I recently posted an article about the belief structure American women have established for themselves, and its consequences to our society. (See “We Are Owed It!”.) In that piece I mentioned the wide-spread practice of published news articles speaking only in terms of some uni-sex entity, primarily as a propaganda mechanism. I tried to address subsequent questions and comments in a “Comment” to that article, but eventually the “comments” grew so long that they constituted a separate article – which is now posted below.
I may be just a soldier, but I also have a strong background in the social sciences. Nevertheless, it’s important to point out that I have spent my life since my university days in a field different from those I studied in college. Of course, in a way, this is an advantage, since my views do not parrot the currently prevailing overarching dogma. I have no ulterior motives here. Although it certainly could have gone better, I am content with my life, secure in the knowledge that I did and can meet all of my obligations. I seek nothing from anyone, and the only thing that I am “owed” is that which I have earned on my own, according to my own choices ever since I became a teenager.
It’s also important to point out that I am not on some one-man crusade; I am just explaining things in laymen’s terms. If you feel strongly enough about what I am explaining, then it is incumbent on you to make noise about it elsewhere. While different views are welcome here, there’s little to be accomplished in preaching to the choir, in telling me how much you agree with me. I have been one of those guys everyone expects to “DO something” all my life; I’d now prefer to let others do that – if they feel it’s important enough for their children.
A Society With Only One Gender
As I explained in “We Are Owed It!”, American women have now had two whole generations to forcibly indoctrinate literally everyone in every “learning” environment possible with their own self-serving dogma, everywhere from the bassinet to the classroom to the workplace (including the US military), and even in the courtroom. In an axiom borne of feminism’s very aggressive use of “disparate impact” all the way back in the 1970s, “American women have rights; they do NOT have responsibilities.” What they never mention is that the “disparate impact” concept was meant to be a temporary measure to assist little girls for a few years in school, not as life-long governing philosophy for our majority “special” women. (See “Why Are American Men So Dumb?”) Now that the overall belief structure has been firmly instilled, all that’s needed is a little “tweaking” here and there to keep it alive and thriving. You don’t have to be an expert in propaganda to understand how and why it works. All you have to understand are some basic fundamentals about “marketing” – another of those liberal arts fields, like “education”, social “science”, psychology, childhood development, etc., in which women now overwhelmingly dominate. Why? Because that’s where the money for women is; mountains of that money have been there for a half century. I’ve posted a couple of other articles elsewhere on marketing (or propaganda), but you can see the process in action, without having to understand why, just by comparing original news sources with retail news outlets.
Original news services such as Associated Press (AP), United Press International (UPI) and Reuters are essentially news “wholesalers” who sell their product to many thousands of retailers, such as the Washington Post, New York Times, CBS and NBC for further “sale” to consumers. The AP is able to do this, at a good price, because it tries hard to provide only factual unbiased, unembellished information; what retailers do with that basic information, to “increase its value”, is up to the retailer. It is the retail version, not the original version, that enters the public consciousness. This is mainly because certain groups of consumers actually prefer to have their news “massaged” to fit neatly into established belief structures. For example, whenever it’s remotely possible, AP’s “boy” victims of sex crimes will always appear at the retail level as “child” victims. Perpetrators of such crimes are always identified as “predators” rather than as rapists, and never as “homosexuals”. (Such practices are so universal, so thoroughly pervasive, that I think they now have software that does this for retailers automatically. It does not apply to girl victims.)
Fundamental to the women’s dogma is the principle that only females can be victims, and any hint of another possibility must be obliterated or shaded into ambiguity. Otherwise, women could very well end up with an actually equitable share of responsibility, and accountability. And that could threaten the power of all those huge lobbies, not to mention the favored privileged position women still enjoy in our society. A few years ago there was a lot of discussion about “fuzzy math”. Then it was “chaos theory”. Now it’s “network theory”. These are all attempts to apply aspects of physical sciences to human behavior, and there is some definite merit in the concept, even if it’s only to get more people interested in the physical sciences despite our schools’ great over-emphasis on the humanities and liberal arts favored by girls.
Nevertheless, fundamental to it all is the human brain and its well-known susceptibility to adroit suggestion. The most powerful suggestion is that exerted by large groups on conformity among its members. This is the whole herd underpinning of social media like Facebook. This is why those daily women’s TV shows remain so popular, why it’s possible to sell more toys no one needs if they are priced at $99.99 rather than $100.00, why women can use the men’s room but men using the women’s room are subject to arrest, why women spend all that money on clothes that are of interest only to other women, why everyone seems to accept the absurdity that women are “special” in a society based on equality, etc.. People really don’t do a lot of thinking about what they are doing, what decisions they are making. As long as they “feel good” about things, they’ll buy almost anything, even total nonsense, and most especially if it fits neatly into their pre-existing belief structure. And nothing makes one “feel better” than knowing that they are supported by a whole herd of others. If everyone else in their group is doing the same thing, it’s almost an absolute guarantee that they will, too. All you have to do is use their belief structures to get them to feel good about doing it, usually through careful manipulation of suggestion. This is just as fundamental to retail sales, charity drives and politics as it is to marketing (or propaganda) in general.
Boys in America don’t acquire a public gender until they show up on the docket accused of some transgression, and, after that, they again fade into obscurity. The New York Times, for example, published an important article on 19 December 2011 titled “Many in U.S. Are Arrested by Age 23, Study Finds,” by Erica Goode. Ms Goode’s first two sentences stated, “By age 23, almost a third of Americans have been arrested for a crime, according to a new study that researchers say is a measure of growing exposure to the criminal justice system in everyday life. The study, the first since the 1960s to look at the arrest histories of a national sample of adolescents and young adults over time, found that 30.2 percent of the 23-year-olds who participated reported having been arrested for an offense other than a minor traffic violation.”
There is nothing at all unusual about Ms Goode’s article; it simply follows universally “accepted practice” duplicated thousands of times every day all across America. Did any questions come to mind? Notice her use of the nouns “Many”, “Americans”, “adolescents”, “young adults”. Nowhere in her article did Ms Goode mention gender differences in arrest rates. Nowhere did she mention “boys” or “young men”. In this respect it was similar to every other article I found on the subject – the first in a half century to look at arrest histories. The original large study is sponsored by the Labor Department, and every interest group in the country – from women to homosexuals to race groups – were quick to mine the report for information supportive of their positions and get their self-serving articles published in every media imaginable, mostly by women authors. I could find none that dealt with boys – even though it is this group that is most dramatically impacted in the study. Think about that for a moment. None. (The government report is the wholesale version; the thousands of subsequent mass media and interest group articles, almost all written by women, are the self-serving edited retail versions.) The whole objective of such slick propaganda is to bury gender differences in everything, unless it’s possible to use the information in a way that supports the feminist dogma and its agendas, for women.
But Justice Department statistics clearly show that over 93% of those incarcerated in the US, which for decades has had the largest incarcerated population and the highest incarceration rate in world history, far higher than ever existed in either Communist China or Soviet Russia – are male. Such gender data almost jumps up and punches you in the face. How is it even possible to ignore such figures when writing and publishing stories about incarceration? Just who is responsible for raising all those males – almost a third of them – who run right into the arms of the law? Apparently, in a country that requires a vast “village” to raise girls, boys simply create themselves – and then pay a “just” price for the stupid error of their ways. Boys and young men are responsible for themselves, don’t even exist until they do something “wrong”. And, since they are the only group left with no lobby, everything they do is, naturally, “wrong”. (This is important, since they are the only group left to blame.) (See Footnote #1.)
Just how incredibly pathetic is it possible to get?
In case you’re wondering, this thing with boys is unique to the United States. No other country in the world is so shameful in its treatment of this group, and no interest group in the world sucks so much life out of everything else as do American women with their many lobbies, mountains of money, incessant sophisticated propaganda, their super-majority of votes, and very loud power, … plus all that incessant whining. The United States is the only English-speaking country that has not long ago singled out boys as endangered and instituted huge multi-discipline special programs to restore some equity to the requisite societal balance. There must be by now in this country at least ten million women, plus another two million of their clones, busily studying their glorious navels – on someone else’s dime. It’s been going on so long that it’s now permanently institutionalized – a half century of “women’s studies” on mindless auto-pilot. The most amazing thing about it all is that, incredibly, some boys do somehow manage to survive it, but not necessarily intact.
The American “education” industry has been using the “uni-sex” approach since the late-1990s to conceal just how badly that industry has been failing to educate boys by burying their poor performance beneath the high performance of girls in all its reporting to the public, in all its submission of statistics to international bodies dealing with childhood education. If US school statistics reported performance by gender, it would be clear that girls now rate at the top of world class, while boys fall somewhere in the middle of the Third World. But it’s not a problem if no one knows about it, is it? (See Comment #2.) After all, we are talking about a female-dominated industry, aren’t we? We’ll just keep hiding the fact that it’s doing a thousand times more damage than any male-dominated industry ever did.
You would never know it, but no other industrialized country on the planet has such high rates for its boys and young men as the United States does in suicide, arrest, drug and alcohol misuse, “learning disability” diagnosis, social autism, drop-out, failure to graduate, failure to get admitted to college, failure to win scholarships, unemployed, incarcerated, etc.. This country enrolls 8 to 10 times more girls in its public school advanced placement programs, and awards just as many more scholarships to girls, as to boys. (The advanced placement programs, of course, are almost a guaranteed path to college admission and scholarship awards, and they are all heavily weighted in humanities and liberal arts most favored by girls.) Over 80% of the young people in this country can no longer even qualify to serve in its own professional military services. That huge number of male failures – somewhere between a third and half – represent a truly staggering cost to our society, and yet that cost never receives even a passing notice among the women who now control our social “sciences”, social and education journalism and political action lobbies. (It does, however, ensure a very lucrative employment industry to such women – who are actually paid by taxpayers to impose their belief structures and prejudices on many millions of young males they despise after they come to the attention of the US “justice” system.) The reason? Boys have no lobby, and their cause receives no government money or attention. Lobbies generate noise, noise gets attention, and attention garners money. Institutions and lobbies will do almost anything to keep that money flowing. American boys thus have represented the world’s easiest target for the plethora of enormously powerful women’s lobbies and industries and their clever propaganda for the past fifty years.
It is quite simply a tyranny of the majority serving itself, and nothing else, systematically destroying boys in order achieve advantage for its own group. No one wants to go anywhere near the “unintended consequences” of feminism’s relentless destruction of the traditional family unit, of the role of self-interested women in our society’s enormous social problems. The objective of all those women’s lobbies, of course, is not to improve the condition of women; it is to use trainloads of other peoples’ money to perpetuate the myth of women as eternal victim – despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary – and they don’t care one bit who else gets destroyed in that self-serving process. These women care more about some endangered animal in Africa, about their own domestic pets, than they do about their own sons. How do they get away with it? They do it with “sweetness”, with a pleasant passive-aggressive demeanor, oblivious to everything but their own belief structure. “It’s not in what you do, it’s in how you do it.” This myopic focus on “me” has created the most spoiled, self-centered and responsibility-free mob of whining women on the planet – and their majority voter numbers ensure that they will remain so. In fact, the huge numbers of social loser men now functioning on the fringes of society whom those women create even helps ensure their continued “victim” status. Worse, they purport to have no understanding at all of how this purposefully created mess will inevitably explode in the faces of their daughters and granddaughters tomorrow.
Can you imagine what happens when future generations conduct “research” on the social forces and trends in play during our time just to, say, interpret politics and political decisions? The New York Times, for example, considers itself the “newspaper of record”, and here is one of its women writers providing her self-serving version of facts, and apparently with the paper’s full concurrence, completely censoring out the gender parts. Already we’ve had some rather wholesale “re-writing” of our own history, especially of key periods like the Civil War, the 1950s and the 1960s, all with an emphasis on special interest groups, based on very selective use of available historical printed accounts and documents – which then appear even in school text books to provide a dramatically altered “truth”. Now we even have candidates for national political office all speaking nonsensical emotion-based gibberish seeking to resonate with the very fluid wants of women voters and their clones – while avoiding at all costs actually stipulating the real reasons for the mass confusion. Politics has become a minefield: “Make a mistake, upset women, and it’s the kiss of death.” None of it makes sense! Truth lurks in the shadows.
One of the aspects of the Civil War that has always interested me, for example, is the degree to which recent historians have relied on still-existing private letters written between soldiers and family members to provide “new insight to the past’s realities.” But the simple fact is that half of Civil War soldiers, and those who sustained by far the highest casualties, were very recent Irish immigrants (cannon fodder) who had been for the previous 300 years aggressively denied by the British crown anything resembling an education and therefore could neither read or write. (For the Irish serfs to teach and learn was actually against British law, very similar to the treatment of slaves but with no responsibility for their care.) For all those hundreds of thousands of Irish conscripts, there were no letters sent, and none received. Filled with hope for a future better than the ruthless starvation and slavery behind them, they found themselves still “expendable”, and even their names vanished with their blood spilled on rich green fields across America. Most still too young to have started families, their lineage ended with their lives. There would be no future descendants tracing ancestors, no lobbies championing self-worth. Under our sick system, the dead are just dead; one must be living to qualify as a “victim”. Their one great legacy, and the most ironic, was that their lives were sacrificed by the tens of thousands in a war that ended in America the transplanted evilness that still ruled their occupied Ireland. Surviving written documents, including newspaper stories, have always been critical to any real understanding of history, but fully understanding those documents, as well as those that never existed, and placing them all in proper context, is just as critical.
What happens when all the printed record is already “edited” by special interests when it is first written by “news” people? Well, this was actually a concern during the 1970s and 1980s, when most major news sources in the US included an actual board of censors to ensure “fair” treatment of their group in “news” provided to the public. Information which these censors found “objectionable” to their group interests was banned, edited out. Foremost among these censors were women and black Americans and later (and to a lesser degree)Hispanics, but it was not something conducted in secret, and their objections could be subject to debate. The main idea then was to prohibit all those inherently “racist” and “sexist” white males in the news business (as in everywhere else) from publishing anything considered “disparaging” to women and certain minorities, and part of the rationale was a conscious effort to raise the self-image of interest group members by excluding negative or “stereotypical” information in public reporting. Yep, this happened in America, on a huge scale. (As a member of an ethnic group that was once identified as “white niggers” in the big-city American press, I must confess to some sympathy with the premise of the intent. Sometimes it’s really difficult to overcome deep-seated mind-sets that have never been challenged. The danger, of course, is in replacing one unthinking mind-set with another, to simply recreate the bigotry by reversing the sides – a natural phenomenon of human group dynamics, and why it’s necessary for societies to keep things properly in balance – always best achieved without censors, but rather with open and honest debate.)
I wouldn’t be surprised if even the existence of these “censorship boards” has already been expunged from the “record”. (Or maybe they have just gone underground; I haven’t heard them even mentioned since the early 1990s. Or perhaps it is now our “journalism” schools that instill the “proper” practices in their students long before they ever show up in the news room. The censorship now seems to be running on mindless auto-pilot.) The same rationale was used to explain and justify all the forced re-education and indoctrination programs of that 1970s-1980s period for all those inherently evil white males throughout the American workplace, including the US military – programs which were far more blunt force than today’s passive-aggressive “sensitivity training” and “anger management” re-education programs. (It’s amazing what you can do with enough power, and with enough of other peoples’ money. You can even become indistinguishable from those once instilling Soviet communist dogma, German Nazi dogma, into captive populations. Taxpayers still pay for very expensive paid monthly women’s “conferences” in the enormous federal workforce – where women have for decades been the majority in both the workforce and in management – while those inherently evil oppressor men still fill in during their absences.) There is, of course, zero chance that American boys will ever benefit from such despicable tactics undertaken on their behalf.
“One man, with conviction, makes a majority.” – Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Dublin-born British-Irish statesman, author, political theorist, philosopher and member of London’s House of Commons for many years – who was nevertheless a strong supporter of the American Revolution. Widely considered the father of modern English conservatism, his guiding principle can be summarized as “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
But now we have propaganda masquerading as self-imposed censorship at the very beginning of the process, on the front end rather than at mid-stream, no censorship board required, and no debate possible. They must teach it in journalism schools, since all women “journalists” now exercise the practice so effortlessly. “I’m not actually lying; I’m just omitting certain “irrelevant” facts, according to superior “me”.” They are simply self-serving propagandists hiding behind the phony façade of journalistic respectability. Future historians (if we still have a society that can afford or even want historians) will never be able to wade through all THIS twisted muck. They might just as well try to decipher cave drawings. I’ve already seen male Phd.s regurgitate total lies about the 1960s as if it’s actual fact and not the usual propaganda, and “the ’60s” was only a half century ago, and some of those who were actually there are still here! All that re-education and revised history has instilled in American women a sense of almighty impunity, that “I am so perfect” that the only thing that matters is what’s best for “me”, damned the boys who get in my way today, damned the “men” with whom my daughters will be faced tomorrow, damned the truth.
It’s all about process; results are irrelevant. It’s all about intentions – regardless of the consequences. As long as no one can, is allowed to, fault you for your intentions, for the process you employ, for how you do it, no one can fault you for what you are doing, for the consequences, for your failure to achieve results that work. As Jimmy said to me, “Talk, talk, talk. But I watch, I see. ‘Do what I say, not what I do.’ She wants me to be her. Ya know? What can I do? I hate being me!” Killing him softly, .. with a smile.
They learn differently. Girls listen, boys watch. Girls cooperate, boys compete. Maybe it’s time to bring back those forced re-education programs. Only, this time, we’ll leave out that “inherent” nonsense when we subject women to the treatment. Like everything else among humans, sexist bigotry is a learning process, one that begins even before birth, and it definitely is not gender-specific. (See Footnote #3.)
Today, women expert (and dominant) in marketing and psychology are helping the Regular US military re-establish its psychological operations capability (which was fired en masse, along with almost its entire human intelligence capability among nearly a million other military people, at the end of the “Cold” War in order to buy domestic votes). These women are, of course, “writing the book” (re-inventing the wheel) by helping the US military apply the same principles to foreign populations in turmoil that these women have been applying to our own population for decades. It’s not exactly rocket science. But it does require, in addition to unassailable authority, a very extensive knowledge of the target group’s belief structure. And what belief structure is more knowable than one you yourself established, the one you yourself constantly police? (These expert women have failed miserably in trying to exercise their magic on foreign cultures who simply don’t buy their bullshit, who know more fact about us than we do.)
In a society where men are stupid, women rule. How did men get so stupid? Guess.
Of course, what do I know? I’m just a soldier, and the women who get my attention have always been women like Ziva David or Lara Logan or Hirsi Ali – mostly, I guess, strong smart women from other cultures with solid values and independent minds who fully earn my respect, and, most importantly, my trust. So I’d really love to have a daughter like Sergeant Monica Lin Brown, US Regular Army, 82nd Airborne Infantry Division.
On the other hand, I also long ago came to view marriage as a tax-reducing business partnership for masochists, best left to those who need such ridiculous things.
(See “We Are Owed It!” and “The Last Minority“, posted separately.)
Footnote #1: If you’re a guy who’s never been arrested, consider this. People who have been arrested immediately lose a number of civil rights, including the right not to have their home invaded, not to submit to search and seizure, not to surrender their DNA for police data bases, not to be pushed around, baited, used as pawns for bigger fish, by police officers, etc.. (Which of them is going to object? “Obstruction”, “resistance”, too, are felonies. And arrest records are forever.) The chances of them being arrested again are very high. Since there’s at least a one-in-three chance of an American man over the age of 23 having an arrest record, it’s a safe bet that police officers are going to make the assumption that every man they meet is a felon with a record – and will act accordingly, i.e., the chances of every male, regardless of truth, being treated as a law-breaker, a felon, are quite high. It’s even much higher, of course, if they are black or Hispanic. Your rights don’t mean anything to a guy with a badge and gun who considers you a potential felon or a criminal who just hasn’t been caught, yet. From that point, things can go downhill fast. Simply by virtue of my gender, I automatically suffer from guilt-by-association with all those male victims of the way we now “raise” and “educate” boys. I have to give careful consideration before I “get involved”; if I’ve misjudged the full situation, not fully appreciated how a police officer may view me, I could very well end up arrested, or dead – just for trying to do the “right thing”.
Yes, It really gets my blood boiling.
But, to tell you the truth, I don’t despise all those jerks and creeps with arrest records any more than I despise those self-involved creeps who created them. Furthermore, the notion that my rights, including the presumption of innocence, are the same as the rights that women enjoy in this country is just nonsense. It’s not lost on any thinking man that very many of those arrested male felons also lose their right to vote, which is very advantageous to women in maintaining their dominance over politics in America. Small wonder women view our extremely high arrest rates for young males as “No problem” that can be summarily dismissed and censored. It sure would be a problem if the genders in this case were reversed – if men’s self-centered dogma was creating so many jerk and creep women with arrest records. A uni-sex society? Only in your self-serving delusions.
All those rights DO come with equal responsibilities. “Just what are you going to do about it, Madam President? And how quickly will you show some positive results before we take to the streets and throw you out on your can like yesterday’s rubbish?” Anarchy? Baby, you haven’t seen anything, yet.
Footnote #2. For the past two decades, every year twice as many women as men have been awarded college degrees in America, mostly in liberal arts and humanities. Those numbers, of course, are cumulative. Here are the latest unemployment rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for Americans over 25 years old. (Figures do not include those who have stopped looking for jobs, which would result in percentages over twice these.)
> those with a bachelor’s degree or higher, 4.1 percent.
(“Full employment” in a vibrant society like ours usually stands at 4%, mostly of people changing jobs and dropping in and out of the workforce.)
> those with some college or associate degree, 7.7 percent;
> those with a high school degree and no college, 8.7 percent;
> those with less than a high school degree, 13.8 percent. (3+ times higher)
The above unemployment rates have held fairly constant for the past four years, as has the ratio of male unemployed (around 85%).
The industry with the lowest unemployment? Government, including “education”. It’s actually lower than would be expected without a recession.
With the fierce global competition coming rapidly to America, unemployment is not expected to improve in the years ahead. On the contrary. And, if they are the best educated group, how much longer can we afford to have so many women studying their navels? When do we start including them in our demands to “tax the rich”?
Footnote #3: Gender Stereotypes. Ever since the 1970s American feminists have advanced a theory that the problems of the world were due to “gender stereotypes”, that “conflict” can be reduced or eliminated if children were not “forced” into “gender roles”, that girls and boys should not be treated differently, but rather allowed, assisted, encouraged, to form their own “identity” from birth through K-12 “education”. Of course, it was feminists who also forced the complete revolution of American education by insisting that girls were, in fact, different, that they were at a “disadvantage” to boys because of the way that schools taught them, that standards had to be “adjusted” (lowered) to “better accommodate” girls, that boys needed to be excised of their inherent “aggression” and become more like girls. So, on the one hand, gender is important, while, on the other, it’s irrelevant. As always, it depends on who stands to benefit from the “me-ism”, the bigotry – and who gets to decide.
You’d have to be a moron to think that such a theory would still be advanced after forty years if girls were dropping out or being expelled from school at rates many times higher than boys, if girls were committing suicide at rates many times higher than boys, if boys were graduating from school at much higher rates than girls, if boys were instead being admitted to college, awarded scholarships, and winning degrees at rates twice as high as girls. Besides, gender roles are of paramount importance whenever these women can make a case supportive of themselves. If they weren’t, women would already be required to register for the draft, be expected to serve and die in wars in numbers equal to men, be committing suicide at the same high rates as men, be paying their own king’s ransom for the (first, second or third) wedding dress and reception, be digging ditches as employment instead of issuing orders from cushy offices, be opening their own doors and paying for their own date meals, be paying alimony and child support at the same frequency as men, constitute at least fifty percent of prison populations, be paying their own way in Social Security and Medicare, be 50% of the unemployed instead of 13%, etc., etc. Furthermore, the basic universal underpinning of the largest and most profitable part of American “literature” – romance novels – in addition to most Hollywood films and TV shows, is based solidly on traditional gender roles, on gender “stereotypes” on which most women insist. (The only major difference from the past is that today the male “hero” is usually just stupid. Some of this stuff was amusing back in the 1960s and 1970s, but, after a half century of such asinine programming, it just shows a male population that is simply brain dead.)
So, according to this theory, boys have no gender until they suddenly at adulthood become the extremely handsome and desirable rich All Man who single-handedly dispatches the bad guys before offering the big diamond and the McMansion on the hill forever after, the guy who runs into the burning building to rescue the damsel in distress, etc.. Of course, he is also the reason why women remain the “eternal victim” forever needing “special considerations”, etc.. The theory is pure unadulterated self-serving b.s., crammed full of really incredibly self-serving contradictions totally devoid of even a semblance of logic. It holds quite simply that boys need to become girls, be emasculated, denied their own gender identity. It is designed solely to deliberately cripple boys to the advantage of girls. It creates thoroughly conflicted and depressed males at best, sociopaths and psychopaths at worst. The same “thinking” was behind that of past monarchies who could instill in their own subjects the evil notion that some other groups of humans were, in fact, sub-human, and thus fully worthy of being treated as animals, enslaved, exploited, oppressed, deprived, and slaughtered. It was such supremely arrogant “thinking” by self-anointed “special” people who led straight to slavery in America, via Ireland. The notion of “uni-sex” is inherently evil. It is the purest form of sexist bigotry – advanced by twisted women who hate men and seek to destroy them before they even become “men”.
Then the theory expects these men to come riding up on the white horse and carry the damsel off to a life of luxury in the castle. Just insane.
Despite all the justified complaints about violent men in America, there is today actually far more violence inflicted by women on boys. As much as I despise physical violence against anyone, by either gender, nothing tops my list of evilness more than women who seek to turn boys into girls “just like me”. This type of psychological child abuse is quite simply the vilest form of violence known in our society, and those who employ it need to be in the same permanently locked cages with all those demented animals who commit crimes like kidnapping, rape and murder of children. These twisted self-serving women and their clones are deliberately manufacturing the irreversibly conflicted males who will plague our entire society tomorrow – all in the interest of “me”. Not liking who they are, these women get their revenge by manufacturing twisted crippled boys who become men who hate who they are. I classify these exceedingly offensive women right in the same group as predators who prey on children. Why don’t they just line the boys up and castrate them in public as punishment for an accident of birth? Every time I encounter this seething hatred, this evil sickness, this epitome of conceit and arrogance, lurking just beneath the surface, I can’t help thinking of the Nazis. Worse, it’s another of those insidious “processes” done sweetly, with a smile, with a controlled passive-aggressive demeanor, and thus is “just fine”. Almost EVERYTHING is “just fine” if you never take a look at the results, if you are never challenged, held accountable.
These are twisted women who believe that it’s easier and better for “me” to destroy men before they become men, to turn them into “me” with my very low and self-involved child standards, than measure up to their grown-up standards and compete in the arena as adult equals. Very many of us now denigrate nothing more than real individual success in every arena (save superficial popularity contests). The objective has become to set ever lower standards which everyone can easily meet and thus “feel good about themselves”, rather than to exceed the previous high standards and achieve real accomplishment on merit alone. American women stand out today primarily because their accomplishments are measured against men whose standards have, by deliberate design, fallen completely through the basement. In our society the standards are not even standards, but simply the norms of self-involved girly children – all standing for absolutely nothing except “me” and imposing such delusional conceit on everyone else. “Thinking” is now little more than the parroted nonsensical pablum promulgated by huge herds brainwashed in re-education centers called schools. Of course, any twit in the street can stand in the very safe rear and scream orders to idiots – which is what we now even call “leadership”. Aren’t “we” just “the greatest”? It’s ALL mush – the product of pervasive violence inflicted by one group on another, while they are still children.
“Avoiding gender stereotypes” is a slick deception that also creates a society of hand-holding cooperative herds all sitting around waiting for “someone else” to DO something, “someone else” to pay the bills, “someone else” to take the blame. It is a society slowly committing suicide.
Any questions? If you don’t like men, turn your boys over to someone who does.
Addendum. About that nonsense of men having a “feminine side”. Has anyone ever heard women pushing their “masculine side”? Of course not. The “feminine side” propaganda is just another effort to turn men into the same whining little girls that our women have become and to pick up ever more of women’s responsibilities. “You WILL become me. It’s easier for me to live with the spoiled child I am if you become just like me.” It’s just another aspect of the ever lowering of standards in our society so that everyone can “feel good about themselves” with the least effort. Ladies, I do NOT have a “feminine side”. I have never had a “feminine side”. And I do not want a “feminine side”. There is absolutely nothing about being an American woman that I find appealing. I checked; I have no conflicts or doubts about who I am, and I actually like who I am. I am a grown-up adult man, and I don’t have to apologize to anyone for that. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you get a better handle on your self-serving bigotry, grow up and carry your own weight. The very last thing our society needs is more whining children expecting “someone else” to do all the hard stuff, pay all the bills, and take all the blame – for self-indulgent “special me”. Try earning your way, on a level field – just like you expect that “someone else” to do. (And, guys, you should be ashamed of yourself for being so ridiculously spineless. Would you really like me to tell you what you can do with your “feminine side”?)
“I have been one of those guys everyone expects to “DO something” all my life; I’d now prefer to let others do that – if they feel it’s important enough for their children.”
What, in your opinion, would be the course of action for someone who wanted to “DO something” about all this?
I fill a small blog by writing about things that come to me when I have some down time. To me, such things are just blatantly obvious, nothing special, just my own perspective on certain aspects of my society, aspects that I know and understand from prior education and experience. Not being at all sophisticated in the internet mechanics of these things, or with social media, I am continually amazed that so many people, both in the US and abroad, are able to find my blog and look over its contents. This is especially surprising to me in that I make absolutely no effort to promote the blog anywhere. My rather academic writings might just as well be graffiti on some back alley wall, but for some reason a lot of people seem to wander down that alley and pause long enough to check out some of the graffiti.
Every once in a while, my blog will experience a big jump above the normal number of visitors, as it did a month or so ago. When I tried to figure out what caused that particular jump, I discovered that someone had simply posted a link to one of my articles on a web site intended to promote men’s rights. My article is titled, “Why Are American Men So Dumb?”. Within a few hours, over 2,000 members of that group had clicked on the link to see what the article had to say. As soon as the group’s members realized that I was not a member of the group, the number of visitors to my blog dropped back to normal. By the time I got back home from my overseas trip, I had lost the link to the men’s rights site, and the site’s administrator never got back to me, so it was all another brief anomaly signifying nothing. All those guys apparently just retreated back into their safe cocoon.
Since the answer to your question, to me, is so very obvious, I long ago concluded that American men simply don’t want to fix what they are complaining about. Apparently raging against the problem is a lot more fun, a lot more satisfying, than doing anything to actually fix the problem. To me, this problem with men is every bit as great as the problem of the majority of our population, its women, accepting absolutely no responsibility for our society’s problems. (This should prove just fascinating when those women, very soon, anoint one of their own to ascend to the throne and run the whole show – for themselves. All those guys are going to have to get in line behind me to flip her off.)
The only way to begin fixing these things is to begin altering the prevailing mind-sets. You cannot do that with politics, since politicians are never going to alienate those upon whose votes they rely to remain in office. Women have been the voting majority in this country since 1980, and they continually increase the size of that majority. This is the most incredibly powerful self-serving social juggernaut on planet Earth: government employees and teachers unions in close concert with all those powerful women’s lobbies and mouthpieces. The only way between here and Jupiter to rattle and begin altering the prevailing mind-set is with US constitutional law, in court, using long-established US civil rights law applicable to gender. This is something that American men have never done, and the first Real Man to do so will have to be exceptionally brave and thick-skinned. But if he did so on behalf of his own sons, it’s likely that he will very quickly win the quiet support of millions of others across the country. The hard part is getting the ball, or boulder, rolling.
If anyone needs inspiration, they can check out the little 2002 multi-national film, “Evelyn”, staring Pierce Brosnan in a fictionalized account of Desmond Doyle, a real-life Irishman who in 1954 went up against the combined power of church and state to challenge the constitutionality of a statute in a country that, until then, had no legal precedent at all for challenging such laws. The real Doyle regained custody of his six kids – 7 year old Evelyn and her five younger brothers – who had been committed to orphanages after his wife deserted the family for a lover, but his battle was not without heavy costs. Some things, however, are worth fighting for, no matter the cost. Today in the United States, there already exists a library of civil rights precedent – established by women – just waiting to be used by any man with a spine, so the fight for gender equity in education in the US would be considerably easier than was Doyle’s fight for parental rights in Ireland.
Justice for American Boys Legal Coalition (“The JAB Fund”)
Friends now tell me that 2,000 viewers in a few hours is nothing at all unusual in the world of social media, that sometimes many hundreds of thousands of people quickly respond to something that strikes a common cord, and often even with money. Just suppose those 2,000 viewers had pitched $10 into a pot for a good cause; in just a few hours the pot would be up to $20,000. That’s enough seed money to form a formal group. If that group was set up as strictly a non-profit organization dedicated to legal action solely on behalf of boys, then it would quickly win even my support (something that I usually try hard to avoid). I personally would stipulate that no other factor be a part of the equation – including race, ethnicity, sexual persuasion, religion, etc. – just American boys between the ages of zero and 21. A little more work by someone who knows how to work in social media and web sites, and the group’s membership should grow enough to hire a good civil rights attorney or two to initially provide legal advice to the group.
I am not interested in groups that set themselves up to talk about something, to promote a cause; such groups never seem to do anything except stagnate, perpetuate themselves, while accomplishing nothing other than dodging taxes. This country is literally full of such self-serving groups whose main purposes are hand-holding and avoiding taxes. I am only interested in supporting a group that is dedicated to undertaking legal action in court. I am fine with necessary publicity that is supportive of that end. The group or organization should also be subject to at least annual outside auditing, with the intention that at least 95% of its proceeds be dedicated to its stated purpose, such as hiring lawyers to pursue specific cases, with the remainder to internal record keeping. (The organization should seek to attain and maintain no less than a four-star ranking with Charity Navigator.) As the group grows in size, it should elect an unpaid board of directors whose main function is considering and accepting potential candidate cases to undertake, and then dedicating sufficient available financial resources to those few cases selected. (One or two well-selected tactical cases can have great strategic impact far beyond the specific cases.) The group should formulate a very concise mission statement that stipulates tangible objectives, and contain a proviso that the group will be dissolved when those objectives have been achieved. (Most such “victim” groups in the US exist primarily to perpetuate the victim group, and thus their own existence.)
The very easiest area to initiate such action is with Title IX in public K-12. Women and their lobbies and unions have been talking this problem to death for forty years, while achieving zero improvement – except for girls pursuing liberal arts and especially in social sciences. So the group could undertake such legal action against any school system in the country. Avoid things like sports and go for the jugular – results in academic achievement that the nation needs to compete and survive in the global economy, areas where boys have been the most short-changed, such as in physical sciences in competitive arenas. Any legal approach undertaken should also avoid falling victim to any phony dodge excuse such as “more money for schools”; ours is already the most expensive system in world history. (American schools always get heavily rewarded for failure, time after time, so naturally there’s zero incentive for success. “It’s for the children.” Bullshit. It’s for self-serving adults employed in the humongous “education” industry playing the same con over and over again so emotional morons will expect a different result each time.) My blog is full of other areas where boys as a group need legal help, but the one area with schools is far and away the most obvious, most important, and the easiest to approach. (Most of the work was done by women a generation ago; that work now constitutes readily available legal precedent.) It also has the potential to have the greatest impact on our whole society; this taxpayer-funded education world is dominated overwhelmingly by women, to serve themselves. The failure of men to act on behalf of their own sons long ago has now resulted in what law describes as an unbalanced state of “group entitlement” among our privileged unaccountable women. This has to stop, before we all go belly up.
There is almost no college or university in America that is now in compliance with Title IX in its student body, even with enormous importation of foreign male students, but I do not recommend attacking this level of American education. Attacking university admission policies is, essentially, closing the barn door after the horses have fled. What good does it do to admit people on the basis of some artificial label when they are still unprepared to meet the standards at that level? Such stupidity leaves only two alternatives, neither of which are sensible – either lower the university standards further, or flunk out huge numbers of inadequately prepared people. Women have long focused on sports and race at the college level to avoid anyone focusing on the women-dominated K-12 level – which prepares women far better than men for college fields women want to pursue. While self-serving women draw attention to racial affirmative action admissions to college, the whole public K-12 system is one gigantic affirmative action program for women. It’s called diversionary politics. The proper place for change is at the K-12 level, and that change should be no less than immediate. “Whatever it takes.” Focus solely on the results.
To me, it’s all a “no-brainer”. But, obviously, I march to a different drummer than do most American “men” anymore. It’s become very easy in America to demand that “someone else” take the blame, pay the bills, and do the hard stuff, for “me” – and do nothing until, or if, that magically happens. (Hint: It ain’t never gonna happen.) Thanks to women, most of our “men” have become just like our women.
So, in lieu of any responsible action by American cowards, my only hope is that those European and United Nations officials who read my work here will begin soon to take a lot closer look at the US “education” racket, and bring intense international pressure on self-serving American women and their sexist treatment of “the other half” while they are still children.