A television ad: Single girl “Heather” has come to be videotaped for a dating service. Haltingly, she blurts out facts about herself—she’s got a Lab, a “great” job, an “out-of-control shoe fetish”—while sipping the diet soda which is supposedly the raison d’être of the ad. The interviewer comments, “Sounds like a pretty good life.” Taking a deep sip, the girl suddenly says, “Thank you!” in an almost normal tone of voice. “So, what kind of man are you looking for?” continues the interviewer—to an empty chair, for Heather has decamped sans adieu back to her pretty good life.
The message: If you have a dog, a great job, and a good shoe fetish, you do not need a man in your life, so long as you drink the right diet soda (whichever one that may be). Another ad: A woman is driving a young man in her convertible. He explains how he is trying to quit smoking using a “nicotine delivery” system, and she laughs at him throughout the explanation. Arriving at their destination, he asks her how he looks; as she straightens his tie, she smirks, “Surprisingly intelligent.”
An even more offensive commercial has been running on radio —once again, for a product whose identity is effaced by the heavy-handed psychological warfare. A man’s voice keeps anxiously questioning, explaining, and apologizing as dinner is being prepared, while a woman’s voice drones, “I’ve got a job, I’ve got a laptop, I’ve got car payments,” and other disconnected facts of a similar nature; the only time she addresses the man is to say in a bored, annoyed tone, “Please don’t keep saying you’re sorry.” Her last words are, “And I’ve got a boyfriend—for now.”
We are back to the 60’s girl-graffiti: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Such ads are presumed to flatter women by implying that they do not need men. But perhaps the truth is different and much simpler: These ads only superimpose a happy face on the reality that men do not want women very much anymore. The most perfect symbol of where women now stand in the radical feminist state they have been conned into supporting is our blithe President: a dedicated feminist in principle, a pig in private. Real men loathe Bill Clinton.
A few decades ago, William Carlos Williams wrote of America as “a vigorous, man’s country.” Clinton’s America, in contrast, is a woman’s world. Men tamed the Wild West, and now they—the foolhardy pioneers, the cowboys, the gunslingers, the men of honor—must be driven out of the territory so that “decent folk” can live smug and snug in the prosperity and security that those antiquated heroics wrested from the wilderness.
Men’s achievements—physical, intellectual, and moral — have made the world safe for women. Push-button war means never having to break a nail. Women stroll among the monuments, the ruins of the history men have made, exclaiming and deploring and, above all, appreciating. How easy it all looks! Whatever was the big deal? From foreign affairs to the whizbang applications of math and science, it is all so easy to appreciate now.
Men are being driven out, however, not by women, but by other men; not for reasons of “gender equity,” but for reasons of political power. Globalists hate and fear real men—they are men themselves, of course, but they are men of a class that wants all the power, just as the Disney Corporation wants all of your entertainment dollars. Powerful men have always sought to control other men but have never entirely succeeded. The globalist elite has hit upon the scheme of replacing these other men with women, who are easier to control. Either they are more readily intimidated, because of their timid natures; or they are smitten with their masters, like tawdry brides of an inverted Christ; or they are lesbians who hate men and are ecstatic to be helping neuter their ancient enemy.
Whatever freedoms humanity has won originate in the fight for autonomy waged by competitive males; and that drive for autonomy is the biggest obstacle to the consolidation of new global institutions in the hands of the supranational power elite. It was, after all, the competing power nucleus of colonial American men that felt compelled to revolt against King George and his “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [of seducing us] under absolute Despotism.” Among the many outrages for which the king was arraigned in the Declaration of Independence: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the People.” Likewise, it is the powerful men representing the competing authorities of the House of Representatives and the Senate who tried to reassert the crucial principle that the executive branch is not above the laws other Americans must obey—and it is no small measure due to women’s weakness for Bill Clinton that this principle is now a dead letter.
The global power elite that is struggling to emerge feeds upon whatever resentments it can find or manufacture in order to undermine existing power relationships—between classes, between nations, between races, between the sexes. Women are the greatest weapon the globalists have yet wielded against the competing authorities of family, religion, community, and nation. Women’s characteristic desire for security blinds blinds to the danger of allowing one global state to centralize all authority, all finance, all currency and credit, all decision-making, all legitimacy; and that desire is making possible a tyranny from which there is intended to be no escape. Women, who have never fought for the liberty that they take for granted, are apparently all too eager to trade it for the illusions of safety and prosperity dangled before them by the procurers of the One World State. Women historically are the weak link: Politicize and “empower” them, and you are well on the way to making the world safe for the new serfdom, the first tyrannical matriarchy run by men.
The perfect example of women not “getting it” is gun control. A survey in May 1999 showed that a full fourth of women support a ban on all individual possession of handguns—not to mention “assault” (i.e., effective group-defense) weapons—while among men, of course, only one in eight supports such a ban. Women have learned nothing from the hideous experiment of Prohibition.
This is not to imply that women are inherently peaceful, gentle souls. Psychometric studies have shown that women harbor enormous reservoirs of aggression, but dicy are more adept at using the “indirect aggression” of gossip, shunning, and smear campaigns.
“Woman’s inhumanity to Woman” is an ancient theme that was memorably treated by Clare Boothe Luce in her 1930’s play The Women and by Betty Smith in her 1940’s memoir, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn:
From that time on . . . she hated women. She feared them for their devious ways, she mistrusted their instincts. She began to hate them for this disloyalty and their cruelty to each other. . . . They stuck together for only one thing: to trample on some other woman.
For what are women competing so ruthlessly? To attract and hold men, naturally. With the overthrow of the patriarchy, sisterhood was supposed to flower powerfully. That has not happened, however. As men are driven out, competition for them has, alas, become only more bitter.
Where are the missing men? Not in the military, which men are leaving in droves out the backdoor as women march in the front. Many of them are in prison. Some have gone to Alaska. But many seem to have vanished from the census into some uncounted foreign legion of the streets. If even such establishment stalwarts as Pat Buchanan, Oliver North, and G. Gordon Liddy can be inverted into Rogue Males, one step ahead of being outlawed for their beliefs and their very being, what cannot he done to rednecked, blue-collared “mavericks” accused of criminal masculinity? In his book An Empire Wilderness, Robert D. Kaplan rather squeamishly describes some of these lost souls as “a new class of silent people” lurking in unfurnished trailers on the outskirts of everything. But how were these nowhere men silenced, and how did they find their way to their “paranoid” nowheres?
News reports told us that Eric Harris was rejected by the Marines just five days before the April 1999 massacre in Littleton, Colorado, because he was on the prescription drug Luvox for “depression” (although Luvox has been clinically approved only to manage “obsessive-compulsive disorder”). It is not hard to imagine why a young Caucasian male in modern America would be depressed. But Harris’s ticket out of the horror of civilian life was neatly revoked by the very “treatment” he was receiving to cope with it.
The following comments are drawn from actual diagnoses of ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) in two young boys who were forced to take Ritalin, dexedrine, or other cocaine-class drugs:
Constantly reminded to stop talking and get busy. He seems to have die most trouble in reading group when he needs to sit still and remain attentive. He often fidgets, seems to stare off in space/daydream, and pay attention to anything going on in the classroom but what he’s suppose [sic] to do.
Sometimes gets very spunky still. [This child’s dosage was increased.]
If masculine behavior is criminalized, only criminals will exhibit masculine behavior.
Even as boys are being persecuted for being boys, educators are repeating the lie that girls are “shortchanged” in schools. Simple observations that anyone can make in any schoolroom in America have now joined up with solid numbers to prove the opposite. While 32.3 percent of high-school girls get mostly A’s, only 17.6 percent of boys do. Among girls, 73.2 percent believe that “the amount of work they do is very important to later success in life,” while only 59.4 percent of boys believe this statement to be true. (This may be related to the fact that, in the new economy, 23 of the 25 “worst jobs” as defined by the Jobs Rated Almanac are more than 90 percent male.) While 59.5 percent of girls “take the most difficult and challenging courses they can,” only 44.5 percent of boys do.
In 1976, 53 percent of college students were male. By 1995, only 44 percent were. Among black college students, only 38 percent are male. While girls—thanks to the watering down of math and science courses—are closing the gap in algebra, geometry, calculus, biology, chemistry, geology, and engineering, boys lag well behind in their traditional areas of weakness, reading and writing. Of those recognized in the 1997-98 Who’s Who Among High School Students, 65 percent were girls. ‘The only kind of “attention” boys get more of than girls is referral to the principal, detention, suspension, and expulsion.
Some feminists have begun to suspect that men may be trying to give them the slip, “deciding to forego college entirely and launch technical careers out of high school,” as liberal Bonnie Erbe has warned in her newspaper column. After fighting for decades to stigmatize male professors, male students, the male intellectual “canon,” and fraternities (as well as male sports, interests, campus traditions, and areas of specialization in general), feminists like Erbe now wax indignant: “We do not want these schools to become pink-collar ghettos, the way clerical jobs have become.” An interesting choice of words: If “Woman” is synonymous with “Excellence,” why should something that becomes predominantly associated with women be viewed as a “ghetto,” with its unsavory and negative connotations? It just does not make sense.
For now, says Erbe, “the only thing I would worry about . . . is women who go to college to, as they used to say, get [an MRS degree]. Those women are likely to be sorely disappointed.” (Nobody I know, you can hear her saying under her breath. And note “Those women”—like “that woman” Monica Lewinsky, who attended college solely to be near the married man she was trying to steal from his wife.)
Judith Sturnick of the American Council on Education worries that there is a “separate track for education that will primarily benefit men, which will allow them to enter the job market with higher pay at a higher salary,” leaving women at liberal-arts colleges to “continue on the baccalaureate track, end up debt-laden and then wind up three or four years behind in a profession.” Let us hope Miz Erbe and her sisters are right. One would like to think that men really have walked out on women, made an end run around the feminist wedge, and escaped to pursue career goals in some novel fashion, just as the harpies fear.
Women can do many things—some very well, some fairly well, others poorly—including many things they did not often get the opportunity to do in the past, either because there were enough men to do them, or because men did not want to be bothered doing them in the company of women, or because women already had their hands full with the great work of making a home. That women can do many things is not the issue.
The issue is one of division of labor, the labor being that of reproducing a recognizably human race. One thing nature surely rewards is efficiency, and efficiency is what we should look for when it comes to the hazardous business of reproduction and survival. The Creator entrusted one important, specific task to most female mammals—that of bearing, nurturing, and acculturating the young—yet, by all measures, human females in the “developed” world are now doing a lousy job of it. Our children are not being reared properly, and who is supposed to raise them? Play Station? The Simpsons? Our children act like street people, they are not being taught to be civil, and who is supposed to teach them? Their basketball coach? Our children are neglected, stressed, depressed, obese, “hyperactive,” stuffed with junk food, and who is supposed to care about them? The Global Village that bombed “ethnic Albanian” children in order to save them?
Feminists always object that women should not have to be the ones “stuck with the kids.” They would rather see men stuck with them—an incredibly inefficient system for humanity, the “king of beasts.” There is, however, an example in nature of the system that feminists seem to desire: The spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) has evolved females, complete with sham masculine genitalia, of greater size and strength than the males. According to ethologist Cynthia Moss in Portraits in the Wild, “It is virtually impossible to tell male and female hyena cubs apart without dissecting them.” These butch females dominate the clan, lead patrols of its territorial borders, feed first at a kill, and so on. “Even young females, not fully grown, will sometimes be dominant over adult males larger than they,” reports Moss. “Therefore it is not just the females’ size that makes them dominant, but their whole behavior and personality.”
Female hyenas do care for the young, however: “Around the den the females are completely dominant and are often aggressive to the males, not letting them near their young cubs, and with good reason, as hyenas show definite cannibalistic tendencies.” In fact, it has been speculated that hyena evolution took this direction as a survival mechanism due to the species trait of cannibalism, which is quite marked: Females and males alike routinely devour dead or disabled clan members, not to mention foreigners.
Hormones triggered by pregnancy and lactation suppress cannibalism, albeit temporarily, in many species in addition to the spotted hyena. For instance, several researchers have observed lionesses who suddenly “switched” from licking their newborns to eating them when the protective hormonal shield was breached for some reason.
Thus, among hyenas, there is a feminist social system for us to observe. Should we evolve in this direction? Perhaps this evolution is already happening: There must be some explanation for the emergence of such a distinctively modern “Venus” as Venus Williams and such a uniquely modern “Madonna” as Madonna Ciccone.
Do not misunderstand: I have two daughters. But my daughters will not find happiness in a world where there are no real men, only women posturing and posing as men, a world of “strong women” like Hillary and Rosie and Madonna and Riot Grrrls and Siobhan McKenna and the rest. And more important, my daughters will not find freedom in such a world.