Sunday, December 31, 2006

More to be Pitied than Scolded

Dear Jenny,
I read your article, There's still plenty left for women to fight for.

Like you, I scarcely know how to begin.

You seem to be shocked and angry about the fact that other people do not automatically agree with you. I suggest that in a democracy, you should get used to the fact, even welcome it. Why should they agree with you? I suggest that people disagree with you because the claims you make are nonsense, gross misrepresentations of the facts, based upon fabricated and distorted evidence.

The atrocities against women that you mention are largely illusory.

"Women are treated as objects". This is absurd. Of course they are not. Objects can be bought, sold and discarded at will. They have no civil rights. Objects cannot run for speaker of the house. If you are concerned about representations of women in advertising, let me ask you this: are representations of men any better? I put it to you that they are not. However, you are not concerned about that, because men are the enemy.

Eating disorders. The scientific evidence shows that a child is more likely to grow up to have an eating disorder if :
(i) it was not breast-fed
(ii) it was forced to 'clean its plate', i.e. unable to control its own food intake in childhood.
(iii) it had a domineering mother, or difficult relationship with its mother.

What about the 'thin models in the media' theory? There are eating disorder 'hotspots' in Western Europe and North America, but these, it must be noted, are rich consumer societies in which women enjoy the greatest personal freedom, and this consumer culture is designed specifically to pander to the desires of women. What solutions do you advocate? An end to Western consumerism? No more shopping for shoes then. In addition, how can you explain the fact that some eating disorder sufferers are men? You’re not concerned about them, though, are you? They are the enemy.

Eating disorders are a medical issue, not a political issue, and so cannot be effectively addressed by a political pressure group such as the feminist movement. This conclusion is borne out by the observation that forty years of highly successful feminist campaigning has done nothing whatsoever to reduce the incidence of eating disorders.

Like many feminists, you enjoy the benefits of a consumer paradise, but still fail to understand how it works. You have no notion of free market economics, although you still demand the right to shop whenever you want. You think that consumer products (including the mass media) are a sinister conspiracy by the Patriarchy to oppress women. In reality, products which no one wants simply do not sell, and disappear forever. Those which do sell, sell because people want them. As a consumer, you are not a victim; you are in fact the one with the power.

The reason why companies inform you how to slim your thighs is because women want to know. They are prepared to spend money on finding out. The reason they want to know is largely because other women tell them they are fat.

Poor self-esteem? What exactly do you expect the government to do about poor self esteem?

The reason some women seem to suffer a perpetual self-esteem crisis is because of the way that women treat each other within small female social groups. Women spend their time tearing each down over their appearance and dress sense. Feminists try to blame men for these problems.

What would you do about the 'images of perfection' that you claim to see around you? Shall we pass a law so that only ugly people can appear in advertising? Who would buy the products? Would it eliminate eating disorders? No.

How do you explain the fact that men are largely unconcerned about the images of perfect men they see in advertising?

If you want to speculate about sinister conspiracies in the media, try reading Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness - and Liberalism - to the Women of America, by Myrna Blyth.

As for sexual harassment, Daphne Patai demonstrated in her book Heterophobia, that the issue has been grossly exaggerated and distorted by feminists in order to demonise men and destroy heterosexual relations.

Violence: Men are much more likely than women to be victims of violence. Women are in fact the most protected group in society, not the least protected. Try reading The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell, even if only in the interests of getting a balanced view of the issues. Surely, you owe yourself that much?

Abuse: By abuse, I take it you mean rape and domestic violence? It is the same story again. The facts about rape and domestic violence have been grossly distorted and misrepresented for decades by the feminist movement in order to promote an anti-male agenda, and to attract funding. Rape has been declining steadily since the 1970s, and the evidence shows that most accusations of rape are false and malicious. It is the same story with domestic violence. The scientific evidence shows that:-
(i) Women initiate violence at least as often, if not more often, than men.
(ii) Domestic violence is just as common among homosexuals as heterosexuals.
(iii) Domestic violence collocates very strongly with alcohol and drug abuse.
(iv) However, women do sustain more injuries because they are physically weaker; they get drunk and start fights they cannot win.
Pornography is something that most women are aware of the existence of, but never actually view themselves, although I personally know women who do enjoy pornography. It is a type of product mainly used by men, and that in itself makes it intolerable for feminists. As most women never see pornography, it cannot have much of an effect on their self-image. Even if it does, surely the problem lies with them rather than the pornography; we cannot eliminate everything which might potentially upset anyone, because it is impossible to predict what might upset someone. If we eliminate pornography, I believe that people like yourself, habitual martyrs, will simply move on to something else. We will end up living in a Taliban-style cultural desert. In a democracy, we have a duty to tolerate other people’s different tastes and interests. This rank intolerance of others is one of the reasons that feminism must be opposed.

Do you really think you can eliminate pornography? You should ask yourself why pornography is so popular. Until you can begin to answer that question in a reasonable way, you cannot begin to understand the issue. If you do not understand the issue, then you have no right to make demands about it.

I put it to you that pornography is one of the public, commercial manifestations of women's preoccupation with using their sexuality to extort money from men. Try reading "Sex-ploytation" by Matthew Fitzgerald. A case could be made for saying that pornography exploits men, not women. The models get paid handsomely for appearing in these magazines; the publishers make money from selling them. The only ones losing money are the men who buy them. But that does not concern you, does it, because men are the enemy. Male porn stars are apparently not being exploited either, even though they do the same job, and get paid less than the women.

Which brings us to the pay gap. "Women still make 74 cents for every $1 a man makes, according to news reports". I have a simple question for you. If women are cheaper to employ than men, and they are just as good if not better, as feminists such as yourself are always claiming, then why do employers ever hire men at all? Surely it makes more sense for them just to hire women. Until you can answer that, I will not take you seriously. Try reading "Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell.

The so-called ‘pay gap’ is one of the most widespread feminist lies. Once you take overtime, part-time work and the demands of children into account – in other words, the choices that men and women make freely – you will find that there is no pay-gap at all. You are simply mistaken, and the feminist movement has been systematically lying about this issue for decades, just as it continues to lie about domestic violence, rape and child abuse.

You then go on to speculate about the motivations of your tormentors: "The question then becomes: Why? Why did the young people in my classroom speak so glibly regarding feminism?"

George Orwell said "The Catholic and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent". He could have added 'feminist'. You cannot believe that any sane person of good will could possibly question feminism. That says a lot about you.

"The answer lies in the way the term "feminism" is treated. Much like the term "liberal," it has been vulgarized, turned into a dirty word"

Your conclusion is that there is an evil media conspiracy to discredit feminism. It can’t be because there is anything wrong with feminism. Perish the thought.

You seem particularly upset that it was young men who took issue with you. "I was ashamed that I let a 20-something man say America needed a "men's movement" without saying anything in response".

Would it have been better or worse had it been a fifty year old woman who said this? Are you trying to dictate what people are allowed to talk about based upon their biology? That’s what it sounds like. That very authoritarian tendency is one of the main problems with feminism. That refusal to tolerate free enquiry or dissent is one of the reasons that feminism must be opposed. It is the Western world’s last surviving bastion of Twentieth Century totalitarianism, encapsulating many of the worst aspects of the Fascist and Socialist mind-sets. Have you ever wondered how so many ordinary Germans found fascism so emotionally seductive? Take a look at yourself. The Nazis regarded themselves as victims too.

"The women's movement will always be needed because ignorance does not disappear". The 'women’s movement' is one of the most intellectually dishonest organisations in the Western world. It has systematically lied, distorted and misrepresented the facts for decades. It fabricates evidence to support its case, it suppresses inconvenient evidence, and it expresses open contempt for science and evidence-based discourse. To represent it as some kind of bulwark against ignorance is risible; it has done more than anyone else to actively promote ignorance, not to mention fear and hatred.

The fact that you become emotionally upset whenever anyone disagrees with you shows that you are intellectually immature. If you are not able to participate in an intellectual discussion without crying, then you probably should not be at university. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a university is. It is a place of learning and intellectual enquiry. It is not a theatre in which to wage political war.

I have another very simple question for you. What exactly is it that you feel you are prevented from doing? Western middle-class women are the most privileged human beings in history. You want for nothing, and you are still miserable. You need to start examining your own motivations.

Christina Hoff Sommers commented "I think gender feminism is a sort of melancholy philosophy. I think it attracts a certain type of person, who’s hyper-sensitive, chronically offended. It seems to be that Women’s Studies has a disproportionate, there are a lot of people that are hypersensitive and chronically offended, but Women’s Studies is a magnet for them."

It is a melancholy philosophy, and also a paranoid conspiracy theory. The world is simply not the way that feminists say it is, and what's more, it just never has been. I think a case could be made for saying that gender feminists are suffering from a psychotic persecution complex.

Read these books and wake up. The fact is, you are a victim. You are a victim of the feminist movement. It has been systematically lying to you all your life.