usually bv making sardonic comments about the “boys,”rnand—the lowest and cheapest shot—talking about our privyrnmembers. What a hypocrite. This is the same talking nail-filernwho can sniff “sexual harassment” at 50 paces, and for whomrnnormal male behavior is deeply suspect. She dreams of daterapernso that she can have something to feel indignant about.rnWhat is sad about the excesses and “openness” of the lastrnfew decades is that they have caused so many ordinary men tornbecome either milksops or brutish thugs, and women to addrnthe worst characteristics of the male to the female repertoire.rnAs women friends have told me in secret, though men can bernboorish and sometimes cruel, women exceed them in sheer refinementrnof viciousness, especially toward other women andrnthe gentler and more old-fashioned type of man. Men generallyrnmake women cry through sins of omission and lumpishrninsensitivitv, whereas women often do it through spite. Torncombine this female trait with an imitation of male powerrn(however ineffectual) is to make for a pretty horrid sort ofrnwoman. Anyway, are women really more “powerful” today, asrnfeminists claim? I think not—my older matriarchal womenrnfriends, who make me blanch and will probably call me boyrnwhen I’m in my 30’s, think that feminism is balderdash andrnthat young women are naive and whining hypocrites. Andrncertainly any comparison of movies old and new favorsrnKatharine Hepburn, Myrna Loy, Barbara Stanwyck, and thernRosalind Russell of His Girl Friday over the characterless moronsrnand strippers who portray the modern woman.rnNot that women are all to blame—after all, both sexes tookrnpart in the free-fall of the 1960’s, and it was mostly men whornvoted to make irrationality into law in the various equal rightsrnamendments of the following decade. As for the youth movementsrnof the 60’s, they were co-opted b the rich and luxuriousrnsenators and tribunes of the media, and these greasy Lucullusesrnsold our unlicensed vulgarity back to us by the sackload.rnAny perusal of the magazines, newspapers, movies, and televisionrnprograms of the last three decades shows our ever-increasingrndecadence. The intellectuals started it; Norman Mailer’srnobsession with the orgasm and John Updike’s tedious couplingsrnfiltered into the glossy magazines, and soon obscenityrnand license were fashionable. It took a little longer for TV tornjoin in; the point of no return seems to have been reached inrnthe eady 1980’s—before it there were shows like Donna Reedrnand Happy Days, after it Roseanne and Married with Children.rnAnd it was the 80’s that blessed us with Dr. Ruth, looking likernMengele’s procuress, a shameless embarrassment who shouldrnhave been locked in a nursing home to drool and befoulrnherself.rnThere is little left to hide now, what with advertisements forrnprophylactics and various forms of female itch cream withrnnames like Clitroslimol competing for space on the airwaves.rnThe lad’ in Swift’s poem seems to be selling most of the contentsrnof her dressing table on television; “Celia! Celia! Celiarnhas a yeast infectionl” Worse still is our sick obsession withrngratuitous depictions of childbirth. Hardly a day goes byrnwithout a shameless actress spreading her legs and pretendingrnto give birth, moans and all, on some made-for-TV movie.rnShamelessness is a badge that the fair sex wears with pridernnow; the very idea that behavior might be thought immodestrnis beyond the comprehension of most people underrn40, and therefore few of the ordinary decencies are observed.rnSomehow humiliation and exhibitionism have become a markrnof honor, of “liberation.” In England, young gids glory in goingrntopless in the pages of the Sun; in America, the- queue uprnto appear on Howard Stern’s radio show (Belinda Cadisle fromrnthe Go-Go’s was recently on Stern—he paid her $150 to letrnhim cut off her stockings and fondle her feet). Women rarelyrn(other than for political reasons) upbraid men for being boorishrnand lewd, and often join in the worst kind of masculinernvulgarity. Nevertheless, they enjoy a double standard that isrnscandalous; a woman may act as outrageously as she wishesrnwithout fear of reproach, but the slightest cross-eyed glance,rnthe minutest male infraction, however trivial, is grounds forrnsending a man to the Star Chamber of “sexual harassment.”rnThis double standard has grown so common that we haverncome to accept feminism as normal and to mouth pious platitudesrnwhen confronted with the absurd situations caused byrnthe cult. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent changingrnmilitarv materiel to make it unisex, carriers torn apart, aircraftrnejection seats altered at great cost, and the result of thisrnendeavor? After repeated warnings by real soldiers and fliersrnagainst the idiocy of putting women in combat, the firstrnfemale combat pilot destroys herself and a $100 million planernwhile patrolling in the Pacific. Nice work. Women purportingrnto take male roles have never been held to the same standardsrnas men, and the eraziness at the all-male Citadel militaryrnacademy in Virginia is another excellent example. ShannonrnFaulkner not only attempted to destroy its tradition (knowingrnthere are a hundred military schools that take girlies), but havingrnforced her way in with the aid of demented judges, refusedrnto accept ha ing her head shaved along with the male cadets. Irnhave friends in the marines whose description of hazing makesrnme glad to be an effete writer; training soldiers is a tough,rnunfair, horrible, and often unbearable process. Those whornsurvive are changed and hardened, and I think that no womanrnshould be put through something so awful. But if little MissrnShannon really wants to be a soldier, let her be hazed with thernrest; marines are probed and tormented to find their weakrnpoints—a woman’s weak point is obvious, and young Shannonrncould be raped repeatedly to see what she is made of. This is arnhorrible thing to write, but feminist cultists must be shockedrninto common sense: What the hell do they think the enemrnwill do to her?rnUnfortunately, this kind of toughness may vet come tornpass—C.J. Cherryh’s sci-fi novel Rimrunners describes justrnsuch a violated and hardened female space marine of the future,rnand a glance at American Gladiators and CynthiarnRothroek movies is enough to show that we are well on thernway. I would not even mind that much, if there were still somerngentle ladies left, but where are they? Today’s young womenrnare easily stereotvped, and hardly any of the stereotypes are attractive.rnIt would be foolish of me to claim to know whatrnwomen were really like before I was born, but a romanticrncomparison is possible, using the pure image of movies andrntelevision then and now. Then we had Deanna Durbin andrnAlice Fae, now we have Shannon Dohert’ and Sharon Stone.rnThen we had Audrey Hepburn and Hayley Mills, now we havernthe blubber-lipped Kim Basinger and Juliette Lewis. Then wernhad Audre Meadows and Lucille Ball, now we have RoseannernBarr.rnThere have been changes even within my lifetime. ThernCharlie’s Angels of my childhood were paragons of femininityrncompared to the dismal sluts one sees on TV today. And poprnmusic? I remember Karen Carpenter, those dadings in Abba,rnMAY 1995/27rnrnrn