seat down. If you don’t know how to do this, a VAWA-funded Court Advocate will be there to help you fill out the forms.

5. Once the bum is evicted, file a petition for divorce and temporary custody of the kids. This is by far the cheapest and sure-fire way to win permanent custody and guarantee yourself many years of tax-free child support payments.

6. If you have second thoughts about pursing the domestic abuse case, don’t worry. Thanks to VAWA, many state attorneys have implemented a “no-drop” policy. That way you don’t have to testify in the case, even if you know in your heart that you started the whole incident.

7. If your house is getting run-down, check out your local women’s shelter. Don’t worry, they don’t ask for proof that you were actually battered. You can get free room and board while you start tallying up your child support checks.

8. Finally, if you need help finding a good divorce lawyer, VAWA-funded organizations such as AARDVARC will connect you to pre-screened lawyers in your area. [ ]

See girls, this is easier than you could have imagined!

Recently Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) proposed that VAWA be renewed for another five years – what better way to nail down the feminist vote and steal the Democratic nomination from Hillary? But this time around Mr. Biden’s bamboozle is hitting some unexpected snags.

Word is beginning to leak out that VAWA represents a grotesque violation of men’s civil rights. Worse, people are hearing that VAWA is based on a bald-faced lie – that in truth, women commit half of all domestic violence. [ ]

Normally Senate hearings feature witnesses who voice the full gamut of opinions. That’s democracy at work. But at Tuesday’s Judiciary Committee hearings, only hand-picked apparatchiks who were willing to spout the VAWA party line were invited to speak.

A few men who claimed to be DV victims had requested to testify at the hearings, but they were sent away since obviously they were liars. In politically-correct society, only people who tell the truth enjoy the right to free speech.

And in the House of Representatives, VAWA operatives plan to skip the committee hearings altogether. They plan to bundle VAWA into a larger Department of Justice bill and steam-roller a floor vote by the end of the month. That’s warp speed by Washington standards.

Clearly, someone wants to keep the Senators and Representatives from hearing the truth. Andrea Dworkin was right. Our elected officials in Washington don’t have a clue what the Violence Against Women Act is really about.

Supreme Hysteria

The niggling nannies of N.O.W. fell into a swoon last week, courtesy of Sandra Day O’Connor’s July 1 announcement to give up her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the last 20 years O’Connor has provided the crucial swing vote that kept the abortion issue in play.

When Justice Harry Blackmun sat down to write the majority opinion in the fateful Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, he was confident that six other Supreme Court justices would join him. Still, he knew that proving that the right to abortion lurked somewhere in the U.S. Constitution would be a formidable test of his legal acumen.

First he had to hold that the Bill of Rights enunciates a right to privacy. But the Bill of Rights never mentions privacy rights.

So Blackmun posited that the right to privacy could be extracted from the “penumbras and emanations” of the Bill of Rights. Most people have only the vaguest notion of what “penumbras and emanations” mean, so that was good.

In the end Blackmun came up with this justification: “in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right.”

“Individual justices”? “At least the roots”? Not even a second-year law student could get away with that far-fetched reasoning -- but that’s what Justice Blackmun wrote.

And exactly how do privacy rights, whether they exist or not, translate into the right to abort?

Here Blackmun’s thinking became even more obtuse, his logic more tortured. Blackmun finally concluded that a woman who is deprived of the right to kill is likely to suffer from “psychological harm.”

So the landmark Roe v. Wade decision is not a legal treatise based on sound principle or rigorous logic. Roe really comes down to a chivalrous exercise in emotional hand-holding for women who are having second thoughts about their pregnancy.

Abortionists know full well that Roe is intellectually flawed, legally indefensible, and morally repugnant. Given that, don’t expect to hear much in the way of reasoned discourse and sensible analysis over next few months.

So mark my words, a torrent of fear-mongering mantras will become the rallying cry of the rad-fems who want to stack the Supreme Court with more left-leaning justices who believe in the need for a “living, breathing Constitution.”

Indeed, within hours of O’Connor’s announcement, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the senate floor to issue this sharp-edged ultimatum: “If the president abuses his power…then the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee, and we intend to do so.”

Note that Mr. Kennedy studiously avoided the words “litmus test,” “filibuster,” or “smear campaign.” Those words don’t play very well on the six o’clock news.

Over the July Fourth weekend, feminists flocked to Tennessee, home base of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, to try out their new applause lines. Make note of these high-octane slogans, you will be hearing them countless times over next few months.

N.O.W. president Kim Gandy ridiculed President Bush’s likely Supreme Court candidate as “a hard-right extremist justice.” And Feminist Majority head Eleanor Smeal warned Frist to not “turn back the clock on women’s rights.” [ ]

That same weekend, Senator Kennedy used almost identical words in his Washington Post editorial: “This process shouldn't just be about whether the next justice would help roll back women's rights by overturning Roe v. Wade, the law of the land.” [ ]

A quick check of feminist websites reveals a similar foghorn of slash-and-burn rhetoric and estrogen-driven hysteria.

The Feminist Majority issues this dire warning: “If Roe is reversed, women will be returned to the days of unsafe, back-alley abortions.” To make sure the point isn’t lost, the FM website adds an image of a wire coat hanger superimposed on the Supreme Court building. Nice touch.

The National Abortion Rights Action League features a picture of President Bush with this dark warning: “Don’t let his choice end yours.” That statement appears right under this chiseled inscription: “Equal Justice Under Law.” Equality, of course, is exactly what fathers who have no say about the lives of their unborn children are clamoring for.

And the website of the National Organization for Women warns, “Justice O’Connor Resigns…Women’s Lives on the Line.” The N.O.W. doesn’t clarify, however, whether this cautionary statement is meant to apply to the lives of expectant mothers or of baby girls.

Undermining the integrity of the US Constitution, applying a litmus test to Supreme Court candidates, and kindling an atmosphere of hysteria and fear – all this in the name of protecting a woman’s right to kill.

Senator Biden's Biggest Lie

Ol’ Joe Biden has been waiting 17 long years, hoping the American public would forget.

Back in 1988 Mr. Biden was running against George Dukakis for the Democratic presidential nomination. But then it came to light that Mr. Biden was lifting lines from the speeches of Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and others.

Where I come from, folks call that plagiarism. That, along with other previous peccadilloes, drove Biden from the nomination race. [ ]

Time erases all bad memories, as they say, and now Mr. Biden is letting on that he wants to join the 2008 presidential race.

But Mr. Biden has another stain on his ethical resume’. This fib is far worse because it has the potential to rend the very foundations of the social order. For the last 15 years, Biden has been saying that women, and only women, can suffer from domestic violence.

Try telling that to the three young children of Clayton Carter, who watched in horror as he was run over by his wife with their Ford SUV. This past week Marquetta Jordan pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in Washington DC.

And consider Herman Winslow, who was shot and killed by Lena Driskell when their yearlong romance came to an end. “I did it and I’d do it again,” Driskell yelled when the police came to her Atlanta home on June 10.

When women kill their husbands and ex-boyfriends, the media never use the term, “domestic violence.” That’s because according to Mr. Biden, only men commit DV.

Clayton Carter and Herman Winslow are just two of the 835,000 men who are assaulted each year by their wives or girlfriends, according to Department of Justice statistics. [ ]

Indeed, women are just as likely as men to commit partner aggression, and men suffer 38% of all DV-related injuries, according to the research. [ ]

But Biden’s silver-tongued oratory and cloak room arm-twisting counted for more than the truth, and in 1994 President Clinton signed the first Violence Against Women Act into law. That compelled the Department of Justice to create a new bureaucracy, the Office on Violence Against Women.

A lie is never static. A lie must always grow in order to stay one step ahead of the skeptics.

So the billion-dollar-a-year VAWA has spawned even more falsehoods. It wasn’t enough to say that women were the exclusive victims of DV. Soon we learned that violence against pregnant women was the leading cause of birth defects, that half of all homeless women are on the streets because of partner violence, and other propaganda-like factoids. [ ]

Recently a hyperventilating Catherine MacKinnon, law professor at the University of Michigan, compared partner aggression to the tragedy of 9/11: “Just like terrorist attacks, acts of violence against women are carefully planned, targeted at civilians, and driven by ideology.”

Eventually a lie becomes so bloated, so distorted, and so grotesque that people begin to have their doubts.

Indiana University law professor Linda Kelly recently exposed the neo-Marxist underpinnings of the DV industry. Kelley explained, “the ‘discovery’ of domestic violence is rooted in the essential feminist tenet that society is controlled by an all-encompassing patriarchal structure.” [ ]

Earlier this year the non-partisan National Academy Science delivered this stinging critique of VAWA-funded programs: “the design of prevention and control strategies…frequently is driven by ideology and stakeholder interests rather than by plausible theories and scientific evidence of cause.” [ ]

Fox News columnist Wendy McElroy lambasted VAWA as a “hand-me-down from the Clinton administration based on gender myths, anti-male bias and an infatuation with Big Government.” [ ]

And earlier this month columnist Phyllis Schlafly offered this wish to America’s fathers: “Congress can help us celebrate Father’s Day this year by refusing to reauthorize the costly VAWA boondoggle.” [ ]

For years the Democrats have clung to their receding power base by playing on the fears and vulnerabilities of racial minorities. Now the Dems are misleading women with the same red-meat rhetoric by saying they live under the constant threat of being beaten and bloodied.

Thanks to DV-induced hysteria, laws make it possible to evict husbands from their homes simply on the word of the woman. So it’s no surprise that so many eligible bachelors are refusing to marry. And it’s no coincidence that single women are far more likely than their married counterparts to vote Democratic.

An ever-growing climate of fear, an unaccountable federal bureaucracy, and a fading-away of the institution of marriage -- all that bodes well for Senator Biden’s presidential aspirations.

The Politics of Social Destruction at the US

Jan Fransen has come up with a new solution to the old problem of population control: AIDS.

At a meeting of the United Nations Population Fund, Fransen told his surprised audience that to “increase mortality” was one way to limit population growth in Africa. Fransen then made the jocular comment that “AIDS was helping to do the work of population control in Africa.” [ ]

With that mindset lurking at the UN, is it any surprise that the global campaign to stem the spread of AIDS has been a colossal failure?

Fed up with the shenanigans at the United Nations, the US House of Representatives has now issued an ultimatum to Kofi Annan. Implement 46 designated reforms by 2007, or else we’ll slash the US dues payment by half. That would cost the UN a cool $221 million.

Secretary-general Annan must contend with more than long-standing corruption and inefficiency in the sprawling UN bureaucracy. He must also deal with the threat of an ideological take-over. And to an organization prone to ideological excess, that’s no joking matter.

First, a little background. Five years ago, the UN unveiled its Millennium Development Goals. The MDGs spell out eight strategies to lift the world’s neediest out of grinding poverty. The strategies include common-sense ideas such as universal primary education, reducing child mortality, and combating AIDS. [ ]

And two of the strategies were specifically crafted to help women: improve maternal health, and “promote gender equality and empower women.” (No one bothered to explain what “empowerment” meant, but it sounded good at the time).

But mere equality wasn’t enough. Like rapacious vultures, the radical feminists demanded more. Predictably, they soon began to argue that setting up abortion chop-shops in every town and hamlet would be a necessary pre-condition to achieving the Development Goals.

This past March the UN Economic and Social Council convened a meeting to discuss the MDGs. There Ms. France Donnay, chief of the Reproductive Health Branch of the UN Population Fund, made the claim that “reproductive health and rights are at the core of life for every human being.”

So first we’re told that AIDS is a viable population control strategy. And now we learn that in order to protect life, we must first kill the innocent unborn. Jan Fransen and France Donnay make for an impressive duo, n’est pas?

Taking its cue from the damsels of destruction, last month the European Union released a report pressuring the UN to expand abortion services. According to its May 24 document, “The EU further recognizes that the MDGs cannot be attained without progress in achieving the Cairo goal of universal sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

Note the tell-tale words, “universal” and “rights.” That means government-financed abortions on demand for women and teenage girls. And millions of biologically-disenfranchised dads.

And there’s more to the story.

The fem-socialists at the UN have come up with a diabolical strategy that goes by the chilling name, “gender mainstreaming.” According to its proponents, gender mainstreaming is “the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programs, in all areas and at all levels.” [ ]

The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) is now proposing that gender mainstreaming should become the “overarching framework” for the Development Goals. But to the radical feminist, gender equality is always about “Me, Me, Me.”

So in practice, gender equality is just another excuse to afford more legal preferences and government programs for women. And gender mainstreaming has become the Sisterhood’s ploy to hijack the MDGs and turn them into another platform to advance its destructive agenda.

As Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America warned, these militant radicals are hoping the UN leadership will take their gender agenda and “force it into the mainstream through international programs and policies.” [ ]

So now the stage has been set for a show-down at the UN headquarters in New York City. On September 14-16, delegates from around the world will gather for the Millennium+5 Summit to gauge progress in reaching the Development Goals. [ ] At that time, feminists are hoping to push through their gender mainstreaming plan.

These Gender Warriors go about spreading calumnies about the mistreatment of women at the hands of selfish patriarchs. Their aim is to shame and intimidate men so they eventually acquiesce to their divisive and destructive agenda.

US House of Representatives, I hope you’re taking note.

A Government Program is No Substitute for a Bear-Hug

For the better part of the last 40 years, policy experts and childrearing gurus relegated fathers to the parental minor leagues. Dads were seen as well-intentioned but inept Homer Simpsons who might be able to teach junior how to swing a baseball bat, but little else.

But kids see it differently. Mary Kay Shanley’s book, When I Think About My Father, recites these love-words from Amanda, age 6: “At the end of the day when I go to bed, Daddy tucks me in. We talk together about our day. He reads me a story to help me sleep. We pray together. That is my favorite part.”

Research confirms with Amanda’s endorsement of fatherhood. It turns out that kids with hands-on dads have greater levels of self-esteem and social competence, get higher grades in school, and do better on a broad range of social and psychological indicators. Even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, over 90% of children who grow up in two-parent families avoid becoming delinquents.

Sadly, government social welfare programs have a dismal track record in this area. It’s not that they have just ignored the essential role of fathers. The problem is, they have offered inducements to actually remove dads from the lives of their kids.

This pattern can be traced back to the 1960s. Under Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, welfare benefits came with a catch: first, kick dad out of the house. As a result of this exclusionary “man-in-the-house” rule, the number of children growing up in fatherless homes rose dramatically.

Before long, people began to notice that poor fathers were “abandoning” their children. So beginning in 1975, the Congress passed a series of child support laws that targeted so-called “deadbeat” dads.

The reforms may have been well-intentioned, but they missed the mark on one key point: many low-income dads couldn’t pay their child support because they were on Skid Row. But that fact didn’t stop the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement, with a budget of $4 billion, from hounding indigent fathers and sending thousands to debtor’s jail each year. [ ]

But the government was not done with its task of dismembering the traditional family.

In 1994 the Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, a $1 billion-a-year feminist windfall that claims to combat domestic violence. One of VAWA’s tools is the issuance of restraining orders.

The dirty little secret that feminists never like to admit is that they have stealthily broadened the scope of violence. For example, the National Victim Assistance Academy came up with this all-encompassing definition: “Domestic violence is a pattern of coercive behavior designed to exert power and control over a person in an intimate relationship through the use of intimidating, threatening, harmful, or harassing behavior.” [ ]

As a result of this definitional sleight-of-hand, “domestic violence becomes whatever the woman says it is,” according to columnist Phyllis Schlafly. [ ]

So when these “battered” mothers seek a restraining order, they also petition for divorce and custody of the children. Once again, the kids are left without a father.

The effects of these federal programs are predictable -- and tragic. In 1960, five million American children lived in fatherless homes. By 1980, that number more than doubled to 11 million. And now, 16 million children live only with their mothers.

The National Fatherhood Initiative issued this sobering warning: “Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional, and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior.”

So consider the 16 million boys and girls who go to bed each night without getting a bear-hug from daddy, and it’s easy to see why a 1999 Gallup poll found that 72% of Americans believe that “the physical absence of the father from the home is the most significant problem facing America.”

On Father’s Day, it’s traditional to honor our fathers – those home-grown heroes who sacrifice their moments of quiet reflection, their comfort, and even their health to support and protect their families. This coming Sunday I will remember my own dad, thankful for all the good times we spent together.

Perhaps this Father’s Day should also be a day of reckoning. It’s time to ask, Why does the US taxpayer continue to subsidize government programs, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, that end up separating fathers from their families?

The Sun of Feminism Shines Brightly in Socialist Europe

Despite the resounding rejection of the European Constitution by French and Dutch voters, the fact is, old Europe still genuflects at the altar of socialism and collectivism. So it comes as no surprise that feminism has taken root there as readily as mushrooms sprouting on a pile of barnyard manure.

Karl Marx taught that if women desired to free themselves from the shackles of patriarchy, they first had to wrest control over the means of reproduction. Now birth rates in Europe have plummeted, choking off the inflow of young workers and imperiling the financial viability of the social welfare state.

The situation is especially acute in Germany, where the population is projected to decline from the current level of 82 million to 70.8 million persons by 2050. The fertility fall-off stems from a disintegration of family relationships – 83% of Germans say their main reason for not having children is their inability to find a partner or stable relationship. [ ]

In Europe, gender equality programs march under the flag of what the European Union bureaucrats call “gender mainstreaming.”

So blithely ignoring its impending demographic time-bomb, the German Ministry of Education and Research has announced a new gender mainstreaming program designed to entice even more women out of the home and into the workforce. [ ]

Advocates of gender mainstreaming claim they are merely trying to promote equal rights for the sexes. But in practice, this grand-sounding concept doesn’t quite work out that way.

For example, men in Austria live 76 years, while women enjoy a full 82 years of life. But that six-year disparity in life expectancy didn’t stop the government from establishing the Bundesministerium fur Gesundheit und Frauen – Ministry for Health and Women. [ ]

In Austria, some deaths apparently are more equal than others.

In sun-drenched Spain, gender equality meant passing a law that requires husbands to “share domestic responsibilities and the care and attention” of children. Like most countries, the most laborious and dangerous occupations in Spain are virtually all-male. One only hopes that in this new era of gender enlightenment, the Spanish senoras will soon be casting off their mantas to help out as hod carriers and to work the olive groves in the sweltering heat. [,2763,1454802,00.html ]

In Norway it was announced that women compose only 11% of members of corporate boards of directors, those bastions of male power and privilege. So minister Laila Daavoey recently decreed that henceforth all companies would be obliged to meet a 40% female board quota – or else face closure. [,5744,12770128%255E1702,00.html ]

Once those companies shut down, I’m sure the E.U. will be more than happy to subsidize the checks for all those unemployed workers, male and female.

But it’s Sweden where the Sisterhood has made the most progress toward true gender equality. There, almost half of the entire workforce and 45% of the members of Parliament are female.

Given these signs of an imminent gender paradise, one might expect the Swedish fems to embrace the now-deposed patriarchs and break into a heart-warming round of Kumbaya. But funny, that’s not what happened.

One of the more colorful Swedish politicos is one Gudrun Schyman, an alcoholic who got caught not paying her taxes and was forced to resign as a leader of the Left Party, the former Communist Party of Sweden. Schyman apparently forgot that in socialist societies, paying taxes is more inevitable than death.

That scandal didn’t stop Schyman from hatching her ultra-radical Feminist Initiative, which is now threatening the coalition government of the ruling Social Democrats. The FI’s shrill manifesto makes Schyman sound a lot more like David Duke than Mother Theresa. [ meet/2005/Schyman_FeministInitiative.html ]

Early last month a group of Stockholm women put the Feminist Initiative message to the test. One night they showed up at a local strip club wielding baseball bats and umbrellas. Police ended up arresting 16 women after the melee. [ ]

And to think all these years, I had thought that women were genetically incapable of inflicting violence.

In 1620 a small band of Pilgrims fled Europe in a pluckish effort to escape tyranny and secure their religious freedom. That experience weighed heavily on the minds of our nation’s forefathers as they forged a new country based on limited government, free markets, and individual liberties.

Nearly 400 years later, a new totalitarianism is blossoming in Europe. Under the seductive guise of gender equality, this ideological tyranny resorts to over-heated rhetoric, intrusive government, and intimidation tactics.

Maybe Europe hasn’t progressed as far as we’d like to think.

Equality for Men and Fathers - What a Concept!

Bill May didn’t get into synchronized swimming to make a political statement. “When I first joined,” he once explained, “I thought, ‘This is a great sport and it’s fun.’” But as things turned out, his greatest barrier would not be a lack of talent.

Joining the sport at age 10, May endured ridicule and strange looks for over 15 years. Synchronized swimming, after all, is for girls. But he succeeded in shrugging off the stereotypes and eventually became recognized as one of the elite synch swimmers in the country. In 2001 he swept the first-place spots in the solo, duo, and team categories at the Nationals in Texas.

But his career suffered a painful set-back when the estrogen barrier slapped him down. Last summer the U.S. Synchronized Swimming Federation decided to not allow him to participate in the August Olympics. Come and cheer the girls on to victory, they said, but don’t dare jump into that pool. [ ]

The reason for the Federation’s Olympic-sized refusal – unstated but widely believed to be true – is the belief that discrimination against men is simply a non-issue. “Since men have all the power,” persons glibly ask, “How is it possible for a male to be the victim of discrimination by another man?”

This simplistic analysis ignores the fact that power appears in many forms and guises.

Social commentator David Shackleton once made this observation: “Men’s power has been overt, and has lain primarily in the physical, economic, and political realms, while women’s power, fully the equal of men’s, has been covert and has operated in the moral, emotional, and sexual realms.”

So men, traditionally viewed as the head of the family, tend to be physically stronger and to be the primary wage-earners of the family.

But women are no shrinking violets. Women command the power to establish social norms (“Who left the toilet seat up?”), to set hubby’s weekend schedule (“Here’s the honey-do list, dear”), and on occasion, to shame their partner (“I’m sending you to the doghouse!”)

And dare we forget to mention sexual allure? Truth be told, some women intentionally cultivate their sexual power to tantalize and influence men. One of these days pick up a copy of Cosmo, a how-to manual for wordly women who know what they want, and know how to get it.

So David Shackleton would argue that whatever power that women may lack in the corporate boardrooms and in the halls of Congress, they more than make up for at home.

Over the past 40 years our society has undergone an extreme make-over in order to promote political and economical equality for women. That’s fine. But as Bill May found out, equality still eludes men. And we’re not talking about just synchronized swimming.

If men had equal rights, what would that look like? Here are just a few examples, for starters.

First, our society will begin to value and respect fatherhood -- and I’m not talking about a Wal-Mart tie on Father’s Day. We will realize that solving many of our most vexing social problems – delinquency, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and others -- will require recognition of the essential role of fathers in promoting safe and stable families. And in case of divorce, a fit father shouldn’t have to fight a biased legal system so he can stay involved in the lives of his kids.

Second, men will have equal say in matters of reproduction. Currently men are at the mercy of their partners because there is no effective male birth control pill, and because men have no say in decisions about keeping their unborn children.

Third, we will promote equality in health. Currently men die five years sooner than women, and that’s not because of biology. Despite that disparity in life expectancy, the federal government has five offices of women’s health -- but no office for men’s health.

For years the notion of gender equality was seen as a one-way street, intended to benefit women, but turning a blind eye to the social disparities of men. Mere mention of the words “men’s rights” was a sure-fire strategy to attract amused expressions and derisive remarks.

But for those who believe in fairness, as I believe most Americans are, we need to ask this simple question: Equal rights for men and fathers – who could possibly be against that?

Feminist Cover-Up Means Billion-Dollar Taxpayer Shake-Down

Sometimes it seems the Gender Warriors will stop at nothing to get their way.

A number of years ago University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the “The Battered Husband Syndrome.” After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses.

Steinmetz’s conclusion was so startling that she quickly became a media darling, appearing on the Phil Donahue show and having her work featured in a front-page story in Time magazine.

But the radical feminists were none-too-pleased with Steinmetz’s revisionism, and they knew something had to be done. So they placed Steinmetz on their hit list.

The fem-thugs began by calling University of Delaware faculty members, deriding Steinmetz’s work as “anti-feminist.” Then they leveled threats against Steinmetz and her children. Sponsors of her speaking engagements started to receive threatening phone calls. Finally, a bomb threat was called in to a meeting where Steinmetz was scheduled to speak. [ ]

Bullying tactics like these may be acceptable in totalitarian states, but are an anathema to an open democracy that cherishes tolerance and freedom of speech.

The intimidation campaign succeeded in forcing professor Steinmetz to leave her teaching post. But the feminists’ Mafia-like tactics ultimately backfired when they were exposed for all to see in Phil Cook’s 1997 book, Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence.

So the Sisterhood turned from intimidation to propaganda -- the old-fashioned, in-your-face type. Here are just a few of their neo-Leninist tactics:

  • Definitional deception: Define “violence” so broadly that it includes any unpleasant interaction a woman might have with a male.
  • Ideological idiocy: Claim that men cling to their power by gleefully abusing women. And since women don’t have any power, it’s impossible for them to be violent.
  • Data deluge: Repeat absurd claims like “women represent 95% of DV victims” so often as to drown out the truth.
  • Hypothesis hi-jinks: Don’t consider the possibility of female-initiated violence, and that way you don’t bother to survey the effects of domestic violence on men.
  • Medical mumbo-jumbo: Conjure up a pseudo-scientific diagnosis like “battered woman’s syndrome” to justify the most egregious acts of female violence.
  • Statistical shenanigans: Always present your statistics in nice round numbers like 75%. That way if you are challenged, you can always fall back and say the number is an “estimate.”
  • Shaming and vilification: If all else fails, malign anyone who doesn’t agree with your claims is a “woman-hater” or “sub-consciously sexist.”

No wonder that John Leo, columnist for US News and World Report, once described the feminist DV cover-up this way: “news stories on domestic violence are carefully crafted, consistently unreliable, and often just wrong.”

There’s a good reason for this spate of Ms.-information. The rad-fems want to hoodwink the public and politicians that there’s an epidemic of violence against women out there, and it’s spiraling out of control. Predictably, the cure for that epidemic is a new federal program that carries a hefty price tag.

The name for that federal program is the Violence Against Women Act, first signed into law by President Clinton in 1994. Thanks to VAWA, American taxpayers now cough up $1 billion a year – that’s billion with a “b” -- to help stop family violence.

But the truth is, VAWA is a Trojan Horse. If its goal was to help families, it would promote couple counseling and reconciliation. If its purpose was to assure gender equity, VAWA would also provide services for victimized men. If its aim was to thwart partner aggression, it would feature anger management classes for abusive women.

VAWA is not about helping families. This law is about demonizing men and sowing fear in the hearts of impressionable women. VAWA seeks to escalate the battle of the sexes into a gender war. No wonder so many eligible bachelors are now saying, “Thanks but no thanks.”

History teaches that the family is one of the strongest bulwarks against the centralization of governmental power. The proponents of VAWA seek to weaken and ultimately reconfigure the traditional family. That’s their socialist vision of the future.

VAWA Law Polarizes the Sexes, Weakens the Family

In his book, Our Dance Has Turned to Death, sociologist Carl Wilson traces the seven steps of societies in decline. Near the end, the country reaches Stage Five where the affection between husbands and wives is replaced by suspicion and hostility. Stage Six is marked by selfish individualism that fragments society into warring factions. [ ]

If Mr. Wilson’s analysis is correct, then American society is closer to anarchy than most people realize.

That process of family and social disintegration is spurred by the Violence Against Women Act – VAWA for short -- the $1 billion-dollar-a-year law that was passed five years ago at the behest of the radical feminists. VAWA comes up for renewal later this year in Congress.

When you look closely, it becomes clear that VAWA has an agenda that reaches far beyond the protection of women.

VAWA-funded educational programs push the time-worn storyline of the violent man and a brutalized woman. But that stereotype is false. The truth is, members of the fairer sex are just as likely to commit domestic violence as men. [ ]

But once society comes to believe that members of the male sex are a menace to women, it becomes easy to enact laws that strip men of their Constitutional rights of due process and equal treatment under the law.

Again, that’s where VAWA steps in.

One of the tools promoted by VAWA is the use of restraining orders. At first blush, the idea sounds common-sensical: a woman who is being abused should be able to get her husband removed from the house.

But in many states, judges crank out restraining orders like Confederate one-dollar bills, not pausing to verify the woman’s claims or even to hear the man’s side of the story.

A 1995 Massachusetts study found that 60,000 restraining orders were issued each year. In fewer than half of those cases was there even an allegation of physical violence. In the other cases, the woman simply claimed she felt afraid, or maybe there had been a marital spat. [ ]

Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court became concerned that this epidemic of restraining orders was fraying the fabric of judicial impartiality. The Court opined that judges must “resist a culture of summarily issuing and extending these orders.”

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, was even more candid: “Restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply…In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.”

Tactical advantage? Ms. Epstein was referring to the fact that while hubby is barred from the house, the wife quickly files for a divorce, and cleverly requests temporary custody of the kids. That paves the way for near-automatic award of sole custody once the divorce is finalized.

So careful about raising your voice, Pop, or you might be thrown out on your ear -- and end up losing your kids for good measure.

Is this beginning to sound like Carl Wilson’s Stage Five of societal dissolution? In fact, has anyone noticed that Constitutional protections of due process are being shredded by this near-hysteria over domestic violence?

And there’s more to the story.

Columnist Phyllis Schlafly recently probed the financial incentives that drive our nation’s child support system: “Follow the money,” she warned. “The less time that noncustodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they are required to pay into the state fund.” [ ]

So last month, family advocates in California set out to challenge these perverse incentives by introducing the Shared Parenting Bill. Their aim was to encourage equal participation of fathers by granting them joint custody of their children in the event of divorce. [ ]

Who could ever be against that?

The ladies from NOW, that’s who. Their argument? Changing the practice of awarding sole custody to mothers would expose the kids to all manner of abusive dads.

That smear conveniently ignored an interesting fact: it’s mothers, not fathers who are far more likely to abuse and neglect their children, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [ ]

So two weeks ago, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee killed the Shared Parenting Bill. And divorced children were rendered fatherless by a spiteful gender stereotype.

The fragmentation of society into warring factions – shades of Mr. Wilson’s Stage Six.

The Violence Against Women Act represents a frontal assault on both fatherhood and on the integrity of the traditional family. That’s a troubling harbinger for the dissolution of democratic society.

Whatever Happened to Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice?

Last week’s column, A Rash of Feminist Hate Speech, triggered a spirited debate. [ ]

One wag quipped, “What do you suppose would be the reaction if a group of men got together on a college campus and started talking this way about women?” Another opined that Catherine MacKinnon and her crew sound “exactly like the KKK.”

Of course, feminists flamed the article, trying to make the case that female bigotry is a justifiable, even courageous act of self-empowerment.


A few years ago Dale O’Leary wrote an article with the provocative title, “Radical Feminism as a Psychological Disorder.” Ms. O’Leary concluded that women who are deeply committed to feminist ideology “are seriously psychologically troubled.” [ ]

O’Leary viewed the culprit as a dysfunctional father-daughter relationship. “The Radicalized Feminist is filled with rage against ‘patriarchy’ which is Fatherhood writ large, because she is filled with rage against her own father,” O’Leary explained.

But a look at the childhood stories of several feminist icons paints a different picture.

Take Betty Friedan, who grew up amidst upper-class privilege in Peoria, Illinois. But her well-coifed mother turned out to be a compulsive gambler whose spendthrift ways left the family mired in debt. Worse, mom constantly ridiculed Betty, belittling her long nose and unkempt manner of dress. Betty eventually came to identify with her hen-pecked father, who had always expressed pride in his daughter.

Gloria Steinem’s father worked as an iterant antique dealer, and her childhood years were spent traveling around the countryside in a dome-shaped trailer. Steinem’s mother suffered from a severe depression that sometimes turned into violence. After her parents divorced at age eight, Gloria became her mother’s primary caregiver. Steinem would later reminisce that her happiest childhood memories were when her father took the family on summer vacations to Clark Lake, Michigan. [ ]

Then there’s Andrea Dworkin, the woman whose name is almost synonymous with loathing for men. (In my previous column, I incorrectly stated that Dworkin wrote The SCUM Manifesto. In fact, Valerie Solanas was the author.) Throughout her childhood, Andrea was locked in an internecine conflict with her mother, a hypochondriac who forced her husband to work three jobs in order to pay the medical bills. Dworkin also had a positive relationship with her father, a man she credited as introducing her to “the world of ideas.”

Two common themes emerge from the childhood accounts of these feminist leaders. Friedan, Steinem, and Dworkin all suffered at the hands of mothers who were abusive and pathological. And they had supportive, involved fathers.

Yet all ended up directing their anger at dad. Why? Probably because they wanted more patriarchal protection from their dysfunctional moms. (I can see the flames coming now.)

That would appear to be an unlikely genesis for a movement that set out to crush Patriarchy. But I never said logic was the Gender Guerillas’ strong suit.

The Sisterhood exploits women’s vulnerabilities by playing on an easy sense of me-mania. Psychologists call this narcissism, the personality trait that was inspired by Narcissus, the Greek god who saw his reflection in a pool and fell in love with himself.

Open up any woman’s magazine, and you’ll see advertisements that unabashedly appeal to self-entitlement. Everything from hand soap to resort vacations is peddled with tag lines such as, “Take time for yourself,” “You deserve it,” and “It’s all about you.”

Myrna Blyth, former editor of The Ladies Home Journal, knows this all too well. In her book Spin Sisters, Blyth remarks pointedly, “narcissism is an advanced evolutionary stage of female liberation. Me, me, me, means you’re finally free, free, free.”

Not all ladies read the women’s magazines, of course, or believe everything they read in them if they do.

But left unchecked, narcissism can turn into a serious character flaw. Psychologist Julie Exline explains how narcissists lose the ability to forgive: “they will often hold grudges on principle. Over time, such unforgiving tendencies may prevent the healing of wounded relationships.” [ ]

Exline concludes, “As part of that self-admiration, narcissists typically have a sense of entitlement in which they feel superior to others and expect special, preferential treatment.”

Expecting special, preferential treatment -- that description fits most feminists I’ve met to a “T.”

Four decades after Friedan’s Feminine Mystique swept the nation, the feminist movement has turned out to be a Trojan Horse that caters to women’s sense of privilege, preference, and power. This ideology has now ended up reinforcing the worst stereotypes about vindictive women who can’t rein in their own emotions.

That’s hardly my definition of liberation.

A Rash of Feminist Hate Speech

A woman named Mary took the open microphone. “Hello, my name is Mary Man-Hating-is-Fun,” she explained. “Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found great joy in threatening men’s lives, flicking off frat brothers and plotting the patriarchy’s death. I hate men because they are men.”

The 40 women in the audience, many wearing scissors around their necks, laughed and clapped, then broke into a light-hearted song about castration.

This event, advertised as the Patriarchy Slam, took place at the University of New Hampshire on March 10. [ ]

Some might be tempted to explain away this event as an aberration, perhaps some strange Wiccan initiation ritual performed at the end of a long New England winter.

For years, disdain for men has been nurtured in Women’s Studies programs around the country. Required reading for these courses typically includes the works of Andrea Dworkin, author of such books as The SCUM Manifesto. SCUM is an acronym for “Society for Cutting Up Men.”

How’s this for warm-hearted commentary on gender reconciliation: Every man is “the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman” and “Hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right.” Those insights earned Dworkin the status of a feminist cult-hero.

But on April 9 Andrea Dworkin unexpectedly left this earthly existence.

Five days later arch-feminist Catherine MacKinnon, grief-stricken over the passing of bosom-buddy Andrea, showed up on the Stanford University campus. There MacKinnon launched into a paranoid rant about the ever-lurking patriarchy: “Just like terrorist attacks, acts of violence against women are carefully planned, targeted at civilians, and driven by ideology.”

Under normal circumstances, anyone making such irrational claims would be quietly led away to a padded cell.

But Stanford Law School dean Kathleen Sullivan only saw fit to add to the loonier-than-thou atmosphere: “There are many other prominent feminist theorists in our times, but none of their philosophy is as sweeping and profound as MacKinnon’s.”

Then on April 16 MacKinnon published an article in the New York Times in which she extolled the mentally-deranged Dworkin as “an inspiration to so many women.” Seeking to turn her into a feminist martyr, MacKinnon argued, “How she was treated is how women are treated who tell the truth about male power.” [ ]

But Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young took sharp exception to MacKinnon’s fig-leaf eulogy. “To put it plainly: Dworkin was a preacher of hate,” Young countered, and “if she deserves ‘credit’ for anything, it’s helping infect feminist activism…with anti-male bigotry and paranoia.” [ ]

Anti-male bigotry and paranoia can have harmful consequences for women, as well.

Last November 17 Desiree Nall, a student at Rollins College in Winter Park, FL was cornered in a campus bathroom and raped. The police placed the campus on “high alert,” warning female students to stay indoors. Women were in a panic. An investigation ensued, eventually costing $50,000.

But the case began to unravel when Nall, a local women’s rights activist, gave inconsistent details about the incident and refused to assist with the composite sketches. Two days later, Nall called the police and admitted the whole thing was a hoax. Police officers later speculated that Nall was trying to “make a statement” about sexual violence. [ ]

Equally worrisome is how some persons dismiss feminists’ malicious antics as harmless fun.

A few days ago Jeffrey Zaslow wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal about girls who wear T-shirts with the slogan, “Boys are Stupid, Throw Rocks at Them.” Festooned with the light-hearted title, “Girl Power as Boy Bashing,” the article implies that hate speech is somehow a legitimate expression of female empowerment. [ ]

Sometimes I feel a little silly stating the obvious, but girls wearing clothes that preach violence and hate is not normal.

It’s no coincidence that feminist hate speech revolves around the issue of domestic violence. That’s because years ago the rad-fems highjacked the federal Violence Against Women Act, and have relentlessly milked the issue to inflame the fears of women. This, despite the fact that women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence. [

The Violence Against Women Act, which underwrites the radical feminist cause to the tune of $1 billion a year, is set to expire on September 30 of this year. As of this writing, no renewal legislation has been introduced, and time is running short.

Is it possible that the end of feminist hate speech is at hand?

New Catholic Patriarch may Derail Hillary's White House Plans

After a brief flirtation with compassionate conservatism, Hillary Rodham Clinton has returned to her neo-Marxist ways. On April 19 Senator Clinton introduced the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, a law that would pressure employers to fatten women’s paychecks, regardless of the number of hours worked or job qualifications.

The former Soviet Union once tried to divorce job productivity from wages. Of course, that removed persons’ incentive for hard work, and economic mayhem was the result. But Hillary is a lawyer, not a historian.

By interesting coincidence, Sen. Clinton’s bill was introduced the very same day that, half-way around the globe, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected as the new pope. Within hours he assumed the name Benedict XVI.

During the 1980s pope John Paul II worked courageously and relentlessly behind the scenes to topple Polish Communism. Now Cardinal Ratzinger is picking up where John Paul left off, publicly denouncing the scourge of socialism.

Faced with a man of towering intellect and unswerving moral courage, the Leftist media has responded by doing what it does best: cavil, criticize, and complain. All but calling the pope a religious bigot, columnist Andrew Sullivan warned, “And so the Catholic church accelerated its turn toward authoritarianism, hostility to modernity, assertion of papal supremacy, and quashing of internal debate.”

The pontiff is a man of rock-solid conviction who decries what he calls the “dictatorship of relativism.” Of course Benedict XVI views abortion as a social and moral abomination, repeatedly referring to it as a “grave sin.” And same-sex marriage is out, as revealed by this 1998 statement deploring the trend that “heterosexuality and homosexuality [would] come to be seen as simply two morally equivalent variations.”

At this rate, maybe the concepts of Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, will soon be restored to the public discourse.

Which brings me to Hillary’s ill-disguised aspirations to reclaim her throne in the White House and welcome the long-awaited feminist-socialist utopia.

Last June, when Senator John Kerry and President Bush were running neck-and-neck in the presidential race, Cardinal Ratzinger issued a letter that prohibited priests from giving the Holy Communion to a Catholic politician who is “consistently campaigning and voting” for permissive abortion laws.

Some priests felt that defending a woman’s “right to choose” represented a higher moral principle than protecting the lives of unborn innocents, so they chose to ignore that instruction. But that letter served to re-awaken the consciences of millions of Catholics, who on Election Day abandoned the Democratic Party in droves.

When to comes to radical feminism, the pontiff doesn’t mince words, either.

Last July 31 he released a Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women. Representing a brilliant and incisive critique of feminist theory, the Letter zeroed in on its two fundamental flaws. [ ]

First is the tactic of provoking gender conflict. Feminists try to convince women to “make themselves adversaries of men,” explained the Cardinal, which “leads to opposition between men and women.”

Second is the concept of androgeny, what Ratzinger denounced as the “obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes.” This flawed theory of gender “has inspired ideologies into question the family in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father.”

If that analysis didn’t give Hillary heartburn, the Letter’s conclusion must have: that feminist “distortions” and “lethal effects” were undermining the “natural two-parent structure” of the family.

Senator Clinton, it might be smart to stop giving away those autographed copies of “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child.”

But the German-born pontiff was not advocating a nostalgic return to the paternalistic days of kinder, kuche, and kirche. Instead he wrote about the need for an “active collaboration of the sexes” in order to bring the “feminine values” of faithfulness and caring to the forefront.

Last week, shortly before the Cardinals commenced their deliberations, then-Cardinal Ratzinger was invited to deliver the homily. In his remarks, he specifically singled out liberalism, collectivism, and Marxism as sources of perversion and error. [ ]

Liberalism, collectivism, and Marxism – that pretty much sums up Hillary’s whole political philosophy.

Un-constitutional VAWA Law Helped by a Propaganda Ploy

What do you get when you mix equal parts of gender myth, a casual disregard of Constitutional protections, and old fashioned political pork? VAWA – the Violence Against Women Act -- that’s what.

For the past decade, Americans have been subjected to the relentless message, There’s no excuse for domestic violence against a woman.

OK, but what about Piper Rountree who was convicted six weeks ago for the ambush-slaying of her former husband, University of Richmond professor Frederic Jablin? Are cases of female-on-male violence so rare as to be an amusing oddity in the newspaper obituary columns?

Here’s the shocker: Women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence against their intimate partners.

Chances are you’ve been heard the Urban Legend that follows the predictable line, male = abuser, female = victim. So I’m going to repeat my statement, this time with emphasis: Research shows that women are equally likely to commit partner aggression against their boyfriends, husbands, and ex-husbands.

We’re not talking about a handful of studies. Over 100 research reports have shown this to be true -- you can see for yourself by visiting this website:

Here’s how attorney Linda Kelly recently put it: “men and women commit violence at similar rates.” [ ]

Psychologist John Archer reached an even stronger conclusion in his article in the Psychological Bulletin: “Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression.” [ ]

It’s not a casual toss of a pillow or a playful jab at the chops. According to Dr. Archer, 38% of all persons who suffer domestic violence injuries are male.

So why don’t we read about these cases of female-on-male violence more often in the newspapers? Because men are far less likely to report the incident to the police – nine times less likely, according to one landmark study. [ ]

To understand the DV urban legend, we need to go back to 1991, when senator Joe Biden of Delaware introduced VAWA for the first time. [ ] But many in Congress were opposed to Biden’s bill because it ignored key provisions of the United States Constitution.

First, the proposed law flaunted the intent of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. Knowing that men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence, how could anyone in good conscience propose a law that would confer greater protections and services, but only for women?

Second, Biden’s proposed bill violated the principle of federalism enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, and thus infringed on state sovereignty.

Not surprisingly, Biden’s bill was soon relegated to the legislative deep-freeze. That didn’t please the rad-fems. So someone came up with the idea of a publicity stunt.

In January 1993, a daring group of women called a press conference in Pasadena, California. Sheila Kuhn of the California Women’s Law Center made the statement that would provide the boost the feminists were desperately looking for: Super Bowl Sunday was the “biggest day of the year for violence against women.”

That stunning claim quickly appeared on Good Morning America, in the Boston Globe, and elsewhere. The Oakland Tribune would report the Super Bowl causes men to “explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten.”

How’s that for dispassionate news reporting?

Some remained unconvinced, however, including reporter Ken Ringle of the Washington Post. In his article “Debunking the 'Day of Dread' for Women,” Ringle showed the feminist claim was a preposterous fraud. [ ] But Ringle’s expose’ came too late -- the genie was out of the bottle.

The Super Bowl Hoax, as it was later dubbed, no doubt will become a classic in the propaganda textbooks. And it clearly did succeed in triggering a surge of letters and phone calls to Congress. The following year the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law by President Clinton.

Less than five months from now on September 30, VAWA is set to expire. That means the Sisterhood’s billion-dollar-a-year gravy-train will dry up. Renewal legislation has not yet been introduced, apparently because the Republican majority hasn’t warmed up to the idea of dishing out mega-bucks to the GOP’s avowed political foes.

As the clock ticks down to September 30, the rad-fems are beginning to panic. Armageddon-Day strategy memos are circulating on the Internet. Decisive action soon will be needed to galvanize public support.

Get ready for a reprise of the Super Bowl Hoax.

Gender: Good Riddance, Farewell

In the Nature vs. Nurture debate, feminists rabidly insist that all psychological and social differences between the sexes are caused by the social environment. That ideologically-loaded belief is captured in that innocent-sounding word, “gender.”

There’s a strategic reason for that dogmatic assertion. As long as people believe that men and women are biological clones, the rad-fems can claim that the under-representation of female CEOs and politicians can be blamed on the Glass Ceiling, not on the informed lifestyle choices that women make.

And that in turn justifies the gender quotas, government set-asides, and all the other appurtenances of a feminist society.

The feminist thought police do not take kindly to persons who challenge widely-held beliefs. So when Harvard president Lawrence Summers suggested innate sex differences, not gender socialization patterns, might account for the shortage of female scientists, the Lefties were aghast.

But scientists insist Summers has a point, that the brains of men and women are anatomically and functionally different [ ]. Referring to the spatial abilities of the sexes, Judith Kleinfeld of the University of Alaska notes, “The average difference between males and females on psychological tests of these abilities is huge.” [ ]

The Summers’ dust-up has broadened into a broad-based examination of sex and gender. That argument is now being waged on two other fronts.

First is the Great Op-Ed Debate, that non-stop catfight that has been trying to answer the vexing question, Why do women represent only a small fraction of newspaper opinion writers?

Of course, there were the pundits like Amy Sullivan who predictably played the victim card. Sullivan blamed the problem on women who “have been raised to feel ill-at-ease in the rough-and-tumble, male-dominated world of political expression.” [ ]. Sorry, Ms. Sullivan, that argument may have played in Peoria 50 years ago, but not in 2005.

Others searched for more plausible explanations.

Gail Collins, the woman who runs the editorial page of the New York Times, admitted in a round-about way, “There are probably fewer women, in the great cosmic scheme of things, who feel comfortable writing very straight opinion stuff.”

And Maureen Dowd, whose writing style is perpetually stuck in full-attack mode, sounded more like a purring kitten when she admitted, “I wanted to be liked, not attacked...This job has not come easily to me.”

But it was Catherine Seipp who finally came out and stated the obvious: “The uncomfortable fact is that women just seem less interested in politics than men.” Why? Because “that typically female emotional-reaction-as-argument is one big reason why the op-ed pages are still mostly male.” [ ]

By remarkable coincidence, the Great Op-Ed Debate was being waged just as the journal Nature was about to release the startling results of a study that would profoundly challenge the basic feminist assumptions of gender.

That research, published late last month, found the inborn differences between men and women are far greater than previously suspected. Men and women differ by two percent in their genetic make-up [ ].

And here’s the jaw-dropper: That two percent sex difference is greater than the biological gap between humans and chimpanzees. In other words, the built-in differences between men and women are akin to the dissimilarities between man and ape.

Now we know why millions were so engrossed by that long-running TV series about Tarzan, Jane, and Chita.

First Larry Summers. Then the Great Op-Ed Debate. And now breakthrough research on the genetic differences between the sexes.

It’s high time that we accept the obvious: Men and women are not the same. Vivre la difference!

The Rise of Big Sister-ism

I have seen their shell-shocked eyes and unbelieving expressions.

Men saddled with crushing child support obligations, forced to live on scraps or else fall into a desperate sea of mounting debt. A few of them are white-collar guys who once held respectable jobs and lived in comfortable houses.

Time marches forward, and the cases only become more bizarre.

Steve Barreras paid $20,000 to support his daughter, a girl he had never met. In fact, she didn’t even exist. His ex-wife Viola Trevino took another family’s daughter to court and claimed the child as hers. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson has now ordered an investigation.

In Michigan, Terrace Hale had $300 garnished from each paycheck for three years. The money went to support a woman he's never met to raise a child he's never fathered. Now, Marilyn Stephen, director of the Michigan Office of Child Support, refuses to give Mr. Hale’s money back.

Then there are those cases of adolescent boys who were victimized twice. First by their adult female rapists, and then by an inflexible child support system that came knocking [ ].

The voice of justice and outrage asks, How could this happen in America?

The answer can be found in our nation’s 30-year crusade to extract child support payments from mostly minority, low-income fathers, men who now bear the contemptuous epithet, “Deadbeat Dads.”

Last year professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University probed the allegations that have been leveled against these “deadbeats.” His must-read article, “Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis?,” reached some surprising conclusions [ media/pdf/tir_08_4_baskerville.pdf ]:

Charge #1: Most marriages break up because fathers “have chosen to abandon their children,” as president Bill Clinton once put it.

Not true. Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen found that women file for divorce in 70% of cases. Likewise, Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver reports in his book Divorced Dads that two out of three divorces are initiated by women.

Charge #2: When women do leave the marriage, it’s to escape domestic violence and abuse.

False. The number one reason cited by divorcing moms, according to Braver, is “not feeling loved or appreciated,” and not anything to do with violence.

Charge #3: Dads don't pay their child support because they don't care about their kids.

Absurd. A 1998 Rutgers and University of Texas study concluded: “many of the absent fathers who state leaders want to track down and force to pay child support are so destitute that their lives focus on finding the next job, next meal, or next night’s shelter.” The problem is not dads who are dead-beats, the problem is men who are dead-broke.

Charge #4: Kids don’t really need their dads, anyway.

Absolutely false. This is the most scurrilous myth of all, because the truth is the polar opposite, and the harmful effects on children are so great. “Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders,” notes Baskerville.

It is no coincidence that all four of these myths place fathers in a bad light. And that suits the Divorce Industry – that veritable army of lawyers, family court judges, custody evaluators, and child support enforcers -- just fine.

These myths have become so ingrained in our thinking that basic Constitutional protections are being casually tossed aside. One brief on child support from the Left-leaning National Conference of State Legislatures made this stunning recommendation: “The burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” which of course means, “Fathers can be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.”

Of course, it’s divorce that triggers the monstrous child support machinery to lurch into motion. The rise of no-fault, unilateral divorce does not trouble the Sisterhood. In fact, they welcome it.

Over the past 50 years, the National Association of Women Lawyers has spearheaded the adoption of no-fault divorce legislation throughout the country, laws that made marital dissolution that much easier. The NAWL now notes with satisfaction, “the ideal of no-fault divorce became the guiding principle for reform of divorce laws in the majority of states.”

A growing divorce rate. Disenfranchised dads. Children lacking paternal guidance and protection. An ever-expanding child support apparatus. Careless disregard of Constitutional protections. A growing totalitarian mindset.

That’s the Matriarchy at work.

Hillary Plays the Female Supremacist Card

If you’re looking for a paragon of female virtue, don’t waste your time in Chappaqua, New York. Of all American politicians, there is no one who is more ethically-challenged or morally-tainted than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Do a Google search on “Hillary Clinton” and “scandal,” and your computer’s memory chip will choke, gag, and cough. Here’s just a partial list to wet your whistle:

  • 1978: Parlayed a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a sizzling $100,000 profit.
  • 1985: Accepted a $2,000 a month retainer from Madison Guaranty, a fact she later tried to deny.
  • 1993: Ousted the White House travel office and replaced it with World Wide Travel, Clinton’s source of $1 million in fly-now-pay-later campaign trips.
  • 1996: Attempted to conceal the fact that she had received $120,000 worth of free ghost-writing services for her Writing History book.

And just three months ago, Senator Clinton’s former finance director David Rosen was indicted on charges that he had lied to the Federal Election Commission about HRC’s campaign expenses.

Whatever else Mrs. Clinton may claim to be, she is first and foremost a fem-socialist. Mao’s Little Red Book instructs revolutionary-wannabees to vilify and malign their opponents. To Saint Hillary, the enemy is that vast penile conspiracy called the Patriarchy. Which means men are all considered fair game.

So at a recent address to the Vital Voices’ Women’s Global Leadership Summit, Hillary attempted to deflect attention away from her besmirched ethical resume’. Here she goes again:

“Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.”

Note Hillary’s effort to prop up a dubious claim by using the word “research” without bothering to mention the source of her information.

Hillary, supreme mistress of irony that she is, made those remarks about the impeccable ethical standards of women just two days after Martha Stewart wrapped up her five month stint in the slammer. Maybe Hillary forgot that Stewart had lied to federal investigators about her use of insider information to dump her biotechnology stocks.

One of the dogmas of radical feminism is that a woman can do anything a man can do. The logical extension of that belief is that women should represent 50% (or more) of all politicians, CEOs, scientists, and so on.

But in January, Harvard president Larry Summers committed a capital heresy. He suggested that innate biological differences might be part of the reason for the predominance of men in elite science departments.

That remark triggered a firestorm of protest. But the venomous denunciations backfired when persons around the country came to view Summers as yet another victim of Leftist intolerance.

A few weeks later Charlotte Allen wrote a column in the Los Angeles Times that commented on the dire shortage of female intellectuals. Allen blamed the problem not on sex discrimination, but rather because “Ideological feminism has ghettoized and trivialized the subject matter of women’s writing.” [ ]

Predictably, that statement provoked another raging-hormones debate that is beginning to resemble catfight [ ].

Then last week a 5-foot tall female police officer – a grandmother at that -- was assigned to accompany accused rapist Brian Nichols into an Atlanta courtroom. Nichols proceeded to wrest away her gun and went on a murderous rampage.

Now we are beginning to get an idea why there is a shortage of female scientists, intellectuals, and police officers.

Perhaps it’s time to expand the discussion. Why, 85 years after women were granted the right to vote, do we have only 14 females serving in the U.S. Senate?

To answer that question, consider a bill recently proposed by Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. They introduced the “Pregnancy Recovery Education Program for Women in the Military” act to help military moms during the 12 months following delivery.

And why should we spend $2 million for this latest example of feminist pork? According to the two senators, these downtrodden women “continue to serve actively while still physically recovering from pregnancy and the physical trauma of giving birth.”

So much for those lean, mean, fightin’ machine G.I. Janes.

Last week female attorney Devvy Kidd reached the point of exasperation with this you-can-never-do-enough-to-please-a-woman mentality. “Throw out all female members of Congress!” she demanded [ ].

No doubt taking aim at Her Royal Highness, Kidd charged, “these hormone-driven legislators are breeding generations of women who are not being ‘empowered;’ they are being turned into whining, gimmee-gimmee females.”

With utter disregard for the truth and common decency, female supremacist Hillary Clinton continues to stereotype and malign men, thinking this will somehow shore up her support with the female electorate.

Soft Totalitarians on the Loose at the UN

News Flash – UN top brass have begun to realize that the American public is growing tired of the non-stop scandals oozing like putrid swamp-fill from the world body. Appearing on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, UN chief of staff Mark Malloch Brown was forced to admit, “In a very real way, we seem to have lost touch with the great middle in America.”

But Mr. Brown is actually quite fortunate.

Because if Middle Americans knew how radical feminists are working tirelessly behind the scenes to spread their socialistic views of gender equality, he would be facing a public relations problem of tsunamic proportions.

The Gender Warriors now operate with impunity from three base camps within the UN bureaucracy:

1. Commission on the Status of Women – This committee orchestrated the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. The CSW organized the 10-year progress review of Beijing that concluded this past Friday in New York City [ ].

2. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) – Originally adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979, this Trojan Horse treaty now has 179 signatory nations [ ].

3. Inter-agency Network on Women and Gender Equality – This is the group that rides herd on the countless UN agencies and initiatives designed to promote women’s issues [ ].

Gender feminists are now working to expand their agenda to encompass the full range of specialized UN agencies. For an eye-opening look at the bullying tactics they use, pick up a copy of Dale O’Leary’s book, The Gender Agenda.

This is just a partial list of the UN organizations that now specialize in gender issues:

  • UNIFEM, the UN Development Fund for Women: Serves as the bully pulpit for director Noeleen Heyzer, whose high-voltage rhetoric makes Gloria Steinem sound like a bow-tie conservative.
  • UNICEF: Headed by arch-feminist Carol Bellamy, who succeeded in proving you can make a renowned organization go bad in just a few short years [ ]
  • UN Population Fund: Aims to control population growth through the shameless huckstering of abortion services and forced sterilizations on women and teenage girls.
  • UNAIDS: Shows what happens when Leftist ideology is substituted for sound science in the fight to stop AIDS [ ].
  • World Health Organization: Thanks to former feminist director Gro Harlem Brundtland, gives top billing to women’s health, even though men suffer from shorter lifespans [ ].

Still, the Sisterhood seeks to maximize its body count. Watch for these upcoming search-and-destroy missions in the coming months:

First the femmes want to gender mainstream the rest of the UN. In case you hadn’t heard, gender mainstreaming is “the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies, or programs, in all areas and at all levels.” Note the all-encompassing phrases, “any planned action” and “in all areas and at all levels.”

Second, in order to focus its efforts, the UN has established what it calls Millenium Development Goals [ ]. Out of the eight Goals, two are specific to women:

  • Promote gender equality and empower women
  • Improve maternal health

Now the feminists want to “mainstream” the gender perspective to the six remaining Development Goals. That may happen as early as this coming September at the MDG Summit.

Third, the rad-fems have designs on the International Criminal Court. The ICC now claims jurisdiction over a long list of so-called “crimes against humanity,” including forced pregnancy and sexual violence.

“Forced pregnancy” is fem-speak for not providing free abortion services, and no one has yet to define “sexual violence.” But once they fortify their power base, the Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice no doubt will tell us what they have in mind [ ].

In the past, totalitarianism was enforced by the GULAG, goon squads, and economic reprisals. That was “hard” totalitarianism.

Now we face a new threat, what Italian politician Rocco Buttiglione likes to call “soft totalitarianism.” Buttiglione sees this trend unfolding at the European Union, which regulates the smallest details of life down to the permissible curve of bananas.

Soft totalitarianism has a kinder, gentler face. It pretends to advance the cause of equality. It claims to be working for a gender utopia.

But in practice, soft totalitarianism relies on government-sponsored bribery (known as the welfare state), top-down imposition of laws, rampant distortions of fact, and mass re-education [ ].

The end result of both forms of totalitarianism is exactly the same – concentration of power in the government, economic stagnation, undermining of the family, and curtailment of individual liberties.

At the UN, the color of jackboots is lavender and pink.

Something Amiss in the United Nations' Gender Health Agenda

In 1998, Gro Harlem Brundtland was named as the first female director-general of the World Health Organization. Many hailed her appointment as a long-overdue opportunity to introduce a new ethic of female compassion at the highest levels of the United Nations.

Indeed, Dr. Brundtland was a well-known advocate for women’s rights and health needs. In 2003 she presented this analysis to the 59th U.N. Commission on Human Rights:

“Millions of women accept poor health status as their lot in life and bring up their daughters to do the same. Why? Because they have been ascribed an inferior status and are victims of a persistent devaluing of women's contribution to society.” [ ].

Around the same time, other women came into positions of authority and power within the United Nations. Now, a feminist perspective permeates many of the U.N. services.

This article examines the sex-specific health programs at the World Health Organization and other key agencies of the United Nations.

Overall Health Status of Men and Women

On practically every indicator, the health of men lags in comparison to women.

In almost every country around the world, men have a shorter life expectancy than women. The disparity ranges from 4.0 years in Israel, to 5.4 years in the United States, to a disturbing 12.6 years in the Russian Federation [ ]. These variations cannot be accounted for by biological differences.

More males than females die from all three major categories of death, according to the World Health Organization [ ]:

Communicable Diseases

Males: 9,252,000; Females: 8,495,000

Non-communicable Diseases

Males: 16,998,000; Females: 15,856,000


Males: 3,415,000; Females: 1,647,000

Suicide is of particular concern. The WHO reports that globally, the suicide rate is 24 per 100,000 for men, compared to only 3.5 per 100,000 for females. The WHO report concludes, “The rate of suicide is almost universally higher among men compared to women by an aggregate ratio of 3.5 to 1” [ ].

The lifespan gender gap is expected to worsen in the future. According to the WHO Global Burden of Disease study, women's life expectancy in industrialized countries is expected to increase to about 90 years by 2020. As for men, “far smaller gains in male life expectancy were projected than in females.”

Against this background of widespread health disparities affecting men, the World Health Organization has established a wide range of sex-specific programs. These initiatives include a WHO Department of Women’s Health [ ] and a Global Commission on Women’s Health.

Similar WHO programs do not exist for men.

The justification for this omission may be found in the 24th General Recommendation of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which counsels that: "special attention should be given to the health needs and rights of women belonging to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups” [ ].

Apparently, dying 5-12 years earlier than women does not qualify men as being vulnerable or disadvantaged.

War-Related Health Problems

In 2000, 233,000 men died of war-related injuries, compared to only 77,000 women, according to the WHO World Report on Violence and Health [ - Table A.5]. This represents a 3:1 sex disparity.

A recent example occurred in Afghanistan. Over a 10-year period, the Taliban terrorized ethnic villagers. As documented in numerous reports from Amnesty International, the most egregious violations of human rights were directed against civilian men, who were often maimed, tortured, and killed [ OpenView&expandall ].

The Taliban also mistreated Afghani women, who were prohibited from obtaining employment and attending school.

On April 7, 2000, the U.N. Security Council registered its concerns about the perilous situation in Afghanistan. Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the United Nations, euphemistically alluded to the “separation of men from their families”. In this case, “separation” really meant “never heard from again.”

Secretary-general Annan then issued this ringing denunciation of the mistreatment of women:

“The Security Council condemns the continuing grave violations of the human rights of women and girls, including all forms of discrimination against them, in all areas of Afghanistan, particularly in areas under the control of the Taliban. It remains deeply concerned about continued restrictions on their access to health care, to education and to employment outside the home, and about restrictions on their freedom of movement and freedom from intimidation, harassment and violence. The Council notes the recent reports of modest progress regarding the access of women and girls to certain services, but considers that such incremental improvements, while welcome, still fall far short of the minimum expectations of the international community, and calls upon all parties, particularly the Taliban, to take measures to end all violations of human rights of women and girls”

Apparently, the mobility restrictions that the Taliban had imposed on women were more disturbing to Mr. Annan than the mass executions of men.

Following this same logic, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1325 on October 31, 2001. The Resolution makes this extraordinary claim, “civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict.”

The resolution clearly contradicts the information presented above from the WHO World Report on Violence and Health.

When war strikes, civilian populations are often left homeless. The United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees once made the following plea on its website: “The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees...One million women and children...homeless, hungry, helpless” ( ).

The UN High Commissioner had nothing to say about men who were homeless, hungry, and helpless.

Other Types of Violence

Overall, violence accounts for 14% of deaths among males, and only 7% of deaths among females ( ). But the WHO Report on Violence and Health slants the issue in a way that downplays the effects of violence on men.

For example, the discussion on Child Soldiers makes no mention of the fact that most children forced into military combat are male [ - Box 8.3 ].

A similar bias appears in the Report’s treatment of domestic violence. Despite the fact that over 100 studies that show that women are as likely to initiate partner aggression as men [ ], the chapter on domestic violence portrays the problem as a male-on-female phenomenon.

Even though violence is a problem that disproportionately affects men, the WHO disingenuously presents the information in such a way as to imply that women are in fact at greater risk.

Gender Agenda Gone Awry

Thanks to the determined efforts of Eleanor Roosevelt, the United Nations ratified the acclaimed Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. This Declaration is the international covenant that defines and affirms essential human rights.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights addresses the right to life: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” And Article 2 of that Human Rights treatise specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

But the preferential provision of health services to groups at lesser risk is a clear-cut case of discrimination.

Something has gone terribly wrong. The health programs of the World Health Organization and other agencies are violating the U.N.’s most cherished founding principles. Under the guise of promoting gender equality in health, sexism now carries sway at the UN.

Orwellian State at the UN Women's Conference

For sheer propaganda value, it doesn’t get any better than the United Nations women’s conference in New York City.

No doubt you are wondering why your local newspaper didn’t cover this historic event. The reason is, the sessions were so mired in fem-speak and harsh rhetoric that the ultra-liberal New York Times decided to take a pass. Ditto for the Washington Post and Boston Globe.

Ten years ago in Beijing, the Commission on the Status of Women conference gave its speakers free rein. But then Madame Hillary let loose with her keynote rant, making nonsense claims such as “Women are 70% of the world’s poor” [ ].

This time around the conference planners learned their lesson. Everything was scripted, right down to the snappy slogans and approved list of grievances. Once you heard UN secretary-general Kofi Annan give his welcoming speech, you knew you were going to be hearing a lot about “gender equality and women’s empowerment.”

Of course, it’s all a ruse.

When the Sisterhood speaks of “equality,” equal opportunities for men and women are the last thing they have in mind. In fact, “equal opportunity” appeared to be on the conference organizer’s list of banned expressions. Feminists don’t like the O-word because it implies women might need to operate on an even and fair basis with men.

So when feminists claim to be in favor of gender equality, they are really referring to a genderless society. “Gender equality” means “genderless society.” Get it?

To achieve their gender-free utopia, the rad-fems employ tactics that are hallmarks of totalitarian societies: revamping the traditional family, mass re-education programs, gender quotas, and discriminatory laws that promise to “re-engineer” society [ ].

Mind you, the feminist rendition of “gender equality” is always a one-way street. Around the world, men have a higher death rate than women []. The victims of worksite deaths are almost always male. Men’s suicide rate is three and a half times higher. [ ]

But the problems of men will just have to wait.

Then there’s the mantra of “women’s empowerment” -- that one is even more disingenuous. Feminists think of “empowerment” in the neo-Marxist sense – inducing women to become angry and resentful, thus driving a wedge between the sexes and undermining marriage, the most fundamental unit of society.

Propaganda is a slippery slope. Once you tell an untruth, you have to come up with more falsehoods in order to be consistent.

These are a few examples of the lies that filled the halls of the United Nations this past week:

Eduardo Sevilla, acting president of the UN General Assembly, alleged that women are “discriminated against more than any other minority.” That statement contains two absurdities. First, women represent a majority of the world’s population. Second, Sevilla’s remark flatly ignores the ethnic-cleansing that has been directed against minority populations in Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, and elsewhere.

Then Munir Akram, president of the UN Economic and Social Council, repeated the old myth about women being the main victims of war. Apparently Mr. Akram never got around to reading the UN’s recent Report on Violence on Health, which documented that 310,000 men, and only 77,000 women, died of war-related injuries in 2000 [ ].

Next the ever-shrill Noeleen Heyzer, executive director of the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), stepped to the podium and claimed that “violence against women has become routine as a weapon of war.” That hyper-inflated remark ignores the fact that women are just as likely to commit domestic violence as men [ ].

Several speakers fell back on the old stand-by, the gender wage gap, even though that shibboleth has now been thoroughly debunked [ ]. Propagandists care little about the facts, because the ends always justify the means.

Really, how can so many well-educated, highly-placed UN officials say so many stupid things?

After listening all day to the ideological slogans, factual distortions, and emotional harangues, one almost begins to believe they are true. That’s how brainwashing works.

The history of 20th century Europe offers a cautionary tale of social movements that promised a better future, but in truth were fueled by lies and anger. Looking back, no one doubts the sinister nature of those movements.

Now in 2005, the face of modern-day evil is beginning to emerge. That face wears the mask of radical feminism. And slowly but surely, that divisive ideology is taking hold at the United Nations.

The Pink Pussy-cat Bares Her Fangs

Following their November 2 electoral melt-down, the Sisterhood and the rest of the radical Left lapsed into bitterness and despair. Sensing that Middle America is turning a cold shoulder on their socialist agenda, the rad-fems have now unleashed a last-ditch campaign of intimidation, accusations, and threats.

On January 9, former Indiana representative Tim Roemer announced he was running for the top post of the Democratic National Committee. Many believed Roemer was exactly the boost the wilting Democratic Party needed – someone with a moderate ideology, fresh ideas, and Midwestern roots. But there was a slight problem: Mr. Roemer is a Catholic, and his resume’ revealed a pro-life voting record.

That was more than the pro-abortion jihadists in the Democratic Party could stomach.

With cat-like stealth, “they” put together an “opposition research memo,” pol-speak for a smear campaign. I put “they” in quotation marks because no one was willing to admit who perpetrated the hatchet job.

Next, Nancy Keenan, incoming president of NARAL Pro-Choice America (that’s a feel-good name, isn’t it?) powered up the feminist buzz-saw. She ordered NARAL’s state affiliates to pressure the 447 DNC delegates to toe the pro-abortion line.

Roemer is as feisty a politician as you will get. But the NARAL activists turned his abortion views into a single-issue litmus test, and soon he was forced to withdraw. An angered Roemer later commented they “tried to make abortion the radioactive anvil that hung around my neck…They threw two kitchen sinks at me.”

Then just five days after Roemer announced his DNC candidacy, Harvard president Lawrence Summers made a comment that “innate differences” between the sexes may account for why top science positions are filled mostly by males. Sitting in the audience was one MIT professor Nancy Hopkins. Upon hearing his remarks, Hopkins nearly swooned and had to exit the room.

The Fearsome Felines became so enraged over Summers’ suggestion that they mounted a campaign designed to embarrass and humiliate the Harvard president. Summers soon confessed to his ideological revisionism and commenced a round of self-criticism. But that wasn’t enough, and now the N.O.W operatives are calling for a complete ideological cleansing.

Dismayed by the Soviet show-trial atmosphere at Harvard, civil-liberties lawyer Harvey A. Silvergate remarked, “The modern university is the culmination of a 20-year trend of irrationalism marked by an increasingly totalitarian approach to highly politicized issues.” [ ]

The missteps of Roemer and Summers were bad enough, but after all, they were made by members of the male oppressor class. What really stirs up a cat fight, though, is when a woman – a woman! – hisses at the Sisterhood.

That’s what happened on February 13, when the Los Angeles Times ran a piece by Charlotte Allen. Commenting on the dearth of female intellectuals, Allen explained, “Ideological feminism has ghettoized and trivialized the subject matter of women's writing.” [,0,438376.story ]

The feminist catechism does not take well to apostasy, and it fell to one Susan Estrich to deliver the ex-communication. Estrich is the ultra-liberal University of South California law professor who likely would have been John Kerry’s first nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

First, Estrich broadcast a thermonuclear e-mail accusing the Times of “blatant sex discrimination” and calling for a quota for female columnists. Worst of all, she branded Miss Allen a “feminist-hater.” Off with her head!

Then in an exchange of e-mails with opinion-page editor Michael Kinsley, Estrich pulled out every intimidation tactic in the book. She threatened to approach the LA Times advertisers. She accused the Times’ male editors of “unconscious discrimination” -- how’s that for the mother of all guilt trips?

And then showing incredibly bad taste, she suggested that Kinsley’s health “may have affected your brain, your judgment, and your ability to do this job.” But Kinsley refused to give in to Estrich’s sourpuss demands.

Estrich made a slight miscalculation, though – she cc’ed her hot-head threats to the Examiner. This past Saturday the Examiner published the entire acerbic exchange [ ].

Now, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Let’s just say that Susan Estrich is no longer on anyone’s short list for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Anyone who has had dealings with the rad-fems knows how they rely on every type of psychological, social, and legal manipulation to get their way. Give them an inch, and they take a mile. In the past, these machinations took place behind closed doors, so the public remained in the dark. But now, their storm-trooper tactics have come out of the closet, for all the world to see.

Hooray for editor Michael Kinsley and all the other men and women who Just Say No to the feminist bullies.

Misandrist Marriage Movement

Maggie Gallagher is in hot water over her $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, money received while her editorials were singing the praises of the Bush Administration’s marriage initiative. Sounding slightly clueless, Gallagher explained, “Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don’t know. You tell me.”

But Gallagher’s problems go beyond this ethical faux pas. While I support traditional marriage, there’s a fundamental problem with Maggie Gallagher’s approach.

In a February 2000 column called “False Valentines,” Gallagher decried the problem of partner co-habitation. In that article she hijacked Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s ageless sonnet of romantic love, and turned it into a feminist screed.

Here’s Maggie’s rendition of “How Do I Love Thee?”: “Let me count the ways. I love thee while scrubbing your dishes and washing your floors… and while you claim your freedom, your leisure, your paycheck, and my paycheck as your own.”

Do I detect something other than dewy-eyed glances in that Valentine’s Day rant?

Gallagher has now toned down her rhetoric, but her fundamental worldview remains the same: Blame the man first -- and let the woman off easy.

In her 2004 column, “Be a Man, Get a Wife,” Gallagher takes on the topic of out-of-wedlock births. She issues this harsh indictment: When a man declines to marry, he is saying, “I reserve the right to find someone better in the future, which includes the right to break up this family, the right to make love and children with another woman in the future.” [ ]

OK, but what about the femmes fatales who seduce their boyfriends and then commit paternity fraud by intentionally naming the wrong man as the father? Gallagher never talks about that.

In “The New Advocates for Marriage,” Gallagher laments the decline of marriage in the African-American community. But once again, the finger of blame is pointed at the male sex. According to Mrs. Gallagher, the problem is “a catastrophic lack of marriageable men. Men with jobs. Faithful men. Family men.” [ ]

But Gallagher refuses to acknowledge the fact that welfare policy over the last 40 years has consistently favored low-income women over men. And now we’re paying the price for that one-sided approach.

The marriage movement faces many challenges, not the least of which is that many men have come to believe that marriage is a raw deal. And we’re not talking about just a few malcontents.

Last year Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe of Rutgers University did a national survey of single heterosexual men, ages 25-34. They found that 22% of America’s most eligible bachelors – that’s two million potential husbands -- have no desire to get married. Ever. [ ].

Why? Because, in the words of the Rutgers’ researchers, “Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce” and “Some men express resentment towards a legal system that grants women the unilateral right to decide to terminate a pregnancy” [ ].

So this past December, amidst great hoopla and fanfare, Maggie Gallagher released her latest white paper, “What’s Next for the Marriage Movement?” The document, co-signed by over 100 scholars, therapists, and others, announces 86 sweeping goals to “recreate a marriage culture” [ ].

So what does the 26-page report say to reassure gun-shy men who fear they might be put through the ringer by biased child custody awards or draconian child support laws? Or the obvious unfairness of abortion laws that disenfranchise fathers?

Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Even more revealing, Mrs. Gallagher’s manifesto repeatedly uses the phrase, “mothers and fathers.” But never, “fathers and mothers.” The message is clear: “Move over, guys. Mom is now running the show.”

Of course, women have always wielded the advantage over men in the domestic realm. They serve as the social and emotional hub of the family. They usually decide how the family budget will be spent. They have the stronger biological ties with the children. Indeed, the word “matrimony,” with its female connotations, suggests this institution has long revolved around meeting a woman’s needs.

So designating the father as the titular head of the family seemed to compensate in small measure for this power imbalance. But without a murmur of debate, Gallagher and her merry band have opted to reverse that time-honored arrangement.

There is no more important challenge in modern America than the strengthening of marriage, and I wish Mrs. Gallagher’s group well. But as long as their concerns are ignored and belittled, Gallagher’s approach is bound to further alienate the millions of disaffected men who feel they have no other choice than to remain on a Marriage Strike.

Unequal Pay for Equal Work?

There is no better example of how radical feminism hoodwinks women than the gender “wage gap” controversy.

For years, the Gender Warriors have been on the war path over this issue. Their argument is simple: On average, female employees receive 76 cents for every one dollar paid to male workers. And that difference equals discrimination.

It’s time to blow the whistle on that nonsense. And a just-released book by Warren Farrell does exactly that. Why Men Earn More is chock-full of government wage data and research findings which shows the feminist-driven “pay gap” is an ideological con-job.

I feel a little silly making such an obvious statement, but I guess it needs to be said: the work patterns of men and women are different.

First, the sheer amount of work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time men clock an average of 45 hours a week, while women put in 42 hours. Men are more than twice as likely as women to work at least 50 hours a week – that’s why most CEOs are male.

Only in a socialist economy do employees get paid the same, regardless of the number of hours worked.

Second, men tend to gravitate to the socially-unrewarding but lucrative fields like computer programming, tax law, and engineering. And women select professions such as teaching, nursing, and social work that pay less, but offer more job flexibility.

Third is job desirability. Recently the Jobs Rated Almanac rated 250 jobs based on income, work environment, physical demands, stress, and so forth. These were the five worst jobs: seaman, ironworker, cowboy, fisherman, and lumberjack.

Does it come as a surprise that all of these jobs are male-dominated? The only way these companies can attract men to do the dirty work is to increase their paychecks.

Finally is the difference in job hazards. Men represent 92% of all occupational deaths. Why? Because if you look at a list of the most hazardous occupations – fire fighting, truck driving, construction, and mining – they have 96-98% male employees, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Shouldn’t men who risk their lives on a daily basis be paid something extra?

Warren Farrell then takes aim at the dishonest depiction of the wage gap issue by the media. He cites one shrill headline that read, “Study of TV News Directors Finds Discrimination Against Women.” And it’s true that the female TV news directors were paid 27% less than the men.

But take a closer look, and it turns out the male directors had an average of 14.8 years of news work experience, while female directors had only 5.6 years. In other words, the men had almost three times more work experience, but were paid only about a quarter more.

This study of TV directors raises some lingering questions. First, why did the female directors have an average of 9.2 years less work experience than their male counterparts? And were qualified male candidates being passed over because of their sex?

It turns out that TV directorships aren’t the only place where something fishy is going on.

Why Men Earn More presents information about beginning salaries for newly-minted college grads, broken down by their college major. In Table 5 we learn that women who major in computer programming, physics, agricultural engineering, or computer systems analysis receive substantially higher salary offers than men. By “substantial,” I mean men in these fields are paid $4,000 to $7,000 less in the first year alone. That’s a lot of pin money.

And in Table 6, we learn about the 10 occupations in which women with bachelor’s degrees receive starting offers that are at least 10% higher than men: Investment banking, portfolio management, urban planning, financial analysis, distribution, finance policy, fundraising, religious occupation, communications production, and dietetics.

For example, if you are a female dietician, your starting salary is $23,160. But your male counterpart is only offered $17,680 – a whopping 30% difference.

This information comes as a bombshell.

I’m going to predict that when word of these disparities leaks out, American companies will be faced with a tsunami of complaints, grievances, and lawsuits from men alleging wage discrimination.

Because men deserve equal pay for equal work.

Pronouncement of Bias at the Washington Post

I doubt that many will be shocked by the revelation that political correctness has taken hold at the Washington Post.

Take the December 18 murder of pregnant Bobbie Jo Stinnett, whose baby was cut from her mother’s still-warm uterus. When news of the gruesome homicide began to trickle out, the Washington Post newsroom was astir.

Why? Because the feminist catechism teaches that women are the eternal victims at the hands of those brutish men. But in this case, the alleged killer was a woman, Lisa Montgomery.

Normally, the solution would be simple: bury the story. That’s exactly what the Washington Post did, relegating the account to page A18 on December 19.

But that didn’t entirely solve the problem, because that very same day, the Post was set to launch a three-part series on Maternal Homicide. The series, by reporter Donna St. George, was based on the stories of mothers who had been murdered by their boyfriends or husbands.

But the strangling of Bobbie Jo Stinnett by a deranged woman threatened to sabotage the over-arching message of the WP series: that pregnant women need stronger laws to protect them from the male menace.

In order to reach this conclusion, reporter St. George had to work the numbers. First, St. George produced the shocking statistic that 295 pregnant or new mothers are killed each year in the United States. But when you peered through the blood-spattered accounts, the following facts soon came to light:

1. Slightly less than half of these deaths involved women who were actually pregnant. Most involved women who had given birth up to 12 months before, mutilating the obvious meaning of the word “maternal.”

2. According to St. George, 70% of the women were killed by their intimates, and the remaining 30% died in car accidents and the like.

So crank the numbers, and that “epidemic” of 295 maternal deaths turns to be only about 100 pregnant women who were killed by their intimate partners. This is not to downplay the tragedy of those 100 women, but rather to put it in proper perspective. Each year, over four million women give birth in the United States. So we’re talking about an infinitesimal risk here.

Interestingly, the series drew flack from critics representing the broad spectrum of political opinion: Slate editor Jack Slater, Fox columnist Wendy McElroy, domestic violence expert Richard Davis, Men’s News Daily editor Mike LaSalle, radio talk show host Glenn Sacks, and Howard University professor Stephen Baskerville [ ].

It may be tempting to dismiss the Maternal Homicide series as a journalistic aberration, a bad-hair day for Donna St. George and her editors. But it is not.

Research shows that women are just as likely to commit domestic violence as men [ ]. But the radical feminists would never let that fact get out. So the Post’s coverage of this issue has long followed the “man = batterer, woman = victim” formula.

Still, the Post attempted to maintain at least the semblance of journalistic objectivity.

But five months ago, the Washington Post editors completely took leave of their senses. On August 24 last, the Post ran a piece that plumbed the depths of tabloid journalism.

Get ready for this nasty headline on page C1: “Man of Your Nightmares: When Good Husbands Go Bad.” And if the casual reader didn’t get the drift, the page C5 continuation was festooned with the smear, “What Darkness Lies in the Hearts of Men?”

One can only hope that no newspaper ever subjects female malcontents like Lisa Montgomery, who now awaits trial in a detention center in Leavenworth, Kansas, to such journalistic abuse.

So esteemed reader, we need to decide. Did the Post’s Maternal Homicide series merely represent a well-intentioned but flawed presentation of a complex social issue?

Or published just a few weeks before the controversial Violence Against Women Act is set to be re-introduced in the U.S. Congress, does this series reveal a covert editorial intention to set the stage for this feminist-driven legislation?

Men: Stand Aside. The Rad-Fems are Set to Win the Culture War

If you want to understand the Culture War, you need to appreciate the ideology, methods, and goals of radical feminism. And to understand feminism, you must understand Marxist philosophy and the history of the Soviet Union. On this last point, I recommend Joshua Muravchik’s highly-readable book, Heaven on Earth.

Future historians will note the Culture War took an important turn in the November 2 elections. Sensing their political standing was on the wane, the Leftists decided to pull out all the stops in a last-ditch effort to reverse the course of history. Of course they lost the gamble, and now the Leftists are seething with bitterness and rage.

But in another sense, the battle has only just begun. To this point in time, most Americans have been bystanders in the conflict, hoping the struggle for America’s soul would somehow leave their own lives unscathed.

There is more to the Culture War than radical feminism, of course. David Horowitz at the Center for the Study of Popular Culture has charted the broad outlines of that multi-faceted conflict. But probe the inner workings of the Leftist movement, and there you will find a feminist heartbeat, pumping hard and strong.

We have now passed the point of no return. Too many unborn children have been felled at the abortionist’s hand. Too many infants are warehoused in day care centers. Too many women have been ridiculed for heeding their maternal instincts. And too many men have been unfairly stereotyped and falsely accused.

Feminist philosophy now envelopes the mainstream media and the academy. The divisive voice of the Sisterhood can be heard as well in our workplaces, schools, and even in our homes.

Not even our religious beliefs are immune. Feminists view religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as hopelessly patriarchal. So they have sought to marginalize religion, forcing persons to think twice before they exclaim, “Merry Christmas!”

There is little about contemporary feminism that can legitimately be viewed as promoting gender equality. Now, the quest for equality has been replaced by neo-Marxist rhetoric of female “liberation” and “empowerment.”

Last week columnist Lyndia Lovric at the Winnipeg Sun launched this salvo: “One of the biggest lies perpetuated by modern-day feminists is the contention that feminism is about equality. Feminists aren't interested in equality. What they want is revenge.” [ ]

Visit the websites of the National Organization for Women [] or the Feminist Majority [ ], and you will see the feminist utopia will not be a world that takes kindly to men.

What worries me most is the feminist hegemony at the United Nations. There, feminists rely on a “top-down” strategy to impose their ideology on countries throughout the world. It began with CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Now fem-socialist ideology permeates many of the UN agencies [ ].

To put this in historical perspective, a mere 20 years ago, 70 countries around the world considered themselves to be Communist, socialist, or social democratic. Then in 1991 the Soviet Empire imploded. Now socialism is receding in all corners of the globe.

But I predict the struggle to counter feminism will be more difficult than the fight against Communism. Why? Because while socialism relied on political, economic, and military tactics, feminism targets the chinks in persons’ emotional armor. It preys on women’s sense of fear and anger, and on men’s feelings of guilt and shame.

Have you ever wondered why the Leftists are so intent on enacting speech codes and so-called “hate speech” laws? Because freedom of speech poses the most formidable obstacle to the continued metastasis of Political Correctness. And therein lies the secret to winning the Culture War.

So here’s a New Year’s Resolution for all of us. I admit, it’s deceptively simple:

Speak out. Call your elected officials. Write a letter to the editor. Sound off. Complain. Be heard. Talk to your friends and neighbors. Exercise your First Amendment rights.

Our consciences are insisting that we cannot afford to remain as silent onlookers while the Culture War continues to rage. Me? I’m doing this for the sake of my kids and grandchildren.

Winner of the Coveted 2004 Award for Political Incorrectness

The chilly winds of Political Correctness blow ever stronger.

Item #1: The French Parliament passed a law that bans insults of women and homosexuals. No more calling a woman "mal baisée" (sexually frustrated), or referring to the cleaning lady as a "femme de ménage." [,3858,5092004-110633,00.html ]

Item #2: To the north, the Canadian government features a report on its website that proposes to categorize any sort of anti-feminist commentary as a form of hate speech [ ].

Item #3: A couple weeks ago Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, was arrested for "incitement to commit racial hatred." His offense? He was caught saying that Islam is a "vicious, wicked faith." [ ]

Item #4: In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green was recently sentenced to one month in jail. His crime was delivering a sermon that described homosexuality as a “cancer of the society” [ ]. Now, people say it’s only a matter of time until the Bible is banned as a form of hate speech.

Of course these comments -- which disparage ideologies, not individuals -- pale in comparison to the ad-hominem attacks that have gushed out of the Left since it lost in the November 2 elections. But no one seems to consider its invective to be hateful.

Any student of 20th century European history knows that totalitarianism is knocking on America's doors. So it's time to honor a stalwart American who this past year demonstrated undaunted courage and true grit to turn back the forces of PCism.

This year’s Award is based on three counts of bravery.

First, this man showed great fortitude as a candidate for governor. A week before the election, a major liberal newspaper with the initials “L.A.T.” published allegations from six women that he had groped them. Some of the incidents went back three decades, and the women were so traumatized by the event that they hadn’t been able to file a formal complaint for all these years.

Political Correctness dictates that any politician so accused must promise that if elected, he will pour millions of dollars into the local Women in Perpetual Recovery from Sexual Assault fund. But this man would have none of that. He issued a brief apology, and four days later went on to win the election.

Second, last July he chided the Democrats for legislative foot-dragging, using the derisive moniker “Girlie-Men.” Despite the wailings of the Easily Offended, a month later he tagged candidate John Kerry with the same label. And during his televised speech at the Republican National Convention, the “G-M” phrase was repeated in front of millions [ ].

Don’t worry, “girlie-man” is not a sexist put-down. When young lasses chide their boyfriends for being wishy-washy, they call them “girl.” Women say it all the time, so why not a male politician?

Finally, our 2004 Award Winner took on the hot-button issue of Paternity Fraud.

Political Correctness dictates that fathers must pay their child support obligations -- even if they aren’t the real dads. That rigid mind-set has given rise to the welfare scam of the decade.

Paternity Fraud is when mothers of newborn infants – usually single and low-income women -- list the wrong man as the father of the baby. If she happens to name an unsuspecting bloke with a decent job, she is assured of legally-enforceable child support payments for the next 18 years.

Laws in many states make it difficult, if not impossible, for such men to shed the yoke of a child support order -- even if they provide DNA evidence showing they are not the biological father. Sounds incredible, but it’s an injustice that envelopes many thousands of men nationwide [ ].

But in late September this man defied PCism for a third time. He signed a bill that will allow men to go back to court with their DNA results and show that they were framed. The new bill takes effect January 1 [ ].

So roll the drums and open the envelope….Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, please step forward. You are the winner of the 2004 Award for Political Incorrectness.

Take a bow, Mr. Schwarzenegger. Thunderous applause. Encore, encore.

When the Sisterhood Rules the World: Th Sad Tale of UNICEF

Women often swap jokes that start with the line, “What if women ruled the world?” Here’s one of my favorites: “If women ruled the world, men would learn phrases like, ‘You’re beautiful,’ ‘I’m sorry,’ and ‘Of course you don’t look fat in that outfit.’”

So let’s ask the more serious question, What if the Gender Warriors ruled the world?

I could take numerous cases where that scenario has already happened, where the Sisterhood has swept into power and recast entire organizations. Examples that spring to mind are the New York Times, National Public Radio, the American Psychological Association, Amnesty International, the National Institutes of Health, and others.

But let’s take one example where feminists have been around long enough to really leave their mark: UNICEF.

When I was a kid, people knew there was inefficiency and waste at the United Nations. But everyone would still look to UNICEF as the one agency that was really making a difference, helping children to stay healthy and get a grade-school education.

That was true until the day Jim Grant, visionary UNICEF leader, died.

So in 1995, President Bill Clinton – no doubt at the urging of Hillary -- nominated Carol Bellamy as Grant’s replacement. Bellamy is as doctrinaire a feminist as you will find. While serving as a state senator in New York, Bellamy had voted against a bill that would have granted legal rights to an infant who managed to survive a botched abortion.

Once she settled into her tony digs on New York’s Upper East Side, Bellamy quickly became bored with UNICEF’s mundane programs that doled out measles vaccines and oral rehydration tablets. She wanted to launch UNICEF into the uncharted realm of gender ideology and social engineering.

Feminist dogma teaches that correct ideology should prevail over good science. Take the breastfeeding issue, for instance.

Breastfeeding is known to be healthier and safer than bottle feeding, especially in low-income areas of the world where sanitation is poor. But the feminists charged the UNICEF breastfeeding program portrayed women “as the human equivalent of milking cows.” So no more of “breast is best.”

Bellamy advocated favoring girls over boys, a practice the United Nations euphemistically refers to as “positive discrimination.” She pushed through her pet Go Girls! program, which ignored the fact that in some parts of the world, the schooling of boys lags behind girls.

At an April 3, 2003 press conference, a hyper-inflated Carol Bellamy issued this chauvinistic claim: “Women are the lifeline of these southern African communities. They put food on the table, and they’re the ones that keep families going during such crises.”

But four months later, Bellamy had her comeuppance [ .]

In August 2003 the Catholic Family and Human Rights Group (C-FAM) issued its explosive report, “Women or Children First?” The expose’ documented how UNICEF had become involved in back-door support for abortion programs around the world. The account concluded that under Carol Bellamy, “Radical feminism has come to define the current UNICEF, even to the possible detriment of UNICEF’s original mandate to help children” [ ]

The Americans weren’t the only ones disturbed with UNICEF’s new direction.

Earlier this month the leading British medical journal Lancet landed another direct hit. The editorial highlighted UNICEF’s failure to develop a coherent strategy for child survival, and how this shortcoming was contributing to the 10 million child deaths each year [ ].

Taking aim at UNICEF’s new-found obsession with promoting girls’ and women’s rights, Lancet leveled this blistering critique: “The most fundamental right of all is the right to survive. Child survival must sit at the core of UNICEF’s advocacy and country work. Currently, and shamefully, it does not.”

Thankfully, Carol Bellamy’s term of office will expire in 2005.

The fact of the matter is, we will never know how many children around the world became the collateral damage of radical feminism. And there is no doubt it will take many years to restore the luster to UNICEF’s once-lofty reputation.

Radical feminists argue that men have run the show for too long, and now it’s their turn to rule the roost.

But they would be well-advised to not showcase Carol Bellamy’s UNICEF, where the feminist dream turned into a children’s nightmare.

Long Live the Matriarchy!

Feminists possess an uncanny ability to work both sides of an issue. Take motherhood, for instance.

For years, the Sisterhood lectured us how tedious and thankless it was to be “just” a mother. It stifled women’s individuality and put a cramp in their career aspirations. Oh dear.

But it wasn’t enough to just lament the demands of motherhood. Someone had to be blamed. And sure enough that “someone” was the patriarchy [ ].

In her 1986 feminist classic Of Woman Born, Adrienne Rich made the claim that the “patriarchy could not survive without motherhood.” Yes, that’s what she really wrote. According to Ms. Rich, it wasn’t enough for women to rule the world by rocking the cradle – women should also aspire to run the world by rocking the levers of political power.

But if moms were going to break through the Glass Ceiling, who was going to mind the kids? So wives began to coax and plead with their primary breadwinners to become involved dads. Men began to attend Lamaze classes, push baby strollers, and burp junior.

And lo, dads discovered the Joy of Parenting.

But there was still a tiny fly in the ointment – the sticky issue of which parent would gain custody of the kids in the unfortunate event of divorce. Knowing that half of all marriages fall apart, this is hardly an issue that should be relegated to the divorce lawyers.

In the past, custody was routinely awarded to the mother on the basis of the “best interests of the child” doctrine. But like Robin Williams of Mrs. Doubtfire fame, divorced dads said that argument was deeply flawed.

They pointed to a growing body of research which showed that continued involvement of the father was essential for a child’s welfare. For example, the March 2002 issue of the Journal of Family Psychology featured an article by Dr. Robert Bauserman, who reviewed 33 studies on this critical topic. He reached this reassuring conclusion: Despite the divorce, children enjoyed better family relationships, self-esteem, and emotional adjustment when dads were allowed to remain involved in the kids’ lives.

So child advocates began to push the idea of equal parenting. That approach made sense because it would bypass the acrimony surrounding custody battles.

Looking back, it seemed like such a great idea: Women would be freed from the drudgery of full-time mothering, dads could stay in the picture, and kids would maintain their relationships with both parents. A winning proposition for all – who could argue with that?

But in one of those strange twists of history, the feminist establishment did an abrupt about-face. All across the United States, local chapters of the National Organization for Women came out in opposition to equal parenting.

For years women had been bewailing the monotony of motherhood. Now those same women were arguing against the common-sense notion of keeping dads involved, thus relieving some of the pressures on working moms.

How could this possibly happen? Because in the Matriarchy, mothers enjoy the singular authority to make decisions about their children. In other words, Mothers Rule. And the mendacious matrons at the N.O.W. saw joint custody as usurping that prerogative.

I have known some of these fathers who have been evicted from their children’s lives. I have felt their heartbreak, their profound sense of betrayal.

But these dads would not be deterred. They began to organize, they wrote letters, they lobbied their legislators.

But progress was slow. Groups like the National Association for Counsel of Children came out opposed to equal parenting. Why? Because its members makes their money by milking long, drawn-out custody disputes, which can run $100,000 in legal fees.

So recently fathers’ groups in 41 states began to file class action lawsuits []. The claims argued that divorced fathers and mothers should be assumed to be equally fit parents – what is called a legal presumption of joint custody.

Until the essential role of fathers is recognized and antiquated laws are changed, millions of American children will be deprived of the steady hand of a loving father. Those children will go to bed at night, wondering when they will be able to see their daddy.

That’s the Matriarchy at work.

Kofi's Resignation Won't Cure the AIDS Epidemic

A band of House Republicans has done the once-unthinkable and called for the resignation of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. But giving Annan the boot is only the first step. Because the entire United Nations bureaucracy has become a haven to aging do-gooders who care more about ideology than results.

Take the report, Women and AIDS, which was released by the UNAIDS two weeks ago [ ]. UNAIDS is the United Nations program charged with stopping the HIV threat.

The past 20 years I have held a front row seat in the unfolding AIDS drama. I have seen persons being handed the death sentence that they had contracted the HIV virus. I have witnessed the terrified look of AIDS patients coming in to check their plummeting CD counts.

This is a disease that plays for keeps. If we are going to beat AIDS, we need to use an approach that is based on hard science, not trendy ideology. And that’s where the UNAIDS report goes wrong.

The first step in stopping AIDS is compiling accurate statistics on the spread of the disease. But if you look at the 2004 UNAIDS annual report, you will find the HIV infection rates for women and children -- but not for men [ ]. Is that because the lives of men count for less?

Last week Cliff Kincaid revealed how the UNAIDS has been cooking its statistics. For example, they once reported that 15% of the population in Kenya had HIV. But later the UNAIDS cut that number to just 6.7% [ ]

Bottom line: All those impressive-looking AIDS statistics coming out of the UNAIDS are suspect, especially the ones that apply to men.

The Women and AIDS report contains a number of demonstrable falsehoods. Here are two of them:

1. “Men tend to have better access to AIDS care and treatment…through drug trials.” Now go to the website , which lists all the AIDS studies sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, and you will see that the reverse is true.

2. “Violence against women is a worldwide scourge, and a massive human rights and public challenge.” But Linda Kelly recently wrote in the Florida State University Law Review, “Over the last 25 years, leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates.” [ ]

But the problem with the UNAIDS publication is not limited to its factual errors. Of greater concern is that the report sets up the boogeyman of patriarchy, and then casually lays the blame for the epidemic at the feet of men.

The report lectures ad nauseum, “men tend to hold the upper hand” and “the balance of power in many relationships is tilted in favor of men.” But a recent Washington Post editorial, “A Female Pandemic?,” took exception to this one-sided approach, because “high-risk groups are stigmatized, and hence often ignored.”

The bias of the UN report is confirmed by its refusal to admit that women also contribute to the spread of AIDS. For example, the report never admits the fact that one-third of all heterosexual transmission of HIV is female to male.

Nor does the report reveal the slightest concern with HIV-infected prostitutes, those Typhoid Marys who infect hundreds of male partners in a single month. Maybe that’s because radical feminists have no problem with women selling their bodies, just as long as they are paid equitably.

The UN report is not only palpably unfair to men; it’s also dangerous to women. The report claims, “Women and girls often lack the power to abstain from sex.” [

Once you start preaching the mantra of female powerlessness, you are telling individual women there is nothing they can do to stop the spread of AIDS. That message is not only perniciously false, it is the hallmark of the totalitarian mindset.

Over the past three decades, feminists have developed a well-honed strategy: Make women feel angry and fearful, induce guilt and shame in men, and create an environment of hysteria.

On November 30 Peter Piot, director of the UNAIDS, came to Washington, DC to unveil the Women and AIDS report and to sound the drum-beat of female victimization. But US Ambassador Randall Tobias, who spoke at the same meeting, would have none of that.

It was good that Ambassador Tobias ignored the UNAIDS report. But side-stepping this radical feminist screed is not enough. The House Republicans and the Bush administration need to come out and repudiate the Women and AIDS document, a bonanza of gender bigotry.

© 2005 Carey Roberts

See Books, Issues

Contact Us | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement
Menstuff® Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon Clay
©1996-2019, Gordon Clay

Martha Stewart Plays the Chivalry Card

In the wee hours of April 15, 1912, the “unsinkable” SS Titanic settled into its final resting spot in the depths of the North Atlantic. The nascent cause of gender equality was dealt a blow on that wintry night. Among its 425 female passengers, 74% were rescued. But among the 1,667 men, only 338 – that’s a paltry 20% -- survived this nautical disaster ( ).

First Officer Charles Lightoller was later called to testify before Congress. One Senator inquired why women had been favored over men, even while many of the lifeboats bobbed half-empty in the icy waters. Lightoller’s response: “The rule of human nature.”

I don’t know whether chivalry is based more on human nature or cultural conditioning. But there is no doubt that chivalry is as deeply-rooted in men as is the maternal instinct in women. Even though feminists will rebuke a man who holds a door for a lady to pass, chivalry is still alive and well in our society.

Take the case of Martha Stewart.

Acting on an insider tip, Stewart sold all 3,928 shares of her ImClone stock in 2001. A few days later, the stock took a nosedive. Stewart’s pre-emptive move saved her the tidy sum of $51,000.

During the subsequent probe, Stewart made the mistake of lying to the federal investigators. The homemaking maven was charged on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Every day Martha Stewart emerged from the courtroom, surrounded by her white knights in shining armor (ahem, lawyers). No matter how badly the case was going, she was always beautifully coifed, with a scarf serving as her fashion accessory. The Martha Stewart case, involving an attractive woman with a comely smile and a vaguely helpless demeanor, was more than the men in the media could resist.

Over the course of the trial, I read countless editorials about the case. All of them asserted Ms. Stewart’s innocence – she was being singled out, lying to a federal agent was no big deal, poor Martha didn’t know any better, and so on.

And all of the columns were written by men, none of them who had spent a day in law school. The articles called to mind the chivalrous noblemen of yore who steadfastly defended the virtue of their womenfolk.

But the jury of four men and eight women saw things differently. On March 5, claiming a victory for the little guys, the jury found Stewart guilty on all four counts.

Afterwards, Stewart’s lawyers requested leniency – a term of probation and community service working with poor women. The obvious sexism of that offer apparently didn’t disturb anyone.

Last Friday Judge Miriam Goldman sentenced Stewart to five months behind bars. In announcing the sentence, Goldman noted, “I believe that you have suffered, and will continue to suffer, enough.” Kinda makes your heart melt.

Media coverage of Goldman’s sentence reveals how chivalry can bias the news. On December 27, 2001, Stewart had received a message from her stockbroker warning that “ImClone is going to start trading downward.” Stewart later stole into her assistant’s computer and sanitized the message to read, “Peter Bacanovic re: ImClone.” Jurors later said that incident was the defining moment in the trial.

But this past weekend, the media didn’t even mention that critical event. Indeed, they glossed over the details about Stewart’s well-document efforts to obstruct justice.

The lead story in the liberal New York Times quoted one supporter, Daniel Stone, who said, “If she serves any time at all, it's going to be a real pity” ( The NYT article didn’t mention the fact that the American public does not like white-collar criminals being sent home scot-free.

Studies have repeatedly found that when men and women commit the identical crime, women are less likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated. Legal experts say that Stewart was extremely lucky in receiving only a judicial slap on the wrist, the minimum allowable under federal sentencing guidelines.

Was it luck? Or was it the chivalry of the countless reporters, editors, and columnists who rallied to Martha’s defense?

Kerry Embraces the Radical Feminist Agenda

White males have been fleeing the Democratic Party over the last 30 years. Four years ago, candidate Al Gore managed to attract only 36% of the huge 45 million white male vote. That depressing trend no doubt weighed on the minds of the delegates who gathered this week in Boston for the Democratic National Convention.

Indeed, earlier this year Democratic pollster Celinda Lake began to spread the word that the Democrats would never retake the White House unless they began to reach out to the critical male vote. But the powerful feminist faction within the Democratic Party was none too happy with that idea.

Liberal John Kerry has closely aligned himself with the feminist cause. So when it became clear that Kerry would be named as the Democratic presidential candidate, Lake gave up on her crusade.

Of course the Democrats have every right to target women. But what is interesting is how the Kerry campaign plans to court the female electorate.

That strategy became apparent on the first day that John Kerry campaigned with his new running mate John Edwards. On July 7, an upbeat Kerry boasted that his team has “better vision, better ideas,” and – get this -- “we’ve got better hair.” Men, of course, have little interest in a candidate’s hairdo.

A look at the Kerry website ( reveals that Kerry believes that women will fall for all manner of obsequious pandering. This is what John Kerry is telling American women:

1. “We need a president who will put the American government and legal system back on the side of women.”

The truth is, practically every federal government agency has an office devoted to women’s issues. But none – that’s right, none -- has an office designated for men. The Congress and Supreme Court have enacted and upheld countless laws intended to help women, including the Violence Against Women Act, abortion rights, sexual harassment rules, and many others.

2. “John Kerry will increase funding for breast and cervical cancer research.”

The American Cancer Society reports that 230,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004, compared to 216,000 women told they have breast cancer ( But at the National Cancer Institute, funding for breast cancer outstrips prostate cancer by more than a 3:1 margin ( Mr. Kerry, please help us to understand why any fair-minded woman would want to make that research disparity even worse?

3. “We must ensure that women earn equal pay for equal work.”

On average, men work 2,147 hours a year, compared to 1,675 hours for women ( Men work in the more hazardous occupations such as construction and mining. And men have more work qualifications than women.

The myth of gender wage discrimination has been debunked by the Women’s Freedom Network ( and the Independent Women’s Forum ( Anyone who still claims that women are paid unfairly is being intellectually dishonest….or is a die-hard socialist (

American women are arguably the most privileged of any group in history. But the Kerry-Edwards website makes it sound like women are on the verge of being shipped back to their suburban concentration camps: “But today, women are witnessing an unprecedented erosion of their basic rights.”

This past Monday, Kerry’s strategy to advance the radical feminist agenda was unveiled at a so-called “She Party” (rhymes with Tea Party – get it?). The featured speaker was the feminists’ “secret weapon:” none other than Peggy Kerry, sister of John.

And Peggy didn’t beat around the bush. “There are three things my brother is going to do when he’s elected president,” she promised. John will restore $34 billion in funding for the UN Population Fund for abortion services. Then he will assure the Senate ratifies the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Third, Kerry will “appoint pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.”

There’s no doubt that the Democrats’ appeal to the massive white male electorate will continue to decline. So the question is, what will American women think of John Kerry’s sexy new hairdo?

Outing the Feminist "Great Lie"

This past weekend the Vatican issued a letter to the Roman Catholic bishops which denounced feminism for preaching “conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism.” According to the Vatican letter, this belief has caused “immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family.”

Strong words, indeed. So what is the genesis of the feminist attempt to induce antagonism between men and women?

It can all be traced back to the feminist Creation Myth, which goes like this:

Once upon a time, in a land far away, men and women lived in a state of communal bliss. There were no sexual prohibitions, no division of labor, no ownership of property, and most of all, no patriarchy. It was a pure feminist utopia.

Over time, men and women began to pair off, babies were born, and families began to emerge. The development of stable families gave rise to a division of labor between the sexes: Men did the hunting and fishing, and women did the gardening and child-raising.

But the pivotal point in history was the emergence of the concept of private property. Simone de Beauvoir’s book The Second Sex, which is required reading in every Women’s Studies program, explains it this way:

“Private property appears: master of slaves and of the earth, man becomes the proprietor also of woman….Here we see the emergence of the patriarchal family founded upon private property. In this type of family, woman is subjugated.” ( )

You say, Where on earth did Beauvoir get these fantastic ideas? From Karl Marx and Frederick Engels ( ).

And how did Marx and Engels come up with this crackpot theory? From an obscure book called Ancient Society, written in 1877 by an American anthropologist named Lewis Henry Morgan, who had spent a few weeks studying the Iroquois Indians in upper New York State.

Subsequent anthropologists have refuted Morgan’s methods and conclusions ( ). For example, the part about primitive society being a sexual free-for-all – that can be credited entirely to Morgan’s wishful thinking.

But that didn’t keep feminists from anointing Morgan as their patron saint. After all, he served a useful purpose.

Radical feminists accept Morgan’s fable as if it were the Revealed Truth. Once we understand that, the rest of feminist theory begins to make sense.

As feminists see it, the moral of Morgan’s account is that once patriarchy took over, women became the mere slaves of men, had no rights, and endured unrelenting physical and sexual abuse.

That’s what is known as the feminist Great Lie. This is how columnist Wendy McElroy explains the Great Lie: “Victims of men, of the class structure, technology, government, the free market, the family, the church, Western values…everywhere and always women are painted as victims.” ( ).

True, life may not have been easy for women, but men had their share of problems, too. If women were in fact the object of untrammeled social oppression, we would have expected women’s life spans to have been dramatically shorter than men’s.

But the historical record tells a different story. According to research conducted by Ingrid Waldron at the University of Pennsylvania, the life expectancies of men and women over the past several centuries have traced similar trajectories.

Suicide statistics also debunk the feminist enslavement theory. Public health authorities in England and Wales first began to enumerate the causes of death in the late 1800s. As early as 1890, it was found that men’s suicide rate was 2.9 times higher than women’s ( ). Judging by suicide statistics, we might conclude that it was men, not women, who were more confined by rigid social roles.

1960s-style feminism had the laudable goal of encouraging equal opportunities for women. But now, feminism has morphed into an ugly ideology of female empowerment and gender retribution.

Most fairy tales have a happy ending. But the Marxist-feminist fable has set the stage for protracted gender conflict. And that, sad to say, poses a grave threat to the timeless institution of marriage.

Women Fleeing the Feminist Fold

Remember that popular TV game show, To Tell the Truth? That was the program that would put three petite women on the stage – one a real-life alligator wrestler and the two others impostors. The contestants would then try to outwit the celebrity guests.

It’s now 2004 and Americans are the guests on a remake of To Tell the Truth. The object of the game is to answer the question, What is the real face of feminism?

Many people think of feminism as a movement that promotes gender equality and opportunity. And for many years, I counted myself in that group. To deny women the opportunity to get a good education and pursue a career -- that seemed abhorrent and contrary to the American Dream.

Then the voices of the skeptics demanded a hearing.

As early as 1972, Phyllis Schlafly posed this question: “The claim that American women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century…Why should we lower ourselves to ‘equal rights’ when we already have the status of special privilege?” That editorial launched the movement that eventually defeated the Equal Rights Amendment.

But I still counted myself a true believer.

In a 1992 article in the Washington Post, Sally Quinn compared the leaders of NOW to the apparatchiks of the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union. She concluded, “many women have come to see the feminist movement as anti-male, anti-child, anti-family, anti-feminine.”

That broadside made me blink.

Two years later Christina Hoff Sommers released her stunning expose’, Who Stole Feminism? Ms. Sommers methodically dissected and debunked the feminist claims about domestic violence, rape, and women’s health.

That was more than I could ignore, so I began to do my own research. I went to my local library, combed through government reports, and surfed the internet. I soon learned that Schlafly, Quinn, and Sommers were right: the feminist claims were actually Ms.-Information.

Around that time, millions of women began to reach the same conclusion. In 1992, a Gallup poll found that 33% of American women considered themselves to be feminist ( But seven years later, the Gallup poll reported that number had plummeted to 26%. And one CBS poll noted that 22% of women said that being called a feminist would be an “insult.”

But substitute the word “women” for “feminist,” and you come up with a very different story. A 1998 Pew survey found that 67% of females (and 66% of males) were favorable to the “women’s movement.”

So a large majority of American women do not consider themselves to be feminists, but still support the women’s movement. An obvious and startling conclusion emerges: Women no longer believe that feminism represents their interests or needs.

A recent article in the National Review paints a similar picture of waning feminist influence ( Feminist thinking holds that a bride taking her husband’s last name “signifies the loss of her very existence as a person under the law,” as former NOW-head Patricia Ireland once put it. But alas, most women have a mind of their own. According to marriage records in Massachusetts, the percentage of surname keepers dropped from 23% in 1990 to 17% in 2000.

What’s more, a growing number of women’s organizations have set out to counter the feminist agenda, including the Concerned Women for America, Independent Women’s Forum, Women’s Freedom Network, and the Clare Booth Luce Foundation. And several women’s websites now feature anti-feminist commentary, such as and

But there are still a substantial number of persons in our society who cling to the belief that feminism is about promoting equality, fairness, and gender enlightenment.

So guest celebrity, our time is up. Which face of feminism is real, and which is the impostor? Is feminism about promoting equality of rights and responsibilities? Or does it aim to foment gender discord and marital break-down?

The modern rendition of To Tell the Truth is no mere game show. It’s not about a few hundred dollars in funny money. It’s a real life drama that spells enormous consequences for our culture, our families, and our children.

Olympic Media Misfire

In the early hours of Friday August 13, newspaper printing presses across the country were humming with news from the 2004 Olympic games in Greece. Everywhere, newspapers were featuring the picture of the Iraqi soccer players in a joyous embrace following their stunning 4-2 victory over Portugal.

But at USA Today, the presses were churning out a very different message.

On the front page, USA Today featured a story on “U.S. gymnasts look bound for glory.” Despite its title, the article turned out to be only about female gymnasts. No mention of the men.

In the Sports section, the first page was graced by photos of swimmer Katie Hoff and volleyball players Kerri Walsh and Misty May. Again, the male athletes were nowhere to be seen.

Swimmer Michael Phelps, seeking to eclipse Mark Spitz record of seven gold medals, is arguably the most talented American athlete competing in this summer's Olympics. But at USA Today, gender counted for more than talent, so his story was buried on page 4F.

And the miraculous Iraqi soccer win? That piece was neatly tucked away on page 2C, below the fold.

Overall, women's sports ruled. And men's athletics were practically an afterthought.

How did USA Today's coverage of the Olympics become so biased? That question can be answered in two words: Christine Brennan.

Christine Brennan, the person who organized the articles, is the well-known sports reporter at USA Today. Brennan is an ardent proponent of female athletics ­ and she's a doctrinaire feminist.

Brennan does not hesitate to ridicule men's athletics. She has referred to college wrestling as “malarkey” and football programs as “bloated.” Once Brennan wrote a smark-alecky column why men should swoon over women's figure skating (

Of course, Brennan believes that female athletes should be paid the same as men, despite the fact that professional women's sports is a proven money loser. Look at what happened to the now-defunct Women's United Soccer Association. And the Women's National Basketball Association is barely staying afloat.

But when women choose to not fill the stadiums and arenas, Brennan blames the sports editors who don¹t create new beats to cover female athletics. “The sports world is changing, and we¹re barely reflecting this. There is no excuse for this,” the hyperventilating Brennan exclaimed (

But above all, Brennan is an unabashed supporter of Title IX. In a 2002 interview, Brennan described Title IX as mandating “proportionality and equality for men and women in terms of having opportunities to play sports." (

If you're looking for an example of loopy feminist logic, it doesn't get any better than that.

Because the 1972 law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools doesn't say anything about “proportionality.” Proportionality is fem-speak for “quotas.” Proportionality is the highly controversial term that the Clinton administration used to justify the elimination of hundreds of men's swimming, golf, and wrestling teams.

According to the Independent Women's Forum, males are twice as likely as females to participate in colleagiate intramural and club sports ( ). And at ESPN, male viewers outnumber females three to one. So how can anyone expect that women will want to participate in sports in numbers that are “proportional” to their college enrollments?

I'm an unabashed fan of women's tennis and figure skating. I love the artistry and grace.

But many of the Olympic sports have little to do with artistry or grace. Cycling, rowing, running, and swimming all come down to one thing: speed. And events like shot-putting and weight-lifting are tests of brute strength. Despite Ms. Brennan's good intentions, she would have to admit that in those departments, men outclass the women.

Radical feminists believe that women should achieve complete statistical uniformity with men. Experience proves that feminists are willing to resort to heavy-handed tactics such as propaganda-like media coverage and heavy-handed quotas to reach that goal.

But the truth is, if women don't get involved in athletics in similar numbers as men, that has nothing to do with discrimination or patriarchal oppression. That's about women exercising their right to free choice.

Lady....Or the Tramp?

Turning her back on a strict Catholic upbringing, Germaine Greer became feminist’s leading avatar of free love. As a graduate student at Cambridge University, she often posed nude for underground magazines, and indulged in group sex escapades she would later describe as a “bloodsport.”

In 1970 Greer published The Female Eunuch. The book claims that the sexual repression of women robs them of the dynamic energy they need to attain gender independence and selfhood. Hence, sexual license is the sure path to female liberation.

Many years and several abortions later, Greer finally renounced her advocacy of sexual debauchery. But in typical feminist fashion, she recanted her own promiscuity not by way of offering an apology, but rather by blaming it all on men.

As an international best-seller, The Female Eunuch influenced the sexual mores of an entire generation of women. Thanks to the likes of Madonna, Britney, and Janet Jackson, Greer’s free love philosophy is beginning to permeate our culture.

Just look at the way women are parading around these days. The examples I’m about to describe are not what I read about, saw on TV, or heard third-hand from the neighborhood gossip. These are incidents I have personally observed during the past several months.

At the office, well-educated women don the sheerest brassieres and tight-fitting sweaters. Do they really need to prove to their co-workers that they don’t suffer from inverted nipples?

A singles event is held at a community fair. Each participant is given a number to post on his or her lapel, so interested persons can make contact. One young lady decides to cut to the chase – she pastes the number directly over her crotch.

The epidemic of immodesty has even spread to teenage girls.

At a girls’ high school soccer game, a close-fought game ends. Rather than walking to the nearby dressing room, the girls strip down to their sports bras in front of hundreds of shocked onlookers.

For its Fall fashion line-up, J.C. Penny’s is now selling T-shirts for girls sporting these slogans: “I’m hot,” “What’s with those twins?,” and “Pick me up, coffee shop.” Right across the aisle, pubescent girls can buy thong, hipster, or bikini underwear – all three for just $12.60.

And then there are untold numbers of women who can’t seem to find a single top in their wardrobe that covers their brassiere. Or they don’t realize that if they wish to don a fluorescent pink bra, a thin white T-shirt really won’t do.

I could give other examples, but I think you get the point.

What makes this discussion surreal is way these women use a combination of narcissism, victimology, and pop psychology to justify their newly-found lewdness.

The other day I came across an internet discussion in which a woman with a DD cup admitted to coaching her soccer team wearing a tank-top shirt. Referring to her half-exposed breasts as “a symbol of my embraced femininity,” she feigned amazement that so many women were asking her to cover up. (

Going on the offensive, she went on to say that she had discovered a new variety of sexual harassment, in which “women are sexualized and degraded by other women who fear their confidence.” To make her case bullet-proof, she wrapped herself in the mantle of victimhood: “I just don’t feel that I should be subject to disrespect because of jealousy.”

So why are we allowing a growing number of sexually-precocious women to degrade our public morality? It seems we are being seduced by the mantra of moral equivalence and non-judgementalism. As a result, decency is being evicted from the public arena.

Professional men don’t parade around the office wearing underwear so tight that co-workers can figure out their religious upbringing. And men don’t walk down the street with their flies open, proclaiming this as a symbol of their “embraced masculinity.”

Now, the Axis of Eve, a women’s rights group, is planning a mass panty flash at the upcoming Republic National Convention. Event planner Natasha Eve is organizing this stunt to demand “accountability in government.”

Please, Ms. Eve, keep your drawers on. People have better things to do than looking at women’s underwear.

Will the NASCAR Dads Tilt the Election?

White males represent one of the most important groups in the American electorate. Forty-five million strong, these men – dubbed NASCAR Dads by the skeptical liberal media – have been among George W. Bush’s most dependable supporters.

In 2000, 60% of the white male electorate voted for Bush -- now there’s a real gender gap ( So as President Bush puts the final touches on his Thursday night acceptance speech, no doubt he will be thinking how to strengthen his appeal with the NASCAR Dads.

So let’s ask, What has Bush done over the past four years to help struggling men?

Men are usually the primary breadwinners, so we should first examine Bush’s track record in reviving the economy. Shortly after taking office, Bush had to deal with some formidable challenges: the downturn of the stock market, the corporate accounting scandals, 9/11, and the War on Terror.

So last year Bush passed the Jobs and Growth Act which reduced personal income taxes and created new jobs. And in the past year, the economy grew an impressive 4.8%.

Giving a boost to male breadwinners – that’s a biggie. So score three points in the plus column.

In recent years, men have faced an unprecedented effort by radical feminists to marginalize their social and legal standing in society. A prime example: thanks to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, fathers lost the legal right to participate in decision-making on keeping their own child.

Last year, Bush signed a law banning the gruesome procedure known as partial birth abortion. Although the law did nothing to address the reproductive disenfranchisement of dads, it was a step in the right direction.

One point.

But in other areas, Bush has kowtowed to the radical feminist agenda.

Take the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA spends $1 billion of taxpayer money each year based on the faulty assumption that only women are victimized by domestic violence. Sadly, Bush has done nothing to rectify the obvious unfairness of VAWA.

Subtract one.

The second area of concern is the child support program, administered by the Office for Child Support Enforcement.

If you want to see how an expensive do-gooder program can actually make things worse, you will find no better example than the OCSE. According to a recent Census Bureau report (, the percentage of mothers who received child support has dropped in recent years. In 1994, the figure was 76.1%. Eight years later, it was down to 74.7%.

The reason for this decline is simple. When you start putting thousands of low-income fathers behind bars for child support arrearages, it becomes pretty hard for these guys to earn money and make payments. The Bush Administration has done nothing to blunt the squeeze-blood-from-a-turnip mindset of the OCSE bureaucrats.

Take away another point.

Shortly after George W. Bush won the 2000 election, his Administration issued a Statement on Responsible Fatherhood. The document acknowledged the fact that “research shows that a large portion of fathers who do not pay child support are themselves poor.” (

Fatherhood advocates were hopeful they would see an end to the midnight raids on so-called “deadbeat” dads.

True, Bush did continue the Fatherhood Initiative ( which the Clinton Administration had started. But under the rubric of “responsible fatherhood,” the Bush Administration has linked fatherhood promotion with child support collection.

Think about it: first you’re going to talk about being a caring, involved dad. And then you’re going to throw him in jail if he loses his job? PLEEEEAASE.

Sorry, the mixed-message Fatherhood Initiative doesn’t win my vote.

So let’s tally up the numbers. Four points in the plus column, two in the minus. Final score: two points.

If we did a similar tally on John Kerry’s radical feminist platform, the number would fall in the negative range ( Overall, Bush comes out ahead. But not very much to get excited about.

So white males likely will continue to vote overwhelmingly in Bush’s favor. Or on second thought, maybe they’ll decide to sit this election out.

In Honor of the Heroes of Flight 93

Precisely at 9:27 AM, the Middle Eastern men arose from their seats to launch their well-honed plan to commandeer United Airlines flight 93. Killing passenger Mark Rothenberg in seat B5, they forced their way into the cockpit.

Shortly after gruesome screams of “Get out of here!” were heard, the hijackers assumed the controls of the Boeing 757, cruising in the airspace near Cleveland, Ohio.

At 9:38 the aircraft executed a U-turn and headed towards its new destination: the White House, located less than 60 minutes to the southeast.

Over the next 25 minutes, there would be many tales of faith and courage. But as Jere Longman has documented in his book, Among the Heroes, none of these stories could surpass the valor of four men: Jeremy Glick, Tom Burnett, Richard Guadagno, and Todd Beamer.

Jeremy Glick was an all-around natural athlete. In 1993 he had won the national judo championship. Positioned in the back of the plane, Jeremy telephoned his wife Lyz at 9:37. He said that he and three other guys were thinking about attacking the hijackers. His last words to her were, “Okay, stay on the phone, I’ll be right back.”

Who were the three other guys?

One of them was Tom Burnett, a former star high school quarterback. At 9:27 he called his wife Deena on his cell phone. As she began to recount the unfolding events at the World Trade Center that September 11, the sinister intentions of the terrorists became clear. Tom told his wife they were hatching a plan, and added, “If they’re going to crash this plane into the ground, we’re going to have to do something…It’s up to us. I think we can do it.”

Richard Guadagno was certainly involved in the counter-attack. A federal law enforcement officer, he had received training how to respond to a hijacking. The night before, he had packed a small pickax into the bag that he would carry on board Flight 93.

Todd Beamer, who had once aspired to play Major league ball, was now a father of two boys. At home he had a pet saying. When it was time for his boys to go outside, Todd would exhort them with the call of “Let’s roll.”

At 9:45, Beamer reached for the Airfone, dialed “0,” and was connected to the GTE operator. When he explained their plan to jump the hijackers, the operator asked him whether he was certain. Beamer answered, “At this point, I don’t have much choice. I’m going to have to go out on faith.”

Seven minutes later the insurrection began. Beamer stopped his conversation with the GTE operator and uttered the war cry, “You ready? Okay, let’s roll!”

Hearing a ruckus in the first class area, one of the hijackers in the cockpit asked what was going on. “Fighting,” came the response.

By 9:58, the men had reached the cockpit door and began shouting, “In the cockpit, in the cockpit.” One man yelled “Hold.” Another screamed in English, “Stop him.”

At ten o’clock the pilot began to sharply rock the aircraft’s wings, hoping to confuse and dislodge the counter-attackers.

A final rushing sound could be heard on the cockpit recorder. And then dead silence. It was three minutes after ten.

We will never know exactly how many passengers arose from their seats to overpower the hijackers. In addition to Glick, Burnett, Guadagno, and Beamer, other likely men were Mark Bingham, a former rugby player, and Louis Nacke, a guy with a weight-lifter’s physique who reportedly would never back down from anyone.

The fiery demise of Flight 93 outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania gives reassurance that in these politically-correct times, the warrior heart still beats steady and strong. Male daring-do may have gone underground, but is still very much alive and well. But three years later, the bravery of these men remains unheralded.

I dedicate this essay to Jeremy Glick, Tom Burnett, Richard Guadagno, Todd Beamer, and to the other men who won that first fight in the modern war against terrorism. Thanks to you, our nation’s White House, a worldwide symbol of freedom and democracy, still stands today.

Kobe Bryant: Alice-in-Wonderland Justice

The dismissal of rape charges against basketball superstar Kobe Bryant has triggered a lively debate how the decision will affect sexual assault cases in the future.

Radical feminists were in a frenzy that the judge had decided to allow DNA evidence which painted Bryant’s accuser as a floozy. Sasha Walters of the Chicago-based Rape Victim Advocates exclaimed, “This decision will be seized on by defense attorneys around the country. It will take us back to when the emphasis in a trial was on the actions of the victim.”

University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos shot back, “If you are not Kobe Bryant, you could find yourself in a case where you may well have to negotiate a plea in order to avoid spending the rest of your life in prison.”

But Walters and Campos both missed the larger issue. Because over the past 20 years, radical feminists have been working behind the scenes to do an extreme make-over of the laws of rape.

Rape, of course, is a horrific crime. And the act of rape is just as terrible as making a false accusation of rape.

False allegations of rape occur more often than most people think. One study found that 41% of women who had reported rape to the police later admitted the allegation was false ( And a 1996 Department of Justice report concluded, “in about 25% of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI,…the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing” (

So the purpose of our legal system is to determine the truth of the allegation, and to mete out punishment where punishment is due.

For years, the law defined rape as “forced sex without consent.”

All that changed in 1979, when New Jersey passed the so-called N.O.W. act. Under that law, “sexual assault” was defined as "an act of sexual penetration with another person [when] [t]he actor uses physical force or coercion."

Imagine that being parsed in front of a sympathetic jury. With such an expansive and ambiguous definition, many, if not most instances of non-marital intercourse could be construed to constitute rape.

It wasn’t long until that line of thinking made inroads into the laws of other states.

In 1996 the Cato Institute surveyed the damage caused by the 1979 New Jersey law. The report concluded that greatly expanded definitions of rape represent “dangerous moves to eviscerate the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases” (

Bruce Fein, an expert on constitutional law, is even more pointed in his critique. He has compared the due process violations of men accused of rape to the “unilateral and summary pronouncements of guilt like the Queen of Hearts in ‘Alice in Wonderland’.”

How did the evisceration of rape law play out in the Kobe Bryant case?

First, many have criticized District Attorney Mark Hurlbert for filing a case that was deeply flawed from the very beginning. Hurlbert reasoned that dropping the case would have sent the wrong message to future rape victims. But did he stop to consider that pursing a weak case against an innocent man might also be sending a bad message?

For months, the DA repeatedly referred to the accuser as the “victim,” a word that carries a strong presumption of Kobe’s guilt. Finally, Bryant’s attorney had to petition the judge to order the DA to stop using the V-word.

And why not refer to the accuser by name, as is the usual practice in legal contests? The reason is, Colorado has a law that prohibits releasing the name of the accuser, presumably to protect the woman from further embarrassment. But isn’t a man who is accused of rape entitled to the same consideration? Doesn’t that double standard violate the principle of “equal treatment under the law”?

Worst of all are the rape shield laws, which presume a woman’s sexual history cannot be counted as evidence in a rape trial. But the accuser’s concurrent sexual activities had an important bearing on this case. Rape shield laws war with the presumption of innocence, and ultimately encourage the filing of false accusations.

As part of the withdrawal agreement, Bryant was required to offer an apology to the accuser. But given the scurrilous campaign of radical feminists to undermine the constitutionally-protected right of due process, perhaps it is they who owe a letter of apology to Mr. Bryant.

New Media Claims Bragging Rights in Rathergate Flap

When anchorman Dan Rather dropped the bombshell about George Bush’s National Guard service, little did he expect it would trigger a crisis of confidence at CBS News. But once people began to compare Dan Rather’s performance to the antics of former president Richard Nixon, CBS knew it would have to abandon its strategy of plausible deniability.

When people believe that their news is no longer balanced or objective, they begin to look elsewhere. That “elsewhere” has come to be known as the New Media, the thousands of internet sites that have sprung into existence in the past 10 years.

And it was the internet bloggers who hammered away at the obvious forgeries in the fake memos. They tracked down the source of the documents. And it was they who insisted that Rather come clean with an apology.

But Mr. Rather was not the person who did the legwork on the ill-fated 60 Minutes II show. That task fell to producer Mary Mapes. She’s the one who researched the story and obtained the four fake memos.

One would expect a 60 Minutes producer to be highly objective in her work. But recently Mary’s father, Don, appeared on KVI radio in Seattle. When asked about the 60 Minutes brouhaha, Mr. Mapes described his daughter as “a typical liberal. She went into journalism with an ax to grind, and that was to promote radical feminism.” )

So much for journalistic objectivity.

It’s no secret that the fem-liberal worldview permeates the Old Media. The Sisterhood doesn’t even bother to deny it any more. Here’s Susan Winston, former executive producer of Good Morning America: “We were feminists. We were liberals, and most of us still are.”

The feminist-driven media rigidly cleaves to three rules in its coverage of gender issues:

1. Portray women as deserving virtually limitless rights, with no corresponding responsibiliti

2. Whenever possible, present men as bumbling fools. If they also can be shown to be abusive clods, so much the better.

3. Never depict men as victims or being treated unfairly.

Take articles about missing persons. People don’t normally consider this to be a gender issue.

But a recent Fox News article carried this provocative headline: “Missing Women Grab Headlines, But What About the Men?” (,3566,122398,00.html) The article rattled off the list of women whose disappearances have gripped the nation in recent years, and then posed the question, “But where are all the missing young men?”

Another story at MSNBC raised the same unsettling question ( ). Missing men, especially those who are Black, seemingly don’t rate as much media attention as young, white females.

How can any journalist in good conscience write a story on missing persons, and then spin the article to pander to the only-women-count mindset?

The New York Times is one of the most dependable sources of Ms.-Information. Previous columns have documented how The New York Times has portrayed men in a negative light ( , biased its coverage of gender health issues

( ), and worked covertly with pro-feminist legislators in the Senate to influence national legislation

( ).

Author Warren Farrell has come up with a novel theory to explain the media’s neglect of men. He calls it the Lace Curtain, which he describes as the tendency of the media to view gender issues only from a female or feminist perspective. His book, Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, documents the head-numbing experiences of male authors who have hit the estrogen ceiling.

And in his recent book Arrogance, reporter Bernard Goldberg recounts how CBS talk shows routinely invited radical feminists to appear as gender “experts.”

Some people like to dismiss the New Media as a flaky source of news and commentary. Jonathan Klein, former vice president of CBS News, recently derided the internet bloggers as “a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.”

No doubt the fem-liberal establishment got a chuckle out of that remark. But they need to face up to this sad but obvious conclusion: When it comes to men’s and gender issues, the Old Media’s coverage can no longer be said to be accurate, balanced, and fair.

Wonderful, Wacky World of Fem-Speak

Welcome to Femlandia, fellow traveler! On today’s tour, we’ll be visiting the enchanting place where the natives speak an exotic dialect known as Fem-Speak.

To get around in Femlandia, you must master a little Fem-Vocabulary, Fem-Statistics, and Fem-Logic. Are you ready?

There are three key words in Fem-Vocabulary. Pay close attention now, because these words have different meanings from their English counterparts:

1. Feminist: In the English language, “feminine” refers to a woman who is polite, modest, and comely. But in Fem-Speak, “feminist” has the exact opposite connotation: demanding, angry, and unkempt.

2. Equality: In English, equality refers to open and equal opportunity. But in Fem-Speak, equality refers to statistical uniformity that is enforceable with rigid quotas. Feminists will apply this term to women’s issues and concerns, but then will refuse to discuss it in relation to men.

3. Gender: This word actually has three meanings:

1. Male or female biological sex
2. Social differences between men and women that are learned, as in “gender roles”
3. Pertaining to the radical feminist ideology

Gender is one of the most popular words in Fem-Speak because no one knows for sure which interpretation you are using ( ). Just ponder the phrase, “gender equality.” Consider the many permutations of meaning this innocent-looking expression contains!

In Fem-Speak, it is perfectly acceptable to use words and expressions with female derivations, such as Mother Earth, mother-tongue, mother lode, ladybug, sister city, “necessity is the mother of invention,” and so on.

But Fem-Speak prohibits any word or phrase with a male connotation, such as mankind, manpower, middleman, or “man the ramparts.” Breaking this linguistic convention is a violation of what feminists call “speech codes,” and can invite the imposition of legal sanctions.

And did you catch my use of the word “master” in the first paragraph of this travel guide? My friend, that is a word you should never use in Femlandia. Not only does it have masculine implications, but it also contains allusions to the dreaded hierarchy.

Once you grasp the basic vocabulary, you are now ready for a lesson in Fem-Statistics. Fem-Statistics is easy once you understand this one basic rule: Always give percentages in multiples of 10 -- like 30%.

So what if the actual number is, say, 53%? No problem, you can round up or round down -- whatever makes your statement sound better.

And what if that number doesn’t feel right? Again, no problem. Use whatever number you want! Remember that in Femlandia, truth is deemed to be a linear, socially-constructed concept. So feel free to be creative.

Now on to Fem-Logic.

Fem-Logic can be described as any discussion that presents information out of context, introduces irrelevant concepts, and eventually reaches a conclusion that bears no relationship to common sense. And if you want to elevate the statement to the level of Revealed Truth, just preface your comment with the two magic words, “I feel.”

This can be illustrated by way of example.

A couple weeks ago I heard some people talking about athletics. One man was arguing that men are biologically stronger and faster, which gives them an inherent advantage in sports such as sprinting. But the persons from Femlandia said he could not possibly be right, because his reasoning did not comport with the Fem-Speak definition of equality.

So after a few moments of thought, one person responded: “I feel that women surpass men in endurance sports. We may not run as fast, but we run more efficiently and have more pelvic strength.”

Did you get that?

In Fem-Speak, it’s perfectly fine to simultaneously espouse opposite views. For example, you can talk about women being strong and independent. And then you can turn around and argue that women are victims who require constant governmental help and legal protection. Femlandists see no contradiction in those two statements.

Finally, a word of counsel. In Femlandia, you should never question or doubt the truth of a denizen’s statement. For these persons are said to possess A Woman’s Way of Knowing.

Fem-Speak is a rich, emotive language, filled with subtlety and nuance. And with luck, fellow traveler, all of us will soon be thinking in Fem-Speak.

Women Victimized by Feminist Fables

Not too long ago, people knew the difference between truth and falsehood. Truth was based on verifiable facts and rational logic. And falsehood was the opposite of truth.

But then radical feminism came along. The High Priestesses decreed that truth was a cynical ploy designed to dupe women to submit to male hegemony.

Feminist philosopher Joyce Trebilcot once ridiculed the “apparatuses of ‘truth,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘science.’” And feminist theorist Elizabeth Fee stated bluntly: “Knowledge was created as an act of aggression.”

Not even Cartesian logic was safe from the onslaught. “We might begin to question the import of Descartes’ stress on logic and mathematics as the ideal types of rationality,” explained Linda Gardiner, editor of the Women’s Review of Books.

Told to ignore reason and common sense, women found themselves vulnerable to the machinations of the mischievous matriarchs. Under the guise of female liberation, these feminist Pooh Bahs set out to indoctrinate women into a three-tiered mythology.

It all begins with the Mother of all Myths: the belief that a cabal of men, termed the Patriarchy, has been scheming all these years to keep women down. We won’t dwell on the fact that history fails to support such a sweeping indictment ( ). Suffice it to say, in the feminist worldview all the ills of the world can be traced back to the dreaded Patriarchy.

The Great Myth of Patriarchy in turn spawned the Four Lesser Myths.

First is the claim that men “have all the power.” Must be nice to have the whole world waiting at your beck and call.

Next is Gloria Steinem’s doozy: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Steinem was telling a generation of American women that barren spinsterhood would be good enough. Of course, Steinem later found her bicycle and married airline pilot David Bale – but let’s not worry about minor details.

Third, there’s the feminist belief in the moral superiority of women ( That concept is captured in the chauvinistic expression, “A woman can do anything a man can do, only better.” To the Sisterhood, that statement is not a joke, it is a central tenet of the gender catechism.

But here’s the biggest whopper of all: the claim that feminism seeks to bring about gender equality. Let’s look at the record. What have feminists done to rectify the fact that men have shorter lifespans? Or are victims in 93% of all workplace deaths? To the radical feminist, gender equality is only a one-way street.

The Four Lesser Myths of male omnipotence, female autonomy, feminine superiority, and gender equality create the foundation. Upon that base, feminists have constructed an ever-expanding superstructure of equivocations, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.

The list is much too long to recount, but encompasses the full range gamut of issues including health care, education, the law, family relationships, and domestic violence. Like the Super Bowl hoax – the myth that domestic violence rises 40% on Super Bowl Sunday. Even though that hoary chestnut was refuted long ago by the Washington Post, the alarming statistic continues to be recycled.

So exactly how do the feminist fables victimize women?

Precisely because so many intelligent, caring women have come to accept the lies. They now believe they are victims. You might say they’ve been brainwashed. These women walk around with an attitude of entitlement, wondering why men aren’t interested in them any more. They are lonely people.

And as long as women remain in the victim mode, they will always be vulnerable to the argument that they need more legal protections and services. Thanks to the Sisterhood, female dependence on men has shifted to female reliance on government largesse. Is that progress?

But for a number of women’s groups, the feminist misrepresentations have reached the point of outright embarrassment. So they have launched campaigns to tell the world, “Look! The Empress has no clothes!”

The Concerned Women for America sponsors extensive grass-roots activities that counter the feminist doctrine. And the Independent Women’s Forum has launched a national campaign to alert students to widespread liberal bias on college campuses ( The program is appropriately dubbed, “She Thinks.”

A feminist who thinks – what a thought!

Achieving Feminist Class Consciousness

Radical feminism can be traced back directly to Marxism-Leninism. The feminist ideology, framework, and utopian aspirations all have their origin in the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels ( ).

Sometime visit the Women and Marxism website ( ). There you can read exactly what V.I. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung had to say about women’s liberation.

Vladimir Lenin was the mastermind behind the early Soviet propaganda campaign. In his book The Birth of the Propaganda State, Peter Kenez concludes the Soviet state achieved its early successes because of the “ability of the political system to isolate the Russian people from information and ideas that would have undermined the message.”

And that message was the gospel of class consciousness. The Marxist mantra was repeated endlessly: the worker was exploited by the evil capitalist, and the peasant was oppressed by the greedy landowner.

This indoctrination strategy worked for several reasons. It motivated the workers and peasants. It channeled their anger towards the capitalists. And it vilified and demoralized the opponents of Communism.

Lenin also pushed the class consciousness theme in his speeches to women, but with a new twist. On the occasion of the 1921 International Working Women’s Day, Lenin proclaimed that women were doubly oppressed -- both because they were victims of capitalism, and because they were slaves “overburdened with the drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking and stultifying toil in the kitchen and the family household.” ( )

“Drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking, and stultifying toil”? An apt description of life in the Gulag, perhaps, but not of housework in the relative comfort of the home.

But lack of historical accuracy did not deter the early feminists. Pick up a copy of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex or Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics. You will read exactly the same arguments: Men are the unending oppressors of women and marriage is a legalized form of slavery.

To achieve their vision of women’s liberation, the Matrons of Mischief pursued the age-old strategy of divide and conquer.

First, the Sisterhood canonized the strong, self-assured, independent woman. This ideal became government policy when the Clinton administration launched its “Girl Power” program and UNICEF later started its “Go Girl!” initiative. To this day, programs to prevent osteoporosis carry the slogan, “Strong Women, Strong Bones.”

But these campaigns carry an underlying message: “If you’re a strong woman, why would you ever need or want a man?”

And when the Marlboro Woman message didn’t completely sink in, feminists went to Plan B: male-bashing. Male chauvinist pig. Misogynist. Insensitive. Over-bearing. Abusive. Batterer. And many others.

At first, men thought the caricatures were funny. Then they tried to ignore them. But the end result has been to make men feel guilty and shameful.

The steady drum-beat of those inflammatory messages served to turn the battle of the sexes into a gender war.

The next step would be to conquer. And what was the target? Nothing less than the institution of marriage.

Robin Morgan, who would later become the editor of Ms. Magazine, referred to marriage as “A slavery-like practice.” Germaine Greer argued, “If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition, it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry.” Kate Millett extolled the destruction of the traditional family as “revolutionary or utopian.”

Persons who are interested in comprehending the scope of this relentless assault should peruse the Heritage Foundation report, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage ( ).

So what is the ultimate objective of this campaign of feminist class consciousness? Surprisingly, feminists have made little effort to disguise their goal. In her book Red Feminism, Kate Weigand makes this stunning admission: “this book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism.” ( )

Subvert the gender system to overturn capitalism. Karl Marx would be pleased.

Rise of the Feminist Propaganda State

Remember that famous line from George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”? Mr. Orwell, here are two more examples to add to your collection:

1. On April 20 last, sports pages around the country featured a picture of the Catherine Ndereba of Kenya with upraised arms, the “winner” of the Boston Marathon. She won not by virtue of being the fastest runner, but because the female runners had started the race 29 minutes before the men.

That day the Boston Globe ran an article carrying the headline, “New Rule Engenders Equal Footing.” ( ) If giving women a half hour head-start is an “equal footing,” then would someone please explain inequality to me?

2. Fox News ran an article in late August about American military women in Iraq (,2933,130106,00.html ). This was the lead sentence: “Today, equality of the sexes includes dying in combat.”

The article highlighted the statistic that 24 female soldiers had died in Iraq. As of that time, one thousand American troops had perished -- 24 female and 976 male. If we do a little math, it turns out that only 2.4% of combat deaths are female. That’s equality of the sexes?

In both stories, the reporter massacred the obvious meaning of “equality.” But where was the outrage? The fact that no one murmured a word of protest says something about the mental anesthesia that grips our collective awareness.

In his recent book The War Against Men, Professor Richard Rise of Texas A&M University notes, “the female propaganda machine is relentless.” My last four columns have traced the outlines of this machine:

First, erect an elaborate mythology that begins with the Great Myth of Patriarchy. Then embellish it with a series of urban legends that “men have all the power,” “marriage is a legalized form of slavery,” and so on. Remember that emotional impact, not historical accuracy is what counts ( ).

Then introduce a gender perspective to the mass media. Portray men as unworthy and women as entitled. Never allow men to be depicted as victims. There’s nothing subtle here -- the key is the sheer mind-numbing repetition of the Ms.-Information ( ).

Take the claim that women suffer from wage discrimination, for instance. On the average, women are paid 76 cents for every dollar that men earn. Groups such as the National Center for Policy Analysis have found that when differences in work hours and other factors are taken into account, the gender wage gap disappears ( ).

But during last week's presidential debate, one of the candidates couldn’t resist the urge to dust off the old canard that women receive unequal pay for equal work. Score one for the rad-fem PR campaign.

Third is the tactic of inciting gender conflict. V.I. Lenin employed the concept of class consciousness to instigate class warfare. As an offshoot of Marxist-Leninist thought, it is no surprise that radical feminism now seeks to promote gender consciousness in order to drive a wedge between men and women. Women have been put upon all these years, so isn’t turn-about fair play? ( )

In the final phase of the propaganda campaign, everyday speech becomes sprinkled with ideologically-loaded words like “gender.” Male-derivative words like “chairman” are banned, but female expressions like “Mother Earth” continue in use. Once persons internalize the terminology and logic of Fem-Speak, you could almost say they have become brainwashed ( ).

So when mainstream media outlets such as the Boston Globe and Fox News use the word “equality” to denote its exact opposite -- and nobody seems to mind -- you know that we’re in trouble.

Almost sixty years ago George Orwell wrote a prescient essay titled "Politics and the English Language." Deploring the way language was being used to manipulate and deceive, Orwell wrote: “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Who can doubt that the feminist propaganda campaign has now reached Orwellian proportions? Welcome to the world of Fem-Prop.

Girlie-Man, Next Leader of the Free World?

Blame it on Arnold Schwarzenegger if you must, but a lot of people are questioning the macho-meter of Democrats in general, and Senator Kerry in particular.

It started back in July when the Democrat-controlled state legislature stalled the vote on a critical budget bill. The partisan foot-dragging prompted Gov. Schwarzenegger to chide the legislators for being “girlie-men.”

Despite howls of protest, Schwarzenegger refused to apologize. Then he repeated the charge in early August, this time tagging candidate John Kerry with the emasculating moniker.

By the time the Republican Convention rolled around, the California delegates – male and female -- had donned pins reading “Girlie Men” with a red slash through them. In his televised speech before millions, Schwarzenegger couldn’t resist repeating the now-famous phrase.

Worse, Kerry’s own supporters began to admit the truth of the charge. In his New York Times column, “How Kerry Became a Girlie-Man,” Frank Rich confessed, “It’s Mr. Kerry’s behavior now, not what he did 35 years ago, that has prevented his manliness from trumping the president.” ( ) And Michael Moore began accusing his fellow Democrats for being “a bunch of crybabies” for complaining “how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can’t win.”

It wasn’t for lack of trying that Senator Kerry couldn’t shake the caricature. Riding high after winning primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, he challenged President Bush to “Bring it on.” And when he rode that thundering Harley-Davidson onto Jay Leno’s set, the black-leather crowd was duly impressed.

Of course, Kerry didn’t help things when he admitted he intended to fight a “sensitive” war on terror. Or that he wanted to bring the terrorist threat down to the level of a mere “nuisance.”

But it’s the Teresa factor that really tests Senator Kerry’s cojones. As we all know, Teresa Heinz Kerry is worth more than $700 million, which prompted columnist Ann Coulter to deride Kerry as a “poodle to rich women.”

Let’s consider Teresa’s last name. Some political wives, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, choose to retain their maiden names. That’s fine.

But Heinz is not Teresa’s maiden name – it’s her ex-husband’s name. By calling herself Teresa Heinz Kerry, Teresa is revealing her loyalty to former Republican Senator John Heinz.

Naomi Wolf had this to say in a recent New York magazine article: “Teresa is publicly, subliminally cuckolding Kerry with the power of a dead man.” Strong words, indeed.

Most revealing, though, were Senator Kerry’s comments during the third presidential debate. Referring to the wives of the two candidates, moderator Bob Schieffer posed this question: “What is the most important thing that you’ve learned from these strong women?”

After paying tribute to his now-deceased mother, Senator Kerry had this to say:

“And my daughters and my wife are people who just are filled with that sense of what’s right, what’s wrong.”

Feminists believe that women are morally superior to men, so that comment played well with one of Kerry’s key constituencies. But what does that say about Mr. Kerry’s own moral compass?

And then things fell apart. Kerry admitted:

“They also kick me around. They keep me honest. They don’t let me get away with anything. I can sometimes take myself too seriously. They surely don’t let me do that.”

“Kick me around”? Last I heard, kicking is a form of domestic violence. If a female candidate ever said that, the cops would have shown up at her doorstep with an arrest warrant in hand.

Maybe Mr. Kerry didn’t mean that kicking comment literally. But still, is this the voice of a self-confident male who is in marital relationship with equal say and mutual respect? Or is this the whine of a hen-pecked husband?

If elected President, is this a man who will command respect from our allies and adversaries? Will they regard him as a man of his word?

This man John Kerry curtsies and bows to anyone wearing a skirt. And now he aspires to be the next leader of the most powerful nation on earth?

All Hail to the Panderer-in-Chief

The polls have closed, President George Bush garnered 51% of the popular vote, and the Republicans consolidated their hold on the U.S. Congress. The 2004 presidential campaign will be remembered for many things, including the fact that the female electorate became the most attended-to group in the history of American politics.

It was a reprise of the timeless story of the two hopeful suitors competing for the affections of the fair maiden.

When the reluctant maiden declined to offer her hand to the first suitor, along came the second gallant knight, proffering more gifts than the first. Determined to not be outdone, the first man upped the ante. Eventually, both men had promised all their worldly possessions.

Pandering, of course, is the stock-in-trade of any political campaign. Still, it was impressive to watch the two presidential candidates pulling out all the stops to woo the female vote.

Of the two campaigns, the Bush people devised the more creative strategy. They took Bush’s middle initial and, like Michael Jordan peddling his footwear, turned it into a brand name: “W Stands for Women.”

This is the first time in memory that a presidential candidate has linked his persona – his own name -- with a particular voting block. But why women? Why not “W Stands for White Men”?

In contrast to Bush’s name brand approach, the Kerry campaign used the more traditional tactic: convince people how awful things are, and then promise them a brighter future.

But attracting the white female vote women is a daunting task. After all, how do you reach out to persons who already have the most rights, protections, and discretionary income of any group in history? What more can you promise to the manicure-and-hairdo set?

So the Kerry campaign set out to test the limits of reinventing the truth.

John Kerry’s condescending message was this: “Things are actually much worse for women than you realize. If you vote for my opponent, you will soon be sent back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.”

But it was the wage equity issue where candidate Kerry was downright insulting to women. Everyone knows that persons who work 41 hours a week (which is the average for men) are going to get higher wages than their female co-workers who clock only 32 hours ( ). And it’s obvious that men who work in the more dangerous jobs – like construction and asbestos removal – should be paid more than women who work in safe, climate-controlled environments, such as school teachers and telephone operators.

But by harping on the so-called “wage disparity” issue – while offering no specifics on how to solve a problem that doesn’t even exist – Senator Kerry revealed a disdainful regard for women’s intelligence.

Soon the pandering became so obvious that women began to complain. After all, we live in the Age of the Empowered Woman. And empowered women don’t need anything that a man might have to offer.

So in late September columnist Cathy Young, returning to the courtship theme, decried that the two political parties are treating women “with a condescension that, in a better world, would cause a suitor to be sent packing.” (

Both political parties took note. Neither of them was willing to blink first, but a solution had to be devised. And so it happened.

It occurred during the third presidential debate. Here’s the question that moderator Bob Schieffer asked the two candidates: “What is the most important thing you’ve learned from these strong women?” In case anyone missed the point, Schieffer repeated the “strong women” phrase two more times.

Within days, the “strong women” mantra was appearing in the stump speeches of the candidates’ wives. This way, if women felt guilty about all the political bouquets being thrown their way, they could comfort themselves with the knowledge that indeed, they were “strong women.” How Orwellian.

With both candidates going to such an effort to target their messages to the female voter, you’d think that women would have had no trouble making a decision. But through the very end of the campaign, 62% of all undecided voters were female.

Privileged or victim? Underpaid or compensated fairly? Strong or in need of constant blandishments by powerful men?

With so many fibs and half-truths floating around, it was no wonder that women had trouble making up their minds.

NASCAR Dads and Soccer Moms Join Forces, But at What Cost?

Following last week’s historic defeat for the Democrats, pollster Celinda Lake was surely wagging her finger as if to say, “I told you so!” Because just last Spring, Ms. Lake was preaching that the Dems would never retake the White House unless they began to take the issues of the white male electorate – the so-called NASCAR Dads -- more seriously.

Indeed, white men represent a sizeable chunk of the U.S. electorate -- 45 million voters to be exact. Back in 2000, 60% of them voted for George W., while only 36% gave the nod to Al Gore ( ). Those additional 11 million male voters spelled the critical difference for Mr. Bush in that tight contest.

But Mr. Bush attracted only 49% of the white female vote in that electoral nail-biter. So soon after he was sworn in as President, wooing the women became a key element of the Bush re-election strategy.

That meant that, with the exception of the abortion issue, the Bush campaign was reluctant to ruffle the feathers of the radical feminists. As a result, the Gender Warriors left over from the Clinton Administration continued to have free rein throughout the federal government.

And that’s exactly what they did:

Most disappointing was the area of child support reform. Early in his term, President Bush brought in fatherhood advocate Wade Horn to head the Administration on Children and Families. But Horn’s program was co-opted by the advocates of responsible fatherhood– “responsible” being a code word for more draconian child support.

Those developments set the stage for the 2004 presidential race.

Despite Celinda Lake’s dire warning, the Democratic Party was not willing to risk offending the Sisterhood. So the 2004 Democratic platform flatly ignored the issues of men, while kow-towing to such feminist demands as protecting abortion rights and remedying the so-called gender “wage gap.”

And what about the Republicans? Not surprisingly, their gender message also targeted the female vote. Millions of placards, lapel pins, and bumper stickers told us, as if we didn’t get it the first time, “W Stands for Women.”

In the end, 62% of white males and 55% of white females voted for George W. Bush. Two core constituencies -- NASCAR Dads and Soccer Moms – came together on November 2 to re-elect President Bush. ( ).

This new-found coalition made all the difference in that closely-fought presidential race. But Republican glee should be tempered by a sobering fact: their victory came at the price of neglecting the issues of white males. This is what I mean:

What does that portend for the future of families, which create the foundation of society?

Meanwhile back in Massachusetts, a small band of NASCAR Dads put together a statewide ballot initiative. The initiative asked voters whether they believed fathers should get shared custody of their children in the event of divorce.

That common-sense idea was overwhelmingly approved by 85% of voters ( ). In contrast, candidate John Kerry managed to garner only 63% of the popular vote for the presidential race in his home state.

One of these days, some smart politician is going to come along and will realize that championing the issues of men, as well as women, is not only a winning campaign strategy, it’s also good for America.

The Untold Story of Betty Friedan

In 1963, the course of American history was changed with the publication of Betty Friedan’s book, The Feminine Mystique. Over five million copies of this explosive book eventually would be sold.

In the book, Friedan claimed she had lived in a “comfortable concentration camp” of New York City suburbia. And for years afterwards, Friedan claimed that her awareness of woman’s rights did not coalesce until the late 1950s when she sat down to write the book in her stately mansion in Grand View-on-Hudson.

But based on his analysis of Friedan’s personal papers at the Smith College library, historian Daniel Horowitz has dramatically refuted that claim.

In his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique, Horowitz acknowledges that Friedan had a brilliant mind, was a prolific writer, and pursued her cause with a single-minded devotion.

But Horowitz also reveals a dark side to Friedan’s social activism: Betty Friedan was a long-time participant in the American Communist movement.

Here is Betty Friedan’s true story (page numbers from the Horowitz book are in parentheses):

Horowitz also documents Friedan’s numerous relationships with Communist Party operatives, including her romantic involvement with physicist David Bohm while a student at Berkeley (p. 92). Bohm would later invoke the Fifth Amendment while testifying in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, and leave the United States shortly thereafter.

It is important to note that Horowitz did not intend to write his book as an exposé. Indeed, throughout the book, Horowitz is clearly sympathetic to Friedan’s feminist objectives.

But this much is clear: beginning in 1940, Betty Friedan became a committed and articulate advocate for the American socialist movement.

It is true that after 1952, her views become less strident. but Friedan’s basic outlook still reflected the socialist worldview of capitalist oppression and female victimization.

Take this quote from Frederick Engel’s famous 1884 essay, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State:

“The emancipation of women becomes possible only when women are enabled to take part in production on a large, social scale, and when domestic duties require their attention only to a minor degree.”

Engel was saying that equality of the sexes would only happen when women abandoned their homes and become worker-drones.

Friedan copied that sentence into her notes sometime around 1959, while she was doing her research for The Feminine Mystique (p. 201).

That revolutionary passage would become the inspiration and guiding principle for Friedan’s book, and eventually for the entire feminist movement.

It's Boo-Hoo Time at Abortion Central

What has become of all the strong women? At the N.O.W. headquarters, all the girls were wailing in disbelief. At the Feminist Majority, everyone's mascara had to be redone. And First-Lady-in-waiting Teresa was left speechless.

The 2004 presidential election was not just a setback for the Democratic Party. Candidate Kerry repeatedly promised to appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court and to eliminate the so-called gender “wage gap.” So Kerry’s defeat also represented a repudiation of the rad-fem agenda.

Of course, the feminist Mafia tried to put a good face on the debacle. Ann Lewis, editor of the Democratic party’s Women’s Vote Center, consoled the party faithful: “Congratulations for all you did: the telephone calls, letter writing and contributions, the woman-to-woman conversations and door-to-door canvasses.”

Over at the Planned Parenthood Federation, the ladies were in an absolute tizzy. Already counting the days until they lose their precious right to abortion-on-demand, they vowed to step up the work of its Post-Roe Service Delivery Task Force. Co-chair Chris Charbonneau advised, “Women should lobby state legislators to eradicate laws that date from the 1800s and early 1900s and that call abortion murder.”

N.O.W. president Kim Gandy issued a press release liberally sprinkled with bold-face demands: “We must fight back against Bush’s regressive policies on every issue…We must demand our senators block every Supreme Court nominee.” [ ]

“Fight back” on “every issue”? What is this, Mrs. Gandy, guerilla warfare?

To gauge the mood of the female electorate, a group of women’s organizations called Votes for Women 2004 polled 1,000 voters. The results were released this past week [ ] -- and the news was grim.

Compared to 2000, support for democrat Kerry declined among a broad range of women: white women, married women, and older women. Even working women were less likely to vote for Kerry in 2004 than Gore in 2000. So much for all those women being kept down by the Glass Ceiling.

Only 2% of persons said that lesbian and gay rights were on their list of top concerns. I guess the N.O.W. is going to have to retool its euphemistically-named campaign for “equal marriage.”

But what most rankled the Sisterhood was the finding that only 2% of all respondents cited abortion as the issue that made them decide whom to vote for President. And 14% of women actually said the candidates were too focused on the abortion controversy. In other words, abortion has become a losing issue.

The poll found that many did not believe that women’s issues were adequately addressed during the campaigns. But now that you mention it, the poll didn’t bother to ask whether the campaigns adequately addressed the issues of men – I wonder why not.

But it was the analysis of the “gender gap” issue which reveals how the feminist movement relies on Soviet-style propaganda to advance its neo-Marxist agenda. The notion of the gender gap has been used for years to browbeat politicians into passing pro-feminist legislation.

But on November 2, the gender gap reversed itself. That day, 55% of males voted for the Republicans, while females were almost evenly split -- 51% favored Kerry and 48% gave the nod to Bush.

Radical feminism survives by churning out an unendless series of myths and falsehoods. So predictably, Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal issued a press release this past week with the misleading headline, “Gender Gap and Women’s Votes Pivotal in Close 2004 Election.” [ ]

But an honest summary would have said the exact opposite: “Men’s Votes Pivotal in Close 2004 Election.”

So now the Sisterhood finds itself on the losing side of its own issues, is witnessing the widescale erosion of its voting base, and must now resort to dis-information tactics to staunch the exodus.

Anyone have a hankie?

Patriarchal Power or Marxist Mischief?

Poor Arnold Schwarzenegger had to find out the hard way. Fresh from his stirring speech at the Republican convention where he endorsed President Bush, the governor came home that night knowing he would have some explaining to do.

For wife Maria Shriver is known to be of the liberal Democratic persuasion. Sure enough, Maria put Arnold in the doghouse -- and that meant no sex for a fortnight [].

According to socialist-feminist theory, a vast anti-female conspiracy known as the “patriarchy” controls the social order. When you ask a feminist to explain that mind-boggling statement, she invariably points to the fact that the great majority of elected officials are male. And according to the Marxist analysis, those callous male patriarchs look out only for their own kind, leaving women neglected and downtrodden.

But when we examine the record, a different picture emerges. Take our federal entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. All three of these programs were conceived of and enacted by men. They are paid for mostly by male taxpayers.

And who are the principal beneficiaries of this governmental largesse? In all three cases, it’s women. Under Social Security and Medicare, women come out ahead because they outlive men. In the case of Medicaid, women edge out the men because of eligibility criteria that favor custodial parents, who in most cases are mothers.

Medical research reveals a similar pattern. Beginning in the 1970s, Senator Edward Kennedy became a tireless advocate for breast cancer research. As a result, the National Institutes of Health now budgets three times more money for breast cancer research than for prostate cancer [].

Then add the Violence Against Women Act, aggressive child support enforcement policies, and sexual harassment laws. The conclusion is clear: chivalry is alive and well within the halls of Congress. Our elected patriarchs unabashedly cater to the needs of women.

But the public arena is not the only venue where the matriarchy reigns. Women often rule the roost at home, as well.

And it’s not just Gov. Schwarzenegger who cowers in the face of matriarchal might. During the recent election campaign, Laura Bush recounted how husband George was ordered by mother Barbara to take his feet off the furniture – a story told much to the delight of her female audiences. And we know who wears the pants in the Heinz-Kerry household [].

It’s true that in traditional families, the husband was considered the head of the family. But appearances can be deceiving. Consider the old saying, “The man is the head of the house, but the woman is the neck. And it’s the neck that turns the head.”

In truth, the husband’s role can be compared to the Queen of England. Even though the Queen is the titular head of the government, her role is more ceremonial than substantive.

There are those who argue that the sexes have always been equal, they only exercised their power in different ways. David Shackleton, writing in the July-September issue of Everyman magazine, explains that men’s power in the political, economic, and physical arenas has always been balanced by women’s power in the moral, emotional, and sexual realms.

Teresa Riordan makes a similar point in her recent book, Inventing Beauty. Surveying women’s use of false bosoms, push-up bras, and lipstick, Riordan argues that women “have shrewdly, cannily, and knowingly deployed artifice in their ceaseless battle to captivate the inherently roving eye of the male.” []

So much for the stereotype of the powerless female.

It can be said that “patriarchy” is one of the most potent words in the English language. Its mere mention induces spasms of guilt and shame in men. Among women, the word incites anger and vindictiveness.

That powerful mix of emotions is the fuel that has allowed radical feminists to advance their cause. To this day, the Sisterhood talks about the patriarchy as if it is still going strong, inflicting misery on all those hapless women.

For the last 30 years or so, the neo-Marxists have relentlessly pummelled the frail strawman of patriarchy. After a while you begin to wonder, is their agenda to promote gender equality and reconciliation? Or do they have something more nefarious in mind?

The Grinches Who Would Steal Marriage

This Christmas season, many are pausing to reflect on our families, our children, and on the uncertain future of marriage. Exactly who are the Grinches who would steal marriage?

As early as 1971, the Declaration of Feminism declared war on this bedrock institution: "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women....We must work to destroy it.”

So radical feminists sounded their hysterical alarm, and began their relentless assault on this sacred union (

Some feminists went so far as to compare marriage with illicit sex work. Andrea Dworkin warned the sisterhood that “Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.” Attorney Catherine MacKinnon issued this analysis: “Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment.”

In recent years, however, a broad coalition has emerged to rescue and resuscitate this beleaguered institution. Who are the lead characters on the stage of this Christmas pageant?

In Act I, we see the government coming to the rescue. Beginning this past January, DHHS Secretary Tommy Thompson began to announce a series of initiatives to promote healthy marriages.

But Steven Baskerville reveals that only one-quarter of the funds are actually targeted at improving marriages( ). The remaining amount goes to child support enforcement programs, designed to wring more money out of the pockets of low-income, unemployed fathers.

Act II, enter the marriage counselors, the marital Mr. and Mrs. Fix-Its. But are they hurting more than they are helping?

William Dougherty, a family therapist at the University of Minnesota, would answer that question with an emphatic “yes.” Dougherty accuses some marriage counselors of actually pushing for a break-up withcomments such as, “You deserve better.” And critizing the pro-female bias of many therapists, he notes that “men also get seriously disadvantaged in some couples therapy.” ( )

But don’t lose hope, because the curtain is about to rise on Act III.

On cue, here come the marriage enrichment programs, those groups that would charge $500 to help you find your marital bliss.

The lead actor in the marriage enrichment business is an outfit called Smart Marriages. This past summer, a Smart Marriages conference featured a speech that answered the question, “What are Men For, Anyway?” ( ) The conference brochure included this insulting description: “One more time, with feeling and through the movies, we'll explore men's roles and their usefulness. Or lack of.”

And if that’s not disturbing enough, pay a visit to the website of John Van Epp, PhD at You will see that Dr. Epp conducts seminars on “How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk.” Last I heard, Dr. Epp had no plans to offer a program on “How to Avoid Marrying a Bitch.”

Fortunately, there is at least one marriage enhancement program that is not afraid to present a male-friendly perspective. Secrets of Married Men ( ) offers practical advice on how men can cope with the many stressors and demands of marriage.

But the sad fact is, most marriage enrichment programs are designed for -- and pander to -- women. They convey the message that at best, men are irrelevant, and at worst, men are “the problem” in bad marriages.

So as the curtain falls on our Yuletide pageant, we will ask ourselves, which is worse: The Grinches who demonize and disparage marriage? Or the Grinches who, in the name of reviving marriage, demonize and disparage men?

The Unfolding AIDS Scandal at the UN

December 1 was World AIDS Day and the focus this year is on women and girls. That's good, because almost half of all HIV-infected persons in the world are female. But if you are a woman who is concerned about HIV infection, I'd suggest you avoid the UNAIDS program like the plague. Why? Because their advice just might kill you.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

As we know, there is no vaccine or drug that can stop AIDS. But there is one proven strategy. That approach, which is backed by the Bush Administration, is known as "ABC." A stands for Abstinence, B means Be faithful, and C refers to Condoms [ ].

The ABC concept has been implemented in Uganda over the past 15 years. There, a massive public education campaign was mounted. Billboard signs admonished would-be adulterers, "No Grazing." And religious organizations were tapped to play key roles (sorry about that, ACLU).

The results were impressive: the HIV infection rate in Uganda dropped from 15% to 5%. In 1991, 21% of pregnant women had the deadly HIV virus. Ten years later, that figure had dropped to 6% [ .

But the experts at UNAIDS don't believe in the ABCs. Why? Because they had a strategy with a name that appealed to erotomaniacs everywhere: Safe Sex. The Safe Sex advocates argue that since sexual activity is a fact of life, the best we can do is offer condoms.

But two years ago the truth began to emerge.

Speakers at the 2002 Barcelona AIDS conference began to openly admit the failure of the Safe Sex approach. The UN Population Division offered this dispiriting assessment: "Much effort has been spent on promoting the prophylactic use of condoms as part of AIDS prevention. However, over the years, the condom has not become more popular among couples." [ ]

Why did Safe Sex fail? Well, knowing that the condom failure rate is 15%, ask yourself this question: If an intimate partner of yours had AIDS, would you trust your life to a condom?

And why didn't the UN embrace the proven ABC strategy? The answer: it's a little too....puritanical. Abstinence is something a Bible-thumping preacher might push -- but not the respectable public-health types at the UNAIDS.

If the gospel of Safe Sex didn't sell, why not try the orthodoxy of The Sisterhood?

So just last week the UNAIDS published its report, "Women and AIDS" [ ]. If you are interested in getting a glimpse into the radical feminist mindset, you will find it there. You will learn how women are subject to discrimination, domestic violence, and all manner of mistreatment - at the hands of their male chauvinist oppressors, of course.

For example, the report tells us the amazing fact that "women and girls provide the bulk of home-based care" -- but what does that have to do with stopping AIDS? Feminists who believe that all heterosexual intercourse is a form of rape will be heartened by the document's sweeping claim that "Women and girls often lack the power to abstain from sex."

And what if you are a woman who is looking for concrete suggestions on how to avoid becoming infected with the deadly HIV virus? Don't go to UNAIDS, because you will find nothing there in the way of practical advice.

If fact you may become convinced that since women are so utterly powerless in the face of global patriarchy, taking any action to protect yourself would be futile.

Every day, 8,500 men and women die from the modern Black Death that we call AIDS. Most of those deaths could be avoided if the UN took a practical approach that is based on science, not ideology. And pitting women against men is hardly the answer.

The UN is engulfed in a growing array of scandals: the Rwanda slaughter that left 800,000 dead; sexual abuse by peacekeeping forces in the Congo; the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Then there's the ever-deepening Iraqi oil-for-food scandal - just this week we learned that Kofi Annan's son Kojo was on the take to the tune of $2,500 a month.

Now add to that list, the devastating toll of the AIDS epidemic.

Kofi's Resignation Won't Cure the AIDS Epidemic

A band of House Republicans has done the once-unthinkable and called for the resignation of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. But giving Annan the boot is only the first step. Because the entire United Nations bureaucracy has become a haven to aging do-gooders who care more about ideology than results.

Take the report, Women and AIDS, which was released by the UNAIDS two weeks ago [ ]. UNAIDS is the United Nations program charged with stopping the HIV threat.

The past 20 years I have held a front row seat in the unfolding AIDS drama. I have seen persons being handed the death sentence that they had contracted the HIV virus. I have witnessed the terrified look of AIDS patients coming in to check their plummeting CD counts.

This is a disease that plays for keeps. If we are going to beat AIDS, we need to use an approach that is based on hard science, not trendy ideology. And that’s where the UNAIDS report goes wrong.

The first step in stopping AIDS is compiling accurate statistics on the spread of the disease. But if you look at the 2004 UNAIDS annual report, you will find the HIV infection rates for women and children -- but not for men [ ]. Is that because the lives of men count for less?

Last week Cliff Kincaid revealed how the UNAIDS has been cooking its statistics. For example, they once reported that 15% of the population in Kenya had HIV. But later the UNAIDS cut that number to just 6.7% [ ]

Bottom line: All those impressive-looking AIDS statistics coming out of the UNAIDS are suspect, especially the ones that apply to men.

The Women and AIDS report contains a number of demonstrable falsehoods. Here are two of them:

1. “Men tend to have better access to AIDS care and treatment…through drug trials.” Now go to the website , which lists all the AIDS studies sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, and you will see that the reverse is true.

2. “Violence against women is a worldwide scourge, and a massive human rights and public challenge.” But Linda Kelly recently wrote in the Florida State University Law Review, “Over the last 25 years, leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates.” [ ]

But the problem with the UNAIDS publication is not limited to its factual errors. Of greater concern is that the report sets up the boogeyman of patriarchy, and then casually lays the blame for the epidemic at the feet of men.

The report lectures ad nauseum, “men tend to hold the upper hand” and “the balance of power in many relationships is tilted in favor of men.” But a recent Washington Post editorial, “A Female Pandemic?,” took exception to this one-sided approach, because “high-risk groups are stigmatized, and hence often ignored.”

The bias of the UN report is confirmed by its refusal to admit that women also contribute to the spread of AIDS. For example, the report never admits the fact that one-third of all heterosexual transmission of HIV is female to male.

Nor does the report reveal the slightest concern with HIV-infected prostitutes, those Typhoid Marys who infect hundreds of male partners in a single month. Maybe that’s because radical feminists have no problem with women selling their bodies, just as long as they are paid equitably.

The UN report is not only palpably unfair to men; it’s also dangerous to women. The report claims, “Women and girls often lack the power to abstain from sex.” [

Once you start preaching the mantra of female powerlessness, you are telling individual women there is nothing they can do to stop the spread of AIDS. That message is not only perniciously false, it is the hallmark of the totalitarian mindset.

Over the past three decades, feminists have developed a well-honed strategy: Make women feel angry and fearful, induce guilt and shame in men, and create an environment of hysteria.

On November 30 Peter Piot, director of the UNAIDS, came to Washington, DC to unveil the Women and AIDS report and to sound the drum-beat of female victimization. But US Ambassador Randall Tobias, who spoke at the same meeting, would have none of that.

It was good that Ambassador Tobias ignored the UNAIDS report. But side-stepping this radical feminist screed is not enough. The House Republicans and the Bush administration need to come out and repudiate the Women and AIDS document, a bonanza of gender bigotry.