J. Soltys's Weblog

February 9, 2009

Women’s Violence Against Men Still Acceptable – Videos

wounded-heart2 As Valentines Day approaches, every man will be reminded that if he forgets this special day, he will suffer dire consequences. But what is truly amazing his how sexist and one sided this “mutual relationship” day really is.

In our present environment which stresses gender equality, almost all Valentine’s Day ads will portray the man doing something special for the woman in his life – rare is the ad which shows the woman going beyond her means to please the man in her life. Also consider that when advertisers develop an ad which depicts a spouse forgetting Valentines Day, or depicts a partner being cheap on this special day, it will ALWAYS be the male put in this humiliating position.

Women consistently gripe about how females are portrayed in the media, but they conveniently ignore how men are negatively portray in the media also. Why is it women cry about all the inequalities in the world when it affects THEM, but do not muster any ounce of energy to address the inequities faced by men? The paradigm of Valentines Day and corresponding silence from the “gender equality” (RE: women) appears to validate my opinion of how selfish the women’s movement has become. These self proclaimed “humanist” care only about themselves. If they truly cared about equality for everyone, they would protest these disparaging stereotypes and portrayals of males in society – but they don’t.

Check out how the disturbing reality of gender violence is handled by advertisers and the media. 

In this first video the man can’t make it home to spend Valentines Day with his partner. He’s stuck working late. Her response? Take Valentines Day to him at the office. Sounds great, looks great! But watch until the climax for the advertiser’s “humorous” ending.



In this next video, a misunderstanding by the man’s wife causes her to assault him. No apology, no mention that if this was real life, her actions would be considered an act of domestic violence. In our present society, men are warned of the consequences of their anger and violence towards women. However, women are taught – with the medias help – that violence against men is acceptable, and hey, it’s also a great form of amusement.



If you think I’m over extending myself, watch this next video. While on live TV, a woman finds it perfectly acceptable to harass and assault the male reporter. She does this, knowing that society will not hold her accountable for her violent actions. It is only labeled violence when men assault women. When women assault men it’s called “humor”, which is why I found this video while searching for “funny” videos.



So this is the new gender equality? This behavior is what society piously proclaims we should be advocating? Also, the most vocal and influencial feminist do not find the many examples of female-on-male violence in the media disturbing  judging by their silence?

Count me out of this form of equality. I finished grammar school a long time ago – my thinking has matured since then.





Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com


January 26, 2009

A Great Argument For Father’s Abortion Rights

I’ve written about this inequity before, particularly how women expect men to sacrifice their rights in order to achieve equality, but at the same time, women refuse to accept any sacrifice when the situation is reversed. I’ve concluded the women’s rights movement has eroded into a selfish, immature, and sexist movement that advocates and promotes only the security, safety and well-being for women over the “equal” treatment of men, women, and children (including the unborn children).

Writer Tommy De Seno proves this in one of his most recent columns. Enjoy!


Roe vs. Wade and the Rights of the Father

By Tommy De Seno

The emphasis must not be on the right to abortion, but on the right to privacy and reproductive control.
–Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Today marks another anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision which overturned all state laws that would stop a woman from having an abortion in the first trimester.

While the topic I have chosen here, “Roe vs. Wade and the Rights of the Father” may sound interesting, actually there is nothing to write about. There are no such rights.

(AP file photo)

(AP file photo)

A father can’t stop an abortion if he wants his child, nor can he insist upon an abortion if he doesn’t want his child.

This situation should trouble everyone, not from a religious point of view, not from a personal choice point of view, but rather from an Equal Rights point of view.

Equal Rights for all people is difficult for any nation to achieve peaceably, because it requires the group in greater power to yield to the group of lesser power. This is usually accomplished only through war. Our own Civil War is a perfect example of equality being created by force, instead of reason and fairness, as it should have been.

This week as I watched and read opinions about Roe vs. Wade, I could find nothing, not a word among millions that addressed a father’s relationship to his unborn child.

Two weeks ago I tried an experiment in anticipation of writing this column. I wrote a column about gun control and posited that only men should vote on the issue of guns. The logic (rather illogic) used by me was that men buy guns the most, men are called upon to use them most (when a burglar enters our home) and we get shot the most. Why shouldn’t men have the only voice on the issue?

I wanted to gauge people’s reactions to the thought that in America we would ever give more weight to one person’s view than another’s because that person can show the issue affects him more.

As I walked around my city during these past two weeks, I was accosted by people who wanted to take me to task for suggesting that women lose their right to vote on an issue just because they may be affected by it less than men. Some pointed out, quite rightly, that even if there was an issue that didn’t affect women at all, as equal members of society, they should still have a voice in all decisions America makes.

Quite right indeed.

So where are all these well-reasoned arguments when it comes to a father and his unborn child? Why do people who have Equal Protection claims at the ready on other issues suddenly suffer constitutional amnesia when abortion is mentioned?

During every abortion a father’s child dies, so fathers are affected. There is much written about the post-abortion depression of women. Nothing is mentioned about the father. A good father knows his role is protector of his child. His depression must be crippling when the law allows him no chance to save his child from death by abortion.

In the Roe vs. Wade decision the Supreme Court found a privacy right in the 14th Amendment, which doesn’t have the word “privacy” in it. Then they found that the privacy right had a “penumbra” containing other rights (penumbra means the shadowy area at the edge of a shadow). In that shadow they found the abortion right. That bit of mental gymnastics aside, it wasn’t the most terrible part of the decision. This was:

The Court said that a woman my not be mentally ready to handle a child at this stage in her life, or the child might interfere with her career path, and that is so important to her that the State has no right to make a law against it.

So I ask today: Might a father find himself mentally not ready for a child? Might a father find a child inconvenient to his career path? If these are the rights women get to protect by choosing abortion, why not allow fathers “the right to choose” also?

I propose a “father’s abortion.” Let a father petition the Court to terminate his own parental rights to his child before or after the child’s birth. He would be rid of his obligations to that child in favor of his mental health and finances, the same as a woman does when she aborts.

As Justice Ginsburg said in the quote that appears at the top of this FOX Forum post, the emphasis is not abortion, rather an individual’s right to control his own reproduction. If we protect such a right for women, can we constitutionally deny it to men?

I propose this not because it would be in any way good. I propose it because constitutional Equal Protection demands it, and to show the danger created when judges destroy democracy by making up laws that don’t exist.

“Father’s Abortion.” It’s high time for a test case.

Any father with such a case can call me and I’ll take it for free.

Read more from Tommy De Seno at www.JustifiedRight.com.

November 25, 2008

Another Female Singer’s Sexist Video – Critics Approve

(Listen to An Hour With Joe Soltys, my new internet radio show at BlogTalkRadio. During my most recent show, I debated the new push by politicians to change tactics towards addressing prostituion – giving comfort to prostitutes, and jail time for the johns. I also discussed the different attitudes/actions towards advertising that offends men/fathers, and advertising that offends women/mothers. Click here to listen.)


Just last week I wrote how more female artist are performing songs/videos that degrade, humiliate, or display violence towards men. I find this new female “empowerment” genre to be pathetic, especially when one considers the continuing outcry of songs/videos by male artist songs that degrade women. It shows how selfish and self-serving the women’s movement has become – something I’ve written about many times in the past.
While many women are disturbed by male songs/videos that are offensive to women, and vociferously advocate for men and the music industry to end this despicable and sexist behavior, these same women continue to ignore and defend the sexist and degrading songs/videos towards men by female artist.

A new video by female artist Gabriella Cilmi has caused a stir in Australia. The song is called Sweet About Me. In reality, the song sarcastically sings how sweet she isn’t (the actual line in the song is “nothing sweet about me”), while Climi walks proudly around a warehouse filled with men who are bound and tied by various methods. She saunters by each man singing and admiring her work, one of which is hanging upside down from the ceiling, bounded by rope, and walks by another that is duct-taped to the floor so that only his head is visible.
At the end of the video Cilmi cuts the man from the ceiling and lets him fall to the floor.
Here is the video:

As I’ve stated before, I beginning to think it is time to turn a deaf ear to the advocates that demand the degrading music that portray harmful images of women be halted, when these same women (and men) ignore or justify songs like this from female singers towards men.
An example of this is shown in an article that appeared in the Australian media written by Sacha Molitorisz (a man). The article is titled No history of violence, so girls, keep on bashing the blokes.
Molitorisz covers the controversy the song has stirred among the genders. On one side, men’s rights advocates and masculine writers are claiming this song, and others like them, are discriminatory and harmful to young boys and men. On the other side, women and feminist claim these songs are not harmful to anyone, and that men do not have any right claiming to be victims.

In his article, Molitorisz asks the most poignant question, “What if the genders were reversed?” He implies the impending backlash would be swift and severe.
But he quotes Helen Garner, a feminist writer, who claims the argument is not relevant. She states, “Of course not, because there is no history of women’s violence towards men that it would be subverting.”

Molitorisz then adds, “If Cilmi is subverting the history of men’s violence towards women, she isn’t alone. Rather, she’s evidence of a growing trend towards what might be termed reverse sexism or female chauvinism.”

Molitorisz moves forward by discussing the protest by male writers and men’s activist towards this new anti-male genre. He then poses the men’s concerns to Kathy Lette, the author of 10 books about the modern gender war.
“It’s a man’s world,” says Lette, “One hundred years since Emmeline Pankhurst tied herself to the railings and women still don’t have equal pay, and we’re still getting concussion hitting our heads on the glass ceiling – plus we’re expected to Windex it while we’re up there. Until women are treated as equals instead of sequels, we have every right to comically kneecap you in ads or song clips. And you’re pathetic whinge bags if you complain about it.” (emphasis mine).

Molitorisz then poses two relevant questions about this new genre of man-hating music. He says:

But is Cilmi’s video a step towards or away from gender equality? By tying up boys, is she countering stereotypes and redressing past injustices? Or is her reverse sexism dark and potentially damaging – a vengeful wrong in answer to an earlier wrong?

It’s the former, a necessary step on the path to parity. For too long, men have held power at the expense of women; now, in a few corners of pop culture, this inequality has been overcorrected and replaced by an inverted inequality. In some music videos and ads, sex objects and sex subjects have traded places. As long as this inversion is both temporary and playful, I’m all for it.

Let me take a moment to challenge the thoughts presented in this article and expose them as weak arguments and analyses of the issue.

— Helen Garner claims reversing the genders is irrelevant because there is no history of female violence towards men. Her argument is also equally irrelevant.
We have never seen a society where women have held power over men, so we cannot claim to know what evils would arise when women do have greater power, and how men would be affected by those women in power. However, we can see that when women do achieve power in our present society, attacking and bashing men is considered acceptable. Historically, as the feminist movement rose to power, attacking and bashing men became the norm – even though this is the exact behavior feminist condemned when men displayed it towards women. And this genre of man-hating music is another obvious example of how women are using their newly acquired power and influence.

— Garner’s statement also implies proof is needed before we can claim any harm of women engaging in behavior that harms men. From this viewpoint, in order for an abuse to be validated, the abuse must be historically documented. This is a dangerous statement. It implies that no abuse occurs until the abuse is recognized, studied, debated, accepted as legitimate, and in most cases, laws are established prohibiting the behavior/action.
So does this mean the abuse should be ignored and allowed to proliferate until it is legitimized? This could take years.
But for feminist like Garner, they are asking men to do what they have never done themselves. Feminists have never sat patiently while women were being harassed, abused, raped, etc., and waited for some standard of “evidence” to be reached to validate their cause before they took action. The slow movement of society to react to what feminist saw as obvious issues of humanity, decency and respect towards women has always been vocalized by feminist. Now when the genders are reversed, a slow process of legitimization is accepted as the proper course of action.

— Sacha Molitorisz concludes that in order for the inequities to end between men and women, female abuses against men are going to have to take as “a necessary step on the path to parity.”
When has the philosophy of “two wrongs make a right” ever worked? What evidence does he have to support his claim? If he is so confident this approach is morally acceptable, does he teach this philosophy to his children? Does he tell them, “If somebody has wronged you, wrong them back harder?”
Molitorisz fails to realize that by legitimizing hate, discrimination, and bigotry, he is creating the false impression that hate, discrimination, and bigotry has a useful purpose. And more importantly, he creates the false impression that it can be controlled and cultivated. Historically, what society controlled and cultivated discrimination, and claimed it as a valuable societal asset?
“Good discrimination” is an asinine solution to the enormous process of eliminating discrimination. It is an emotionally immature solution perpetuated by those that cannot think and analyze complex thoughts. It’s a cop-out; a lazy solution to an arduous process.

— Kathy Lette claims “this is a man’s world”. Let me explain why this is false. She found success in writing ten books about the gender wars, and she unapologetically states in this article that, “we have every right to comically kneecap you [men] in ads or song clips. And you’re pathetic whinge bags if you complain about it!”
In Lette’s “male privileged world”, if a man opinioned anything remotely similar about women as Lette opinioned about men, he would be shamed, humiliated, and it would begin the downfall of any promising career. As a matter of fact, no man in the western world would even consider vocalizing/writing such hateful remarks out of fear of the consequences he would have to endure for vocalizing/writing such sexist remarks. However, Mrs. Lette found no such fear in expressing her hateful remarks towards men, and since the very moment she did, she has not wrestled with the thought that her writing career and her reputation would be jeopardized by the appearance of her hateful opinions in a major media publication.
Now with that said, ask me if I truly believe Mrs. Lette’s comment that it’s “a man’s” world, a world where women are at an obvious disadvantage when compared to men. Go ahead and ask.

Let me repeat what I wrote in my last column because it is relevant here again:

I’ve come to the point where I’ve just about turned a deaf ear to the cries of women who complain about the harm done by men’s sexist music. I can’t continue to find cause for concern for their issue while these same women completely ignore the amount of sexist songs performed by females, and continue to easily dismiss them as harmless.

As I’ve written before, women passionately want men to stand beside them in an effort to stop the inequities and injustices women face in our society. But sadly, when the genders are reversed, the majority of these same women are quick to turn their back on the same type of inequities and injustices faced by men.




Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

November 18, 2008

Male Artists Sexist? Females Need To Look In Mirror


It’s hard for me to continue taking the claims of sexism and derogatory images of women in modern music when I look at the negative and derogatory images towards men proliferating in music by female artists.

I previously wrote how country female stars have written songs provoking violence towards men, and how society rewards them with awards and accolades.
Carrie Underwood won a Country Music Award for her song Next Time He Cheats which tells the story of a woman scorned by a cheating partner, and how she “got even” by committing a criminal and violent act towards his property – something domestic violence prevention advocates warn is the sign of a typical intimate abuser. But Underwood was not criticized for using domestic violence as a form of entertainment, she was rewarded for it.
And just recently, Underwood was quoted as saying having a dog is better than having a man.

Miranda Lambert was a nominee this year for her song Gunpowder and Lead which tells the story about another woman who deals with a cheating partner, but who also claims to have been slapped a few times by him. Her solution – kill him! The song is loaded with an overdose of female empowerment through the use of violence and murder towards an intimate partner. Yet again, DV prevention advocates are silent, and again, society rewards a female artist for her song of hate and violence towards men.

When my daughter asked me recently if she could by a song on iTunes, I took a glance at what songs were being promoted on the iTune site.
I noticed the new song by Britney Spears called Womanizer. In this song, Spears is filled with chest thumping female bravado as she tells some guy how she can see right through him; he’s just a womanizer.
Here’s a sample of the lyrics:

You can play brand new to
All the other chicks out here
But I know what you are
What you are, baby

Fakin’ like a good one
But I call ’em like I see ’em
I know what you are
What you are, baby

Womanizer, woman-womanizer
You’re a womanizer
Oh, womanizer, oh
You’re a womanizer, baby

You, you, you are
You, you, you are
Womanizer, womanizer

Amazing that Spears would have the nerve to sing this song, considering in real life she began dating Kevin Federline – her former husband – while he was involved with another woman who was pregnant with his child at the time.

I then I saw on iTunes a song called If I Were A Boy, by Beyonce Knowles. This song is an expression of how a woman assumes what the life of a man is like. It is extremely derogatory, negative, and sexist towards men.
Here’s a sample of the lyrics:

If I were a boy
Even just for a day
I’d roll outta bed in the morning
And throw on what I wanted then go
Drink beer with the guys
And chase after girls
I’d kick it with who I wanted
And I’d never get confronted for it.
Cause they’d stick up for me.

If I were a boy
I think I could understand
How it feels to love a girl
I swear I’d be a better man.
I’d listen to her
Cause I know how it hurts
When you lose the one you wanted
Cause he’s taken you for granted
And everything you had got destroyed

If I were a boy
I would turn off my phone
Tell everyone it’s broken
So they’d think that I was sleepin’ alone
I’d put myself first
And make the rules as I go
Cause I know that she’d be faithful
Waitin’ for me to come home (to come home)

If I were a boy
I think I could understand
How it feels to love a girl
I swear I’d be a better man.
I’d listen to her
Cause I know how it hurts
When you lose the one you wanted (wanted)
Cause he’s taken you for granted (granted)
And everything you had got destroyed

But you’re just a boy
You don’t understand
Yeah you don’t understand
How it feels to love a girl someday
You wish you were a better man
You don’t listen to her
You don’t care how it hurts
Until you lose the one you wanted
Cause you’ve taken her for granted
And everything you have got destroyed
But you’re just a boy

If Beyonce wanted sing a song about what it’s like to be a man, then why didn’t she sing about real life issues facing men:

If I was a man, I’d have to accept the fact that I will be a victim of serious violence or murder by a ratio of 4 to 1 over women
If I was a man, I would suffer in school, worst than the girls, but watch the girls be perceived as “struggling”
If I was a man, the chance I could be homeless would be greater for me than for woman
If I was a man, the chance I would see my kids only on weekends is greater for me than for a woman
If I was a man, the chances are greater I will face a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or rape
If I was a man, my violence would be perceived as that of a monster deserving emotionless justice, while a woman’s violence would be perceived as the result of mental illness, and deserving compassion
If I was a man, the chance I could be an innocent of a crime, but still convicted and sitting in prison is greater for me than for a woman
If I was a man, the chances of me being put to death for a crime is great, while extremely rare for a woman
If I was a man, I would have to hear women tell me how to be a better man, while if I told women how to be better women, I would be called sexist
If I was a man, I would have to hear women tell me how much better I have it, because I am a man

Maybe Beyonce chose this song and all its assumptions because it strokes her fragile ego. The realities of what it’s like to be a man would mean she would actually have to use intellect and compassion – the same characteristics women say men avoid when writing misogynist music.

I’ve come to the point where I’ve just about turned a deaf ear to the cries of women who complain about the harm done by men’s sexist music. I can’t continue to find cause for concern for their issue while these same women completely ignore the amount of sexist songs performed by females, and continue to easily dismiss them as harmless.

As I’ve written before, women passionately want men to stand beside them in an effort to stop the inequities and injustices women face in our society. But sadly, when the genders are reversed, the majority of these same women are quick to turn their back on the same type of inequities and injustices faced by men.

I guess one is left to assume this is the American women’s version of “equality”.





Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

September 4, 2008

Gloria Steinem Still A Clueless Hypocrite

Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin had less than twenty-four hours to let her national debut to the American public sink in before feminist Gloria Steinem was doing what she does best; being a hypocrite.

As an independent voter, I have watched both the Democratic and Republican conventions. But also, as an advocate for men’s issues, it becomes very critical for me to choose which candidate has an equal interest in men’s and father’s issues as they do women’s. I’ve concluded over the years that neither the liberals nor the conservatives have any real concern for men’s issues. Liberals scoff and laugh at the mere mention of males having issues, and the only thing men’s and father’s rights advocates have in common with conservatives is their disdain for feminism. After that, the majority of conservatives do a good job of dropping out of the picture where men and boys are concerned.

So as I read the morning media coverage of Sarah Palin’s speech, and took in the diversity of opinions about Sarah Palin, I came across an article by Steinem in the L.A. Times that was so ridicules that I had to write a rebuttal.
Steinem, of course, does not like Palin. You see, to Steinem and her cohorts, a successful, admirable, accomplished woman that has reached the status Palin has achieved in America’s patriarchy should only come from those women who are “reborn” and “saved” through Steinem’s feminist religious beliefs….Oops! I mean Steinem’s feminist teachings. It has become apparent that Steinem and her followers are guilty of the same practices she accuses the Republicans of engaging in.
Steinem writes:

This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need.

Really? A case of the pot calling the kettle black? Choosing somebody just because they agree with your interests?
Steinem forgot to include how the bosses of the Democratic party chose an unqualified and untested Barack Obama only because they felt he had the best chance of winning the presidency; hence, trying to secure their own political interests. It’s hypocritical to accuse McCain of the same.
But ironically most of Steinem’s column is composed of her discussing how the Obama/Biden ticket and the Democratic Party are in-line with her own political interests. It is apparent from her writing that Steinem herself will only choose a candidate that will perpetuate HER beliefs and interests. And it is apparent that like McCain, she harbors the same “so what” attitude if her interests excludes the wants and needs of others.
You get the sense that Steinem obviously believes she is blessed with knowing what’s best for everyone. How ironic is it that this woman has spent most of her life pointing out the evils of only the male ego.

Steinem then says:

Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing

Steinem forgot to write how her own liberal democratic cohorts – who have vowed to fight hard for women and the abolishment of the traditional patriarchy – chose a male candidate over a female candidate, chose a male candidate that has less political experience and accomplishments than the female candidate, and tried forcing the female candidate to fold up her campaign in favor of the male candidate despite her gathering in excess of 18 million votes.
And even considering that McCain may have chosen Palin solely to gather the female vote, it would still be humiliating to the liberal democrats and their feminist cohorts that the male-dominated Republican Party would defeat the pro-women advocates, and enter the history books as the political party that was first for putting a female vice president in the White House.

Steinem continues with this comment:

To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, “Somebody stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.”

But does Steinem really mean it? After all, throughout her career she has fought and disparaged the institution of marriage. She is also attributed to saying, “A woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle”. So what has she done since then? Decided to get married.

But Steinem really shows her manipulation skills with this sentence:

I regret that people say she can’t do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn’t say the same about a father.

This is true. Palin has been subjected to this kind of gender discrimination, but this discrimination has overwhelmingly come from Steinem’s own liberal, Democratic cohorts – the same people who have always shamed others for this mentality.
Why didn’t she mention this in her article? Why do her cohorts get a break for their sexism? Steinem has fought this mentality all her life, in her speeches and her writings, but suddenly she’s at a struggle for words when it’s her own community showing sexist behavior, conjuring up only one sentence to address it.

Steinem then takes a shot a Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience:

I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden’s 37 years’ experience.

Sorry, but I may have missed something here. Where is Obama’s impeccable foreign policy experience? He has none. And if it is implied he will tap Biden’s experience, then she’s being a hypocrite. It shows she admits not only that Obama lacks foreign policy experience, but it also implies Obama – the commander and chief – will learn “on the job”. If she is comfortable with the Obama/Biden ticket doing this, then she must admit that it is more appropriate and more reasonable that Palin – the vice president – can learn “on-the-job” from her boss, John McCain, and his extensive years of foreign policy experience. This makes more sense to me.

Steinem continues:

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular

Isn’t this how most politicians get elected?

Steinem then attacks Palin on the issues:

she tried to use taxpayers’ millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn’t spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation

Studies show that men are doing poorly in academics when compared to women, and as a result, statistics show men are more likely to drop out than women. But Steinem didn’t mention that her feminist cohorts consistently challenge any argument and statistics that show boys and men are in an academic crisis, nor did she mention that her cohorts have consistently challenged any institutional changes and resources that would be used exclusively to help boys and men in academics, nor did she mention that she and her cohorts have argued and advocated for the exact opposite for women and girls to this very day, even after the “girl’s academic crisis” back in the 1990’s was found to be a feminist fraud.

[The right wing are] the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom.

How hypocritical that she attacks the political right for challenging women’s reproductive freedom when she and her cohorts have done everything in their power to deny men the same for years.
Men have challenged a women’s right to abortion, arguing that if the law recognizes them as an equal in the biological creation of the child – and therefore must assume equal legal responsibility for the child – then men should have a legal say whether or not they are ready to assume this responsibility, which would include an equal legal right whether to abort or have the child. This “reproductive equality” infuriates feminist like Steinem. The thought that men should have the same reproductive rights as women is disturbing to them. The majority of feminist believe men should only assume the responsibility for pregnancies, and women should assume the legal rights. This is why feminist have labeled men with the saying, “men think with their penises” and to the contrary gave women the mantra, “my body, my choice”. It seems hypocritical to empower women with a mantra to assume responsibility to kill an unborn child, but that same mantra is never used to empower women not to get pregnant in the first place. If Sarah Palin’s abstinence programs failed at avoiding unwanted pregnancies, so be it. But at least her program teaches responsibility rather than running from it. You see, Steinem and her feminist cohorts have done a great job advocating and securing for women the right to an abortion, access to the morning after pills, and safe haven laws all in an effort to help women avoid parental responsibility. At the same time, her and her cohorts have worked over-time enacting laws to incarcerate, humiliate, and shame men who try to avoid their parental responsibility.
This is Steinem’s and the liberal Democrat’s version of reproductive rights – to ensure that total control of the lives of the fathers and the unborn are determined solely by the woman.
Steinem and other feminist vocalize the fear of someone else (government) intruding and trying to control the lives of women, while at the same time ignoring how they have subjugated men and the unborn to the exact same treatment.

Are you ready for the most ridicules quote by Steinem?

As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn’t just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself.

Does she expect me to swallow this load of crap?
Here is a woman who is implying that Palin’s decision to allow the shooting of animals from a helicopter is an unconscionable and nefarious act which truly displays Palin’s character.
Steinem can’t sleep well at night knowing a woman like this may be in the White House, but she will get up bright and early to campaign for an Obama/Biden White House which will include unequivocal support for a woman’s right to scrap and tear an innocent, voiceless, unborn child from her womb, or inject the unborn child with chemicals that eat through it’s flesh until death occurs. The remains are put in a plastic bag, and then tossed in a dumpster with the rest of the trash.
Under the Obama/Biden/Steinem ticket, this procedure will happen over a million times a year, which studies show, is done mostly by women to avoid parental responsibility.
Which nefarious policy is harder to swallow?

But Steinem’s hypocrisy really comes through at the end of the article. She writes:

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

To put this in perspective, let’s take a look at Sarah Palin’s husband Todd.
Todd is the one who actually does most of the traditional “women’s” work for the Palin household, which in turn, allows his wife to pursue her career ambitions.
According to an interview last year, Sarah Palin said, “He takes care of the cooking, the bills and other domestic paperwork, in addition to driving the kids to extracurricular activities like basketball and soccer…He can go on just an hour or two of sleep a night. There is no way I could have done this job without his tremendous contributions to the home life. He’s able to keep it organized, like a well-oiled machine.”
When Todd worked in the oil industry, his work became a conflict with Sarah’s political ambitions – so HE quit his job.

Here is a look at the candidates Steinem supports.
Senator Obama’s wife Michelle had a great career going for herself. However, she quit her job so her husband could pursue his.
Joe Biden should be honored for the way he cared for his children after his first wife’s tragic death in 1972. But his current wife Jill has said even if the Obama/Biden ticket wins, she will continue her job of teaching, and try to juggle both jobs of career and family as she did during the primaries while her husband was away.

So let’s put this all together: Sarah Palin is a woman who is independent, self-assured, successful, has shown she can compete with men on any level, has a husband that does most of the domestic duties at home so his wife can pursue her career ambitions, has constructed a life so far removed from the traditional patriarchy, and instead, built one that is the closest we have seen to traditional feminist ideology.
But Steinem is going to support the Obama/Biden ticket, whose lives mimic traditional patriarchy to its very core, even though their ticket goes against everything she stands for and has fought for.

So why the beef with Palin? It’s simple: Sarah Palin is independent, strong, family oriented, carves her own path in life, refuses to care what anybody thinks of her, makes up her own mind about what’s important to her, takes responsibility for her choices, and isn’t afraid to get in touch with her masculine side.

You see, the main reason why Steinem doesn’t like Palin is because Palin is more of a feminist than she is.



July 22, 2008

Another Double Standard Gone Unnoticed

In New Jersey recently, a man was arrested for having pornography openly displayed in his car. According to NBC10:

New Jersey State Police arrested a 47-year-old man, whose allegedly display of a topless Barbie doll and explicit porn magazines inside his car caused a stir at a Garden State Parkway rest area.
Robert Martin, of Dennis Township, N.J., had women’s underwear on a platter, in addition to the naked doll on the dashboard of his car, investigators said.
New Jersey State Police arrested Martin early Wednesday morning and charged him with maintaining a public nuisance. They arrested him after he parked the car at the service plaza. He’s done that for months, in order to catch a ride to his job at a boat yard in Atlantic City.

As it turns out, a woman who works at the rest area said visitors have been complaining for sometime now about Martin’s car, so she checked it out herself and decided to call the police. She stated:

“Very explicit pornography. It was a mixture of pornography, a Bible, cross, it was all laid out perfectly. Nobody should have to really be exposed to that.”

At first I brushed this story off as one of those “weird news” stories that the press likes embed within more serious news stories. But it then triggered my memory about a story from a few years ago.
Back in 2005, the Harvard University campus was awash in a fresh layer of snow after a winter storm. Some of the male students became bored and decided to venture outside and create a giant snowman. After thinking about it, the men decided that a snowman was too boring and unchallenging, so they decided a greater challenge and eye-catching creation – and extremely funny one – would be a giant snow penis. That’s a nine foot penis!

It turns out, a giant snow penis is not a great idea. Seems it greatly offended some people on campus. Not other male students, and not the average female student. Think Larry Summers.
Right! The feminists.

Two female students took great offense to the frigid, menacing phallic symbol, and after fetching a couple of shovels (Spade shovels? Another phallic symbol?), perniciously swung away until the massive threat was obliterated.
According to the two female students:

“The unwanted image of an erect penis is an implied threat; it means that we, as women, must be subject to erect penises whether we like it or not.”

One of Harvard’s women’s studies professors chimed in reminding society of the ominous, oppressive, and destructive penis laced environment that surrounds women. She stated:

“The snow penis follows a long line of public phallic symbols, including the Washington Monument and missiles.”

Missiles are intentional phallic symbols? And here I thought they were shaped that way due to the physics involved with aerodynamics and propulsion.
It’s now obvious to me why feminists choose gender studies instead of math and sciences as their majors in college.
(Side note: Also, does this mean men should register their anatomy as a deadly weapon? If this is true, this simple act may diminish the number of men from suffering a mid-life crisis. Who needs corvettes and young women to raise one’s self-esteem when being able to carrying a federal I.D card with a picture of one’s anatomy describing it as “deadly” will do the trick!)

My first impression of these two stories is that the men involved did not think through the potential impact their actions would have on others. While I don’t see either action as harmless, I do not find it extremely threatening as the women in the stories allege.
Some will say “boys will be boys”, and to a point I agree. But what happens when “girls are being girls”?
I’m talking about public bachelorette parties.

I’ve spent many nights in crowded, public dance clubs, and every year, especially around this time, one can find young professional women entering clubs across the nation decorated profusely with penis shaped hats, wearing penis shaped noses, armed for serious drinking with their penis straws, and at least one woman (sometimes two) sporting a large inflatable penis under her arm. Usually the present club they enter is not the first club they have visited for the evening, nor will it be the last. For hours these women have been parading around the streets of some busy, populated, and active city dressed in similar, previously labeled, ominous, oppressive, misogynist attire, dancing individually and collectively with their giant penis in front of numerous strangers, drinking merrily from their penis straws as many strangers watch, and snapping numerous pictures of themselves enjoying their phallic induced evening for many future laughs and memories.
And yet by the end of the evening, not one woman (or man) will complain, become irate, or raise her voice about how offensive this embedded cultural display is to women. Nor will any woman raise her voice about the double standard men face; continuously shunning them for having the audacity to display the penis as an act of their own humor or enjoyment, while giving women a big “you go girl” for doing the same.

Probably the most disturbing aspect of stories like these is that the women doing the most complaining about men and phallic symbols are usually the same women who have (or will in the future) sucked an amaretto stone sour through a penis straw, grappled with an inflatable penis while dancing to “Get Jiggy Wit It” on a crowded stage, and walked the public streets for a few hours in their high heels and penis noses and did not give a damn if anybody was offended – all in the name of girl fun.
But OH MY GOD if the boys do it.

I guess girls will be girls.


Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

July 17, 2008

“Sexpert” Or Sexist?

As I stated previously, since I came back from vacation last week, I’m trying to get caught up on news stories. This has led me to find a handful of stories that show what I feel is a strong anti-male sentiment in the media and society.
In my last article, I revealed what I felt was a negative bias towards men by the CNN news network.
Today I will continue another story that I feel displays the same characteristics as CNN.

FOXSexpert: Do Men Really Have More Partners Than Women?
I have previously written how I do not trust female sex therapist. The reason being, most seem unable to show any sincere feelings for men and their issues.
For instance, a while back I read an article by a female sex therapist where she reported that a study found women today are less likely to use condoms as compared to years before. Her reasoning did not include that women today are acting more irresponsible, but instead concluded that because of the wage gap between men and women, women cannot afford condoms as easily as men.
Women today are more financially secure than previous generations, and more educated than previous generations, so excuse me for saying that her reasoning is a load of crap. And if I were to except this excuse, then it automatically absolves many men of the responsibility for not using a condom and enduring an unwanted pregnancy by providing a perfect excuse – I had no money for a condom.
But for our men in society, we would never allow them to use that excuse. Instead, we tell them that if you can’t afford the responsibility, then you shouldn’t be having sex – keep it in your pants!
What a difference.

In this Fox News article by “sexpert” Yvonne K. Fulbright, she takes on the conflict found in sex surveys concerning the large difference in the numbers of sexual partners between men and women.
Historically, men have reported more partners than women. Some experts have reasoned this disparity exists because men include prostitutes, exaggerate their numbers, or just plain lie. Therefore, the research becomes skewed.
Fulbright discusses these reasons, and others, to find why the disparity exists.
But she can’t seem to do so without degrading and disparaging men.

Her first off-color remark directed at men is presented while she discusses a commonly held belief that evolution explains men’s promiscuity:

After all, evolutionary argument argues that men are supposed to be promiscuous. That’s what allows them to spread their seed in their effort to guarantee the success of the human race. Women, on the other hand, need to take care of the offspring with those few suckers — I mean, fine gents — who are willing to stick around and help out.

What is that supposed to mean? Does it imply that fatherhood is for suckers? Or does it perpetuate the sexist stereotype that men are likely to run from parental responsibility and abandon the mother and child? Or is Fulbright an over-achiever, skillfully implying both defamatory beliefs in one sentence?
If she wants to take a cheap shot and make generalizations about men, then I would expect a similar cheap shot generalizing women on the same level somewhere in the article in order to show she does not harbor anti-male sentiments.

The next headline reads in bold face:

Men are either pigs or just plain lucky.

Pigs? One would think a professional writer would be apprehensive about using such a derogatory statement, but not Fulbright.

But wait, maybe I’m wrong. She then makes this statement:

While unfair social notions want to chalk men up as pigs on this matter, researchers warn that male sexual antics do not explain the great gender divide in sexual histories.

At first I gave her the benefit of the doubt, feeling she was trying to defend men against this sexist stereotype, but it becomes apparent later in the article how differently she defends the sexist stereotyping of men as compared to women. Further along in the article, she discusses how some women just “forget” to count certain sexual encounters which causes the disparity in sex surveys. At first it appears she is defending men – until I thought about it:

To further take the heat off the men, let’s not overlook her mental lapses in recall. Hers, however, are probably more intentional. This is most ironic given the aforementioned research finding on name recall. Thanks to the double standard issue of women being “sluts” — instead of “studs” like men when it comes to sleeping around — counting up her total to date is a very sensitive matter.

I have a problem with her conclusions at this point. Let me explain my position.

First, she has no problem using the term “pigs”, noting that society has used this term exclusively for men, and she labels this sexism as an “unfair social notion”. To me, the term “unfair social notion” carries the weight of something uncomfortable in society, but definitely not in need of being addressed with urgency.
However, when discussing the terms “whore” and “slut”, she minces no words in calling it what it is, a double standard, invoking the unequivocal image of inequity, unfairness, oppressive, and just plain wrong.
By her own words, Fulbright is validating that she is not only conscious of, but also well versed on issues surrounding gender discrimination. So I find it disturbing that she didn’t address the term “pigs”, used by women against men, with the same unequivocal tone she used for defending women. If she really believes double-standards are wrong, then her article should have included something like this when addressing the word “pigs”:

“This is a derogatory, sexist term used by women in gender discussions that has little value other than to humiliate and shame men.”

But instead, when confronted with sexism towards men, she turns milquetoast, and chooses the term “unfair social notion”.

This is the difference in approach towards the sexes I find from female sex therapists. Intense compassion and understanding for women’s and their issues, indifference for men and theirs.

Second, Fulbright states grown men have “imaginary friends” that they include in these surveys. She says:

“While dream girls shouldn’t count, in his memory they often do.'”

As a man I’m insulted. However, I could forgive and forget if the same tone and language was used towards women in her article, but Fulbright is careful not to humiliate and shame women. While men “lie” about imaginary sexual encounters, Fulbright refers to women as “conveniently forgetting” when it comes to their sexual history.
I can’t help but wonder why Fulbright was extremely comfortable using the term “pigs”, “imaginary friends”, and “suckers”, when referring to men, but she found it extremely difficult to state the obvious about women; they LIE when it comes these surveys. Instead she uses euphemisms like “conveniently forget”, “edit their numbers”, and “selective memory”.
And of course, unlike men, she goes easy on the gals fibbing, using the traditional feminine tactics that it’s society’s double standards, and our oppressive expectations of women which is the cause of female lying.
In other words, it’s not their fault.

Only towards the end of her article does she use the word lying, for both men and women, but at this point the damage was already done.

I’m always amazed how women are willing to vigorously challenge men or institutions that engage or promote those double-standards which rob them of respect, status, image, etc., But as women’s power and influence expand, and they find themselves in positions today to apply the same standards of decency and respect they have demanded from men, they fail miserably. Fulbright is a great example.

Women’s rights advocates vocalize how men and women need to come together to end discrimination against women, claiming it will benefit not only women, but men also. Well if this is the return on my investment; humiliation, shame, disrespect, ignorance, etc., then I’m sorry, I’ll invest my time in another cause.

This is not the first time I’ve taken issue with Fulbright. Here is an article I wrote about her last year which appeared on my former website. Here is a revised version:

A PhD Ain’t What It Used To Be

I don’t trust female sex therapist.
I found my belief validated over the weekend when I read an article by the Fox News “sex expert”.

The article was written by Yvonne K. Fulbright, a sex educator, relationship expert, columnist and founder of Sexuality Source Inc.
Her words and opinions have appeared in many forms of media; television shows, news media, and several books.
Last week she wrote an article for Fox News about what she felt were all the ridiculous sex studies that appeared in the news for 2007. The piece was called: FOXSexpert: Ridiculously Obvious Sex Studies of 2007

After reading it, in my opinion, Mrs. Fulbright has serious issues with men. In her article she comes out attacking men within the first couple of paragraphs.
Example: The first study she mentions is one that discovered the 237 reasons people have sex. Toward the end of this segment she exclaims:

“Calling all men, doing more housework will get you more “bootay” in the boudoir!”

She doesn’t mention how the study actually deconstructed the societal belief that women have sex for emotional reasons while men have sex for purely physical pleasure. It found men and women have sex for the same reasons – there’s no differences. Instead she brushes this aside and writes as if this male/female difference is not an issue.
Breaking long held traditional beliefs is not news?

She also doesn’t mention that when looking at the top ten reasons for having sex, men came out ahead of the women in the category of wanting to please their partner. Men also exceeded women in the category of “wanting to keep my partner satisfied”, and men were also found victims of giving into sex more than women for the reason of “my partner kept insisting”. This shatters commonly held beliefs about men and women.

Instead, Mrs. Fulbright insists on attacking men for not doing enough housework, ignoring the most poignant information of the study.
She assaults men on what SHE feels the real problem is, revealing her contempt for men, rather than dealing with the truths of the study.

So this is a professional sex therapist?

She then continues to cover more research, and continues her assault on men when she writes:

“While psychologist John Gottman has been faithfully churning out respectable work on couples for more than 30 years, did anybody need to remind guys that they can forgo the flowers and chocolate for a mop and vacuum when it comes to wooing women? Practically any gal can tell you that if her partner was more willing to lift a finger around the house, she’d be up for more sex and better sex at that!”

Did anybody bother to tell Mrs. Fulbright that when it comes to “men’s work” around the house, most women do not lift a finger? One would think that women themselves would be flooding handyman and home repair classrooms across the nation in an attempt to bring true equality to the “work” around the house, but sadly they don’t. When it comes to “men’s work” women still excuse themselves from getting involved claiming, “I don’t know how to do that”, leaving men to not only do traditional male work, but also take on the burden of half of traditional women’s work around the house.

She then discusses the study conducted on sex dreams by men and women. She writes there was no ground breaking information in this study. She lied again.
The study actually showed women dreaming more about sex than in past studies, with women’s sex dreams occurring as frequently as men’s.
The study was poignant because it was another example of recent research that shatters society’s myth that men are more obsessed with sex than women.

Another tidbit of information Mrs. Fulbright gives her readers concerns a study about oral sex. She tells us the study found girls feel more emotionally distraught after oral sex than the boys. However, this time it is her wording that caught my attention:

“The killer finding – boys were more than twice as likely as girls to say sexual activity made them feel self-confident and popular.”

Why is this information “killer”? I just revealed some “killer” information with respect to the studies she wrote about. Why wasn’t this previous information considered “killer” and included in her assessments? The only conclusion I can suggest is that information could deliver negative connotations for women. I guess that is reserved just for men.

As I pointed out, Mrs. Fulbright has some serious issues with men, putting the burden on them for most relationship problems and avoiding any blame or negativity for women. For this reason, I can assume that any negative information concerning women found embedded in current research between the sexes is ignored by this “professional” sex therapist.

In the last part of her article she shows how ignorant she is about male health and well-being. Here she covers AIDS and the importance of condom use.
After covering some serious statistics about the prevalence of AIDS, and its prevention through the use of condoms, she states,

“And when you consider that a condom can help a guy last longer and relieve any problems with premature ejaculation, while providing protection against sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, spending a few dollars on your favorite latex or polyurethane smock is not such a bad investment.”

This is a clear example of how men’s issues are glossed over and ignored by professionals. The majority of non-condom wearing men do so out of embarrassment. Because most men lack proper knowledge of condom use, it results in a loss of sensation and erection when using condoms. The result is embarrassment, shame, humiliation, and the avoidance of condom use for men.
A study from the University of Indiana and The Kinsey Institute from 2006 covered this very topic, and how these issues will lead to risky behavior for men.

Mrs. Fulbright – again – avoids the documented major concerns with respect to men and condom use, and instead, chose to highlight some of the minor reasons why men should wear them: last longer; relieve any problems with premature ejaculation.
As a man, I found her remarks condescending. Her remarks sounded more like an info-commercial rather than a serious look at men and condom use. It proved to me she has no clue what men honestly think, feel, and need with regard to the components of their sexuality and sexual health. She obviously makes no effort to find out either. I found the condom study in less than ten minutes of searching.

My point: This is why I don’t trust female “professional sex therapist”. I find most of them are concerned only with female sexuality and health which results in uninformed, misguided, and sexist attitudes towards men – just like I what I observed from Mrs. Fulbright.
My advice to men is to ignore most female sex therapist. If you need accurate and reliable information, try to find a male therapist.
Only rely on a recommendation from another man before trusting a female therapist.

To use a common female defense: I’m not being sexist; I’m just telling the truth.

FOXSexpert: Ridiculously Obvious Sex Studies of 2007

Women Dreaming of Sex More Often

Condom, erection-loss study identifies possible path to risky behavior

Why Humans Have Sex


Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

June 19, 2008

Obama “Irresponsible” in Fathers Day Speech

Well I noticed a shift this year. After years of men complaining about the negative portrayal of fathers around Fathers Day, it seemed this year many media outlets were steering away from negative stories and images of fathers, but there were still those that did, and I was glad to find their comments sections filled with men (and women) who challenged these negative perceptions.
It appears people are starting to realize the tremendous difference in the way we honor mothers on Mothers Day, and the way we “honor” fathers on Fathers Day.

So let’s look at the biggest offenders of fathers on Fathers Day.

Barack Obama showed his overt discrimination against fathers – again – on Fathers day.
While calling on black fathers to take responsibility for the numerous fatherless homes in the African-American communities, he also extended his venom towards all fathers.
He told a Fathers Day crowd this about black men,

“They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men.

He also told the crowd with an austere lip,

“we need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.”

He even scolded those fathers who are present in their children’s lives, implying they are lazy and uninvolved:

“It’s a wonderful thing if you are married and living in a home with your children, but don’t just sit in the house and watch ‘SportsCenter’ all weekend long.”

He concluded that,

“What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child — any fool can have a child,” he said, to applause. “That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.”

His cure for this problem is the co-sponsoring of a bill with Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, which would increase enforcement of child support payments, and increase services for domestic violence programs.

Sorry, but Barack is showing how immature he is to handle the responsibility of the most influential and most powerful job in the world. His solution to put more fathers into homes across the nation is to enact legislation that will put more fathers in jail. Current domestic violence laws, along with child support enforcement policies have been known to not just put troubled fathers in jail, but to also have put many innocent and law abiding fathers in prison too. Both of these social ills, and the laws enacted to combat them, have been fraught with innocent men winding up in jail on fraudulent charges. If Barack Obama really knew the issue as he claims, he would know by strengthening these programs without correcting them first will do the exact opposite of what he desires – it will REMOVE more fathers from their children, and lead to more men frustrated and angry with a system that is quick to persecute first and ask questions later.

But before I get ahead of myself, let’s pause to look at the tone of language and imagery used by Barack Obama on Fathers Day towards fathers:

“lazy; uninvolved; not man enough; a fool; lacking courage; and irresponsible”

Now let’s take a look at Barack Obama’s speech to mothers’s on Mothers Day taken from his own website:

Senator Obama’s Mother’s Day Statement
Chicago, IL | May 11, 2008
This Mother’s Day, I’ll be doing what so many other Americans are doing – spending time with my family and thinking about the mothers in my life. My mother, Ann Dunham, was the kindest, most generous spirit I have ever known, and what is best in me, I owe to her. My grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, helped raise me, sacrificed again and again for me, and loves me as much as she loves anything in this world. And the mother of my daughters Sasha and Malia – my wife Michelle – is the rock of the Obama family and a woman who continues to make me a better person. We couldn’t have done this year without my mother-in-law Marian Robinson, who stays with our girls while Michelle and I are on the campaign trail. And my two sisters, Auma and Maya, each the mother to young daughters, are not only my family, but my dear friends. So to the mothers in my life and to the mothers in all our lives, Happy Mother’s Day.

Is it just me or is his imagery and tone towards mothers completely different?
In his Mothers Day speech, these are the words and imagery created:

“thinking about mom; kind, generous; the best for me; owe a lot; sacrifices for me; loves me immensely; rock of the family; make a better person”

I’ve always admitted that maybe I’m not always right, but this is definitely one of those times when I know I’m not wrong – Barack Obama is obviously anti-father.
On Mothers Day, Obama refused to say anything negative about mothers, which in turn, displays an egregious discriminatory attitude towards fathers.

While the problem with absent fathers is real, particularly in the black community, let’s not forget ALL reasons why fathers may not be present in the home. If Obama is truly serious about tackling this problem, he must be ready to address the uncomfortable realities of why fathers may be absent, which means extending his criticisms towards women and others:

  • Is Obama ready to make substantial changes to the family court systems across the country that favor mothers over fathers, awarding custody to mothers in approximately 70% of all custody cases?
  • On Mothers Day, is Obama ready to address the serious problem of women using false allegations of abuse and violence which lead to orders of protection being issued as a cautionary measure in the absence of any substantial evidence, which in turn, forces the father from his home and separates him from his children?
  • On Mothers Day, is Obama willing to scold women – along with the men – who choose to have numerous children by numerous partners?
  • Is Obama willing to address the fact that men have no reproductive rights, meaning that the number of absent fathers will always be greater than absent mothers due to abortion?
    Over three thousand children are killed each day in this country as a form of birth control; the feminine path to avoid parental responsibility.
    And abortion laws afford only the female to make the difficult decision as to whether she is mentally, emotionally, and financially ready to be a parent. Fathers are not given the choice. After conception, they only have two dark choices: adhere unconditionally to a frightening, life-altering decision made for them by someone else, or run from the situation, which will lead to being ostracized and vilified at best, or spending time in jail at its worse. Is Obama ready to address this disparity?
  • African-American men are incarcerated at a much higher rate than any other group. This is found to a major component in father absenteeism. And in most cases, these fathers are still responsible for child support payments while imprisoned. Most will fall into the “deadbeat” dad list.
    Also, when these men get out of prison, most will not be able to land a job due to the rise of employers using extensive background checks for all new applicants. Most employers will not hire convicted criminals. How is Barack going to address the problem of a men wanting to work, capable of working, but finding no employer will hire them? At the same time, their court ordered child support payments go unpaid. This will lead them back to prison, and out of their children’s lives again, and leave mom raising the kids alone.
    Tightening child support enforcement without addressing this paradox will only cause more difficulties for them, and raise the potential that these fathers will run away to escape this vicious cycle.
  • Also, death rates for young African-American men are greater for this group than any other group. So how is Barack going to tackle this cycle of violence that leaves many children without fathers?

So as one can see, there are many COMPLEX reasons why African-American fathers (as well as other fathers) are not present in the home. To just blame fathers, calling them immature, irresponsible, and lazy is actually more indicative of Obama’s own emotional immaturity. It also is a display of his own irresponsibility, by speaking on this issue in a narrow-minded manner, and shows HIS lack of courage to hold others accountable who also contribute to the dilemma of absent fathers, particularly women and other politicians, because he is fearful of upsetting these people, and losing their support and their votes.

I feel it is obvious Barack Obama is not emotionally interested in fathers, only his chance at the presidency. While some of the comments he made about fathers were inspiring, the majority of it was negative. And while he addressed the problems black fathers face, it sounded no different than any other election year rhetoric – he offered only what has been promised before.
So at this point I would like to elaborate using words from his speech:

“Any fool can say what they want to get elected, but it takes a real man, and a real leader to implement real change. Let us realize that when it comes to addressing fathers that are absent in homes across this country, we shouldn’t send a boy to do a man’s job.”

(Note: Syndicated writer Kathleen Parker covers this same topic in her most recent article titled, “Calling all fathers, and mothers too”)

Other negatives on Fathers Day

When Mom and Dad Share It All – This article appeared in the New York Times on Fathers Day. Written by female writer Lisa Belkin, it is an extensive, 10 page feature article covering the disparity in housework between men and women, with extensive stats that keep reiterating how men fail at helping out at home. While some sections of the article defended men,

“Many women will also admit to the frisson of superiority, of a particular form of gratification, when they are the more competent parent, the one who can better soothe the tears in the middle of the night.”

its core message was obvious – family management is unequal and men are to blame.

It’s no coincidence that the New York Times ran this piece on Fathers Day. The NYT has always been supportive of feminism and its causes. And it’s disturbing to realize that it could have used 364 other days to run this piece, but it chose Fathers Day to intentionally damage the only day of the year set aside to honor good men and fathers. Think they would do that on Mothers Day?

But many female bloggers who read the article felt vindicated by it. Here are some responses:

“good for the Times staff to stick this around Father’s Day and I’m thrilled a few hairs were ruffled”

“my husband and I were surprised and, I admit, somewhat amused to hear that some readers took offense to the piece as somehow man-hating or anti-fathers”

“The article was challenging Dads on their special day to be better fathers – and not to just rest on their laurels”

It’s good to see these women found time to write their thoughts in between insulating the attic, changing the hot water heater, up on the roof cleaning leaves out of the gutters, and putting in a new sump pump.
Oh, I forgot. That’s men’s work!

Dads who grew up without fathers find their own way – This article is written by a woman named Carroll Cradock who is the director of Behavioral Health Services at Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. Her discrimination of fathers is a little more insidious. On the surface it appears to be written to honor those men who grew up in a fatherless home, but unlike their fathers, chose to embrace the responsibility of fatherhood when they had children.
It appears to be a compassionate piece, stating,

“Many people have the mistaken idea that a man can’t be a good man — let alone a good father — if he didn’t have a dad of his own to show him how.”

How true. But then the writer throws a curve ball, saying,

“Despite such pessimism, these boys have good reason to believe they can become strong fathers. Although boys from homes without fathers dominate troubled groups while they are young, the majority do not fall to the wayside.”

This is the exact kind of paradox I’ve written about before, how society demands men understand the importance of their role in a child’s life, but at the same time, men are consistently reminded how unimportant their role is when all things are considered.

She goes on to say she has met or helped many men who were determined to become good fathers, in spite of the lack of a fatherly role model in their own life. She says these men did it by being persistent in asking others for help and guidance as they navigated the unfamiliar task of fatherhood.
Sounds great until she writes this:

“Other fathers I interviewed said they learned the most from their mothers, grandparents and the mothers of their own children.
Maybe it has always taken a village to raise a father. Maybe we’ve lost sight of the fact that uncles, mothers, grandparents, brothers, sisters, spouses and friends have always had a hand in mentoring men into fatherhood.”

Again we see the image of mother/female superiority over the father/male. Men are flawed creatures, always needing the guidance of women to help them navigate through life. Ironically, I have never read an article on Mothers Day – or any other day for that matter – that postulated that the best mothers are not those guided only by the wisdom of other women, but those who received relentless doses of male wisdom from the men in their lives.

She goes back to what I’ll call the fatherhood paradox by saying,

“It may be the case that future fathers and children most at risk are not those without a father in the home, but those living in communities with few adults willing and capable of putting the needs of children first.”

So again, if I’m reading it right, it is not that an absent father is actually a problem, but rather the community of adults who refuse to step up and mentor the fatherless child.
This reeks of the “children do not need a father, they just need a male role model” ideology, which is a component of feminist thinking. You will never hear someone say a child does not need a mother, that the role of motherhood is easily interchangeable with a part-time female role model. (To read another man’s point of view on this topic, go to Sweating Through the Fog)

My final thoughts: So are fathers important, or are they expendable?  And if fathers are important, why do we openly discriminate against them? Is this the gender equality feminist are fighting for, to discriminate against fathers on Fathers Day, but not mothers on Mothers Day? Why aren’t they speaking out against this gender inequality?

And lastly, when did the venture into motherhood automatically proclaim women infallible?

Now just the good news

The only way this discrimination is going to end is to start protesting it, without letting up. Some men have already begun the process. This is what took place on Friday:

Fathers 4 Justice, Los Angeles (F4JLA) and the National Coalition For Men, Los Angeles (NCFMLA) stood front and center this morning at the entrance to a downtown Los Angeles Courthouse. The corner of 1st St. and Hill St. is always a bustling intersection and this morning it was a little busier than usual. All across America, today is Fatherless Day, and folks are taking to the streets to call attention to the way family law and family law courts mistreat Fathers.
Story and pictures here.

And here is another example of how things are beginning to change as more fathers protest their discriminatory treatment:

Fathers sleep a lot, and they snore loudly. When they’re awake, they like to fish or golf, but they’re comically bad at both. They drink so much beer they’re practically alcoholics, and they’re complete couch potatoes, always watching television and hogging the remote. At least, that’s the less-than-favorable image of Dad on Father’s Day greeting cards. It’s a striking contrast to the poetic praise often expressed at Mother’s Day. Many men say they are tired of the “put-down” cards and would like some affirmation for a change — and at least one greeting-card company is listening.

The company is Hallmark – read it here.



June 12, 2008

Answering My Critics

After I wrote my two part article on why sexism was not a reason Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic nomination for president, it was picked up by Fox News. This sent my average daily blog numbers skyrocketing. In its wake, I was left with many negative comments, most of them coming in the e-mail form rather than being posted in the comment section at the end of the article. I guess people do not like to see their darker side displayed in a public forum. It seems it is so much easier to write, “J. Soltys, Fuck You!” in a private e-mail instead of displaying it in a public forum in order to protect one’s “good girl” image.

But I promise not to let myself get sidetracked to often on differences of opinion like this. What I mean is that I have a personal rule I follow when posting an article. And that is to let comments that are posted in response to my articles go without debate by me.
The main reason I do this is out of respect for fairness and true equality. I reason that if I have the opportunity to write my thoughts, feelings, and opinions in this forum, then I must honor those that either agree or disagree, and allow their thoughts and opinions to be expressed without interference. I have the power to block or remove any comment, but I choose not to do so unless it is filled with vulgarity, or links to what I feel are disturbing websites.
The exception to my interference would be if an individual placed misleading or inaccurate information about a topic that I felt needed a rebuttal. Then I would challenge something that is posted in the comments section.
E-mails sent to me I assume are meant to be private conversation between me and that person. However, anything that comes into my mailbox is essentially my property and I have a right to use it if I feel it is worth sharing. In most cases however, I will not.

Another reason I do not respond to countering opinions on my blog is because I’ve seen on other bloggers get easily trapped into a “pissing contest” with some people. It consumes most of the bloggers time, and in the end, the blog suffers because of it. I’ve never seen a good outcome for either the instigator or the blogger. Therefore I take a casual approach, and let others have their say, and leave it to the reader make up his or her opinion.

This is one of those times when I am going to break my own rule. Some of the criticism I received was way out of line, and I feel it needs serious rebuttal. In fact, I’m wondering if some actually read what I wrote because it appears their criticism contradicts what I wrote.

Most of the harshest criticism of me and my article came in the e-mail form. And most of it can be summed up this way:
You are:
sexist, misogynist, hypocrite, women hater, caveman, idiot, jerk, stupid, asshole, just like all the rest, no better, etc., etc., etc.
In response to those people, yes. At times I have been accused of all those things, but the charges never seem to stick.

Now that the easy part is out of the way, let’s get to those that actually put some serious thought into their responses and tried to argue that I was somehow missing the bigger picture.

This response was from Dee in the comments section:

I am no hillary, fan, but I am a black american and it really pains me to read the hate trash that people like you write. As a woman I would think that you do not owe hillary anything but as a woman you do owe the gender a little respect when someone is doing their best. No hillary is not perfect, but I have never read or heard her speak so negatatively and hateful against another woman as you and the media and other bloggers trying to make a name for him or herself regardless of whom is hurt.

Thanks for your opinion Dee, but I’m sure you realize I will have to disagree.
To sum up your response: I wrote something really offensive, not just about Hillary but about the female gender in general. And in doing so, I disrespected women. You also say Hillary is not perfect, just human, and that I’m just trying to make a name for myself.

First, let me talk about my ego and trying to make a name for myself. I started writing about gender issues from the male perspective about one year ago. At that time I had my own website, but chose this platform for convenience. After a year of doing this, I can tell you that it is not a path to fame and fortune. If I wanted fame and fortune, I would have tried out for the television show American Idol or Apprentice, or have stayed up late one night and had my choice of choosing what program I was going to use to “make a million dollars in one month with no money down” from the many late night infomercials. I can assure you those paths seem an easier road to fame and fortune rather than writing about gender issues on a blog.
I do this because I believe I have an opinion to offer. Not always the right opinion, but not always the wrong one either. I offer an opinion from the male perspective on gender issues because feminism has generated many unjustified and unqualified negative perceptions of men and masculinity. The negative image of men and fathers has been entrenched in society for some time now; some of it is understandable, but a good portion is also just irresponsible. If the genders were reversed, these irresponsible images and portrayals would cause outrage from coast to coast. But since the negative images are of men and fathers, nobody really cares. However, a small band of brothers like myself have taken to writing about these negative stereotypes, the contradictions, and the hypocrisies displayed by feminism and society, and offer a countering opinion to the general public.

I had no intention of writing about Hillary’s loss. As I mentioned in the article, I wrote about her last year, but what I didn’t mention was that I promised not to write about her anymore. The reason being; I didn’t want to seem like I was piling on her as she began stumbling more and more in the presidential race. I chose to let Hillary and her actions stand alone, for better or for worse, so she could have the decency to be judge the same as anybody else.
And I want to note that during my podcasts at the beginnings of the primary race, both my partner Jim (a staunch conservative) and me, pointed out how we felt Hillary was the strongest candidate and deserved the nomination. We also acknowledged the few times when we thought Hillary was facing criticism that WAS related to her gender.

With that being said, the only reason I wrote about Hillary’s loss NOW, is because SHE and her supporters chose to blame sexism and a misogynist society for her loss. It is at this point that Hillary and her supporters brought the criticism upon themselves. As I mentioned before, I do not have to go out looking for a battle, but it sure seems to me, as a writer of gender issues from a male perspective, that I do not have to wait long before somebody wants to blame men or fathers for events that may well be caused their own irresponsibility. When this happens, and I find it irresponsible, I will challenge it. And this is one of those cases.

You say I owe the female gender a little respect. I never attacked women as a gender anywhere in the articles. But if you want to make a case that I did, then the argument is thrown back at you: Where is the respect for men as a gender when Hillary and her supporters choose to blame men for all her failures? In the name of equality, don’t women need to offer men the same respect in return? As a man, are you saying I owe women unconditional respect, but women do not have to offer men the same in return? Women can place blame, hate, and scorn upon men without any criticism, and men should just stay silent and not speak up? Are you asking me to do what numerous women were subjected to under historical patriarchy? Are you asking me to do what you and millions of other women would never do – stay silent? I thought the women’s movement made it clear this behavior is extremely sexists?
If these are the rules, then I’ll be breaking them quite often, because I refuse to remain silent.

Another point: I personally did treat Hillary as an individual. As I mentioned earlier, when she began stumbling in the race, I backed off my criticism and let her stand on her own. But here’s my thought: If treating people as individuals is important, then why can’t you and her supporters do the same for men? If there were individual men who treated her with disrespect, then why lump them together with all men and use blanket statements such as “misogynist” and “sexism” that generalize men and society as inherently evil? Will this behavior help break down negative stereotypes and breed the individualism you seek? Of course not. It only makes it worse.

And I’m still not sure where I wrote hateful trash. Asking a presidential candidate to take responsibility for his/her contradiction, lies, or other failures is hateful? What male presidential candidate – or seated president – hasn’t been challenged the same way? President Bush deals with it every day.
And why is my challenging Hillary’s perceptions, and those of her supporters, that sexism and misogyny are probably not the main reasons she lost – using accurate and credible information – hateful trash? Are you saying because I’m a man, and her being a woman, I do not get to challenge what I felt were female sexist comments? Have we just encountered an evolving “female privilege” in society?

And finally, how have I deployed hatred by writing that in spite of Hillary’s missteps, she still secured the popular vote, showing how this country is actually not as sexist as some people have vocalized (Note: This fact itself greatly diminishes the validity of their sexism argument.), but more importantly, Hillary’s bid left an unequivocal positive mark by showing how far women and our nation have come by concluding this country is ready for a female president. This was hateful? Why, because I felt Hillary will not be the one?
Thanks for writing Dee, but as I said previously, I will have to agree to disagree with you.

Then there was Bob. He agreed with me about Hillary’s screw ups, but he became angry at my linking her irresponsibility to feminism. He wrote:

You’re very clear on the things Clinton has done wrong. But what do you mean by feminism? How are you possibly linking Clinton’s actions with actions of any feminist? Are you referring to French feminism and it’s concentration on how language promotes sexism? Or maybe you’re referring to Post Colonial feminism? Or maybe you really don’t know anything about feminism and instead are creating a definition based on popular ideas you were too lazy to research? Maybe you should start with Wikipedia and find out what feminism is really about.

He then goes on to say I really don’t know what the hell I’m talking about (Re:Full of shit).
Well Bob got part of it right. I knew when I wrote the article I was writing it from a perspective that would have needed another page to explain why I feel her blaming others is typical of feminism. But since I write to a particular audience that is familiar with my work, I chose to ignore an in-depth analysis. So when Fox News highlighted my article, it became a problem, since all these new readers were not familiar with my opinions.

But, since you asked Bob, let me explain.
First, yes I have read Wikipedia’s definition for “feminism”. As a matter of fact, I’ve read many articles on feminism, women, men, and genders over the last 10 years.
I was actually at one time a supporter of women’s rights and feminism. I even had a long term relationship with a woman who was a member of NOW. But over the years I came to find the writings, research, and opinions of feminist to be contradictory, hateful, blaming, distorted, and heavily biased.
And sadly, these distorted perceptions became very influential. I wish I had a dollar for every woman who has said she is not a feminist but then rattled off an opinion that came straight from feminist ideology.
So you are right that I may not know in explicit detail what feminism is, but it is dangerous to say that I cannot express my personal experiences concerning how I feel feminism has affected myself and others. If you really believe that one cannot express their thoughts without explicit and unequivocal objectivity, then feminism itself would not exist, for women would have been banned from expressing how the patriarchy subjugated them without first having an intense academic study in the understanding of men and masculinity. That would be nearly impossible for the average woman to achieve. And the civil rights movement would not have progressed to where it has today because African-Americans would not have been able to speak out about white privileged unless they possessed a PhD in the study of “Caucasians”.
Neither group needed such an intense pedagogy, nor winded exegesis of the masses, to personally express and instigate a correction to what they felt was the devaluing of their humanity. My blog is nothing more than my expression of my experiences with men, women, and gender, and the ability to share theses thoughts with a larger community. I’m sorry you came to my blog expecting to find a documentary of intense and unequivocal verity. I usually read blogs for what they are meant to be – opinions.

As for why I feel feminism is contradictory, and blaming of others? It is a belief I’ve developed after reading numerous feminists writings and research. If you spent some time reading this literature, it becomes apparent that when given similar circumstances, men have nobody to blame but themselves, while women have the freedom to blame anyone else, most often men and the patriarchy. Hillary’s allegation was a prime example.
Here are some quick examples of what I’m talking about:

  • Feminist abhor male violence, particularly men’s obsession with war. They vehemently detest the killing of so many innocent lives, and label it as probably one of the most irresponsible acts of masculinity. However, under the guidance of femininity, abortion and the killing of over 3000 innocent children a day is protected and held in adulation as one of the defining moments and an important fundamental of a woman’s right. However, in feminist writings, I have found numerous references that women would not need abortion if “men could keep it in their pants”. In other words, it’s not really a woman’s fault she became pregnant and needed and abortion; it’s really the man’s fault. Or another argument is that if men didn’t run from their responsibilities and leave women to raise children alone, then abortion would not be needed. And it is this argument that carries more weight than others, and addresses a serious problem of some men who abandon their parental responsibilities. But there is an ugly flaw in this argument. It implies that when men refuse to accept the responsibility of fatherhood, it usually involves abandoning their children, but leaves evidence to the fact that at least the child is given a chance at life. Consequently, research shows that the majority of women who choose abortion, do so to escape the responsibility of parenthood, deciding that killing the child to avoid this responsibility is the best option.
    My point is not to debate whether abortion should remain legal or not, but instead, I bring it up to show the different perceptions concerning the responsibility towards male and female killing of innocent lives, and the responsibility towards pregnancy and parental responsibility through the eyes of feminist. When men and women are found in similar situations, men are easily blamed without discourse, while immediate discourse emerges to explain why women should not be blamed. As one writer put it, “Women are diagnosed, men are demonized.”
  • Feminist have contended that when ever a woman is charged with domestic violence, it is only because she was defending herself from her abuser.
    More and more research is now showing women instigate violence in a relationship as much as men, so it disturbs me to find feminist still rushing in to blame the man when a woman is charged with domestic violence, in spite of this evidence. And more importantly, feminists have assiduously demanded that blaming the victim is an abhorrent practice and should be stopped. So why are they so comfortable engaging in this practice themselves? Are they saying to blame the victim is wrong when the victim is a woman, but acceptable when the victim is a man? Again we see blame and responsibility disseminated by feminist in a discriminating manner.
  • Back in the 1990’s, feminist reported that females were struggling in our schools due to sexist and discriminatory practices. It was reported that girls suffered terribly from self-esteem problems due to these practices, and this effected how they performed in school. In other words, old man patriarchy (men) was to blame.
    Later it was discovered their research was extremely flawed, and it was actually males performing worse than the girls except in the areas of math and science. And it was discovered self-esteem does not have a powerful effect on scholastic performance as believed. Black males report the highest ratings of self-esteem, yet are some of the nation’s weakest scholastic performers.
    So how have some feminist reacted to these findings? First, they have offered no apologies for their lack of honesty, and second, quite a few have shrugged off poor male performance as not a serious issue needing to be addressed, citing inherent male laziness as the problem.
    So the situation started with feminist blaming males, and then upon further inspection, it was found they lied, and they responded to their indiscretions not by apologizing, but by blaming males again!

I could go on, there is plenty more, but I hope you get the point Bob. If not, stick around. I’ll be doing this for a while, in spite of the fact you think I’m full of shit.

As I said before, I may not always be right, but I’m not always wrong either. As humans we are naturally flawed. This means that what ever we construct, it will be embedded with these flaws. Men are flawed, just as much as women are. The patriarchy has been proven to be flawed by feminist and others, so I’m not sure why feminist have demanded the belief that their movement is free from mistakes and injustices. To believe otherwise is not just illogical, but it also implies superiority over men. That in itself is sexist, along with the idea that men cannot challenge the thoughts and opinions of feminism and find its flaws.

Since I’ve been accused of not having a true understanding of feminism, let me offer an opinion by somebody who does.
Rebecca Walker is the founder of the Third Wave Foundation, a feminist group that works nationally to support young women and transgender activists. She had this to say in her article at CNN:

Obama has gracefully accepted the victory banner, and a lot of Hillary supporters, especially women, are walking off the field as if they’ve lost a war. I understand their frustration, but the truth is they didn’t lose, not by a long shot. Their candidate is stronger than ever, with 17 million votes under her belt, and the public discussion about the role of gender is more nuanced and compelling than it has been in decades.
It is time to turn the page on myopic gender-based Feminism and concede that while patriarchy is real, so is female greed, dishonesty and corruptibility. It’s time to empower the feminisms embodied by millions of women and men who care about everyone, including, but not limited to, women.

Not much difference between my thoughts and hers. And as I have done often, I highlight feminist thoughts and opinions I think are fair and balanced.

I stand by what I wrote. I’m done with this debate.

June 4, 2008

Hillary Doing What Feminist Do Best – Blame Others

    (Part 2)

Previously I wrote how Hillary Clinton is blaming sexism and misogyny within the media and society for her decline from top presidential candidate hopeful to presidential candidate in despair.

I found her excuse typical of a person who has proselytized the feminist ideology which Hillary has confidently vocalized. Therefore, her beliefs and actions within any given situation will be filled with contradictions, hypocrisy, and blaming others for her own failures. While these behaviors may be found in any politician, one that claims adherence to feminist ideology will procure them with greater intensity than that of a non-feminist politician.
As a writer of gender issues from a male perspective, it was expected – yet still disturbing – to hear Clinton blame others for her failures when the evidenced clearly shows Hillary can only blame herself. She has shown repeatedly she cannot refrain from distorting the truth, creating a perception that misleading the public is a comfortable way of life for her.

So on the day after Barack Ombama has layed claimed to the Democratic presidential nomination, let me continue with more events that took place during the Clinton campaign which led to her downfall:

— Back in November of last year, Clinton’s staff was caught planting questions within the crowds that showed up at her speeches. It seems her staff would immerse themselves in the crowd before hand looking for individuals who would ask questions that Hillary and her staff had already prepared eloquent answers for. Those individuals would then be singled out when audience question and answer segments would take place, thus making Hillary look like a solid, informative, and unwavering candidate.

— While Hillary wants to blame the media for her failures, the evidence proves otherwise. Hillary recently stated in a Washington Post interview,
“[The] intensity of my support” was rarely reported, adding, “I think that is a disservice because we have broad coalitions of voters who have voted for me who make up the base of a winning campaign in November that I think want to see this end up with my being nominated.”

This claim is filled with half-truths and contradictions. Let’s take a look:

— Until Hillary lost the first primary election in Iowa, she and her staff treated the press as a nuisance, rarely giving them time for questions and interviews. Howard Kurtz wrote in the Washington Post:

Her campaign can still be inconsiderate toward reporters, sometimes not sending out the next day’s  schedule until 2 a.m., making it impossible even to plan what time to get up.”

“On her campaign plane, Clinton started coming back to the press section for off-the-record chats, usually harmless but sometimes including comments that contradicted what she was saying publicly, according to participants. Two weeks ago part of the media contingent revolted, saying the conversations did them no good if they couldn’t use the information.”

Only after her loss in Iowa did she open up to the press.
This decision for a presidential candidate and her staff to implement a strategy to ostracize the press for a long period of time and then complain later that the press was limited in the coverage of her campaign borders on childish behavior.

— Saying that the press has not acknowledged her broad coalition of voters is somewhat valid. But Clinton’s campaign strategy has been widely known to be overwhelmingly committed to harnessing women voters – historically the larger voting block between men and women. So why scold and blame the press for not reporting the diversity of Clinton’s voting bloc? The media is only reporting the results of the behavior, actions, and strategy put forth by Hillary and her staff.

— In killing two birds with one stone: First, Hillary claims the media did not report her broad coalition of support; second, this was the result of sexism in the media and society.
Let’s look deeper at these two accusations.
First, the media did report frequently on male support for Hillary Clinton. Fox News reported that in a Gallup poll completed at the being of the race, almost 49% of men were favoring Clinton and that male support fell very little, to just under 40% during March and April.
It was widely reported that Clinton easily had the vote of white male union workers in strong union states, and those predictions turned out to be true.
Second, while it was reported her support from the working-class white males has been weak, it should be noted that Obama has suffered the same dilemma. And it should be noted history shows John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and Jimmy Carter -all white male Democratic politicians – also struggled to capture the votes of the white working class male in their bids for the presidency.
With this information, where is the sexism in society she talks about? The rejection of Clinton as a white Democrat by the white working-class male is business as usual in American politics.
Third, Clinton has been trying to stay alive in her nomination by pointing out that she exceeds Obama in popular vote. This time she is telling the truth. However, it’s contradictory to say “The majority of the population wants me as their candidate”, while at the same time complaining that sexism within that same population has diminished her chance for a presidential nomination.
So under scrutiny, her argument that her campaign was hurt by a biased media and a sexist society turns out to be completely false.

Further charges of sexism addressed by Clinton and her supporters can also be challenged as fatuous, and more importantly, show Hillary and her supporters are actually sexist themselves. For instance:

— One story that is used by Clinton and her supporters to validate the charges of sexism in the race is the repeated telling of an incident where a couple of men yelled out to Hillary “Iron my shirt!”
First, her supporters never mention that this was a stunt staged by a shock jock at a local radio station to gather publicity and ratings for his show.
Second, it is hard to imagine the “women’s work” statement is so offensive and sexist when Hillary has used the same image of women’s work around the house as a platform in a majority of her campaign speeches. She has repeatedly told female dominated audiences that it is time to “clean up” the White House. She uses the analogy that women must get out their brooms, mops, vacuum cleaners, and brushes because only a woman/women can clean up the mess in the White House that the men have created.
Not only is it sexist to imply that a women’s greatest asset is her homemaking skills, but it is also sexist to men, implying the ugly gender stereotype that all men are lazy and irresponsible.
Mysteriously, her supporters had no qualm about Hillary using humiliating, negative stereotypes about women on the campaign trail -they have only become upset when men have used them.

— When her husband Bill started causing controversy on the campaign trail for Hillary, she was asked by ABC News’ Cynthia McFadden during ABC News’ Nightline, “Can you control him?”
“Oh of course,” she replied with confidence.
Now change the genders. A male presidential candidate is asked if he can control his wife. He responds, “Oh of course.”
It would be the end of his career, an image from which he could never recover. But for a female candidate, saying you can “control” your husband brings no condemnation from feminist, women rights, and gender equality advocates – it brings empowerment.

— When asked by talk show host Ellen Degeneres whether Bill helped out around the house, Hillary said he does, usually by rearranging bookshelves and cleaning the kitchen. Then in a condescending manner she said, “He’s pretty handy to have around, actually.”
Imagine a male candidate speaking with such apathy about his wife, only seeing her contributions in their marriage as some low priority afterthought. Do think it would go unnoticed? Of course not.

— Another alleged example of the sexism Hillary faced on the campaign trail, which has been repeated by her supporters, involves a comment made to Republican candidate John McCain during a campaign stop. Someone asked McCain, “How do we beat the bitch?”
Also, CNN commentator Alex Castellanos said during a CNN telecast that Clinton deserves to be called a “bitch.”
I would find these comments offensive and sexist myself, however, I can’t. The fact is, Hillary’s supporters used the same term themselves during her campaign.
When Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live showed her support for Hillary by exclaiming “bitches get stuff done” during the shows Weekend Update segment, Hillary’s own husband called Tina to say THANK YOU! And Hillary’s supporters loved the comment so much they began making T-shirts that mocked Fey’s comments.
And when Elton John offered to perform a concert to raise funds for Hillary’s campaign, the printed invites mailed out to supporters ended with the saying “The bitch is back!”

I could go on and on – sadly there is still more – but I think I’ve made my point: Hillary Clinton did not lose the race for presidential nomination because of a sexist media or sexist society. The blame for her failed nomination rest squarely on the shoulders of herself, her advisors, her staff, and her supporters. And by blaming others for her failures, in my opinion, she has essentially ruined any chance of being president of this country. Nobody wants a “victim” as president. If one cannot triumph over personal adversity – real or perceived – how will one lead a nation through never ending and ever changing adversity?

Judging by how effective Hillary’s run for president was inspite of shooting herself in the foot over and over, gives validity that sexism will not play a role in the future of electing a woman as president. A more valid argument is that Hillary’s success has proven that the time is actually ripe for our nation to elect its first woman president.
Unfortunately, Hillary is just not that woman.


Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.