In David Thomas' book Not Guilty the inside cover says"America has a new enemy, and that enemy is man. Forced into the corner by male-bashing movies and print, the male gender has become the scapegoat for all that is wrong with society. From Columbus to Clarence Thomas, men have been singled out and categorized as imperialist misogynist or potential rapists. Feminist orthodoxy has stripped men of their individual natures and denied them a voice in the gender debate. For years we have heard only one side of the argument in the battle of the sexes: It's the male oppressor versus the female oppressed, masculine authority suppressing the fragile distaff."
"How can men reclaim a voice in this atmosphere of exclusion and hate? . . . . taking on the feminists' blitzkrieg in the midst of their love affair with the media, David Thomas seeks to establish an equal voice for the overlooked male." The book forces"the reader to reexamine the implications of the male stereotype and the false empowerment it gives women who choose to typify men in this way: With studies showing that almost 50 percent of child abuse incidents are committed by women, why are men perceived almost exclusively as the perpetrators? Why does the public focus much more on spouse abuse by husbands when studies of couples prove that wives resort more often to physical violence?"
He begins his book:"Men stand accused. As everyone knows, men earn more money than women. Men run all the world's governments and fill the vast majority of seats on the boards of its major corporations. Men are generals, bishops, judges, newspaper editors, and movie studio heads. To make matters worse, men -- if we are to believe the campaigns waged by women -- oppress women to the point of open warfare. They beat them, rape them, and attempt to control their powers of reproduction. They stereotype them sexually and enslave them to ideals of beauty that lead thousands of women to undergo surgery or starve themselves half to death. And every time women look as though they are making any progress, men knock them back down again."
"That's what we've been told. So here's a simple question: If men are so much better off than women, how come so many more kill themselves?" He goes on to give data showing men kill themselves at a far higher percentage than women and every year it gets worse for men. He asks two questions about this,"1. Aren't all these suicides telling us something about the real state of men's lives? And: 2. If women comprised four fifths of all suicide victims, don't you think we'd have heard about it by now?" We don't hear about it because"Western society is obsesses with women to the point of mass neurosis." He says in researching the book he looked at the number of articles about women versus men and the number of organizations for men versus women. It is overwhelmingly favorable for women.
He asks,"Are we to believe, then, that men are simply born bad? Or is there something that happens to men that makes them more likely to act in destructive ways than might otherwise be the case? Are women, fundamentally, any better than men?" He goes on to show that the"all-powerful patriarchs" are hurting deeply and that women are just as mean, vicious and prone to crime as men.
He said his most difficult chapters were the ones on child abuse and spousal abuse. He shows that women are more deadly than men and that no one feels sympathy for a man who is abused by a woman who usually resorts to weapons to hurt him and no one looks at women abusing children. The abuser will even get sympathy. There is one catchy point I can't help to mention in his part on crime. Statistically women embezzle and commit fraud the same amount as men. In one example he used a woman who stole over three million dollars from other women who listened to her male bashing advertizing pitch for investing with her by saying,"You can't trust a man with your money." She is now serving 17 years in jail.
The world now says that men have"inherent moral and sexual deficiencies." He quotes the feminist Adrienne Rich who said it best:"Men -- insofar as they are embodiments of the patriarchal idea -- have become dangerous to children." He goes on to show that women are as cruel or maybe even more evil depending on how you want to look at the statistics. There are a lot of ways to play with numbers. He tries in different ways to show how men are seen as armor plated and always the cause of problems. Father has said many times that it is women who start arguments. Just as we make our enemy to be less human by calling them gooks, krauts, japs, etc. men are seen as totally uncaring and if a man ever says he's in pain he gets sneers and contempt, especially if he has been hurt by a woman. His writes that he is not trying to denigrate women but simply to say that its time to see things correctly. I am tempted to get into his book and give you some of his angles to show how rotten of a deal many men have. So many have had everything taken away from them. I am encouraged though that there a signs of this beginning to change. They are tiny but there. One is that there was a movie on television that dealt with battered husbands played by well known actors. One movie that I enjoyed that showed a man as not being a jerk and his wife as one and she gets her dues is"It Could Happen to You." Nicholas Gage plays the real life story of the New York cop who won the lottery and shared it with a waitress. His wife was a shrew and the movie is not only great entertainment but shows that women can hurt men and can go to court and get juries to side with them. I won't give the ending. Rent it and see for yourself. It's a fun movie.
Not Guilty shows how men are abused
"He shows in his book that men become desperate because they are routinely ignored and not honored as men and fathers. This atmosphere of inequality does not help women in the long run. It merely makes men desperate. And desperate men do crazy things."
"In August 1991, the FBI arrested an Englishman called Bernie Downes in Philadelphia. He had fled there with his young daughter after kidnapping her from his former partner's London house. Downes, a small, lightly built social worker with no record of violent behavior, had been so frustrated by court decisions depriving him of meaningful contact with his child that he had taken the law into his own hands."
"After a massive manhunt, during which the British police claimed that he was both dangerous and mentally unstable (a claim for which there was no genuine evidence), Downes was jailed for four years. His actions, which involved forcing his way into the house where his daughter was living, and tying her mother to her bed with electric cable, were undoubtedly criminal, but they were a perfect demonstration of what happens when men are driven to the breaking point. The stories that follow involve British men, but they might just as well have happened in America: In both countries, legislative procedures and public attitudes are similar, as are their consequences."
"He goes on saying,"The time has come for men to get used to the idea of thinking of themselves as a group with shared interests and coherent aims. I deeply regret the splintering of society, but as long as people are putting themselves into little boxes, each with its own, exclusive label, men are only being foolish and unfair to themselves not to play the game too. The men's movement, such as it is, originally developed as a splinter from the plank of feminism, and many of its early members accepted without question the Marxist-feminist notion of the oppressive patriarchy. Their aim, therefore, was to atone for the sins of the past by trying to do better in the future. And, by and large, the way in which they would do better was by becoming more female."
"Since then, the Robert Bly school of hairy New Machismo has talked about putting men in touch with the repressed masculine selves that lie within. Read a few of the books of Bly's ilk and you'll discover that there's a regular cast of thousands nestled away inside your soul. There's's the child within, the warrior, the priest, the wizard, the hairy man ... they should get together and form a basketball team."
"There's a lot of good stuff mixed up with all that mumbo-jumbo. And I know many men who have been helped by the teachings of Bly and men like him. But I don't believe that there's a warrior in me, or a wizard, or anyone else. Inside me, all you'll find is ... me. I may be mixed up and we all may be mixed up. But men are no more mixed up than women, any more than the reverse is true. We're all human. We all live with the knowledge of our own fallibility and our own mortality. In the wee small hours of the morning we all feel alone and afraid. There really are no exceptions."
"Some people say that the reason women are still in pain is not because they have had too much feminism, but because they haven't had enough. To me, that sounds a bit like saying the trouble with Russia was that it wasn't communist enough. Truth is, communism doesn't work, feminism doesn't work, and no ism you can think of works, because the world and the people in it are much too complicated to be reduced to a set of simple formulae."
"It is, however, true to say that we've only gone halfway down the road to sexual equality. And now it's men who need to be liberated."
"As matters stand, we have removed all the legal prejudices against women, without touching the ones against men. Or, to put it another way, we have said that women are the same as men when it suits them to be so, but different when it does not. At work, men and women are -- in law, at any rate -- equal. At home they are not. When a woman is an executive, she is exactly the same as a man. When she is a mother, she is not. When a woman wants an abortion reproduction is entirely her affair. When she wants child support, it suddenly becomes the man's responsibility."
"I do not blame women for this state of affairs, even if I think that some feminist campaigners have added to the human pain that it has caused. Men's rights are men's responsibility. Men passed the laws that got them into this sorry state of affairs. Men should damn well change them."
"The first thing that they can do to help themselves is to stop apologizing. There seems to be no middle way at the moment between the bastard and the wimp. For every man who attacks and degrades women, there's another one who's down on his knees saying he's sorry. A plague on both their houses."
"British people, of both sexes, who go to live and work in America often comment upon the incredible anger of American women. There are a number of causes for this. In the first place, women in the States are still denied a number of straightforward, practical rights that are commonplace in Europe. The sex war has always been much more intense in the States, too: The struggle between the bullying man and the ball-busting woman has been as violent as every other American conflict. Then there's the traditional American belief in human perfectibility and, more than that, the sense that people have a right to be happy. Women are not happy, so they look for a reason why, and the obvious one is men. It does not seem to occur to anyone that happiness is not the lot of the average human being, whatever their gender."
Not Guilty goes on to say,"The way I learned it, we were all trying to create a world in which the liberation of both sexes would act to everyone's benefit. A new world order would arise in which men and women would be equal partners as workmates, friends, and lovers. The sun would shine, children would be happy, and glorious formations of flying pigs would wave benevolently at the fairies frolicking at the bottom of the garden."
"We all know now that it didn't work. The pigs are as earthbound as ever. The conflict between men and women has become a sexual civil war. But it was still a nice idea. We could at least try to get a little of the way toward it. And the contribution that men make toward that ideal is to stop being bullies on the one hand, guilt-ridden apologists on the other."
"Meanwhile, those campaigners who accuse us of being bad by definition, those propagandists who maintain that all men are violent and all violence is male, and even those well-meaning young women who assume -- as who would not after the sexual politics of the past twenty-five years? -- that right is on their side must come to terms with the fact that life is not that simple. Neither sex has the monopoly on virtue or vice versa. Men do not wear the black hats, nor women the white. We are all of us fallible souls decked out in shades of gray. As a man I stand accused of violence, aggression, oppression, and destructiveness. Members of the jury, I plead: not guilty."
Thomas writes so well and says so much that I'm going to quote the following extended passage:"When I started work on this book, one of the issues by which I was most deeply troubled was the sheer amount of evil that men appeared to do. Wherever one looked, from the pictures on the TV screen to the words on a vast array of newspapers, books, and magazines, one was confronted by the violence and abuse wreaked by men upon defenseless women and children. Men harassed, and raped. They punched and abused. They buttfucked little children, for God's sake. (I apologize for the crudity of the language, but it's only when you strip accusations of their jargon and technicalities that their horrors become apparent.) There seemed no end to men's depravity."
"I had never done any of these things, nor even wished to. Nor had I ever witnessed any of them. It sounds like the height of naivete to say this, but in more than a dozen years as a jounalist, including several spent as a senior executive on a number of different publications, I am not aware that any of my female colleagues has ever been sexually harassed by me or anyone else. Naturally, I have heard plenty of gossip about goings-on in the business as a whole, but have I ever witnessed an act of harassment? I don't think so. Nor do I for one moment believe that any of my close friends has ever beaten up his wife or sexuallly abused his little children. Nor does my wife recall that any of the women she knows has ever made the slightest reference to any such acts. We simply cannot afford to believe such things. Because if we did, we would lose whatever faith we have in the power of love or friendship, or indeed, any of the values that make life remotely tolerable."
"And yet, if the reports I read were to be credited -- and many of them came from apparently unimpeachable, nay, official sources -- the Western world was steadily being overrun by a plague of abusive behavior. One in three children had experienced some form of sexual abuse. One in five women had been the victim of an attempted rape, or was it 44 percent, or even, as some researchers claimed, one in two? One in seven university students actually had been raped. According to a respected academic authority, between 21 and 35 percent of all women had suffered some form of domestic violence. And, in every case, the perpetrators of the terrible acts were men."
"Try as one might to deny the claim that all men were rapists, or abusers, or wife-beaters, it was impossible not to feel overwhelmed by a sense of guilt. Trying to be a good man was like trying to be a good German -- you could always feel the Nazis (or, in this case, the perverts) in the background. Just as those Germans who were not involved in the Holocaust had to explain, both to the world, and perhaps more important, to themselves, how they could possibly have allowed it to happen, and then had to find some means of atoning for it, so I struggle to resolve my feelings of complicity in the crimes that man was apparently wreaking upon the rest of humanity."
"Much of the work done by the men's movement has proceeded from a position of culpability. It is accepted that there is something wrong with men. The only questions remaining are, what, exacly, is the root of the problem, and what should be done to eradicate it? I must confess to having accepted this basic premise when I started work on this book. My early interviews -- conversations with psycologists, scientists, therapists, counselors, and even the odd advice columnist -- were all directed to discovering why men behaved so badly. Was it something that was unavoidable, a malevolence buried deep within the genes? Or was it a matter of conditioning, an anomaly that might, who knows, be 'cured' by changing the way in which we educated and conditioned little boys?"
"Some of these questions have been examined elsewhere in this book. They remain, I hope, central to any consideration of men today. But there's something else. The more I looked at the subject of male dysfunction, the more it seemed that the view society was taking had become seriously distorted. This distortion took two main forms: In the first place, the accusations made against men had been inflated far beyond anything that was justified by the actual -- as opposed to the claimed -- evidence. And second, the ways in which women hurt their fellow human beings had been virtually ignored. Men, in other words, were being forced to take the the rap for problems that were common to both sexes."
"Just consider what happens if one takes all the claims about male malevolence at face value. Take all the estimated figures for female victimization that I have mentioned above and add up the percentages. They come to more than 100 percent. Now, it could be that some women suffer disproportionately, but the same campaigners who come up with these figures also insist that the problems they descibed are spread evenly throughout society. So, by thier criteria, every single woman in the Western world has either been abused as a child, or raped, or attacked by a male partner."
"Who's been doing it? Well, it could be that a few men commit many crimes each. That would be the common sense view. But we're not dealing with common sense; we're dealing with political correctness, which insists that perpetrators are as evenly spread as their victims. So, if we believe their propaganda, we have to conclude that ever single man in the Western world has committed at least one of these acts."
"Can this be possible? Do you believe that every single man you know, without exception, has actually committed some form of sexual or physical assault on a woman or child? Look around the dinner table at your friends -- are they all sex criminals? Think of your father, brother, husband, boyfriend, son, and workmates. Think of the firemen, ambulance drivers, air-sea rescue pilots, doctors, and teachers you've come across or seen on the TV news. Think of the newscaster, come to that, and the weatherman, and the guy behind the camera. If you believe the propaganda, you've got to believe that every single one them deserves to be locked up."
"Let's get specific and name names. How about General H. Norman Schwarzcopf? His leadership of the allied forces in the war against Iraq made him a hero all over the globe. He has devoted his life to the service of his country. He is a devoted husband and father (he has said that his greatest regret about the Gulf was that it took him away from home just as his teenage son was changing from a boy into a young man). And he even has hidden liberal tendencies: On the BBC radio program 'Desert Island discs', he picked Bob Dylan's 'The Times They Are A 'Changing' as one of the eight records he would take with him if marooned on a desert island."
"So, think about this paragon of manly virtue, and figure out his perversion of choice. Does he beat his wife? Does he harass junior staff? Does he abuse his kids? Has he raped anyone? If we believe the figures, he must have been doing something. What with him being a man, and all."
"Now, the last paragraph may have made many readers feel nauseaous and disgusted. That's precisely the point. Because every man has, implicitly, been put in the position of into which I have just put General Schwarzkopf. And the choice before us is either to believe the statistics that supposedly condemn these men, along with every other man in the land, or to consider that the people who compiled them are either (a) misguided, (b) malevolent, or (c) plain nuts."
"I think I know where my vote is going."
"Before we go any further, let me get one thing straight. I have no desire whatsoever to try and put the boot on the other foot. I do not believe in some grotesque misogynist fantasy that men are the helpless victims of a vast gang of scheming, manipulative, violent bitches from hell. I just want to say that men do rather less harm than is currently believed and women do rather more. Not all of this harm takes the same form. Not all of it is looked at in the same way by our legal system: By and large, the harm that men do is illegal; by and large, the harm that women do is not. Some of it, perhaps, ought to be. But, in the end, we are all mortal, fallible human beings. And we all work out about equal."
"That is not, however the way that everyone sees it."
NEW LEFT, OLD NEWS
"The process by which academia, government, and the media came to be persuaded that men -- particularly white, middle-class, heterosexual men -- were, by definition, an oppressive, possibly violent group unlike any other fascinating one, and it deserves more study than I can give it here. In years to come, historians may wonder why Americans, who were so resistant to conventional Marxism, were so willing to be taken in by the theories of the New Left."
"After all, the United States has never wavered from its belief in the profit motive and private enterprise. It has never been possible to persuade the majority of Americans that capitalism is evil, principally because -- until recently, at least -- it was so clearly delivering improved living standards across the whole range of society in a way that no state-run economy has ever achieved."
"Proponents of radical change in America have had to deal with the fact that its citizens have, on the whole, been richer, healthier, and less politically or religiously oppressed than any people in the known history of the world. In an article in the July 1976 edition of Harper's Magazine, entitled 'The Intelligent Co-Ed's Guide to America', 'Tom Wolfe described the attempts of American intellectuals to make themselves feel as oppressed (and thus as morally superior) as their European counterparts. They would talk about such heinous crimes as 'cultural genocide,' 'liberal fascism,' or 'relative poverty' as a means of skating over the fact that real genocide, fascim, and poverty were less prevalent in the United States than anywhere else on earth. He called this process the 'Adjectival Catch-Up.'"
"Wolfe describes a debate at Yale, back in 1965. Speaker after speaker rose to denounce the neofascist police state of America. One of the panelists was the German author Gunther Grass, author of The Tin Drum. After a while he remarked, 'For the past hour I have my eyes fixed on the doors here. You talk about fascism and police repression. In Germany when I was a student, they come through the doors long ago. Here they must be very slow.'"
"The point, of course, was that there was no comparison whatever between the fascist fantasies of a few American academics and the terrible realities of a real police state. Yet fifteen years after Wolfe's piece, with Marxism in ruins all over the world, it is the catch-up crowd that's winning Marxism in the academic debate all over America. In place of Marx's idea that the bourgeoisie, as a class, oppresses the proletariat, as a class, they have proposed the notion that men, as a sex, oppress women, as a sex."
"As the British author Neil Lyndon has argued in his controversial book No More Sex War: The Failures of Feminism, the parallel between Marxism and feminism is a telling one. In 1843 Marx wrote, 'For 'one' class to represent the whole of society, another class must concentrate in itself all the evils of society .... For one class to be the liberating class 'par excellence', it is essential that another class should be openly the oppressing class.'"
"One hundred and twenty-seven years later, in her book Sexual Politics, the feminist writer Kate Millett claimed that men oppressed by means of 'interior colonization,' which was more powerful than any form of class distinction. Lyndon remarks, 'The dominon of females by males is, she said, our culture's most pervasive ideology, providing it with its most essential ideas and conceptions of political power ....The long wander of the Marxist Left through the institutions and societies of the modern West, in search of the class which would be the head and heart of society, the class which would be the dissolution of all classes had culminated in the definition of 'the birthright priority whereby males rule females'... Karl, meet Kate. Kate, this is Karl: you two were made for each other.' Lyndon surely does not mean to suggest that all feminists are Marxist, and even if he does, I do not. The point is that feminism arose in part (and only in part) from the ideology of the New Left and borrowed the idea of scapegoating a particular group of people as the source of all oppression. The term that was used to define this group was 'the patriarchy,' which was the ideological embodiment of male, paternal, oppressive power."
"From this it followed that men were, by definition, the bad guys. The British feminist Rosalind Miles has written about 'the penis rampant' stalking through history, spreading destruction wherever it goes. She sees all violence as male and all men as violent. In The Women's Room, Marilyn French famously stated that 'all men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws and theirs codes.' In the words of the American Adrienne Rich, writing in her 1979 book On lies, Secrets, and Silence: 'I am a feminist because I feel endangered, psychically and physically, by this society, and because I believe that the women's movement is saying that we have come to an edge of history when men -- insofar as they are embodiments of the patriarchal idea -- have become dangerous to children and other living things, themselves included.'"
"Andrea Dworkin, the controversial activist and author, has gone even further. In her 1987 nook 'Intercourse' she claims that 'normal, ordinary men commit acts of forced sex against women, including women they know, in the same way that most women are beaten by the men they live with -- that is ordinary sexual relations.' For Dworkin, men are, by difinition, both physically and sexually abusive. In her world there is little possibility of a relationship between a man and a woman that is both loving and mutually sexually satisfying. She states as a fact that 'women do not really enjoy intercourse,' and that 'intercourse remains a means, or the means, of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell, her own inferior status.'"
"In a later work, the novel Mercy, Dworkin's central character Andrea muses, 'I've always wanted to see a man beaten to a shit bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe stuffed up his mouth, sort of the pig with an apple ....'Now, imagine that you take out the word 'man' and replace it with nigger, or Jew, or faggot. Obscene, isn't it? Or just add the two letter 'wo' and consider what the reaction of the literary world would be to a male author who fantasized about smashing a women to a pulp."
"Mercy, it must be said, is fiction, and any author is entitled to claim that the words he of she writes in such a context represent the views of his or her character, rather than his or her personal opinions. Yet when Brett Easton Ellis wrote American Psycho, a similarly unpleasant study of male violence, critics were in little doubt that he should be held responsible. One publisher rejected the manuscript. Many bookstores refused to stock it, or kept it out of public view. Why then should we feel so much more comfortable with such clear evidence of one woman's hostility toward men?"
"Ms. Dworkin is much more militant than the vast majority of supporters of the women's movement. Yet many of the ideas she proposes -- the notion, for example, that pornography consists solely of the exploitation and objectification of women for the benefit of oppressive males -- have been accepted, in somewhat diluted form, by a vast swath of progressive and liberal opinion."
"A culture of victimization has grown up in which women are perceived to be the helpless targets of an extrordinary range of male malevolence. In The London Review of Books, dated July 23, 1992, Margaret Anne Doodly, Andrew Mellon Professor of English Literature at Vanderbilt University, reviewed Backlash, by Susan Faludi, and The War Against Women, by Marilyn French. During the course of the review, which ran over several thousand words, she set out the full list of crimes committed by society (i.e, men) against women."
"She told her readers that short skirts were an evil male conspiracy designed to infantilize women (of which misconception more anon); that 'advertising portrays women as helpless, vulnerable, feckless, silly, so that they will have the humility necessary to take upon themselves the chains of marriage'; that Third World men waste UN handouts on transistor radios; that 'the background to all women's lives is fear'; that 'individual 'nice' men must... collude in woman-bashing in order to preserve the status of manhood'; that people who are opposed to the British monarchy are really woman-haters who want to remove a female head of state; that 'the family is where social control of women must take place'; and that men believe 'the proper attitude to women is one of contemptuous control, of never-ceasing vigilance, of, in short, permanent hostility.'"
"What comes across in this extraordinary diatribe against male misogyny is an equally powerful anger toward and hatred of men on the part of Professor Doody herself. This would not be of any great concern -- The London Review of Books, for all its prestige, is not a publication likely to inflame the general public -- were it not for the fact that these extreme ideas are influential far beyond the boundaries of university campuses and literary magazines."
THE LEGISLATIVE EFFECT
"The idea that men monopolize violence has become a basic assumption of modern public life. In 1991 Senator Joseph Biden proposed a Violence Against Women Act, the first federal legislation specifically designed to combat the problem of domestic violence. The act would make male abusers subject to federal criminal penalties, which could also be imposed against any man crossing a state boundary in search of a fleeing partner. States would be given incentives to arrest wife-beaters, and federal financing for women's shelters would be tripled."
"With the possible exception of incentivizing arrests -- a principle that throws up a mass of potential difficulties and abuses of power, irrespective of the crime involved -- I do not believe that any of these proposals is inherently objectionable. Anything that can be done to free people from the shadow of domestic violence deserves support. Yet the underlying presumption of the act, which is that only men commit acts of violence in the home, and only women are the victims, is repugnant and discriminatory. Domestic violence is inexcusable, irrespective of the gender of its perpetrator or victim. A beaten husband deserves just as much sympathy as a battered wife."
"A straightforward domestic violence Act, which set forward penalites for abusers and granted funds for counseling and protection services in a non-gender-specific manner, would be a genuinely valuable piece of legislation. It would also, as I shall endeavor to demonstrate in a later chapter, bear a much closer relationship to the truth about violence in the home, which is that it is practiced by both sexes. Yet the chances of such evenhanded legislaiton being adopted are virtually nil, so completely have legislators bought the notion that violence is a uniquely male phenomenon."
"Any campaigners who attempt to dispel this notion can expect to come up against three immediate difficulties. In the first place, they will be accused of misogyny. Here I speak, regretfully, from experience. Articles accusing me of waging a campaign against women and women's rights appeared in several British newspapers in the eighteen months prior to this books publication. As often as not, the writers concerned had never met me or even spoken to me. Invariably, they had not seen a single word of my manuscript. It was simply presumed that any man who spoke in favor of men must, by definition, be speaking against women. The notion that one's ultimate aim might be to help both sexes by acknowledging that our shared humanity was never for one moment considered."
"Second, there is the matter of vested interest. Jaundiced campaigners for the rights of battered men, such as the Minnesotan Georege Gilliland, contend that there are now thousands of jobs and millions of dollars tied up in women's shelters, domestic abuse couselors (ditto child abuse, sexual harassment, rape counselors, etc.), academic programs, court officials, lawyers, law enforcement officers, and so forth, all of whom are dependent upon the notion of the victimized woman. Any suggestion that the truth of the situation might differ from the accepted version is perceived as a threat to funding, jobs, and power. It is therefore resisted with the utmost energy."
"A more charitable view would be that there are very few people getting rich out of violence and sexual abuse. Many women's shelters have to turn away mothers and children who are in dire need of help. If they are resistant to the idea of sharing their funding with battered men, it is only because there is not enough of it to begin with. Whatever the rationale, however, the end result is the same: a resistance to the idea of male victimization."
"The final barrier, which may be the biggest one all, is public incredulity. Most of us have opinions formed from a confused mass of inherited prejudice, jumbled information, and conetemporary beliefs. The idea of women's oppression makes sense to us on two levels. In the first place it fits with everything we have been told by the women's movement. And in the second, it strikes an older, more conservative chord, which is our instinctive feeling that men are stronger, more aggressive, and somehow more impervious to pain (both physical and psychological) than women. Most people, no matter how progressive they claim to be, are pretty old fashioned when it comes to gender. Surely, we suppose, a woman can't really harm a man. And, in any case, any man who allows himself to be harmed by a woman can't really be a man at all."
"These beliefs are irrational, as a moment's reflection demonstrates, when we stop to think about our own experience and that of the men and women we know, we can all think of plenty of examples in which men have been on the receiving end -- the divorced father who has lost his family and his home, for example -- just as we all know women who have had a raw deal. Yet our preconceptions are awfully hard to shift."
"In June 1992, Life magazine -- which is hardly a banner-waving publication for the feminist Left -- ran a cover story entitled 'If Women Ran America,' which illustrated the degree both to which men are painted as villainous and to which women are idealized. The article's author, Lisa Grunwald, painted a depressing picture of life in country run by men, noting that 'In 1990 an estimated 683,000 women were raped; at least two million were abused each year by husbands and boyfriends.'"
"The use of the word 'estimated' is crucial here: According to official U.S. government statistic, there were 94,500 reported rapes, or attempted rapes, in 1989 (again, the last year for which I had published figures at the time of writing). That figure is less than one-seventh the quantity cited by Grunwald. Similarly, the total number of all violent crimes against the person -- including murders, assaults, and every manner of bodily harm -- was 1,646,000, of which the majority were committed against men, rather than women. The most dangerous thing you can be is not female, but black. A black man runs more than twice the risk of becoming the victim of violence than does a white woman."
"Needless to say, it is not only possible, but probable that the number of actual offenses far exceeds the number of those reported. And assaults against women are unacceptable and inexcuseable, irrespective of their frequency. Even so, you have to wonder where Life found the extra 588,500 rape victims and at least 1.5 million battered wives. And you also have to ask yourself how we came to the point where numbers like that can be cited -- 'and people assume that the must be right.'"
"If men are bad, women are -- so the public believes -- far better. An opinion poll of '1,222 Americans, a representative sample of the population,' commisssioned by Life revealed that if women ran America childcare would be more available; maternity leave would be guaranteed; government would be more attentive to the needy (but not, respondents agreed, the work-shy); abortion would be legal; there would be greater equality for working women, and greater sexual tolerance; finally, gun control would be stricter and the law would be tougher on crime."
It takes two to tango
In Manhood Redux Carlton Freedman wrote,"'I have never yet seen a family in which a woman was simply a victim of a beating and had no input in that behavior,' said Dr. Rodney J. Shapiro, a University of Rochester psychologist, in what had to be one of the more intrepid pronouncements of our age, given the fearsome climate that obtains in academia vis-a-vis feminist causes. 'It is fashionable nowadays to see women who are victims of wife-beatings as total victims. I think that is naive, that it is directed by political interests or current trends rather than clinical truth.' (Emphasis added.)"
"Nothing written here is to be construed as in any way justifying violence in response to non-violent provocation. But it is imperative we understand that it is an extremely rare man who just walks into his house and gratuitously starts batting his wife around -- which is the version we invariably hear from the battered women, especially when she has disposed of the alleged beater."
"Dick Doyle, in his hard-hitting book The Rape of the Male, confessed to hitting his ex-wife on two different occasions. The first time occurred as he was driving home from a dance with her when: 'for no reason I can conceive, she began slugging me with all her might. As big and strong as she was, and at 50 m.p.h., this was an extremely dangerous situation, and I desperately backhanded her -- hard -- in an unsuccessful effort to keep her off me. By the time I got the car stopped, she had two black eyes (she bruises so easily a dirty look could do it). She had her sister take pictures of the black eyes and showed them to everyone who would look. A dairy farm would need only one cow if it could get as much milk from it as she got sympathy from those pictures."
Three greatest turning points in history
The ideology of feminism is the ideology of the Fall. It is Satan's philosophy of life. It is Eve leaving her position and dominating Adam. It teaches that women interchange with men and become subjects and men become objects. Socialism is the view that government is subject and family is object. Godism, the ideology of the Messiah, is the exact opposite of this.
The three greatest turning points in human history have been the births of the three Adams. Satan worked through Eve to bring down Adam in the Garden of Eden. Satan possessed Mary 2000 years ago to destroy Jesus' family. And Satan seduced Christian women to get the vote in 1920, the year the Third Adam was born. By the time the Messiah was ready to begin his public ministry in the middle of the 20th century, he had to face a world that was socialist/feminist. His first wife became a rebellious Eve and betrayed him, and socialist governments imprisoned him.
Every historian in the world says that 1920 was one of the greatest turning points in history. Everything changed after World War I. And the suffering and murder since then has been the worst in all of human history.
Covey explains, as many are beginning to see, that it was, in many ways better before 1920. He studied the success literature of America's past 200 years and discovered that before WWI, America had a deeper sense of right and wrong and it had what he correctly calls a"character" ethic. After WWI America"shifted" to a"superficial""personality" ethic. He says Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography is"representative" of what he calls the first 150 years of America before it went downhill in the last 50 years. The distance between the marriages and lifestyle of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is like the difference between day and night. The Founding Fathers were not feminist/socialists like people are today. They were far wiser than people living in the 20th century. At a dinner honoring American Nobel Prize winners, President Kennedy said:"This is the most extraordinary collection of talent ... that has ever been gathered together at the White House -- with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
Covey says people used to be more into true values. He lists a few of these values. One he doesn't mention is the one most associated with Ben Franklin, the virtue of thrift. I write about thrift in my chapter called"Prosperity." Was it better in the"good old days?" Scientifically or externally it is better in a dentist's office of today than in one a hundred years ago. Driving in an air conditioned car down the interstate is easier than what the pioneers had to experience on wagon trains. However, internally and socially, Covey says it was better in the past and we need to restore the old fashioned values this century has thrown out that were the building blocks our ancestors used to build America. He never says in his book what his deepest values are. He chooses things that no one can argue with. They are good, but his"7 Habits" do not get to the core of life. Truly effective people will live by the values I teach in this book. Covey is a devout Mormon and shares some of the values I teach in this book, such as the value of patriarchy. I know this because I read his books that he wrote for his church. If Covey had written his core values in 7 Habits it would never have become a best-seller. I assume Covey is trying to reach as wide an audience as he can with some of his truth rather than not reach anyone outside his church. I don't know. I do know that I have no interest in spoon-feeding truth.
Covey says there is a great divide between America's first 150 years and succeeding 50 years. These figures are wrong. 1776 to 1920 is 144 years which rounds off to 140 years. 1920 to 1990 is 70 years. These are principled numbers. There is also a 70 year period before 1920.
The year 1848 was a year of revolutions and Satan inspired his champions to write his deadly ideas. They taught feminism -- Satan's ideology of antifamily. He focuses on destroying the family. God focuses on building it -- especially extended families living in loving communities. Satan focuses on individualism and small families, like the nuclear families of today. There is strength in numbers. Satan hates wagon trains; he likes lonely wagons. God was working to prepare a safe world for the Messiah to come to by inspiring the traditional family as taught in the Bible. Satan disparages and attacks the Bible as being outdated, not relevant, not hip, not cool, not modern and advanced. UC sisters write against the Biblical family pattern as all feminists do. Satan worked through Karl Marx and Friedreich Engels who published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Unknown to them, Satan worked through Elizabeth Cady Stanton who published the diabolical Seneca Falls Declaration in New York the same year with the radical idea that women should get the vote and join men in decisions of war and peace in government. Government looked exciting to these women. They were bored in their homes, and Satan turned their idealism and restlessness to the man's realm. These were the mustard seeds of Satan that grew in 70 years until it was the biggest tree in the world and now everyone lives under its shade. In just 70 years their ideas went from being seen as laughable and dangerous to being mainstream thought. Satan beat God in the war of ideologies. Today everyone is a feminist. Today everyone believes women should vote.
Suffragists vs. Antisuffragists (Antis)
For seventy years the suffragists and antisuffragists (or Antis as they were called then) fought an intense cultural war until the suffragists were victorious in getting men to pass the nineteenth amendment in 1920 that gave women the right to vote.
Focus on the family vs. focus on the individual
The antisuffragists tried their best to teach the rebellious suffragists that getting the vote would turn America from being centered on the family to being centered on the individual and those individuals would center on big government. They constantly taught that men are the head of the house who speak for the family with one voice. Recently a feminist wrote of this argument of the Antis saying,"Women who thus invaded the masculine sphere would forfeit their right to chivalry, that mode of male behavior which ennobled society. Such activity would also encourage that specious independence of woman slyly advocated by supporters of free love and socialism. ... To comprehend the horror [the author is sarcastic but the results have been horrible] with which the Antis contemplated these possibilities, it is necessary to understand their belief that the unit of society was not the individual but the family. A man voted not for himself alone but for all the members of his family, as their political representative. Social stability depended upon the existence of many tightly knit families, each of which was, in the antisuffragist view, a state in miniature." Father often speaks of the rampant"free love" in America.
Father, like the Antis, teaches that families are little countries. He says, "The nation is basically a collection of families in which all the generations are included. Each extended family symbolizes one small country....the man (is) the 'president' of his family, which is a micro-country."
Feminist suffragists were Cain; Antisuffragists were Abel. God's champions are the women who fought the suffragists. Satan's champions are the suffragists who fought to leave the home. Today we have women who do not want to care for grandparents in their home. They put them in nursing homes. To Father this is the most vivid example of how American women have become godless. Father often criticizes American sisters for not seeing things vertically. They can't see that grandparents are vertically higher than them. And they can't see that men are vertically higher and need to be treated with tact. American women have created a nightmare matriarchy in the home and no matter how much Father denounces it, nothing seems to change. I'm writing this book to help him get his absolute antifeminist message across.
Vertical vs. horizontal
This century is horizontal. Father's imagery in his speeches is difficult for Americans to understand. Americans rarely see things vertically. They don't see grandparents vertically. They don't see men vertically. Feminism rules and says men are just jerks. As one popular bestseller is titled, Men Are Just Desserts. Unfortunately for many men this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To fill the void women are leaving the home in an exodus. They feel they don't need men to take care of them. They want to be independent, not dependent on men. They want to compete and dominate men in the workplace. When there seems to be a problem in society, the solution is more feminism. Problem: rape in the military. Solution: Ellen Goodman will fire off a national newspaper column and millions will be indoctrinated that we need to get more women leading men in the military, and we need many more women to join the military. It makes as much sense as saying an alcoholic should work in a liquor store. Then when he falls off the wagon he should work more hours. Ellen is walking hand in hand with Satan down his road that is a vicious cycle downward. And UC sisters are holding his other hand.