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


August 28, 2008

Bikini Barista and Fox News Anchor Display “Perverted” Judgements

Last week a story made the rounds in the main stream media about an incident that took place at a coffee shop in Tacoma, Washington.
A man dressed in women’s clothing pulled up to a coffee shop called “Java Girls” and allegedly exposed himself to one of the baristas. The barista then threw a cup of boiling water in his lap before he had the chance to get away.

At the Fox News website, I had the opportunity to watch a video in which Fox News interviewed the barista who threw the cup of boiling water on the alleged suspect. (“Coffee Confrontation” in US news videos)
After watching the interview, and hearing the female anchor praise the girl as being brave, I have to challenge the estrogen bravado spun from this story and offer my opinion of the barista and the praise of Fox’s female anchor.

The name of the coffee house is called “Java Girls” for a reason. All the barista’s have to be female, and more importantly, the women must serve coffee in the tiniest bikinis they can find. In other words, the whole concept of the coffee house is to stimulate and manipulate the sexual perversions of men. From strippers, to call girls, to Hooter’s girls, to rap music, the concept is always the same – use the female body along with the allure of male sexual fantasies (whatever form it may take) to achieve one goal – to take money from men.

So my question is, “Who is the bigger pervert here?”

This woman took a job with the full knowledge that her job requires her to be scantily dressed with the main purpose of catering to the dark side of male sexuality. She spends hours each day, half naked, serving coffee to male clients along with other half naked women, with the full knowledge that she and her co-workers are catering to a clientele that views her and the other women in a highly sexualized “perverted” manner. But she is shocked by the “perverted” behavior of the man who exposed himself.
Is this irony or hypocrisy?

In the interview she claims the man went through the shop’s drive through three times. Each episode had about ten minutes between them. The barista said she brushed off her first encounter with the man as just a foolish prank. But she says after the second time, and especially the third time, she and her co-worker became really scared.

How scared were they? The women were so scared that they never called the police. Instead, the women enacted a scheme to douse him with boiling water if he should return for a third time. In the ten minutes they had between his second appearance and his third, the only “safety” measures the women procured was to create their plan, prepare the glass of boiling water, and lie in wait for their victim.

Does this sound like a vulnerable, frightened victim, or does it sound more like a psychotic vigilante?
The man made no attempt to harm them physically by trying to force his way into the coffee shop, however, the female baristas seemed to imply this was their biggest fear.
But contrary to their story, instead of fearing a physical altercation with a mentally unstable man, the women devised a scheme to purposely engage the man into a dangerous physical confrontation by dousing his genitals with boiling water. This female bravado had the potential to enrage the man as much as chase him away, and provoke the very physical altercation the women claimed they feared the most. Only after engaging him in this physical confrontation did they decide to call the police.

Jane Skinner, the female Fox News anchor taking part in conducting the interview with the barista is obsessed in the interview with finding out if the boiling water scolded his genitals. I’m not talking about a generalized curiosity. I’m talking about a contemptuous curiosity and a malevolent obsession that the man has received permanent, emotional and physical scars that will make his the rest of his life a living hell.
At the very beginning of the interview she states to her co-anchor that she can’t wait to find out if the barista “got him where it counts”. At the end of the interview she states maliciously to the barista, “I’m sure you got him where it counts.”
What’s the obsession?
Skinner accents the interview with moans and groans of disgust. She concludes her interview by telling the vigilante barista that she is brave, and opines, “A lot of women out there are saying, you go girl!”

A couple of comments:
— It’s disturbing to observe in our society that male genital mutilation is an accepted form of justice, empowerment, revenge, or humor, while anything resembling female genital mutilation is nothing short of barbaric. What the man did is criminal, but he does not deserve to have his genitals mutilated. The women were never in any immediate danger, and this is validated by the fact that they never called the police until after THEY instigated a physical confrontation with him.
As for Jane Skinner’s obsession with male genital mutilation, I’m wondering if she and others who feel similarly also feel the number of female school teachers that are raping their under aged male students should have their vagina’s mutilated to “teach them a lesson”. If she does not have the same emotional reaction towards female perverts, then she has serious issues with sexism, bigotry, and gender discrimination issues that need serious attention. It would seem completely asinine to think that a man who exposes himself to a woman deserves genital mutilation more than a woman who actually forces herself physically and emotionally on some mother’s pubescent son.

— The barista should have been charged with a crime as well as the man who exposed himself. For example, if their was a male manager on duty, who upon seeing what had happened chased the man down and beat him silly, the police would have arrested and charged the male manager with assault. Their reasoning? They would piously invoke the mantra of respect for laws, individual rights, safety of oneself and others, the need for calm and order in chaotic situations, taking the law into your own hands, etc., for not condoning this type of vigilantism. However, because the vigilante is a woman and the act of violence was directed towards a man, the crime is overlooked.
As an example, if a father caught his son’s female elementary school teacher having sex with his son, and in a rage, attempted to mutilated her genitals, do you think the police would ignore his violent act and arrest only the teacher? And if the police did react in that manner, do you think the media and women’s groups would stay silent?

— The hypocrisy from women in situations like these is overwhelming. The same people who complain about society’s sexploitation of women, are the first in line to defend two women who choose to exploit themselves for a quick buck. The women should not have to endure mentally unstable men exposing themselves, but at the same time, in situations like these, responsible women do not extend an austere statement to the baristas and other women explaining how the choices they make affect themselves and others such as:
Do you realize your choice of work put you in this situation?
Does this line of work help or harm your self-esteem?
What examples and sexual boundries are you advocating for younger girls?
If women really cared about the sexploitation of women, these comments should be included along with their disgust for the man that exposed himself.

— The mature, responsible men in society need to become more involved in mentoring the younger generations about the balance between sexual fantasies and sexual realities. While women are concerned about the sexploitation of women, I’m a firm believer that this same sexploitation seriously affects men as well. Sadly, sexual desire and sexual fantasies are used to sell everything these days. It invokes the wrong message to young men and young women.
I believe as a man, older men need to become more prominent in the processes of mentoring young men on the dark side of male sexual fantasies. Young men need to learn the beauty of their masculine sexual nature, but also need to understand the dangers of it, and how others will exploit it for their own benefit.
I feel that if beginning at a young age men were given insight into how to maintain a balanced emotional and mental male sexuality from more mature, responsible male figures, places like the “Java Girls” may not disappear, but they may have less of an allure in the eyes of men. This would benefit both men and women.
For the record, I am not a puritan who believes anything sexual is bad, and that places such as Java Girls shouldn’t exits. I just believe the level of mentoring and education for our young men and women should intensify at the same pace as the sexualized environment.

If there is one positive I can take away from this story it’s this: Given the number of enterprises in our society that cater to the dark side of men’s sexuality, and given the general public opinion that men are always thinking with their penises, according to statistics, the majority of men do not engage in this type of behavior. In other words, if men really are sex crazed machines as some believe, an incident like this would not be a “hot” news story making national news – it would be a common one buried in the back pages of the local newspaper.
Considering the sexualized society we live in, I feel it shows the majority of men handle themselves quite well given an environment which entices them to behave otherwise.


Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

April 28, 2008

A Reasonable Voice In A Sea of Confusion

    If you read my blog you know two things about me. First, when I find something written by a feminist that I feel is fair and balanced -meaning I do not necessarily agree with everything that is said, but feel it represents a shift to a more reasonable exchange of ideas and viewpoints concerning gender issues – I am more than willing to share it with my readers.
Second, I find the feminist viewpoint of the overt equalization of females in society really confusing. I know that this subject is controversial even among feminists themselves. The paradox is generated by the feminist ideology of a woman’s right over her body – my body, my choice. But for some feminist, this does not extend to a woman’s sexuality. Rather, they perceive any woman who uses her sexuality for the sole purpose of pleasing men, is allowing herself to be exploited by the patriarchy.

However, other feminist see women today as having a choice whether to use their sexuality as a means to an end – whatever that “end” is. These feminist postulates that women having the opportunity to choose is proof of feminism success, and anybody trying to diminish this success cannot lay claim to the feminist label because it robs women of the well guarded feminist ideology of true empowerment – personal choice.

The reason I bring this up is because I read two articles over the weekend concerning female sexuality and prostitution. The article on prostitution took the position that all prostitution is harmful, and is/should be a violation of law and human rights around the world. It states all prostitutes are victims, and feels that society glamorizes prostituion, and therefore, neglects the real harm this is having on women and society.

The second article is written as a counter-point to the first, and I want to commend the Chicago Tribune for showing the integrity needed on this subject by responding with an opposing view.
In the second article, an African-American feminist takes on the controversial paradox concerning female sexuality and whether all cases of female sexualization are really exploitive.
What I liked about her article was her honesty. She is a feminist, but she is willing to admit that the feminist movement sometimes acts as if it “knows it all” about women. She states,
“As much as my experiences have taught me, I’m still continually shocked at our lack of knowledge and the silence surrounding sexuality among feminists.”

It should be noted that I find her position similar to mine, which might explain the magnetic draw to its finer points. To the contrary, the prostitution article relates all forms of prostitution as a product of the sex slave trade. I do not feel this way. I also do not feel that our society glamorizes prostitution. If that were true, Eliot Spritzer would still have a job. Their generalizations seems to hurt their cause rather than help it. 

I have written before that I am appalled by the international sex slave operations that manipulate, then kidnap, and then force women into prostitution around the world.
However, I feel it is a different story for runaways, victims of abuse, and others who fall into prostitution in this country. Not that their stories aren’t tragic or real, but I just do not believe that all prostitutes are victims of the slave trade, and I do not believe that all prostitutes are helpless victims. And I do not believe that all men who indulge in the services of prostitution are selfish, self-centered perverts looking for a little action. (I will right more extensively on this in the future)
I believe the true power of choice and personal responsiblity are uncomfortable thoughts within the context of gender issues, especially this one. 

The power of “choice”: I felt these articles display this dilema, but I found the dissenting feminist and her approach a step in the right direction. It is honest and thought provoking. And it is an admission by another feminist that feminist can be wrong, and act elitists. Rarely will you see this.
Enough said.
Here it is: A Positive View of Sex

Here is the article about prostitution: Prostitution Looks Chic, But the Truth Is Ugly



April 25, 2008

False Accusations: A True Story – All Charges Dropped!

   A family court judge has dismissed all charges against my friend Josh. He had been facing three counts of battery for alleged assaults against his wife and one of her daughters (the accusation of molestation upon the daughter was eventually defined as an aggravated battery charge).

To read the complete story, (written in four separate posts), click on false allegations in the sidebar of this page

Two days before the criminal trial, the eldest daughter of Judy called Josh saying she, her sister, and their mother wanted a secret meeting with Josh; meaning they wanted no lawyers present to discuss the division of assets – particularly the business.
Josh refused to meet with them because of the permanent restraining order that is in place. If he met with them, he would violate the protection order and face the legal consequences.
The daughter tried to reassure him that nothing was going to happen. She said they would never tell anybody. Josh just laughed at the audacity of her to make such a statement considering everything they have accused him of.
His reluctance to meet, and his sarcasm towards their assurances caused the daughter to become hostile with him. She began blaming him for everything, stating that if had he not asked for a divorce from her mother, all of this would have never happened to him.

“Imagine that,” Josh said to me, “If I didn’t ask for a divorce, they wouldn’t have had to file false charges against me! I told you these three women live in their own world. They have no guilt, no shame, and no morals. I can’t wait to get far away from them.”

The next day Josh received a phone call from his attorney. It seems Judy had contacted the district attorney handling the criminal case and was pleading for a continuance. She claimed the youngest daughter, the one Josh allegedly molested, can’t make the court appearance to testify about the incident between her and Josh. Seems she has a test at school that – strangely – is more important than her testimony in this serious violation of her safety and well-being. This is not the first time she has done this. In a pre-trial, she was supposed to appear and give her testimony about the incident, but strangely, she had vacation plans that were much more important. At that time, Judy contended her daughter couldn’t get out of that commitment, so she didn’t appear then.

The district attorney made a phone call to Josh’s attorney asking for new trial date. Josh’s attorney refused. He told her, “When I first presented this case to you, you admitted it sounded “fishy”, but you still chose to proceed. It should be obvious to you that this is nothing more than a perversion of justice by these women and their lawyers. Doesn’t it seem “fishy” that every time this woman is asked to testify about the allegations she has placed against my client that she cannot make it… she always has something more important going on? You and I both know these accusations are nothing more than spite and revenge, and are being used as a leveraging tool against my client in the divorce proceedings. I refuse to play this game any longer.”

Josh began formulating his own thoughts after hearing about Judy’s call to the district attorney asking for the postponement. He felt the “secret” meeting to discuss his role in helping them run the business after the divorce was a setup.

“I feel their plan was to find a way to hang a noose over my head until I gave them what they wanted. I think the meeting would have consisted of them telling me what they wanted, and if I didn’t agree to it, they would have called the police saying I broke the restraining order, and would have said I threatened them in some way. It would have been a surefire way to screw me and return power and control to them. She could keep her word about dropping the previous charges, but now she would have new charges to pressure me with. I would have been back right where I was before,” he told me over the phone.
“And I now feel it was a desperation move. I was always close with the youngest daughter, and that is why I was shocked that she would take part in these false charges. But, I now feel that I was right about her – she can’t do this. Her conscious is getting to her. I’m willing to bet that she is refusing to testify against me. Twice she wouldn’t come to court. This has Judy in a panic.
(Note: The daughter’s testimony gave credibility to Judy’s accusations. Every person involved in the legal system that I and Josh talked to agreed that the daughter’s testimony was key to Judy’s credibility. Otherwise, Judy’s accusations, made only after Josh filed for divorce, would appear transparent, and lack substance to those in the court system.)
So Judy was trying to manipulate and con me into doing something that would put her in a better negotiating position heading into divorce court. She could use the new false charges to pressure me into giving her what she wants in the divorce proceedings which would conclude before a new criminal trial. After she gets what she wants, she then drops those charges.”
He paused, and then said, “She’s a very scary person. She never stops scheming.”

At the trial, Josh had a female judge who presided over his case only one time previously. And this judge, according to Josh, seemed to be sympathetic towards women. This made Josh extremely nervous.
The female district attorney, who has admitted all along that these charges were “fishy”, presented the battery case by the daughter to the court and promptly asked for a continuance. Josh’s lawyer fought back, repeating to the judge what he told the district attorney over the phone – the charge is phony; she is not going to testify. Surprisingly, the judge agreed. She felt for something as important as this, she should have honored her commitment to the court. She felt the daughter wasn’t taking the charge seriously – charge dismissed.

When the district attorney presented the charges filed by Judy, she explained that Judy wanted to drop the charges. The judge asked Judy if she was sure she wanted to do this. The concern in her voice made Josh nervous. He said it appeared the judge was overly concerned that this wasn’t something she should do. The judge repeated the process again, and Judy maintained she wanted to drop the charges. The judge then dismissed the remaining charges.

Josh said the physical and emotional relief was indescribable. He said he woke up that morning with a backache, neck ache, headache, and numerous other aliments. But after the judge dismissed all charges, he said miraculously all the aliments went away, proving the power stress can have on the body. As he talked to me on the phone, he said this is the best he has felt in months.

Josh said there was one moment in the court room that bothered him. After the charges were dismissed, the judge turned to Judy and asked how she was handling all of this.
“How was she handling all of this?”  Josh exclaimed over the phone, “All the shit she put me through, and the judge asked her how she was handling all of this? I can’t believe how sexist the family court system is. This judge never asked me if I was OK. Not once. She ignored me the whole time. It was obvious that she believes all women who file charges are truly the victims, and men are always guilty of what they’re being accused of. I can’t believe the judge was openly assuming that I was guilty of the charges, and Judy was the victim. Obviously the thought never occurs to this judge that some of these women could be lying and putting guys through hell.”
“And if you think I’m being hypersensitive, do you know what she said after that? She told Judy she hopes the divorce proceedings go well. Again, didn’t wish me well, but she then tells Judy that if she could help her she would, but she does not preside over divorce cases. She said her job is to put people in jail!
I’m not that stupid … since this is family court, you know what she really means, it is her job to put men in jail. I can’t believe she was being so open with her sexism.”

Josh said afterwards he was right about Judy’s intentions to maintain some kind of legal “noose” over him for the upcoming divorce proceedings. He said before the trial started Judy approached him and stated she felt he should be forced by the final divorce agreement into helping them run the business to ensure that it doesn’t fail before she and her daughters have a chance to learn the everyday workings of the business.
Josh just laughed. He told me, “All this time she and her daughters have maintained that they were the brains behind the success of his business. This is why Judy has been so aggressive in trying get ownership. She really feels she deserves it. Now that she realizes it will be all hers, reality has set in, and now she is desperate for my guidance and knowledge.”

Before they walked into the court room, Judy told Josh she will only drop the charges if Josh agrees to meet tomorrow with the lawyers and agree to run the business for her until she feels she is ready to handle it by herself.
Josh told her, only if he walks out of the court room with all charges dropped.
Judy became very uncomfortable about that. She tried getting Josh to make a commitment with the lawyers present before entering the court room.

Josh reiterated, “I will do what ever you want, but only if all charges are dropped.”

“Do you promise me?”  Judy said.

“Yes. Drop the charges and I’ll meet you tomorrow to discuss it,” said Josh.


Later that day, Judy’s daughter called to tell Josh the time and place for tomorrow’s meeting.
Josh told her he wouldn’t be there – he had made other plans.
Judy was furious.

“They’ve lied all this time, and now I’ve lied. You reap what you sow. I have no intention of helping them run that business.  I’m going to be gone all weekend, celebrating with some of the friends who have helped me through all this. This business bullshit can wait. I just need to relax and recharge my batteries.
I know more shit is coming, but the playing field has changed. I plan on sticking to our original agreement where the business is hers – alone.
We’ll see how things go when there aren’t criminal charges hanging over my head… when neither one of us has that kind of power.” 


Note to my readers: I don’t know if this is really the end, but if anything develops, I’ll let you know. In the meantime, Josh and I are making plans to spend an upcoming weekend fishing and relaxing. I think he deserves it.


Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com


April 23, 2008

False Allegations: A True Story – Update

   (This post is to inform my readers about my friend Josh who is being falsely accused of battery and molestation charges by his wife after he filed for divorce. The four-part story I wrote about him can be found by clicking false allegations in the sidebar.)
Last week, Josh’s wife Judy, called him to express her concern about the amount of money being spent on lawyers. She told Josh, “We have to stop this. The lawyers are taking all are money and were going to have nothing left when it’s over.”

Josh had a moment of two powerful dichotomies come crashing together in a split second as Judy’s words faded. First, he was ecstatic that she finally was showing some rational thought by realizing how financially draining this has been. He wondered was she finally coming to her senses and realizing the amount of damage she is caused with her behavior?
His second thought answered this question. WE have to stop this? This mess was all her doing; her immaturity, her vindictiveness, her need for power and control. And now she wants to play nice, and does so by opening up negotiations by blaming ME for helping cause this whole mess? Obviously she hasn’t come to her senses. She cannot accept full blame and responsibility for what has happened. A typical feminized woman he thought. Always got a find a way to blame someone else.

Josh listened to her offer.

The deal she offered him was to basically call everything off and resume their lives as if nothing happened – and stay married!
Again, Josh was experiencing the contradicting feelings between extreme anger and extreme relief.

“How could she expect everything to just return to normal? I spent time in jail, I’ve been sleeping on the floor of my office for almost a year, my mental and physical health has taken an enormous beating and she wants me to just forget it all and play nice,”  Josh told me over the phone. “She really is fucking crazy! And at the same time, I feel a sense of relief that I can put this all behind me and get on with my life. So there is this sense of joy – the light at the end of the tunnel.”

Josh agreed to have an emergency meeting with her – with the lawyers in tow. He had about 48 hours to think about all of this.

Josh knew he needed to make his own offer because her offer was completely ridicules. So Josh came to a decision that wasn’t easy. He decided to walk away from his business.
As of right now this is what Josh agreed to: Judy will buy out Josh’s half of the business and assume ownership of it. For what Josh calls a cut-rate price, Judy can have the business, the property, and some of their assets. In exchange, Judy drops the false charges against Josh.

I told Josh, “Are you fucking crazy? You’re going to give her everything you’ve worked so hard for? I have to disagree with you. I think your caving in.”

He told me, “You don’t know what it’s like to go through all this. I’ve taken a beating and I just want it over. Believe me, this is a great deal.”

“But Josh, what happened to your dignity in all of this? I thought you said you weren’t going to let her push you around?  If you give in, it just makes it easier for her and other women like her to continue to destroy men’s lives. You have to stick it out,” I told him. “Too many guys cave in rather than fight.”

He replied,

“You don’t understand. You haven’t been in my shoes. This is not the way to live. I thought this through and made a decision that looked beyond what is happening now, and considered what kind of future I’m going to have after all of this. I came to a couple of conclusions.
The first conclusion I reached was that if I fight it out, it is gong to cost me what ever I have left. These lawyers are making a fortune off of this. And if I decide to fight it, she has already shown her willingness to drag this out for as long as it takes to get what she wants the most – the business.
Her willingness to negotiate now does not equate to her willing to negotiate for what is fair for both of us. If she really was thinking along those lines, why not call me and present a fair proposal? Instead, she presents me with a proposal that places everything back to status quo.
Why?  Why would she want me back in her life? I allegedly beat her, threatened to kill her, molested her daughter, and she still wants to remain married to me and run a business together? What the fuck is that all about?

It’s all about her!
She sees an advantage for herself in this proposal. She doesn’t really give a shit about me or my feelings in all of this. She only sees what’s best for her, and by remaining together, she re-establishes financial and emotional power. Do you really think that I could live emotionally comfortable in that relationship? You think I wouldn’t live in fear at every little conflict? She knows this. She knows what she’s doing.
But if I fight all this win, do you really think this would be the end of it? She can’t let it go. Her personality has shown this. If the court awarded me the business, this shit would never end. She would find ways to constantly harass me, make my life difficult because she is so emotionally immature. She can’t handle losing. She has to be in control at all times, and when she isn’t, as we have seen, she will engage in unconscious behavior to reclaim that power and control over others.
So after giving it some thought, I realized how this is all about the business. She really believes that the business will make her happy. And when I thought about her life, my life, and the future as a whole, I realized I would be happier without the business, and she would be more miserable with it. So I’m giving her the greatest gift I could think of  – after allshe has put me through.
She honestly thought she was the brains behind the business, but I know she wasn’t. She won’t be able to sustain the business on her own. It’s one thing to assist in running a business, and it’s another to lead the growth of a business. She never understood this, and this was evident by her behavior during this divorce and criminal process. Remember, she called my customers telling them what a monster I was, how I abused her and her daughters, in an effort to destroy my customer base. That is not how you do business. These customers became extremely offended by her behavior, and now she thinks these customers are going to be glad to hear that she is the new owner? They’re going to bolt out the door and take their business elsewhere. She will be saddled with the debt of the business during these bad economic times; the greater debt she is going to assume from the buyout of my portion of the business and assets; the loss of customers; the lack of any real business skills to handle all of this. (She was a bartender before this.)
It was nice when I took care of the pertinent responsibilities and she just assisted and enjoyed the financial windfalls, but now that she has to do it all herself, and actually work hard for that money… she won’t survive, the business will fold.
As for me, I realized I wasn’t going to stay in the business much longer anyways. I knew I wanted to get out and move west, maybe try doing something different in my life. While I wish it didn’t happen this way, I am starting to look at this as a blessing in disguise. I realize I’m just being forced into something I was going to do anyway… just under different conditions than I had planned.
When I began to look at it this way, it became clear to me that giving up the business is the best thing for me. In order to move onto the next level of my life, it requires walking away from the business. Having your own business ties you down. It’s hard to make drastic changes in your life if you have your own business -everything evolves around it.
With the buyout from Judy, I’m actually freed from so much responsibility and commitment that has been an enormous part of my life for over twenty years. I will actually have so many opportunities available to me, things I have thought about doing or trying, but could never attempt because of the commitment to my business.
When I thoroughly thought it over, I realized by turning the business over to Judy I have the opportunity to enter a very exciting time in my life, a very liberating one. Judy will be entering a very constraining and burdensome one.

So I hope you see now where I’m coming from. I’m trying to think long term, not short term. I have everything to gain, she has everything to lose. She’s getting what she wished for. God bless her.”

After hearing Josh out, I agreed that if this is what makes him happy, then he made the right decision. I just expressed my disappointment that it appears so many men are getting their lives turned upside down by false allegations, and yet, most of these men just want to put it all behind them and not fight the system and try to change it. I explained to him I have another lead about a man who was put through the same hell he was, and yet he too doesn’t want to do anything more than just put it behind him. I’m hoping he’ll change his mind and let me tell his story.

“Well,”  Josh said, “This is all contingent on Judy dropping the criminal charges. If she doesn’t follow through with that then I’m going to fight back – hard!”

I asked him what he was going to do if Judy backed out of her agreement. 

He said, “When I had the meeting with her about this proposal, she raised that very question. I told her if she didn’t drop the charges, I would close the business and walk away…sell the building.”
“She looked stunned. She said I can’t do that while all of this is going on. I reminded her that the court has already ruled the business is legally mine. The partnership is 51% to 49% in my favor. And I told her the court can’t stop me from running the business into the ground if I choose. So if this goes on any longer, there will no business to make the money needed to pay the lawyers. We’ll have to pay the lawyers by selling all our assets. When we are done, there will be nothing left. So I told her, do want ever you feel you have to do, and so will I.”

Josh said the look on Judy’s face was priceless. She realized in her scheme she never counted on Josh doing such a thing. The loss of power and control over the situation was evident by the look on her face.
I asked Josh, “Would you really do it?”

He replied, “Absolutely! I told you, my mind is made up. I want out of here, out of this situation. A new life awaits me and I’m excited about it. I’ve already called a friend out west and he said he will let me stay with him for a few months while I get situated. And he owns his own business, and offered me a job until I decide what I’m going to do. I’m ready to go.”

Josh’s criminal trial is at the end of this week. We’ll see how it plays out.

Two hours later while I was writing this Josh called me.

“You are not going to believe what just happened,” he said. “I just got a call from the oldest daughter. They want a secret meeting with me without the lawyers present before the criminal trial this week. Seems they might want to change the agreement.”
With a sense of frustration and pride he said, “Get this shit. Now they admit I did a great job running the business and want to know if I would remain a business partner and run the business for them. Can you believe this shit?”

“Are going to meet them,” I asked.

“I can’t,” Josh said. “There is a restraining order in place. I’ll go to jail if I break it. When I reminded her of this she assured me nothing would happen. Yeah right! Do they think I’m that fucking stupid? They’re up to something. They’re always scheming. I just don’t know what, but I you can bet I’ll find out in about 48 hours.”

Stay Tuned!

Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com


April 21, 2008

A Man In Touch With His Feminine Side: The New Enemy

     A man in touch with his feminine side? After years of pressuring men to accept this, how about we accept the fact that here in America this is an antiquated concept? I say this because as a man, I constantly read articles – almost always by female writers – that remind me that male privilege is alive and well according to them. These women analyze the present social environment and extrapolate data and conditions that they conclude are indications that male dominance and influence hasn’t diminished, it has just evolved, even if the evolution was by their own design.

Before I go any further, let me tell you all a story that will help clarify my position about this phenomenon.

When I was in college I took a class about modern Catholicism; the philosophy, the influence, and the resulting benefits and consequences. The professor, a Catholic theologian, began the first class by introducing himself. He then launched into a harangue about all the problems within the Catholic Church, and detailed how disturbing some of the issues were to him. After twenty minutes, he stopped. He then asked if there were any questions. Numerous hands were raised. He looked at the students and said, “Anybody who is going to ask me why I have remained a Catholic if I feel so negatively about the Church, put your hand down.” All the hands went down. He smiled and said, “That is the first question I am always asked after launching every semester with the same speech, so let me explain.”

I will try to condense and paraphrase what he said.

I think the core philosophy of the Catholic Church is a beautiful thing, but I do not feel it is always carried out the right way. The Church seems to say one thing, and then act in the opposite. When it should be compassionate and change its position, it is defiant. When it needs to stand firm, it gives in. To me, the Catholic Church seems to have lost continuity in its message. In an effort to maintain and gather new followers, the Church is willing to compromise some of its original message. As the mood and beliefs of its followers change, so does the Church. What was wrong yesterday is OK today. What is OK today, will be wrong tomorrow, and so on.
I stay in the Church because I know I can only influence more change and continuity in the Church by being an integral part of it. Being on the inside complaining [of the organization] has more influence than standing on the outside complaining. So I will remain a part of the Church until I die, for better or for worse. 

So what does this have to do female writers and gender issues? A lot from my perspective.

I read an article today my Marie Wilson at the Huffington Post titled, Leading Like a Girl: For Men Only.
She starts her article by informing her readers that the financial genius Warren Buffet actually invests and manages his money like a woman, according to an article written by LouAnn DiCosmo, and published by the Montely Fool. The article looks at the financial differences between men and women and gushes how women are “naturally” better investors than men. And according to this article, Warren Buffet’s financial style is similar to that of women.

But Marie Wilson then continues with more data from a research group which discovered that Fortune 500 companies with a higher percentage of female directors sitting on the board did better financially than those with the lowest percentage of females. She uses these examples to launch into the true purpose of her article – how women are still being discriminated. Huh?

Marie uses the previous examples of female superiority to construct an argument that men who assume feminine qualities are being rewarded more than women are, particularly Barack Obama.
Marie concludes that men find success when they get in touch with their feminine side, and Barack Obama has proven this by successfully displaying the feminine virtues of “inclusivity, sensitivity, and an eye towards thinking outside the box” in his pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination.
But for women, Marie states, it is completely the opposite. If women display traits usually associated with masculinity, they are vilified for doing so. Displaying I’m “man enough for the job”, is suicide according to Marie.

Let me offer my opinion which I think will bring clarity to the situation Marie is talking about. 

In a typical ”women equality” supporter fashion, she excludes herself and other women from any responsibility for their contribution to the situation. Marie tries to blame a sexist society – male dominated, patriarchal, male privileged, etc. – as the reason why women are not allowed to display masculine traits without receiving a societal backlash.
The reality is that Marie, the feminist, and the majority of American women who think like them are responsible for making it impossible for women to express their masculine traits without backlash, not the patriarchy.
The reason being, the women’s movement has successfully convinced our culture – particularly women – that masculinity is inferior to femininity, and masculinity can only be trusted and accepted if it is willing to sacrifice many of its core traits, and replace them with feminine ones. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard that men and masculinity would be “better” if men were to “get in touch” or accept their feminine side. Consequently, our culture does not tell women that femininity is harmful, dangerous, and in disarray, and only the immediate infusion of masculinity in place of femininity’s core traits would solve the problem. That would be considered sexist.

Marie chooses to blame male sexism for the backlash women face when expressing masculine traits, but in reality, it is female sexism towards men and masculinity that is the real perpetrator. After years and years of bitching and complaining about all faults men and masculinity suffer from, while at the same time piously claiming that feminine qualities are superior to masculine ones, explains with utter confidence why society would abhor these qualities when displayed by a woman seeking power. It would be perceived that the woman in question was digressing rather than progressing. At the same time, a man showing feminine qualities is seen as progressing and expanding his potential, personally and professionally.

The solution is easy. If females would drop the egomaniacal behavior that feminine traits are superior to masculine ones, and start showing appreciation and acceptance for masculine behavior and traits, the culture would come to see these qualities in women as an asset rather than obstacle to their ambitions.

Speaking of the female ego, I feel Marie’s analysis reeks of the selfish attitude that is present in many women who speak out within our culture concerning gender issues. As I mentioned earlier, women have pressured men to absorb more feminine traits (their traits), in the belief that this recipe will lead to ”better” men. This in itself is arrogant and selfish, but the more selfish behavior is found when the result of their advocacy is delivered in a way that was unexpected. As more men have assimilated feminine traits into their thoughts and conduct, it is apparent the female wish of feminized men has backfired, becoming advantageous for men in society instead of women.
You see, upon a closer look, it becomes apparent to me that women have only wanted men to become more feminine because they thought there was something in it for them. But when the results are in, and the men who made the changes do become better individuals as planned, and they are recognized for doing so, there is no rejoicing by these women. Why? Because these so-called humanitarians can only focus on the thought that men have somehow “stuck it” to women again.
Men becoming better men was OK as long as women benefitted, but now that the men are actually benefitting from their willingness to accept their feminine side, these women can only scorn and cry sexism. The long term benefit to men, women, and society is ignored. Time has shown it was really all about them all along.

I have seen this in other issues too. Women have been the impetus behind getting men to recognize the restraints and narrow focus of machismo, and telling men of the liberating process of expressing their deeper emotions. One component of this was the ability for men to cry openly without harsh judgments. Today, many men have cried openly on in public and on camera, most notably some of sports most macho guys. But again, as men began to cry, and society embraced these men for doing so, here came the bitch wagon filled with female writers complaining that men who cried were being perceived as more human, more down-to-earth, and more respectable for leaving themselves so vulnerable. However, these female writers complained that when women cry in public, it is perceived as a weakness, and women lose respect because of it.
Maybe this is true, but wouldn’t a woman living in a society where masculinity is respected much as femininity -offering her a chance to display both qualities freely – have her crying subjected to less scrutiny because she also displays strong masculine qualities as well?
Just a thought.

I have also seen this within family issues. Men have been told for years by women to become more involved with their families. Men, they said, needed to step up and become better fathers. 
Men did so, and today, more fathers are involved than ever before in all aspects of raising their children. But no sooner had society begun rejoicing how fathers were gaining momentum and respectability for reconnecting with their parental responsibilities did the female writers begin whining that men who spent more time with their children were receiving more praise than they should. According to these women, mothers should be the ones endowed with overt adulation, not the fathers, because mothers still do more for their children than fathers on any given day. 
Note: Most family court systems overwhelmingly grant child custody to mothers. When it really counts, mothers get the advantage, so this argument is ridicules.

These patterns are repeated constantly in gender issues. Men have been asked, told, maligned, and shamed by women into making changes, only to find that when the changes are made, if the changes result in a greater benefit for men than women, then these men can expect no rewards, praise, or feeling of self confidence for their changes. Instead, the omnipotent gender revolutionist will run these ”better” men out of town.    

This is the selfishness that I feel is persuasive within the women’s equality movement. On the outside it appears to be filled with women that honestly care about not only creating better women, but also concern for creating better men. But when the dust settles, and the results are tabulated, one can guarantee if the benefits do not show an advantage for women, the pendulum swings in the opposite direction. The true ideology of the movement is a selfish one, concerned only with themselves rather than embracing and encouraging everyone’s human capacities, for better or for worse.

Just as my professor of Catholicism saw the Church as an organization with no continuity in its message, and as a result, felt it has lost credibility because of it, I feel the women’s movement has followed the same pattern. Women right’s advocates say one thing and then do another. What is right today will be the wrong tomorrow. 
When the message of the Church does not deliver the desired result expected, it blames the devil. Feminists and their supporters have their own Lucifer to blame for their failures – they call them men. 

If women like Marie want to see women accepted for their masculine traits, the first step would be for women to accept masculinity for what it is. When masculinity can be acknowledged for having all the wonderful qualities that femininity has, and not be perceived as a bastard child of femininity, only then will women feel comfortable to begin freely expressing their inherent masculine side. This is a good educational tool on how maligning men and masculinity will never be “liberating” for women.

So let’s start dropping the whole men and their feminine side garbage. Most men don’t like it, and as we now see, it’s not helping the ladies either.
However, changing women’s attitudes will have to begin on the “inside”. As my professor noted, if one wants to see real change and influence in an organization or movement, one must be an integral part of it. I sure my feminist membership card has been denied. But on the other hand, I’m sure your membership seems to be in good standing Marie.

Good Luck! 


Side Notes

For the record, Warren Buffet learned his “feminine” financial skills from a man. The man’s name was Benjamin Graham, and he was a well known securities analysts who created and taught “value investing” at Columbia University.

And it should be noted, other studies have conclude that men generally do better financially than women because men are willing to take more risks.

Also, the research and advisory group mentioned which found Fortune 500 companies do well with a greater percentage of female board members is a non-profit organization called Catalyst. Their mission is to find ways to get more women into the corporate world. (Read what you want from it, but remember, no organization with a specific mission and goal is going to release data that would deliver a counter argument to its mission, should it come across such data.)


Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com
















April 14, 2008

She Inspired Me, and Yet Depises Me


I ran into an old friend last week. Well, she’s really not my friend, and even if I wanted to be her friend, she would rather burn her skin and soak in a salt-water bath before having anything to do with me. 


Let me explain.


Back in 1998 I had fallen on some rough times. I was working on myself and helping other men do the same when I began an interest in the intimate details of men’s lives. As a man who supported women’s issues for much of my life, as I began to work more with men, I noticed tremendous differences in the way society, research, and psychology approached the genders. To me it appeared the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of women was being placed above men’s. The closer I looked, and the more questions I asked, the common response I received to this inequity was that it is probably true, but it’s only because men have horded the attention for all these years, so now it’s the women’s turn.
I was struck by this heartless and callous attitude in two ways. First, it implied two wrongs make a right. This is something we never teach our children, but here were many adults – male and female -relying on this form of school yard politics to dismiss what I saw as a troubling inequity.
Second, I had to admit that I was guilty of using this excuse myself many times. And now, through my own personal experience and those of other men, I began to realize how damaging this thinking can be. 


I began using the internet looking for research related to men’s issues. At that time, there were hardly and websites devoted to men’s. When I Google today, it is amazing how far we have come, as thousands of sites appear.
But during this time, I ran across an article that would change my life. It was an article about Mary Daly and radical feminism. For the first time in my life, I would see feminism differently because an introduction to Mary Daly and the beliefs of radical feminism would be the catalyst that would cause me to rethink my support for feminism. The deeper I looked, the more startled I became. I felt extremely embarrassed that I was so ignorant as to the details of the feminist movement and felt extremely embarrassed that I had actually defended them on numerous occasions. After reading about Mary Daly, and digging deeper into the history and details of the feminist movement, I would withhold my support for feminism, and take up a new position advocating for men and fathers. I felt this movement was more in line with equality than feminism.


As I introduce Mary Daly and her beliefs, I think you will see this transformation wasn’t a great stretch.  


Mary Daly was once a tenured professor Boston College. In her career she has been labeled a “prophet” and “the grande dame of feminist theology”. She has spent her life educating herself, and in turn, educating others, achieving six graduate degrees in religion, theology, and philosophy. She also has lectured around the world about her spiritual beliefs. She finds all religions to be patriarchal and oppressive to women. This analysis (not really a stretch in my book) of the world’s religions, and her venomous attacks upon them is not her most notable claim to fame. What she will be remembered for the most is her refusal to teach male students at Boston College. At a time when the women’s movement was voicing complaints about the exclusion of women in many areas of society, Mary Daly was openly doing the same to men. She believed, and still does, that a women’s most beautiful moments on earth are brought to fruition when men are absent. Therefore, she would not allow men to “taint” her classroom. She was willing to teach men separately, and did so for a number of years to appease the administration, but having to sit in the presence of men made Mary squirm.
Surprisingly, Boston College did very little to stop it. They would reprimand her, and she would continue. Then another reprimand and Mary would not change anything. And this continued for numerous years. It all came to head after a male student sued the college after being denied access to the “women only” classes. Only when faced with a lawsuit the college knew it could not defend itself against did the administration initiated a serious look at the years of discrimination taking place by Daly at the college. The college finally did the right thing and forced her out… well, in this case, forced her into retirement. And Mary did not go without a fight, filing her own lawsuit against her forced resignation.


But let’s get to the details of Mary Daly and radical feminism. All of its creepiness came back to me after I read this interview with her at a religious website 

Here are a few quotes to get us started: 


“I don’t think about men. I really don’t care about them. I’m concerned with women’s capacities, which have been infinitely diminished under patriarchy. Not that they’ve disappeared, but they’ve been made subliminal. I’m concerned with women enlarging our capacities, actualizing them. So that takes all my energy. I’m not interested in the differences between women and men. I really am totally uninterested in men’s capacities. If you’ve read my books, you might notice that I don’t talk about their capacities.”


Not the worst I’ve heard, but wait, it gets better. 


I was brought up in the patriarchal way of thinking. I spent years in school getting degree after degree after degree taught by patriarchs. At Fribourg I was with all male fellow students: two hundred seminarians and priests and me. I know how they think and I abhor it.


What I’m concerned with is the war between biophilia and necrophilia. It’s love of life versus hatred of life. Necrophilia translates strictly into love of death, or loving the dead—actually f—ing corpses. And in general, patriarchal culture is necrophilic, fixated on hatred of life and love of death.


There is a tremendous uniqueness, but that uniqueness surfaces only when you have a predominantly female mode of being that is at the same time daringly, forcefully breaking out of the patriarchal mode of thinking. So, no, I don’t feel at all like a human being. I hate the “human species”—look at it! I hate what it is doing to this earth: the invasion of everything. The last two frontiers are the genetic wilderness and the space wilderness; they’ve colonized everything else. It’s a totally invasive mentality—rapist.


What Mary is talking about is her belief that women are at the core of spirituality. She sees women and femininity as having an interconnectedness with nature, the earth, the universe, etc. She says men and the patriarchy have tried to destroy this because this is what men and masculinity does – destroy things. She does not see herself as a human being because to her, that viewpoint is limiting, but she also despises it because it was constructed by the patriarchy.  


As one reads Mary Daly’s beliefs about our world, it is evident she dismisses and despises any references to standard or historical beliefs, ideas, philosophies, etc., because these beliefs and perceptions were created by men; therefore, these standards are greatly tainted and distorted by the masculine ego and are considered to hold no value to her, or to what she perceives as absolute reality. She believes true spirituality and “be-ing”ness is found only in females and femininity. Men, she believes, are completely devoid of this.   


But let’s continue with some more of her quotes concerning her beliefs:   


If we lived in a gynocentric [female] society, first of all, it wouldn’t be matriarchal; it wouldn’t be like patriarchy transposed with big mama on top instead of big papa. It would be totally different, and I believe that it was before patriarchy came—this evil. And men would be different, too. They would not have been socialized into this—assuming that they have been socialized into it and they’re not all mutants—they would be different because the female way of seeing things would be, I don’t want to say “dominant” because that’s a patriarchal word, but it would be all-pervasive.

Mary Daly has been one of the prominent influences in modern theology which has challenged the idea and belief that God is masculine. She has worked extensively to eradicate this belief, but in its place, tries to convince others that God, or Mother Earth – as she sometimes refers – should be seen as female rather that male, but only if we choose to assign a sex to something that she believes is essentially gender neutral.

When challenged by male theologians whether that thought processes is just the same patriarchal sexism in reverse (and just as dangerous), Mary states,  


Well, it’s not totally adequate because it assumes that there are two sexes throughout the universe. These are the models for reality, and I don’t know if there are a hundred sexes or if sex would be of any interest whatsoever in some system other than our solar system. How can I know? So it’s limited, but insofar as our experience gives us images, certainly the female is more appropriate for talking about nurturing life, loving and creativity on every level. If you have to choose between the two, female obviously is better. And I don’t even have to choose between the two; I mean, the other isn’t worth consideration anymore. It’s just hanging all over putridly.


When discussing how women struggle for “enlightenment” in religions that see them as having less value than men, she says,   


I don’t know what “enlightened” means. It’s not a word that’s in my vocabulary. This is like a Christian woman being upset over something that Paul said, instead of seeing that of course he’s an asshole. He’s one more very macho asshole described as a saint and as enlightened, and once you get over that, you get over it.


Mary is asked about her latest book in which she writes about a utopian society located on its own continent, but surrounded by other societies in the world that are of mixed gender. Of course in Mary’s book, the supreme society is the all-female society:  


It’s a description of an alternative future. It’s there partly as a device and partly because it’s a dream. There could be many alternative futures, but some of the elements are constant: that it would be women only; that it would be women generating the energy throughout the universe; that much of the contamination, both physical and mental, has been dealt with.


She is then asked about the belief that some “thinkers” have put forward stating that if our world is going to survive the future, it must become female dominated. Mary responds,   


I think it’s not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.


To get a greater understanding of Mary, one needs to read the whole interview. If you are a woman reading it, her beliefs will probably make you feel a sense of empowerment. If you are a man, then her beliefs will definitely disturb you on many levels. And that is the beauty of Mary’s philosophy. While trying to break down the dominance of patriarchy in religion and society, she essentially is doing nothing more than creating a matriarchy that does the same thing.   


Here are the most notable contradictions I found in her beliefs:


·      Mary says women have a natural “interconnectedness’ with everything in the universe. But she indulges in nothing but contempt and hate for half the world’s population. This is what she calls a natural ”interconnectedness”? 


·      She claims that once women are educated into her way of thinking, they will finally “get it”. To me this is just a re-packaging of the elitist mentality found in many of the male dominated religions. Look at Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, etc., and one will always find a spiritual road map or goal that leads to not just enlightenment, but to those individuals that achieve “it”, they are rewarded with an egocentric and pious recognition from others that they finally “get it”, and are considered superior to others. Mary’s philosophy is no better than the patriarchy’s.   


·     When asked about the reputation that feminism has always been good at blaming men for all their problems, and that her approach is grounded in this same behavior, Mary engages in a creative, intellectual argument that essentially says, if women are blaming men for everything, then its cause is predicated by something men have done. So she essentially goes full circle, blaming the men for causing the feminist to blame men. However, when asked about male writers and philosophers that have challenged her, and other feminist, about their intellectual contraventions, at one point she says that the patriarchs have just come up with more sophisticated arguments these days.
Hmmmm! Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black?
She says its not worth her time to argue with these men and the patriarchy because they are only trying to find superiority over women in every situation. She then reiterates that the inadequasies of men is why they just don’t “get it”, thereby implementing her superiority over them – the very same superiority trait she abhors in men. 


·      Lastly, she tries to convey a message of hope, joy, self awareness, and physical, mental, and spiritual interconnectedness in this physical universe upon women by way of her teachings. She does this by holding beliefs that are toxic, hateful, disturbing, discriminatory, hypocritical, marginalizing, angry, and heartless to name a few. Seeing she has completed six graduate degrees, and considering I’m male, she will have to explain to me how this pathway to eternal bliss while carrying all of this negative baggage works. 


Strangely, I and Mary do agree on some points. I have always found religions to be extremely sexists. It always disturbs me to how the major religions think women are less connected to God than men, and that a woman’s view of her relationship with God, and how it affects her relationship with others is any less important than a man’s. And I agree with Mary that religions have always been at the core of creating and perpetuating most of the “isms” in the world.


However, I find her approach towards fixing the problem totally disgusting. Mary Daly reminds me of the saying, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” She has established her own world of discrimination to fight the one she lives in now.  


Mary Daly will always be in my heart though. It was her aggressive and vengeful thinking that made me take notice of what really went on in feminist circles. After much research, I discovered that Mary’s radical feminism is just an extension of mainstream feminism. Fundamental use of hypocrisy, sexism, blame, and superiority to implement change are present in both mainstream and radical feminism. It was this discovery that forced me to withdraw my support for anything that embodied feminism. I believe in equality for everyone, but my methods for getting there are different. I’m waiting for a group of women and men to come together who believe that equal rights for all begins with credible intensions and dialogue. I see it coming one day, but it seems to be arriving slower than I would like. 


But in the meantime – while I’m waiting – I could always read Mary Daly and remember why the long wait is worth it.





April 8, 2008

Manipulating – This is What Feminism Looks Like

A new PR campaign to promote feminism reminds me of my children; shove everything under the bed where mom or dad can’t see it, then presto, the room appears clean and tidy.
This same tactic is being used for a promotional video put out by the Feminist Majority. In the video, numerous well-known Hollywood actors, male and female, offer their opinions and perceptions on what it means to be a feminist.
I have to admit the production is well crafted, and will be very influential when viewed by the general public.
In its purest form, the ideology of feminism cannot be argued: Equality for men and women that transcend all aspects of life.
And this is the image and mood the video embraces. But as we all know, the devil is in the details.

This video chooses to present feminism as a historical movement that was essential in achieving many of the gains women enjoy today, and how it is still essential to address the modern day inequities that still persist. It also presents the feminist movement as a historically benevolent movement that is embolden through its use of compassion, pragmatic thinking, selfless activism, and the deep desire to help those who are marginalized in society.

So I thought, if feminist and their movement truly embody these altruist qualities, why the need to promote themselves? As the saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words”. 

This is what troubled me the most about the video. This contradiction concerning the need for feminist to promote themselves in spite of all the humanitarian, legendary, and iconic events it claims it has been responsible for. 

To put it in perspective, did Mother Teresa have to promote herself? Did Gandhi have to promote himself? Did Dr. Martin Luther King have to promote himself? These individuals never engaged in self promoting. Their messages were extremely powerful, but only because their actions ultimately provided the catalyst that fueled and validated their messages. And by action, I mean using the appropriate methods to carry out the message by maintaining a standard of integrity, morality, and ethical behavior.

It should also be noted that each of the people I mentioned was greatly humbled, meaning they understood the power of humility. Thus, in order to change others, it meant they themselves must be willing to acknowledge their own faults, and be willing to change also. Therefore, the act of humility brought creditability to them as individuals, and ultimately, brought credibility to their message and their movement.
The feminist have to promote themselves because they have no humility. They have lost creditability with the general public, and more importantly, with the majority of women. They have used sexism to fight sexism, stereotypes to fight stereotypes, and have avoided accountability for their questionable behavior while forcing others to be held accountable for theirs.
Therefore, it appears to me the vague and opaque message about what feminism really means in the video was intentional, because if any amount of clarity seeped in, the benevolent, altruistic image of feminism would begin to deteriorate rapidly.

Let me present my view of the feminist movement with respect to some of the views that are offered in the video:

  • One woman says feminism is not about hating men.


As a man who grew up during the feminist movement, I have been bombarded with aggressive, sexist, and discriminatory comments about men from feminist icons. Let me provide an example:

Marilyn French:

Not many men have both good fortune and good sense.

Men stumble over pebbles, never over mountains.

Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, their codes.

Gloria Steinem:

A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual. 

— If women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn’t it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long?

— Pornography is the instruction. Rape is the practice, battered women are the practice, and battered children are the practice.

Andrea Dworkin:

A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.

Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it.

Men know everything – all of them – all the time – no matter how stupid or inexperienced or arrogant or ignorant they are.

The hate and contempt for men within the feminist movement is well documented. However, not one powerful feminist will step forward and admit this truth without conditions. Nor will they apologize for letting the movement become embroidered with such gender hatred, or make a serious commitment to vilify one of their own who has preached male sexism, as they have done to many men found guilty of sexist behavior towards women.

  • Another woman says feminism is about treating women not as somebody special, but just as equals.

Then why do feminist spend so much time in Washington, and in the family court systems across the nation, fighting for special privileges for women?
Feminist fight any legislation that would ensure child custody cases automatically assume joint custody unless conditions prove otherwise. They favor legislation that conforms to custody inherently belonging to the mother – yet they claim they want no special privaleges.
They fight any legislation that awards resources to male victims of domestic violence, and have been known to walk out of domestic violence seminars when male victims are discussed, because they find male victims irrelevant. This despite their vocalization for men and women to be treated as equals.
They fight any legislation that would bring serious consequences to women who falsely accuse men of rape, sexual assault, or domestic violence, because according to them, it could cause more consequences for true victims trying to find justice.
So the pain and destruction of men’s lives perpetuated by unconscionable female behavior is ignored by feminist who, by their own actions, show feminists put more value on the well-being of women first, rather than show concern for the safety and justice for both men and women. Five men mistakenly sent to prison is nothing more than collateral damage in their process to ensure one true female victim of violence is not hindered in her pursuit of justice. This is their “equality”.

  • One woman implies feminism is about self confidence. She says that if a woman is self confident, then this confidence will be experienced in the bedroom. She then gives the stereotypical provocative wink and nod. Another woman states that if she wants to wear a really short skirt, then she is no less a feminist for doing so.

If there is one aspect of gender politics that irritates me the most, it is the blatant hypocrisy of how feminist, and females in general, approach female sexuality.
Feminist make it clear that the use of female sexuality to sell or promote products/events is sexist, degrading, and is a symbol of male dominance of women. Yet, here they are using the same tactics to promote feminism. I mean, I have to assume the bedroom reference was put in not just for women, but also to appeal to male viewers. Otherwise, why the provocative wink and nod? 
I’ve written about this situation before, and here is my conclusion: Using female sexuality to sell or promote products/events is OK if the beneficiary is a woman – otherwise it’s sexist.
And a woman can flaunt her sexuality all she wants, but if a man mistakens her flaunting for something more, it’s his fault.
Women play both sides of the fence with their sexuality, vacillating between victim status and empowerment status, depending on which position gives them the most power. And feminists are no different.

  • Michael Moore says we [men] have held all the power for ten thousand years and look what we have done with it, implying men have failed miserably.

Well Michael, if I use you as an example, I think us men have done quite well with it. The industry in which you make your living was created by men, and this male industry has helped you gain incredible financial success. Also, this male environment has also provided you with considerable status that most people will never see. And you achieved your success by creating documentaries that have challenged the actions and behavior of some of the most powerful industries and individuals in the world, and you’re not imprisoned, or exiled for doing so. This is because you live in one of the most emulated democracies in the world, which by the way, was idealized, constructed, and actualized by men. 
You’ve done very well in this f***ed up male dominated system, and I don’t recall hearing that you’re sacrificing all your privileges and gains within it, in an attempt to show commitment to your beliefs.

It is well documented that feminism is not the benevolent, altruistic movement the video tries to portray it as. The actions of feminism, historically and presently, do not corroborate the words and images portrayed in the video. This is why it is forced to launch a PR campaign. A campaign such as this is usually reserved for those that have fallen out of favor with public opinion. And feminism is definitely in that category, with polls showing most women who believe in women’s rights refuse to call themselves feminist – a big red flag for their movement.

But as I have shown, feminism has no one to blame but themselves. It has spent years holding others accountable for their malevolent actions, but refuses to honestly acknowledge or rectify their own. Feminism will never achieve the status or image they desire until they first achieve the arduous trait of humility. This is a form of empowerment shared by all real altruistic individuals and organizations, and it brings validity and credibility to their causes. It embodies the spirit that we come together through our imperfections, not become more divisive because of them.

Sadly, for all its self-aggrandizing about teaching empowerment, this movement cannot, and has never shown an ounce of humility. It refuses to acknowledge that it has made any serious mistakes. I liken the feminist movement, and this new promotional video as a modern day re-creation of the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
The day I see a video that celebrates the achievements of feminism, along with a sincere look at its faults and consequences – by feminist themselves – is the day I know the feminist movement has matured.

Until then, I guess were subjected to watching videos of feminism as seen through their own rose colored glasses, their own limited clarity, and their own recognition as society’s panacea. In other words, if we really want a true picture of feminism, we need make sure we look under the bed.

Video: This is What Feminism Looks Like
Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com


April 7, 2008

In the News…

Here are my picks from the web over the last couple of weeks that I will share with my readers. 

Menstrual Poetry

This is a great feminist read. It is a monthly news letter covering feminist thought on various topics. I absolutely love it because it gives great validation concerning every opinion I have about feminism. In this newsletter, you can find out just how terrible men are, and how women can find a way to blame men for everything. I think the title should have been “It’s All Your Fault”.
But don’t you just love the title? Feminist have cried about the derogatory and sexist words and phrases perpetuated by the patriarchy. What a paradigm shift, don’t you agree? 
A must read for any MRA because validation of our perceptions concerning feminism are accomplished by the babes themselves. Less work, more time to play!

Husbands create 7 hours of extra housework a week: study

Here is the blame and shame game being directed towards men again. In this study, we find out that when women marry, their husbands cause them seven extra hours of work a week. But first, let me give credit where credit is due. The article does mention the reality of household management. It does state that while marriage causes women to work more at home, it is a natural balancing act between men and women because the husband works more hours out of the home. I can only think this intellectual assessment was included because of all the arduous advocacy done by MRA’s to raise awareness to the mythology that men sit around and do nothing, while women are overburdened when it comes to family management.
However, I have one serious bitch. The story itself will be ignored while the disparaging sexist title is the only part everyone – especially women – will remember.

A degree of difficulty for feminism as students change the subject

This article points out the diminishing number of women studies graduates. It seems today’s young women are more interested in getting a degree that will translate into cold hard cash. So it seems feminism has done its job. Young women today are earning their independence through education, which in turn gives them financial independence, which in turn reinforces their self-esteem, which in turn reinforces the belief that a woman doesn’t need a man. Feminism, it seems, has truly led to the liberation of women.
Let’s reflect.
Today’s women focus on their careers, tenasiously driven by the need to sustain financial independence and stability. They bypass marriage as their own desires and needs become the ultimate priority. And when they are ready to settle down and marry, THEY will make this choice – nobody will pressure them into it.

So you see, feminism was all about turning women into men; shockingly distant admirers of men and masculinity, taking notes and using deceptive measures to make it appear that they really despised men and masculinity. Who knew? How come we didn’t see this sooner?


From the ”Succesful females that sexualize themselves” files:

Audrina Patridge of the hit MTV show “The Hills” was discovered to have taken part in nude photos before her rise to fame. But why did she do the photo shoots? Because she thought it would lead to fame. This is what she had to say:

I took these photos years ago when I was just out of high school and beginning to model. I was young and very trusting of others and I didn’t know to protect myself. It is a lesson learned, for myself, and hopefully for the young girls who look up to me.

So her message to young girls is not to be manipulated into using your sexuality to achieve fame and fortune – unless of course you are her. After all, she did a nude photo shoot to achieve fame and fortune, and she now has – fame and fortune.
And Audrina really showed how serious she is about her “message” when just this past month she appeared at Sin City’s Pussycat Dolls Lounge as a guest doll wearing what Fox News reported was “a super-sexy rhinestone studded get-up with fishnet stockings and a sequined hat. She later returned to the spotlight to flash a lot more flesh in itty-bitty black hotpants with a pink feather boa.”

Fox also reported, “Audrina, meanwhile, is lapping up the extra attention and sensibly using it to pump up her profile” referring to her nude scandal. As a matter of fact, Audrina and her “people” are gushing with excitement due to the publicity the scandal has delivered for the young actress. Fox News reports, ” So if she is smart about it, Audrina may very well be the next Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian with millions of dollars to prove it.”

With an advocate like Audrina, we should see more young girls getting the message that sexualizing themselves to get ahead is a dead-end street. After all, look how tragic it’s been for her.

Carla Bruni-Sarkozy: A nude photo of France’s first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy is to be auctioned off at a sale next month in New York City, an auction house said. The photo is expected fetch $3,000 to $4,000 at the auction.

Aren’t we glad how these successful woman reinforce the belief in our young women that their sexuality is not the key to success? 


A Playboy Model’s Cinderella Story: Here is a feel good story. Maria de Lujan Telpuk is a well known heroine in Argentina. Now known as the “suitcase girl”, Maria was asked one day to work security at the Buenos Aires airport. Working for Argentina’s National Aeronautics, she began her security duties in the VIP section when suddenly she discovered a suitcase filled with three quarters of a million dollars. The suitcase belonged to a powerful business man who has been linked to Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela. The legal limit in Argentina for undeclared currency is $10,000. 
Instead of taking a bribe, Maria turned him in, setting off a political firestrom for the region’s politicians, but gaining respect and heroine status from the general public.   

So what did Maria do with her new found fame and status? Just what every girl does in these situations; she determined it was time to get breast implants and pose for Playboy. Another distinguished mentor for our young women!

(OK, for those that are doing research on breast augmentation, or plan on becoming plastic surgeons, here are the pictures.)  


The Pussy Cat Dolls: This favorite, all female band, of preteen and early teen girls has come out with their own lingerie collection which reveals lots, and lots of flesh.
Perfect! What else do you get the growing teen girl who has everything?

No Punishment: Teacher Posts Dominatrix Pics With Students on Website (video):  A photo of a teacher dressed as a dominatrix, and shown dominating one of her scantily clad students, was found on the teachers website. However, the school does not believe this interferes with her ability to teach, and decided she will receive no punishment. The teachers excuse? It was part of her cirriculaum for the creative writing class she taught.

What? Did her whip have a ball point pen on the end of it?

There you have it! This is proof that men and the patriarchy are responsible for degrading and sexualizing women. One cannot challenge this kind of data!

From “Fighting the myth ‘Men are Monsters, Women are Martyrs’ Files”:

Broken Bones, Fractured Skull: Mother Accused Of Viciously Beating 7-Week-Old: Mother beats child so bad he is not expected to live. This same woman had been investigated over another abuse charge concerning her daughter, but nobody was looking out for her son.

Woman gets death sentence in fetus-snatching murder: A woman convicted of murdering an expectant mother and kidnapping the baby from her womb received a federal death sentence. Lisa Montgomery, convicted of killing a pregnant woman, joins two other women on federal death row. U.S. District Judge Gary Fenner handed down the sentence in Kansas City, Missouri, on Friday. Lisa Montgomery becomes only the third woman on federal death row.

Only the third woman on death row? Boy it really sucks being a woman living in this male dominated world.

Woman Gets 99 Years in Killing Plot: A former stripper-turned-soccer-mom convicted of plotting to kill her former fiancé 12 years ago was sentenced Wednesday to 99 years in prison.
Mechele Linehan, 35, who until her arrest had been living a quiet life as the wife of an Olympia, Wash., doctor, was convicted in October of first-degree murder in the 1996 shooting death of Kent Leppink. Anchorage Superior Court Judge Philip Volland called the crime the worst in its category: premeditated, cold and cruel. The motive was a $1 million insurance policy that Linehan mistakenly believed named her as the beneficiary, prosecutors said.

Sounds to me like there should be four women on death row. Anybody have the guts to say “female privilage”?

Year’s jail for ‘wicked’ false rape accusation: A woman who falsely accused a soldier of rape has been described as “wicked” by the judge who sentenced her to a year in jail. Amanda Lang, 21, had consensual sex with Lance Corporal Philip Trowell after drinking with him at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire. The act took place in Lang’s bedroom which she shared with her pilot boyfriend. The court heard that after sex Lang started to cry, saying she felt guilty. Once L/Cpl Trowell had left, she complained to neighbours that she had been raped.
Lang sobbed as Judge Julian Hall, at Oxford Crown Court, sentenced her to one year in prison and told her: “What you did was wicked. That is the evil of what you did – it undermines the whole process. This is a case where a message has to be sent out to everybody that false allegations of rape are insidious to a degree.”

It’s nice to see the courts are finally realizing how damaging false allegations are, not only to the victim, but to society overall. But sentencing her to one year in jail is a slap on the wrist. She’ll be out long before the year is over, so the message sent is a weak one. (Note: She had sex with this man in the bed she shares with her boyfriend, and then had the audacity to accuse him of disgusting, immoral behavior. What a piece of work she is.)

Now woman in YouTube ‘rape’ is arrested over underage sex allegations: It was the shocking video that caused outrage and led to calls for YouTube to vet all its content. The three-minute clip, filmed on a mobile phone, apparently showed a young and unconscious mother being gang raped as she lay helpless in her own home. It was posted on the popular video-sharing website, which is owned by Google, within hours of the incident on November 6 and was viewed more than 600 times. The clip stayed on the website for three months after YouTube staff failed to remove it.
The alleged victim claims it shows her being raped by three boys in front of her screaming children, aged two and four, after being drugged.
But yesterday it was revealed that the 24-year-old woman has now been arrested on suspicion of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old and perverting the course of justice.
Scotland Yard confirmed it will take no further action against two 16-year-olds and a 14-yearold arrested in February in connection with the video.

Is this woman the sister of the one above, or is this behavior becoming a trademark characteristic of femininity?

Thief slithers away with a big snake — in her pants: Police in Michigan’s capital are searching for a woman who stuffed a baby boa constrictor down her pants and slipped away from a local pet store, the Lansing State Journal tells us. Security cameras recorded the heist yesterday, the owner of Preuss Animal House told the LSJ. (Like USA Today, it’s owned by Gannett.) The woman opened a glass case, snatched the snake and jammed it you-know-where.

Well… I can’t… it’s too easy.






Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com




April 6, 2008

An Hour With J. Soltys


Here is my podcast for the week. My podcasts attempt to balance the dichotomy of looking seriously at issues affecting men and fathers, and at the same time, trying to make it entertaining by the inclusion of typical male humor. It can be listened to or downloaded here

This week I fly solo again, covering topics that include:

— A humorous look at Hillary Clinton’s analogy to the movie persona Rocky Balboa which includes an exclusive interview with Hillary herself!

— A Colorado college found two male students guilty of violating school policy after mocking a project by a college feminist group because it contained offensive material. However, both groups used similar material in their projects, but the female students received no punishment.

— A new study shows that men and women behave differently when acknowledging the subtleties of dating cues. Is the research sexist towards men?

— Joe gives his salute to the beginning of the baseball season and wonders what baseball will be like this year without Barry Bonds, which ends with a comedic honoring of the controversial legend.

Musical guest this week: Delilah Why performing Givin It and the Joel Lightman Band performing Good Bye, Good Luck, Good Riddance.

(Correction: During the show, I mistakenly called Delilah Why “Delilah” and their song Givin It “Why Givin It”. I apologize to the band and my listeners.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.