Bookmark and Share
Previous article

News Articles

  • Sacred Cows in the China Shop
  • By Amfortas
  • amfortas
  • 08/08/2009 Make a Comment (1)
  • Contributed by: amfortas ( 7 articles in 2009 )
Click to receive your Free Guide
Be Grateful Today!
Hello, I am Amfortas.

The two-part podcast, for which this is the ‘script can be found at Sacred Cows in the China Shop. Pt.1.
https://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-sacred-cows-in-the-china-shop-part-one

Sacred Cows in the China Shop. Pt.2.
https://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-sacred-cows-in-the-china-shop-part-two

It dedicated to my estranged daughter who used to be my ‘Little Petal’, and is Titled –

Sacred Cows in the China Shop

It is a message for women particularly.

Ladies, you have been treated badly by feminism, just as men and children and our society have.

The public purse has been snatched from the woman-in-the-street by feminists, taking not just the family’s dinner money for today, but tomorrow’s intellectual mortgage repayment money as well. It is a toxic debt left to us to pay.

Your chances of happiness are severely diminished by deliberate agitprop taught in Universities and disseminated by a misandric feminist Industry.

In this essay which I hope women as well as men hear, I will draw upon in part the clear arguments of Dr Jennifer Roback Morse in the hope that women will see that other intelligent women have grasped the problems caused by feminism and are challenging them; and men will see that there are some women who understand just what we have been saying for many, many years.

I will read into this article the Prepared Opening Remarks by Dr Morse who, in 2007 debated Feminist Amy Richards at the University of Virginia. It is time that more unbiased, intelligent women’s voices were brought into the Men’s Rights arena. Jennifer courageously and regularly takes herself right into the lionesses den.

The debate topic was whether Women’s Studies Departments in Universities are worthwhile, and whether there are any legitimate reason at all why the taxpayers should support an academic department devoted to the study of feminism and women.

Universities are akin to China-shops where delicate cups – our children – are filled with refined knowledge and taught how to think. Women’s Studies Departments are Sacred Cows running amok in there.

Jennifer argued, as I do, that there is no such legitimate reason in America, and I say in Australia either or any other western country. Indeed, she shows why there should be a Men’s Department to better effect.

She concludes that the feminist movement has not made people happy, but rather has contributed to unnecessary and unbelievable conflict between men and women. She proposes a new woman’s movement, which I would envisage could join the MRM in working for society instead of against it.

As an academic matter, she said, it is completely unnecessary to have Women’s Studies Departments. They are a waste of taxpayer’s money that could better help families. The few serious scholars currently located in Women’s Studies Departments could become parts of other departments such as English, psychology, anthropology or sociology. In fact, many of them already have joint appointments in other departments.

The faculty research in the Women’s Studies Departments should be able to survive the scrutiny of other scholars in their primary discipline. If it cannot, there is certainly no reason to support it within a separate department with a biased ideology.

Women students do not need special support in today’s academic world, Dr Morse declared. The fields in which women continue to be under-represented are fields in which women are already being heavily recruited and courted and funded. Many schools and companies have outreach programs specifically designed to attract more women into science and engineering, for example. [1] Yet despite these outreach efforts, the fields remain stubbornly male.

Dr Morse spent her academic career in economics, a so called male-dominated field. She found herself attracted to the more humanistic parts of the discipline and would have had to distort her own intellect and interests, she says, to force herself into the deemed ‘male mold’ that would have been required to succeed in the more mathematical areas of economics. She was unwilling to do that to herself. She said, “I can not in good conscience encourage other people to cram themselves into academic slots that don’t really fit them.”. I think this is an honest position. Perhaps Harvard University’s feminist Professor Nancy Vomit should take note.

Overall, women outnumber men among undergraduates. For undergraduates of the traditional college age, under 25, a clear female majority emerged a decade ago. The male share of undergraduates dropped from 49% in 1995-96 to 46% in 2003-04.

Among undergraduates who are aged 25 and older, women outnumber men almost 2 to 1. In the USA the largest gender gap is among African-American undergraduates, where males make up a mere 40% of the under 25 aged students.[2] This is hardly evidence of women being an oppressed minority who need a continual hand-up from the establishment, nor bogus agitprop studies, with manipulated statistics and bogus, victimhood arguments.

In fact, the gender imbalance in higher education is now a social problem for women themselves. Educated women, Dr Morse imputes, are having a hard time finding suitable marriage partners.

Taught by Feminists that they are victims of men and the ‘Patriarchy’, women have become increasingly aggressive and deliberately demeaning of men in all walks of professional life, blaming men for ‘oppression’ and even rejecting loving Fathers. No wonder educated men are so disillusioned with today’s women.

So, do we need a Men’s Studies or a Life Studies Department instead?

We do not need Women’s Studies Departments, Jennifer contended, nor programs to give women students additional encouragement and support. If anything, Dr Morse suggested that we need a Men’s Studies Department that would ask why men are retreating from higher education.

We should have a Men’s Center on campus, she said, to encourage men to invest in themselves, for their own benefit and the benefit of the wider society.

There are many real and interesting topics that for the Men’s Studies Department to study. For instance, why do men commit suicide so much more often than women? Life is a relevant topic, surely.

Men in general commit suicide at four times the rate that women do. [3]

Married men are only half as likely as bachelors and about one-third as likely as divorced men to take their own lives. In other words, getting married cuts a man’s suicide risk in half. Getting divorced triples his probability of suicide.[4] And a man whose wife dies is about ten times more likely to commit suicide than a wife whose husband dies.[5]

But does anyone care?

Feminists currently make sure no-one allocates money to study this matter in a non-biased manner.

A Men’s Studies Department might ask why do children do better with single fathers than with single mothers? Dr Morse showed that even when income is held constant, children who live with their fathers full-time had higher self-esteem and less anxiety, depression and fewer problem behaviors than children who were with their mothers full-time. Children in father custody have the advantage of maintaining a more positive relationship with the mother, than do children in mother custody. The greater income of the father is not the source of the benefit to the children, but an additional benefit. [6].

And while we’re on the subject of divorce, scholars of Men’s Studies might ask whether it is really true that divorced men have “abandoned” their families, when two-thirds to three-quarters of divorces are initiated by women.[7] ‘Abandoned’ is one of those emotive, blaming mendacities beloved of feminists and eagerly repeated by Politicians seeking the women’s vote.

The vast majority of these divorces do not involve anything remotely like domestic violence.[8]

Students more interested in activism than in scholarship might want to fight the injustice so frequently perpetrated by divorce courts, which enforce non-custodial fathers’ obligations to pay financial support much more strenuously than their rights to visit their children. [9]

Governmental agencies take a dim view of fathers who fail to pay. But these same agencies are indifferent when women actively interfere with their children’s rights to have relationships with their father.

There is little study into the emotional, spiritual and financial devastation visited upon fathers who have done no wrong at all and yet have their children snatched from them by disaffected mothers suborned by feminist agitprop.

One can point to many shoddy, Feminist driven ‘studies’ emanating from Women’s Studies Departments that actively create and manipulate a bad image about men, and fathers in particular. But the studious, thorough unbiased works of Professors Stephen Baskerville and Murray Strauss rarely see the light of day on a University Library shelf.

Feminist ‘scholars’ have consistently shown themselves to be ‘economical’ with data. They report from the Feminist’s own Jane Doe Organisation that around the world, 1 in 3 women are beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in their lifetime. It even gets onto our televisions and into Government policy (.a.) They ignore that an impartial and balanced review of the literature using similar methodology by the US Government’s Centre for Disease Control, the CDC, the same is true for 1 in 3 men. (.b.)

The Women’s Studies feminists using Jane Doe report that, 1 in 5 female high school students report being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner. (.c.) They ignore that an impartial and balanced review of the literature documents using similar methodology by the CDC (.d.) the same is true for 1 in 5 male highs school students.

Feminist scholars cannot be trusted to show ALL the relevant data. Jane Doe is preferred over the CDC.

The European Journal of Crime Policy and Research June 2007 shows just how widespread concealment and distortion of data is conducted in women’s studies departments.

This speaker can find no reference in any women’s studies departments to the Domestic Violence Fatalities report from the State Government of Utah in 2005, where there were 65 domestic violence-related deaths. The Utah findings document that there were 52 male domestic violence fatalities and 13 female domestic violence fatalities. 80% male deaths and 20% female. But of course this does not favour female victimhood.

Using a methodology that include both intimate partner homicide and suicide provided by the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) of the CDC, it can be extrapolated that each year there may be as many as 7,832 male and 1,958 female domestic violence suicide fatalities. 4 and a half times as many males as females. These domestic violence-related deaths far exceed the number of domestic violence-related deaths by homicide.
But Feminists will not show this. They continually tell the tale that violence is one way – male against female.

Men’s Studies scholars could be more trusted to investigate why little boys seem to be so much more emotionally and intellectually vulnerable in the presence of some mothers than little girls are. For instance, a study examining the impact of maternal depression on the cognitive development of children, found no affect on girls. [10] But the boys of depressed mothers scored a full standard deviation lower on standardized intelligence tests than boys whose mothers were not depressed. Is this perhaps because many depression-affected mothers are blaming and shaming their boys with feminist-inspired AgitProp?

Why are men over-represented in the “death professions?”, Dr Morse asked. The men of the MRM could provide an answer to that which a University audience of feminists would not like to hear. An MRA would be booed off the podium. Jennifer Morse puts her personal safety at risk asking on behalf or the MRM.

Of the deaths that occur in the workplace, 92% occur to men.[11] Jobs like timber cutters and trawlermen, ships’ pilots and navigators, roofers, truck drivers and construction laborers have among the highest risks of death. These have traditionally been so called male - dominated occupations. That is to say, it is MEN who step up and do them. These roles are open to women who refuse to do them. Women demand the boardroom.

We might also ask ourselves why those women who do work in dangerous occupations are so much less likely to die at work than are men. For instance, of the deaths in Iraq, less than 2.6% have been female, at a time when women comprised 10% of the forces deployed in Iraq. In other words, women who serve in Iraq will get equal pay with men, with only about one-quarter the chance of being killed compared with men.[12]


Dr Morse demonstrates clearly to Women, feminists and the Men’s Rights Movement that intelligent women can help to throw Feminism into the slop-bucket of history and give women and men a far better deal.


In addition to a Men’s Studies Department to balance the Women’s Studies Department, Dr. Morse suggests we should also have a Department of Life Studies to balance the pro-abortion, anti-life ideology of Women’s Studies Departments. I think there is merit in the idea.

Men have been marginalized and dismissed from the decisions about having babies. Fathers have been ignored or vilified. The interdisciplinary Life Studies department would prepare young women and men for careers of activism and service within the pro-life movement. Women could receive the professional training they need to run a crisis pregnancy center, or raise funds for pro-life foundations, or manage medical clinics that deliver babies free of charge.

The Life Studies program might also have classes crossed-listed in embryology, to explain what the “blob of tissue,” really is. That the “product of conception,” is a human life, not from the time of “quickening” as medieval thinkers and many Feminists want us to believe, not from the time of implantation in the womb, but from the moment of conception.

Elsewhere Dr Morse has said succinctly:
Human existence contains only two defining instants, which are conception and death. And this is not a matter of “religion” or ‘Feminist religion’ but of biology.
All other milestones, no matter how dramatically recognized in society, amount to transitional phases in the human life cycle.
So despite all of the grandiose but empty oratory emanating from the Sacred Cow Departments, any individual who does not advocate the defense of all innocent human life between those two landmarks is an individual who holds no regard for the sanctity of human life on the whole.

The Life Studies program could offer courses that explain what pro-life leaders actually believe, as opposed to the caricatures of their views so often presented in other programs by feminists. And give a voice to the marginalized parent, the father giving back their voices to the public debate.

Students might learn about Norma McCorvey, who was the original Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, how she felt exploited by her pro-abortion attorneys, and why she eventually had a change of heart and converted to Catholicism.

America will, this year, pass the 50 million mark for killing unborn babies since Roe vs Wade. While men are asked to go to war, they have to be taught to kill. And that with an enemy who shoots back. They have to be trained to overcome their natural reluctance to take life. Women demand to kill their babies as a Right and have killed more babies in the womb than the aggregate numbers of all the dead in all the world’s many wars since Roe vs Wade. None of those unborn babies were shooting at their mothers.

Men are often vilified for their aggressiveness and warmongering as though men had some ‘Men’s Rights’ to gain from fighting for their country. Unborn children by the millions have died in the name of "Women’s Right’s”.

Killing has a marked and damaging effect on people. Soldiers return from war changed by the experience of killing enemies. Where is the research on the damage women have done to themselves in killing the Life within their wombs, a dreadful decision which men, fathers, are not permitted to have any say in. It affects her, despite her protests that it does not - perhaps the women listening to this can tell of the damage it does 'inside', to their spirit and character.

You won’t find Women’s Studies Departments doing that research

It affects our society making hardened women, damaged women; it is driving a society-suiciding, 'aging' population that refuses to replace itself and carry on developing the society that supports women in comparative luxury.

We ask men to kill our enemies, for our countries.

We must ask women to stop killing our babies, for our countries.

One has to acknowledge that students are not likely to hear this kind of information in any other classes on campus. Feminists just do not allow that freedom of knowledge.

But let us move on to feminism itself, Jennifer asked “Has feminism made people happy?

Feminists disagree amongst themselves on many crucial issues. Instead of trying to unravel those Byzantine threads, let us analyze the form of feminism that has filtered down in the mainstream culture, largely driven by these Agitpropping sacred cows.

Feminism to them means this: women and men are the same, except women are better.

Feminism teaches that while there are no differences, only women have empathy; only women communicate; only women have emotions.

Recall the 50 million abortions I have just spoken about?
That is an entire generation sacrificed on the altar of feminist narcissism. Women’s Rights.

No sign of empathy. Communication deliberately blocked. Not a tear of emotion in sight, sad or otherwise. Just ‘self’ and a sardonic grimace.

So my question, as Jennifer’s is this: has the systematic denial of genuine gender differences and substitution of false and contradictory ‘empowerment’ made people happy? Ladies?

No it hasn’t. On the contrary, it has been an unmitigated disaster for men and women alike.

Differences between the sexes appear at birth - where Feminist allow birth to proceed at all. As we mature, everything that has to do with sex or reproduction affects men and women differently. Slightly, in some instances, admittedly. Men and women react to the sex act itself differently. Women frequently are more eager to get married and start families earlier than men are. Perhaps one can point to substantial economic commitment and sacrifice differentials for this.

If a couple has trouble conceiving, the man and woman experience infertility very differently. If they do have a child, they react to the woman’s pregnancy differently, they treat the baby differently, and the baby treats them differently. As their child grows up, mothers and fathers have different approaches to parenting. Mothers and fathers respond to sons and daughters differently.

If a couple can not admit these most basic differences, they are headed for conflict and grief.

They will expect the other person to feel what they feel, see things as they do, and then feel cheated when they don’t. The demand for equal sharing of household chores runs afoul this same problem: men and women are sensitive to different needs within the household.

This is why social scientists have so often found that gender equality ideology is correlated with marital dissatisfaction among wives. Husbands too.

Women who cling to the feminist ideology continually feel cheated. They have been fed on false expectations by Feminists. False and selfish. By contrast, wives who feel appreciated by their husbands for her contributions, report higher levels of marital satisfaction. This is even true among wives who do the lion’s share of the housework.

Recent findings suggest that women are happiest when they feel their husbands are emotionally engaged with them, regardless of the division of household chores. The Feminist attempt to overlook or explain away systematic differences between men and women has made people miserable. [13]

Feminism has taken the personal relationship that is the most important to most people, marriage, and injected poison into it. As the relationship between mothers and fathers, marriage is also the most basic unit of social cooperation.

When marriage breaks down, the substitutes for it are crude and ineffective and intrusive.

Alternatives to marriage also produce less than adequate results and disastrous ones for children.

No university needs a department devoted solely to the study of Feminism and the promotion of this socially destructive ideology. The intellectual life of the university will go along just fine without a Women’s Studies Department. The taxpayers should stop paying for the promotion of feminism.

The women’s movement needs to abandon its old, tired Leftist / Marxist /socialist / western society-destroying roots. Dr Morse seeks a new women’s movement. “We are living long enough”, she says about women, “that we can “have it all,” just not all at once.” Most women, surely, can see this. The evidence is all around them.

Young women today feel they must build their careers before they can start their families. But if they do that, their peak fertility years fall behind them. Many miss the chance for marriage and family altogether. The new women’s movement would ask employers and universities to accommodate them when we return to the public sphere after decades of nurturing the private sphere.

But of course the Feminists are horrified at the though. Feminists do not want women to succeed and be happy.

Dr Morse suggests an alternative to feminism and its agitprop.

The new women’s movement, suggest Jennifer, would seek career paths designed to work for both women and men, and for their children, instead of trying to compete on career paths designed for men who were obliged by society to provide for women and children as husbands and fathers.

The new women’s movement could be based on respect for and appreciation of the distinct strengths men and women each bring to a marriage.

Feminists hate marriage.

Feminists see marriage as ‘oppression’. That is what they teach.

Instead of demanding a faux-equality between the inherently different, we could set a higher standard for cooperation and complementarity.

Instead of enshrining the most extreme form of radical individualism into marriage, we could work to make marriage more durable, for the mutual benefit of the spouses, for their children and the wider society.

What stands in the way though, are liars and dissemblers, purveyors of mendacity; the Sacred Cow feminists, who steal lives and careers and the taxpayers money and churn out future-wrecking calves from Women’s Studies Departments.

There have been recent murmurings amongst younger women that feminism is dead. It is not. They adopt this delusion because men are turning away from them in despair and disgust. Good, sound, intelligent women ought not simply deny that feminism still persists, as increasing we are seeing them do, but actively join with men who are the main target of feminist venom, to ensure that it is consigned to the pit.





Footnotes

[1]Warren Farrell, Why Men Earn More, (New York: Amacon, 2005) pp. 25-27.

[2]American Council on Education, July 11, 2006 report, Gender Equity in Higher Education: 2006.

[3]Http://www.nimh.nih.gov/suicideprevention/suicidefaq.cfm

[4]Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage, (NY: Doubleday, 2000) pp. 52.

[5]Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power, (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1993) pg 165.

[6]Warren Farrell, Father and Child Reunion, (NY: Putnam, 2001) pg. 42. K. Alison Clarke-Stewart and Craig Hayward, (1996)
“Advantages of Father Custody and Contact for the Psychological Well-Being of School-Age Children,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17: 239-270.

[7] Sanford L. Braver and Diane O’Connell, Divorced Dads, Shattering the Myths, (NY: Putnam Books, 1998), pp. 124-135.

[8]Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen, “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Wives file for Divorce,” American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 2, (2000) 126, examine the reasons offered for divorce in Virginia, one of the few states that allows people to offer cruelty as a grounds for fault divorce. Only 6% of those filing for divorce cited cruelty as a reason.

Another study asked couples to list problems in their marriage. Violence wasn’t even a category. However, only 20% listed “gets angry easily” as a problem behavior for husbands, only 4% listed “has had sex with someone else,” and only 6% of husbands were described as “drinks or uses drugs.” Of the couples in this study, 12.5% ultimately divorced. This shows that the potential indicators of “high conflict” marriages were not a factor in the vast majority of marriages, and probably not even a factor in most of the marriages that ended in divorce.

Paul R. Amato and Stacy J. Rogers, “A Longitudinal Study of Marital Problems and Subsequent Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59 No. 3. (August 1997) 612-624. Another survey of 256 people who had been divorced at one time or another asked “what was the principle reason you got a divorce?” Sixteen percent reported drug or alcohol problems as the principle reason, while only 5% reported abuse as the principle reason. Fully 47% listed “basic personality differences or incompatibility” as the principle reason for their divorce, while 17% listed marital infidelity and 10% reported disputes about money or children. Statistical Handbook on the American Family, Bruce A. Chadwick and Tim B. Heaton, editors (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1992), Table C3-6, pg. 98.

[9]Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D., with Diane O’Connell, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, (New York: Putnam, 1998), pp. 28-34, 168-70. Judith A. Seltzer also finds that compliance with child support awards are higher among men who have regular contact with their children. “Consequences of Marital Dissolution for Children,” Annual Review of Sociology, 20: 235-266, esp. pp. 245-7; and “Father by Law: Effects of Joint Legal Custody on Nonresident Fathers’ Involvement with Children,” Demography, 35, No. 2, (May 1998), 135-146.

[10]“The Impact of Postnatal Depression on Boys’ Intellectual Development,” Deborah Sharp, Dale F. Hay, et.al. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36 No. 8 (1995), pp1315-1336, quote on page1334.

[11]Farrell, Why Men Earn More, (New York: Amacon, 2005) pg. 27, note 20. Citing Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-7.

[12]Farrell, Why Men Earn More, pg. 30. Notes 28-29.

[13] The suggestion that feminist ideology correlates with marital dissatisfaction among women has been in the literature at least since 1993. Diane N. Lye and Timothy J.Biblarz, “The Effect of Attitudes Toward Family Life and Gender Roles on Marital Satisfaction,” Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 14, no. 2 (June 1993) 157-188. According to Margaret F. Brinig and Steven L. Nock, “The most stable marriages are those in which the work inequality was recognized by both spouses (both partners agreed that the division of labor was unfair to the wife).

This suggests that husband’s appreciation of the gift his wife makes by her disproportionate efforts may be more important than achieving strict equality .” “‘I only want trust:’ Norms, Trust and Autonomy,” Journal of Socio-Economics, 2003, citing also their earlier work, Brinig, M.F., “Divorce and division of labor,” In: Rowthorn, R., Dnes, A.W. (Eds.), Marriage and Divorce: An Economic Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003).

Most recently, W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven L. Nock found that women are happiest with their marriages when they perceive that their husbands are emotionally engaged with them, and they consider the division of household labor to be fair. These wives do the lion’s share of the child care and housework, but their perceptions of fairness include appreciation of their husbands’ financial and physical contributions to the household. “What’s Love Got to Do With It? Equality, Equity, Commitment and Women’s Marital Quality,” Social Forces, Vol. 84, No. 3, March 2006, pp. 1321-1345.

https://res1.blogblog.com/tracker/757...s.blogspot.com

“Are we Getting it Right? The State of Women’s Studies Departments”

Debate at the University of Virginia
Amy Richards, debating the affirmative.
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. debating the negative.
Sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Co-sponsored by:
Network of Enlightened Women, Feminism is For Everyone, The Virginia Advocate, College Republicans, The Jefferson Debate and Literary Society, the Washington Debate and Literary Society.



    By:Daveyone from Little Englander!, England! on August 10, 2009 @ 9:40 am
    I have partly answered this on the adjacent item, but I am of the belief that we need to get right minded women on side if we are to have any success in changing this appalling law Worldwide!

 1+0= 
(Note: If wrong - comments will not be posted)
Footnotes:

1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.

To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here

To contribute a news article Click Here

To view or contribute a Quote Click Here

Hosting & Support by WebPal© 2019 f4joz.com All rights reserved.