My Articles for The False Rape Society -- Part Three

Back in 2010 or so, I answered a call for writers issued by Pierce Harlan, owner of a blog title The False Rape Society. The blog existed to showcase the prevalence and type of false accusations of rape, primarily as they appeared in news reports, and related subjects.  He was looking for someone to write about rape culture. I didn't know anything about it, and I thought learning about it might make for some good articles for the FRS blog, so I sent him an e-mail.

He took me up on it. If memory serves, I was to write an article every other week, to appear on Fridays, although that was changed to weekly at some point. I already knew I did not do well writing under deadlines, and I lasted a little over a year. Part of the way through my time with the FRS, my subject matter was enlarged from Rape Culture 101 or Gender 101. I wrote about forty articles.

The archives of The False Rape Society are still online, although the comments have been removed. In 2013, the blog was moved ant the named changed to The Community of the Wrongly Accused. Visit, follow the links below:

The False Rape Society        ~        The Community of the Wrongly Accused

I will gradually post my articles from The False Rape Society here, and will create a hyperlinked index as time allows. 

 Feminism and Misandric Men 

Over the  years that I've been online, I've encountered all types and levels of feminists. There are earnest feminists, like I wrote about last time; I've had the most experience with them.  There are the fanatical Dworkin wannabees; haven't had much personal dealings with these folks, though their writings are easily accessible online.
There are the ditzy-broad types, the squealy, over-grown girls who conceptualize feminism as just another part of the popular culture that's "in" -- like texting or Mad Men. These are women who have no inkling of the horrific damage feminism has done to western culture, male-female relationships, and the family, nor the danger it poses for the future. I am completely at a loss about how to deal with these girls.

But the most frustrating type of feminist I've ever encountered are male. They're not just dedicated feminists; they're also hard-core misandrists, and they're some of the most rigid, close-minded folks I've ever encountered.  They are the fundamentalist extremists of the gender politics world.

The required beliefs and attitudes are engraved in granite with them. Women are totally inmocent and never lie about rape, never falsely accuse. Men, enforcers and beneficiaries of patriarchy, are apt to rape without thought or conscience. We're steeped in a culture of rape; it's what men use to keep women in a state of fear; to keep her under his thumb, or his heel. Because for men, oppression of women is what it's all about.

On the rare occasions when women to do slip up and lie, steal, abuse their kids, cheat on their husbands or shoot somebody -- they aren't doing it because they're bad, the way men are. They're ill. Or they're disadvantaged. Or they've been pushed, usually by some man, to the point of desperation. 
Most of these misandric fellows I've encountered are old enough to remember the second-wave days when bra-burning feminists marched arm in arm across the landscape with tie-dyed war protesters, dope smokers, campus in-sitters and sexual revolutionaries. They've got not just rape culture but the whole oppressed-women repertoire down pat. And it is absolutely pointless to reason with them.

They fluently spout the statistic that women make seventy-nine cents for every dollar a man makes, but go stone cold deaf when it's explained to them that women do seventy percent of the work men do. They decry the glass ceiling in the boardroom, but don't seem at all concerned that feminists leaders aren't jumping up and down to Title Nine mining, construction and logging, the most dangerous jobs in the job market, held almost exclusively by men.  And they have no appreciation for the fact that ninety-three percent of workplace fatalities occur to men. So much for equality.

In the past, these fellows tell me, women attempted to break into some of these all-male bastions, but were met with such harassment -- peepholes drilled in restroom walls, for example -- that they gave up. Women are strong and capable; they can mine or timberjack, do anything a man can do.  But they're too delicate to stick a wad of Bubble Yum over a peephole? Please.

Well, if working is such a trauma, why do feminists discourage women from homemaking? Because, these guys will tell you, stay-at-home wife-and-mothering -- cleaning, cooking, laundry -- is drudgery.  

"Really?" I ask. "Punching microwave buttons is drudgery?"

"Cleaning toilets is drugery."

I'm astounded, and I wonder how dirty a male misandrist's toilet has to get before he cleans it.  I mean, my gosh, a squirt of The Works, a swish of the brush, flush, you're all done. A career woman living alone would have to clean her own toilet unless she's rich enough to hire a maid. But when there's a husband and kid in the household, it suddenly becomes drudgery?

For women, marriage is slavery, these guys think.  They're bought into the whole cockamamie, Betty Friedan, suburban concentration camp meme.To my way of thinking, in a traditional marriage, it's more likely for the man to be enslaved to a job to provide for a family. Of course, I don't think most men see it that way. Most of the men I've know see it as a responsibility, a facet of their masculine role and a way of demonstrating their love for their family.

Thus, if a man goes out to work -- sometimes to risk his life in a deadly profession -- in order to provide for his family, I don't think he's asking too much for his wife to keep the house clean, to take care of the kids, and share intimacy with him.

As long as she's asked, I'm told.  It's when it's expected, demanded, that it becomes slavery for the women. 

I'm not making this up. This is how hard core male misandric feminists think. Which is purely ridiculous, when you consider it. Certain expectations are in place as soon as the preacher says, "You may kiss the bride," that render most day-to-day "asking" unnecessary.

Do these misandrists really think a wife has to wake up every morning and ask, "Honey, would you mind going to work today and making money so  we can buy something to eat?" And the husband has to ask, "Sure thing, babe. Would you mind cooking us some breakfast?" And if these things are not asked, the clinking sound you hear are leg-irons magically clamping around her ankles?

Where do these bizarre ideas come from? Traditional marriage is not slavery. A wife expecting a husband to take care of the family is not slavery; a husband expecting a wife to take care of the house and kids and share a sexual relationship with him is not slavery. Marriage where both husband and wife work outside the home and share housekeeping chores and child-rearing  is not slavery, either.

Conversing with one of these fellows is sometimes like talking to two people at once. Women are slaves when they need them to be slaves; strong when they need them to be strong.  Women are timid, easily offended little violets when they need them to be, and brilliant and capable when they need them to be. It all depends on what case the misandric feminist male is trying to make. There's something about women and oppression they just can't shake loose from.

The best way to describe my encounters with these dudes is teeth-gnashing and hair-pulling (my own, yes). The only bright side of my experience with them is that there doesn't seem to be very many of them. The intellect and temperament of the majority of men, thank goodness, will not accomodate such nonsense.

My Comfortable Suburban Concentration Camp -- Not

Many years ago, when I was a young woman, I tried to read The Feminine Mystique. I don't remember how far into it I got before I couldn't read anymore, or what specific bit of nonsense made me close the book.

But I don't think you have to read the whole thing to know it for what it is--leftist propaganda. 

My apologies to any liberals in the FRS readership. Liberalism and leftism share some similarities, some overlap, but they aren't the same thing. As a staunch cultural and political conservative, even I have some liberal leanings now and then, on some subjects. 

For example, I don't mind a taxpayer financed safety net for families with children who are facing unexpected financial difficulties through no fault of their own. Sometimes, there's just nobody else to do it.

What I do mind is generational dependence on the government, the learned helplessness as a way of life, largely because of the absence of a father in the family, which I perceive to be directly related to the grip feminism has on our culture.

I got nothing against, say, women voting -- although I am happy to admit the country got along just fine before women got the franchise.  Well...except for tha civil war, although I don't see how female suffrage would have made much difference in that.

What I do object to is feminism's destruction of the family and its war against men, seen nowhere more clearly than in the false rape epidemic chronicled daily in this blog.

And while there are a multitude of hardworking feminists, famous and obscure, who share culpability for bringing our culture to the sorry state it's in now, nobody is more responsible than Betty Friedan, author of the aforementioned destructive tome, and founder of the National Organization for Women.

I never had the "problem with no name." Most of the women I've known never had it, either.  For us, the question wasn't, "Is this all?" It was, "Can I go on break now?"

It takes only a glimpse of my background to see why I can't relate to Freidan's world, and her complaint, at all.

My maternal grandmother came down out of the mountains to go to work in a cotton mill -- at age thirteen.  She met my grandfather there. They both worked in the mill until they retired, and raised five successful daughters while doing so.

My paternal grandmother was widowed when a horrific car-train collision took the life of her husband, two days before her youngest child was born.  She never remarried, but raised her five sons herself, with a little help from her own parents.

My mother worked outside the home most of her adult life. In our world, husbands and fathers were the breadwinners. They headed the household and directed the family. Wives and mothers took care of the home and children, and helped out with a supplemental income when they could.  Marriage and parenting was a cooperative effort. 

Comfortable suburban concentration camps?  Not in my experience. It took both parents working hard, and some blood and sweat, and occasional tears, to make it; but by and large people were happy in their family accomplishments. 

I sincerely believe the women of the two previous generations were far stronger than mine and those that have followed. There are a lot of things I can't forgive feminism for, but turning two generations of women into perpetural, whining children, with false rape accusers sprinkled liberally among their numbers, rates near the top.

Helpers and Companions

By now, people who've read a few of my essays likely know that my opposition to feminism is rooted in my religious beliefs, which form the basis of my cultural, political and all other views.  Almost everything about my beliefs make feminists and progressives absolutely bonkers, but nothing drives them insane like this one, articulated succinctly by the protagonist in my novel:

“She was trying to be helpful. That’s what women do, because that’s how God made them—to be helpers and companions to men." ~Troy Stevenson (from Southern Man by Connie Chastain)
Men are doers, accomplishers. Women are helpers and companions. It takes both to have a successful human race.

Feminism, as a subset of socialism, which is hostile to religion, views the female role of helper and companion as second-class. They've even gone so far as to characterize it as "oppression".  Never mind that this helping role kept them in a protected status for most of the existence of the human race -- not totally free from danger and death, but far more protected men who were doing the protecting and providing. 

Besides, what is secondary about such a vital role? What is second-class about enabling men to fulfill their role as men? What is inferior about bearing and caring for children, ensuring that society will continue successfully? And it's a two-way street; men fulfilling their roles enable women to be successful in theirs, so how can either of them be considered second-class?

The envy women feel for man's place in human society betrays an abysmal lack of understanding of the very reason two roles exist. If Adam could have done it all, why was a helper needed?  And if Eve had been just a carbon copy of Adam, how could she have helped?  What new capabilities could she have added?

But if you want to be a revolutionary, if you want to turn culture and the social order  upside down, nothing succeeds like exploiting an aggrieved population.  The feminist/progressive revolutionary's first job was to create the aggrievement, then to exploit it.  Modern advances, which rendered the helper role progressively easier for women, created a class with idle time on its hands easily filled with aggrievement.

We all know the rest.  The marching and chanting, the bra-burning, the organizing, the political bullying.  The encouragement to abandon home and family.  The usually unarticulated, indeed, unacknowledged but very real hatred of children and motherhood that results in a million abortions a year.  The well-articulated and demonstrated hatred of men that permeates the female spectrum of society, seen no more clearly than in claims of rape culture and false accusations of rape, although by no means limited to them.

Am I saying women should never be educated, never work outside the home, never become doctors, lawyers and CEOs?  Of course not, but women should also not be told -- and they are -- that homemaking is stifling and limiting, and that homemakers aren't as good as doctors and lawyers, that men are oppressors or, paradoxically, a drain on a woman's success, and thus relationships with men (anything beyond hookups) are to be avoided.  

Feminism has reshaped the culture, from the movies to the universities, from legislative bodies to the courts, and fashioned it into a giant funnel that attempts to herd women into the beliefs and lifestyles feminist leaders deem appropriate.  Their efforts have been just successful enough to bring our culture to the brink of ruin.  It will never be completely successful because the Almighty created women for a specific reason, to fulfill a specific purpose.  When feminism wars against those, it is taking on an Adversary it cannot defeat.

Yes. This is all my opinion.  Your mileage may vary.

Breathtaking Misandry and False Rape Accusations

It is difficult to read Mr. Harlan's excellent expose, Lambs to the Slaughter: The Hofstra False Rape Case, without a feeling an attack of multiple emotions, virtually all of them negative.

There is, of course, anger or its stronger counterpart, outrage, which a psychologist once told me are understandable and healthy reactions to injustice or unfairness.  There is sympathy for the young men, not only for the ordeal they endured, but for the residue that will follow them the rest of their lives.  There is impatience shading into disgust for the one-sided assumptions of law enforcement and the media.

But what I feel most is a "How could she...?" bewilderment about the false accuser.  There is an element of anger to it, but it's mostly mystification.  What could possibly cause a presumably intelligent young woman pursuing higher education to indulge in spur-of-the-moment group sex and then call it rape?

Yes, I know the surface reason; she had a boyfriend, and was actually on a date with him when the incident occurred. When he found her in her dorm after the incident and demanded to know what had happened, she claimed she'd been raped. It was to cover up what she must have seen as a shameful sexual episode that she had initiated -- an episode that would have made people think she was "easy," according to her later recantation.

But that still isn't the explanation that will assuage my bewilderment. Mr. Harlan duly notes the claims of feminists that "rape culture" made her do it, a "reason" that doesn't deserve to be dignified with further discussion, and wouldn't provide answers, anyway.  

I think the explanation lies in what Harlan calls the "breathtaking misandry" at work in the aftermath of the case.

How could she, how could anyone except a conscienceless sociopath, knowingly imperial innocent people -- even the male kind -- with a falsehood fabricated for such a flimsy reason?  It's not because we live in a rape culture, but because we live in a misandry culture -- a culture where altogether too many men and women simply cannot conceptualize the grave injustices perpetrated against men in the name of female equality -- which, in reality, is female empowerment, female supremacy.

There are many reasons why I deeply resent feminism -- its war against religion, its destructive effects on the family, its attempts to fundamentally alter human relationships, its poisoning of society -- but one of the most infuriating is its corruption of law and justice for the sake of  getting even with men for their patriarchal sins.

In Harper Lee's masterpiece, To Kill a Mockingbird, the story of a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman in the pre-civil rights South, the protagonist, attorney Atticus Finch, addresses the jury the trial of the accused:

"Thomas Jefferson once said that all men are created equal.... We know all men are not created equal in the sense some people would have us believe... But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal--there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, the ignorant man the equal of a college president.  That institution, gentlemen, is a court....  Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal."
Unfortunately, there are those who would add deliberate corruption to the unavoidable human faults of our courts, in fact, to our whole process of law enforcement and justice, for the sake of a horribly destructive ideology.  And the truly horrible thing about misandry culture is that so many people under its influence unawares simply do not see the corruption, the destruction, or the danger.

One great effort to bring knowledge and sanity to this problem is work of Pierce Harlan, Steven Birkheimer and other contributors via this blog. Many thanks for their efforts, and for the masterful Hofstra expose.

Haunting, maybe, but was it rape? 

Earlier this month, ran "human interest" story in its "Life Stories" section titled "Haunted by the Morning After." A first-person narrative by Elizabeth Kennedy (which is a pseudonym), the piece tells the story of a high school party at which Ms. Kennedy may or may not have been raped.  She doesn't really know for sure; she was too drunk to remember.

What happened, in a nutshell, is that Ms.Kennedy went to a party with friends, drank too much and hit on a guy.  They traipsed into the woods together and made out. After sending the boy mixed messages about having sex, she passed out.  When she awakened to the sound of her friends calling her, she was half undressed and the boy, naked, was passed out beside her.

She couldn't remember what happened, but it must've been bad because she was a basket case the next day, a state that lasted on into her freshman year of college.  She saw a therapist for her depression; the therapist concluded that she had been raped. There was some comfort in the diagnosis, but Ms. Kennedy wasn't sure that was truly what happened. In any case, through her early twenties she engaged in boozy hookups until at age 26 she'd had enough and quit drinking.

On the surface, Ms. Kennedy's experience is a cautionary tale with an uplifting ending -- wayward girl faces some unpleasant truths and takes responsibility for herself, her actions, her life. But that's only part of the story.

I was fascinated and appalled when I first read it. Part of it is generational, I'm sure.  In my high school days, nobody "did it" just for fun. Sometimes girls with long-term steady boyfriends would give in, in a moment of weakness, but they didn't brag about it and only their closest confidants knew.

But since then, feminism and the sexual revolution have worked their evil spells and "hook ups" are common even in high school. Our whole culture has become sexualized, starting with preschool girls in makeup and sexy costumes strutting on a pageant stage, to sex ed in the schools and from there moving into every aspect of the popular culture, particularly movies, television and now the Internet.

Women, so femninsm says, should be in charge of their own sexuality.  In the days of second wave feminism, that meant taking control of women's sexuality from men, mainly husbands, so that she decided when and if to have sex, permit pregnancy and have children. 

Somehow, now, it has come to mean that women should be able to be as promiscuous as men -- at least, to the extent they believe men are promiscuous -- without harm to their reputation and, significantly, to their chances of marriage, when they're ready.  There is an undisguised contempt in our culture for those who wait. 

But evidently there is enough of a stigma left, in some circles (Ms. Kennedy is from a Catholic family and attended Catholic schools) that women can feel morning-after regret.  Sometimes this regret morphs into accusations of rape. By now, we're familiar with how and why that happens. 

In Ms. Kennedy's case, it didn't end in a rape accusation, but it easily could have.
One thing that stands out about her tale is that it is liberally sprinkled with her attempts to give herself the benefit of the doubt -- to present her inexperience and naiveté, which evidently are supposed to absolve her of responsibility for her part in her predicament.

In fact, she begins the piece with a bid for sympathy, putting forth the possibility that she'd been raped and describing her bouts of suicidal depression that presumably resulted from it.  Excuses and pre-emptive explanations continue throughout her narrative -- she got so drunk the night of the party because she was "selectively bulimic in those days" (bulimia being a female malady) and drank on an empty stomach at the party. She gives some backstory about never having had "the talk" with her mother, about her fascination with her friends' tales of their sexcapades.

The self-absolvement continues in her recounting of the encounter with "Tony," who may or may not have raped her.

I must admit I was surprised at the comments following the story.  Some took a practical, level-headed view of her predicament and put the responsibility for her problem squarely where it lay.  Nevertheless, there were many poor-little-thing sentiments that tried my patience.

Whatever she was trying to accomplish by writing the story and having it published, here's the bottom line for me: She got herself drunk. She initially hit on the guy. She asked him for sex once. She answered in the affirmative when he asked her if she still wanted to. 

Read that one again. He. Asked. Her. And. She. Said. Yes. That is consent. Consensual sex is not rape.

It is a rather depressing story, and I have to wonder how many other young women in our permissive society have similarly ruined their lives. About the only good thing to come out of this one, to me, is that she didn't report the boy to the police and get him thrown in prison for thirty years.

In Praise of Miners and Rescuers 

Earlier this week, like millions of people around the world, I watched the rescue of the 33 men who'd been trapped in a Chilean copper mine for 69 days.  

Unfolding over an almost 24-hour period, the true-life drama was compelling.  The rescue pod traversing a 26-inch hole drilled through solid rock, traveling the distance of more than two Empire State Buildings, tethered to the surface and light and life by a relatively small cable,  a journey predicted to take an hour for each man. The myriad things that could go wrong.  The order in which the men, ranging in age from 19 to 64, would be brought to the surface.

As the rescue began, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith wondered whether the drama might become boring before all thirty-three miners were brought up from what easily could have been their tomb. Not a chance. To see each man's beaming face as he received the greetings and hugs of the rescuers and the President and First Lady of see the ecstatic reunion with family members and loved hear the details of how the men survived by faith, optimism and discipline -- well, it was the polar opposite of boring.

It was also a wonderful break from the churlishness and pettiness exhibited by so much of America's political class in the run up to the November elections.

Of course, the story of the Chilean miners is all over the Internet, as it has been all over television around the world.  I can't begin to add anything to that coverage.  I can only wonder how differently the story appears to ordinary folks as opposed to those who battle misandry, who advocate on behalf of men, and who are far more accustomed to seeing men demonized, ostracized, legally robbed and falsely accused -- not infrequently by the aforementioned churlish political class doing the bidding of institutional feminism.

As of this writing, the pro-man corner of cyberspace is relatively quite about the drama, the sites I visit regularly making little or no mention of the story.  But the feminist blogosphere's "coverage" is about what you might expect.

At Salon's Broadsheet, the story isn't about the breathtaking courage of the miners and masterful male ingenuity of the rescue... It's about how quickly Hollywood is jumping to exploit the drama ... the wife vs. mistress sidebar ... and how our president has hailed Chile's president...

Jezebel is even worse (how "love triangles" are complicating things for the miners)...  I don't recommend visiting Jezebel shortly after dining. Or any other time, for that manner.

The gals at NOW appear to be completely oblivious to the entire event.

Of course the women who are feminists or who have fallen under feminist influence, aren't likely to be eager to recognize, let alone honor, masculine courage, bravery and extraordinary accomplishment. How can one honor such male positives and maintain that rape culture exists simply because men are men?

Feminists and their puppets, political and otherwise, can wallow in their pettiness all they wish. The rest of us recognize the positives of masculinity, and are more than willing to honor extraordinary displays of it such as the world has witnessed in Chile. God bless the miners, their families and all those involved in the remarkable rescue.

Internecine conflict as entertainment

I subscribe to Google Alerts for about five different subjects. One of them is feminism and I'm notifed weekly of the items found by Google's search programs relating to this subject.

As an ardent anti-feminist, I'm intrigued by the rumbling going on of late in the feminist quarter of western hegemony. Judging by the alerts in my in-box, there appears to be a multi-sided battle brewing; it's the aging second wavers vs. the smart-aleck third wavers, certainly. But it's also between liberal feminists on the left and conservative ones on the right.

As interesting as it is to watch the old gals and the young twits square off, for the next few weeks -- the run-up to the U.S. elections -- I'll have to give more attention to the political cat fight. 
In the words of Howard Dietz, That's Entertainment! I won't say it's as entertaining as SEC football of a Saturday afternoon. It might run even with old MGM musicals, and it has spectator golf beat hands down. Hey, when you live in a dark and oppressive rape culture, you have to get your entertainment however you can so I have popped up some Jiffy-Pop, poured cola on ice, propped my feet up, and settled back to watch.

Conservative feminists? Who knew there could even be such an animal? Feminism has been the purview of the left for generations. Everybody knew conservative women, whose brains were damaged by housework, stayed home, raised kids, volunteered down at the church. Voting was the extent of their political involvement.  

But we're seeing some strange things happening now.  Women who don't spout the orthodox feminist  line are emerging as political candidates, raising money (tons of it, jaw-dropping mountains of it) and making their voices heard with the electorate. And quite a few stand a good chance of getting elected to everything from the U.S. Senate to governors' offices to county commissions to local soil and water boards....

As I've stated before, I believe that the core of feminism is the hatred of men as a group, or hatred of masculinity itself.  That is why abortion is the number one cause of feminism -- not equality for women, not opportunity for women, not giving women greater choice, but abortion: the removal from the uterus material put there by a male.  Everything else on the feminist agenda, including the claims of rape culture, serves this cause.

But conservative women seeking office, and their numberless supporters, don't talk much about abortion, or rape culture, or the glass ceiling, or any of issues old-time feminists moan about. They talk about reducing the size of government, lowering taxes, enacting sane health care legislation, putting power back into the hands of states, counties, municipalities -- in short, not only ignoring the orthodox feminist agenda, but supporting policies that would undermine feminist power by knocking government support (i.e., funding) out from under it.

Would these Mama Grizzlies make good elected officials? I dunno. I haven't paid close attention to politics since 1998, when I was a Congressional staffer and saw enough of federal politics to last me the rest of my life. Frankly, I prefer male leaders. But if I had to choose between a male liberal and a female conservative, I'd probably vote for the latter.

Fortunately, I don't have to delve that deeply into it.  I've turned cynic enough to view the whole of western politics as a joke.  I'm much more interested in the culture wars, and politics is important to me only to the extent it affects the culture.

I've seen speculation that the rise of conservative feminists means the old feminism is on the way out; that it has achieved what it set out to achieve, and is no longer needed -- that it has basically outlived its usefulness and will be elbowed aside by more relevant movements.  

I don't know about that but I do know we have a lot of damage to undo, not the least of which is the damage done to men by feminist get-evenism supported by the power of government.  Maybe electing conservative women to office is part of the solution, maybe not. But I'm for anything that undermines the power that institutional feminism has wrenched for itself over the decades.

If you've got some Jiffy-Pop and cola, and you'd like to join me in watching what's turning out to be a highly entertaining interlude, follow the links below.

Feminism's Mother-Daughter Divide -- Susan Faludi

High heels and high hopes -- Suzanne Fields

Feminist Groups Call Conservative Women ‘Nutty’ and ‘Whores,’ Media Ignores -- Alana Goodman

Sarah Palin vs. Emily's List: a Twitter 'feminist' feud

Oxymoron of 2010: feminist conservative -- Beverly McPhail

Real Mama Grizzlies -- Karoli (the video's a real hoot!  Enjoy! ~Connie)

Is this what they fought for?

In the run-up to the elections, America's wars have fallen off the radar screen. But when it's politically fashionable to talk about them, you're apt to hear Presidents and other government officials refer to "our men and women in uniform." This in spite of the fact that the Armed Forces are overwhelmingly male and men do the bulk of the fighting and dying.

Still, women do make up about 20% of today's military. You have to wonder why they would fight for a patriarchal culture -- indeed, what they deem to be a rape culture that preys on women and keeps them in fear. Of course, we know that what feminists complain about and reality are different things. First, there is no rape culture and, second, government, education, business and industry promote, or at least accomodate, institutional female supremacy, so... so much for patriarchy.

Despite the lip service to the feminised military, war is men's business. It always has been, and there was a time when everyone acknowledged that. Sometimes things happen to remind us of this particular reality.

In October of 1943, a Consolidated B-24 Liberator heavy bomber went missing near New Guinea. It was assumed that the plane ran out of fuel on the way back to base and crashed in the Pacific Ocean. Searches yielded no trace of the aircraft, and a year later, the eleven crewmen and the photographer who joined them on a reconnaissance mission were officially declared dead, their families notified.

They were among the over 300,000 U.S. casualties of that terrible war which, for the United States, lasted from from December 7, 1941 until August 14, 1945. Eventually, the surviving soldiers returned home. They built the suburbs and created a wheeled culture where they, as breadwinners, drove the freeways into town to office and factory, while their wives stayed home to raise children. Based largely on knowledge gained in the war, they invented goods and services and made advances in medicine, transportation, housing that made their society the envy of the world.

But not everyone was amazed by these advances, or thankful to the men who made them possible. Twenty-five years later, too many daughters of these warriors, these protectors and advancers of our society, were calling them patriarachal oppressors. These women raised such a ruckus that men who had seen and experienced the horrors of brutal, global war bent over backward to accomodate their whiny complaints.

Fast forward another thirty years, and find a America not at all friendly to the grandsons and great-grandsons of the global warriors of WWII. It is a society in which men bear the brunt of military and workplace deaths, but feminists complain because not enough women occupy desks in corporate offices; a culture where boys and young men are given short shrift in education; where the government creates jobs for women during a recession in which men disproportionately find themselves without a job.

It is a society that feminists label a rape culture and wherein they describe men as possessors of "flawed" masculinity -- predators who keep all women in a state of fear. It is a society where, increasingly, women can and do make false rape accusations and face little or no consequence for destroying, or almost destroying, some innocent man's life.

Not long ago, the families of the crew of the bomber lost near New Guinea were notified that the plane had not gone down in the Pacific, after all. Wreckage of the plane had been located in rugged, jungle-covered mountains on the northern end of the island. Human remains were found. Using DNA testing, all members of the crew were identified and their families in the United States notifed that their soldiers would be coming home at last.

Among the crewmen was a gunner from Georgia by the name of Berthold Chastain, my uncle. I only recently learned of the true story of his sacrifice. Our family is still trying to grasp the new information that he was not lost at sea sixty-seven years ago, as we have believed for so long.

As I contemplate this new chapter in our family history, I can't help but wonder. Is the United States today really what he, and 600,000 others fought for, and so many died for? I cannot help but believe it is not, and for that I am profoundly sorry. As a society, we have not done right by these men.

Welcome home at last, Uncle Bert. Please forgive us.

The story of the last mission of the B-24 bomber, the "Shack Rat"  --

Women's History Month

I must be mellowing out.  Women's History Month doesn't bother me as much as it once did. These days, it's just another splashy flash on the increasingly incoherent collage of popular culture --  another something to ignore. 

Why should I mind if women want to trumpet their firsts and grandstand their own accomplishments? I don't mind when men do the same thing.

Ah, but there is a difference.  Men don't brag on themselves ... as men. They don't showcase their accomplishments as notable because they were done by men, but because they are truly notable.

I scoured the web looking for the male equivalent of the "Spirit of Women Awards." Couldn't find anything. There are all sorts of awards of which men are the recipients -- Man of the Year for everything from sports to business to the media, although increasingly such awards have been renamed "Person of the Year" to be more ... inclusive, don't you know.  But no "Spirit of Men" awards.

I don't really have a beef with the Spirit of Women awards. They recognize some truly noteworthy female achievements in the areas of community service and health care. The problem I have is that men do the same thing -- have always done the same thing, the majority of it, in fact -- but when have you seen such philanthropy attributed to the masculine spirit?

Let's be frank.  A big part of the reason for my past impatience with Women's History Month was what I believed to be the true motive behind it -- the usually unspoken but well understood notion that for most of humanity's existence, women were held back from such pursuits by ... men.  You know, the same guys that ran patriarchy....

In other words, it was just another male-bashing hammer in the feminist toolbox.

I have little use for feminism. That doesn't mean I'm against women's rights. I'm for everybody's rights, men and women. But I perceive that feminism isn't really about women's rights.  It's about female supremacy and female privilege and, mostly, about getting back at men for several millenia of imagined oppression.

But I'll give most of the people celebrating Women's History Month the benefit of the doubt, and accept that most of them aren't motivated by female get-evenism. Just don't expect me to join in.  I'm busy.

Incompatible -- Feminism and Civil Liberties

A very odd thing happened today. I ran across an article by a feminist that didn't get my back up or ruffle a single feather. I don't think that's ever happened before.

Written by Wendy Kaminer and appearing in the April 6 issue of The Atlantic, the article deals with civil libertarianism and feminism. Specifically, it's about the Yale Title IX complaint that Archivist recently blogged about here.

Frankly, I was floored to find that there could be such a thing as a civil libertarian feminist. The two concepts seem diametrically opposed. But that's what Kaminer claims to be, although she acknowledges that civil libertarian feminists are a minority.

Kaminer says that the Yale women's Title IX complaint is reported to include some information about sexual assaults, but "the hostile-environment charge against the university rests as well on a litany of complaints about offensive exercises of First Amendment freedoms."

Part of the problem, Kaminer says, is "feminine timidity" that precludes taunting or talking back without the protection of government or university bureaucrats. But in my opinion, there's more to it than that. It's a desire to silence what women don't like, i.e., men. She quotes one coed's complaint: "I just want to be able to walk back to my dorm at night without hearing all this crazy stuff from these guys."

There's a lot of crazy stuff out in the world I'd prefer not to hear, too -- but as Kaminer notes, that's life. Everybody has to put up with crazy stuff sometimes.

Which led me to wonder -- how often is the crazy stuff from fraternity guys heard at Yale? Kaminer cites a letter obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) that identifies four incidents over seven years. If that's the totality of it, I'm sorry, but as disagreeable as these incidents might have been, that's not enough to create a hostile environment. That's not even enough to be a litany, if you ask me.

I also can't help but wonder what these prima donnas would do if faced with the hostile environment so many men live with day after day. Say, the hostile environment on the job, where 93% of workplace deaths are men. I dunno, but dying on the job sounds pretty hostile to me. If these college gals want to see a hostile environment from a safe distance, all they need to do is turn on The Deadliest Catch.

How long could these dainty female souls hold up, I wonder, under the tongue lashings that professional and college male athletes routinely receive from their coaches? And how many of them could show the poise and restraint exhibited by Alabama quarterback A.J. McCarron in the face of Coach Nick Saban's screaming reprimand, complete with a whack on the backside, in front of a stadium full of people? Talk about a hostile environment...

And if they really want to experience a hostile environment, they should sit next to a man in family court who is having his children and income removed from him for no good reason.

Women who get cat-called on campus don't know what a hostile environment is.

But back to Kaminer's article. I was genuinely surprised to see her acknowledge a point in the case that parallels one brought up so often in this blog, but hardly anywhere else -- that official responses routinely show more concern for the "sensitivities" of the accusers than the rights of the accused, and thereby reflect a presumption of guilt.

Kaminer acknowledges that feminism "helped lead the assault on civil liberty and now seems practically subsumed by it." She cites feminists who led the assault two decades ago by "equating pornography with rape.(literally) and calling it a civil rights violation..." I don't like pornography, either; I think it's detrimental to people who make and use it, and society in general, and ought to be discouraged. But it ain't rape, folks.

She wraps up by touching on the larger consequences of the assault on civil liberties, the "...indefinite detention or show trials of people suspected of terrorism, sometimes on the basis of un-reviewed or un-reviewable evidence. But underlying trivial and tragic deprivations of liberty, the authoritarian impulse is the same."

Although it's about a subject that should be obvious -- the incompatibility of feminism and civil liberty -- Kaminer's brief, cogent essay was nevertheless a breath of fresh air compared to most of the misandric feminist claptrap that pervades our culture. Alas, I cannot say the same thing for so many of the comments following it.

Kaminer's article, Sexual Harassment and the Loneliness of the Civil Libertarian Feminist, can be found here:


Original Material Copyright © 2013 by Connie Chastain Ward. All rights reserved.