Woa! If you care about the rights of men and fathers, this has been one helluva week.
Two bastions of pathological contemporary feminist thought, the New York Times and National Public Radio (NPR), are covering father’s rights in divorce? That would have been unthinkable even a year ago. But, after a lot of hard work by people such as Glenn Sacks
, and organizations including the Children’s Rights Council
, and the National Coalition of Free Men
, and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children
, all in the US, and the blockbuster success of Fathers 4 Justice
in the UK, it seems that the systematic injustice against men, fathers, and boys is now impossible to ignore.
The New York Times kicked off the week with a long article in its Sunday magazine about the father’s movement in both the US and the UK (this article is already archived and costs $2.95 on the NYT web site). The reporter, Susan Dominus, struggled at points in the article with some of the deeper Constitutional issues involved, but overall gave a surprisingly honest and fair portrayal of the desperate circumstances in which divorced fathers find themselves. NPR then interviewed Dominus, and while the NPR host gave us her obligatory victim obsessed feminist lines when she had a chance, Dominus handled the interview as well as she did her article.
Then, after reading the Times article and listening to the NPR interview, I fell out of my chair upon hearing Glenn Sacks on Air America. He was interviewed by Charles Goyette and, as usual, did a good job of representing the plight of men and fathers in a system that has become completely hostile to them. Listen to that interview here.
Turning to Seattle, the most misandrist city in the nation, Thursday’s Seattle Times featured an article by Joni Balter, who most recently has been doing free public relations work for Senator Maria Cantwell in cooperation with her employer, The Seattle Times. Balter expressed concern about boys in our feminized education system.
Of course, in the process, Balter couldn’t resist getting her digs in at little boys with lines like, “It is true some girls still are reluctant to raise their hands and talk in a classroom filled with antsy, aggressive boys.” This one harks back to Carol Gilligan’s ridiculous early-90s claim that girls “loose their voice” in high school, which of course had no supportable basis and was laughed at by most serious scholars. But, that claim, and its embrace by the media, emboldened gender feminists to put their anti-boy agenda into overdrive in our public school system. We are seeing the sad results today. Boys do worse in school than girls, have drop out rates several times that of girls, and commit teen suicide at a rate that is several multiples that of girls.
While we are at it, let’s not leave out Friday’s article in the Seattle PI about men “finally speaking out” about prostate cancer. Actually, men have been talking, but you can not hear them over the cacophony. It is, you see, hard to get a word in edgewise when angry gender feminists scream at the top of their lungs for more spending on women specific illness, even though the National Institute of Health spends much more of it’s budget on illnesses only suffered by women than it does on male-only disease. Breast cancer research at the National Institute of Health, for example, has long received twice the research funding spent on prostate cancer. Meanwhile, colon cancer, a disease that affects men and women in equal proportions, receives only half the research money spent on breast cancer. In fact, cervical cancer receives the highest research spending per death for all types of cancer. But, I guess we can all feel heartened that the Seattle PI has discovered that survivors of prostate cancer are finding their voices. Thanks to Gilligan, we know the dire consequences of loosing one's voice.
These media outlets seem to be belatedly jumping on the bandwagon now, as if they are the first to realize that there is a crisis among men, fathers, and boys. But, beware of false prophets on this topic.
Balter, for example, made no mention of Christina Hoff Sommers’ book, The War Against Boys, that was published five years ago and exposed the terrible consequences for boys in a feminized learning environment full of loathing for them. It’s impossible to take a journalist seriously that would not be caught dead ever having uttered Sommers’ name (who also wrote Who Stole Feminism), yet claims to have personally discovered the plight of boys. At any rate, having Joni Balter cheer for boys is like having Saddam Hussein cheer for democracy, Edward Kennedy cheer for the military, or Christine Gregoire cheer for clean and accurate elections in King County.
And, one has to wonder what prompted the New York Times to publish its piece. Perhaps they have seen the commotion created in the UK by Fathers 4 Justice and thought they could stir up some good stories for the dog days of summer. More likely, though, a member of the editorial staff of the Times found he was stripped of rights he took for granted in a family court system completely stacked against him. Eventually, after all, these things do tend to come full circle.
Don’t trust NPR either to provide a balanced perspective on our country’s hostility towards men and fathers. The host of NPR described the father’s movement as “a small number of angry men,” even though Dominus suggested in her article that she could not turn a corner without bumping into a divorced father who had been pummeled by false accusations and was left desperate for access to his children. The numbers are not small and the people involved are increasingly organized.
Worst of all, none of these newly minted sympathizers made mention of the pinnacle of pathological feminist policymaking - the Violence against Women Act (VAWA). As we described here before, VAWA is based on the patriarchy model dreamed up in Women Studies, which is the cornerstone of gender feminist ideology. In this quackery “theory,” all of the ills of women are the result of the control exerted over them by a patriarchal social club of privilege all boys are supposedly born into. And, since this model says that all males can be summarily described as existing on a continuum of violence, violence against women bleeds out of patriarchal control. The way to solve this problem, according to victim obsessed organizations that use a silly thing called the Duluth Model, such as the Eastside Domestic Violence Program, is to harshly condition the patriarchy out of the male species. What better place to start than with little boys in the public school system?
No, those of us in the Men and Father’s Movement know who our leaders are and we won’t find them among journalists at the New York Times, the Seattle Times, the Seattle PI, NPR, or Air America. We won’t find them among Democrats hoping to co-opt a cause which exists primarily because of their hostile policy making. And, we won’t find them among Republicans and elected officials such as Dave Reichert, Washington State Representative from District 8, who leveraged the hysteria of domestic violence to get elected. After all, none of these opportunists are calling for reform of VAWA, the most devastatingly destructive government policy in the history of this country. In reality, what the two major parties have to worry about is which one will ultimately get blamed for the huge mess they have jointly made.
The Men and Father’s Movement voting block is forming and it is still up for grabs. The true leaders in this area, such as Christina Hoff Sommers, Glen Sacks, and the women of both iFeminists.com and the Independent Women’s Forum are the people we will look to for leadership and guidance.
But, what is going on here? Is Hillary Rodham trying to cover her tracks, which lead back to the most anti-male, anti-father, anti-marriage legislation in history while Bubba was under her direction? Perhaps she is directing her legions, which obviously include most of the Seattle media, to put up a head fake towards men’s and father’s issues. Or, maybe the media is getting its obligatory comments about men’s issues out of the way before its campaign for reauthorization of VAWA in September of this year.
I expect many of the paparazzi of contemporary victim culture are alarmed that men have finally figured out what was done to them while they were away at the office working to support their families. Perhaps they see their social engineering house of cards about to come crumbling down.
I don’t give them that much credit, though. While Dominus seemed genuinely moved by what she learned when researching her article, most of the rest of the recently bogusly enlightened chattering class take a patronizing tone towards these issues. They would like to approach men as victims in order to get that one last shot in at the male ego they so despise.
This explains Balter’s urgent waffling back and forth between the virtues of “girl power,” and what she, in a fit of political correctness, called her “generalizations” (for which she asked forgiveness), about the plight of boys. She wraps it up with, “Of course, empowering girls is a good thing. But now we also have to find the time and energy to push, encourage and cheer for the boys.”
The thought of people like Balter dedicating energy to boys is frightening, to say the least. So, no, Ms. Balter, stay out of the picture. What boys need is for you and your victim cult sisterhood to stop putting time and energy into trying to feminize them.
If you and the WEA get out of the kid’s faces with your male loathing, they will do just fine.
There's more! Click to read