This site is copyrighted, supported, and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.
| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
|| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Chapter 9 — The Male Perspective |
| Next — Men's rights in the courts |
| Back — You can sue but you can't win (if you are a man) |
misandry (mis'-an'-dre') n. hatred of men. (1) the attribution of negative qualities to the entire male gender. (2) the claim that masculinity is the source of human vices such as domination, violence, oppression, and racism. (3) a sexist assumption that (a) male genes, hormones and physiology, or (b) male cultural nurturing produce war, rape, and physical abuse. (4) the assignment of blame solely to men for humanity's historic evils without including women's responsibility or giving men credit for civilization's achievements. (5) the assumption that any male person is probably domineering, oppressive, violent, sexually abusive, and spiritually immature.
Patrick M. Arnold, Society of Jesuits
It is basic to our premises to understand that we are not speaking here of those persons who consider themselves “feminists” because they support equal rights under the rule of law, equal opportunity in employment and education, equal protection under law, and protection from violence for all persons. These positions are supported by those on the right and the left.
As Jim Kalb states on his Anti-Feminism page:
“In place of family ties based on what seems natural and customary, and supported by upbringing and social expectation, [radical] feminism would permit only ties based on contract and idiosyncratic sentiment, with government stepping in when those prove too shaky for serious reliance. There is no reason to suppose the substitution can be made to work, let alone work well, and every reason to expect the contrary. Feminism does not care about reason, however, or even about experience of the effects of weakened family life. It wants what it wants, and that is the end of anything like the traditional relations between men and women. It is thus ideological and radical to the core; there can be no commonsense feminism, because doing what comes naturally gets a [radical] feminist nowhere.
The harsh things that can be said about anarchism and communism can be said with yet more force about [radical] feminism, because the latter seeks to eliminate something that touches us far more deeply than private property or the state. Like the other two ideologies, [radical] feminism can be presented as a lofty and necessary ideal set up in opposition to a long history of dreadful injustice. After all, things like gender that are implicated in all social life are necessarily implicated in all social injustice. Nonetheless, the practical implementation of [radical] feminism, especially by force of law, can only lead to catastrophe. Like anarchism it calls for categorical opposition to authority and hierarchy, and like communism for ceaseless radical reconstruction of all aspects of life, and consequently for absolute bureaucratic domination of society. Both principles are thoroughly destructive, and the fact they contradict each other does not render them harmless.
The result of the victory of [radical] feminism has been disorder cascading from America throughout the world, from the most immediate personal relationships to high culture and international politics. Feminism has meant suspicion and hostility where mutual reliance is an absolute necessity. It has meant growing deceit, heartlessness and brutality in daily life, resulting in particular suffering for the weak. It has meant confusion and misery for the young, who have been deprived of stable family life and concrete ideals of adulthood. It must therefore be opposed as a destructive fanaticism based on a gross and wilful misapprehension of human life.”
There have been many attempts to understand and explain the current state of feminism but that proves impossible.
Feminist theory is an unstable dialectic.
Truth, justice, reason, logic, history, scientific evidence, repeatable results, reproducible research, observations of natural phenomenon, all these are simply words to radical feminists. Words that they believe are designed to cover up a monstrous oppression of women under masks of religion, marriage, and motherhood that cloak the patriarchal family.
The only acceptable theories are those that give power to women. For example, “gender equity” is propounded in order to achieve statistical equity in political positions and the workplace by force of law. The disasters that result are dismissed as the result of patriarchal oppression, or necessary evils on the path to a matriarchal cultural revolution.
As Erin Pizzey has repeatedly pointed out, radical feminists are commonly neo-Marxists. Radical feminists find great comfort in arguments of Engels and Marx that class distinctions and oppression first arose between man and woman in monogamous marriage. Therefore, “class struggle” began when men discovered or insisted on the recognition of their fatherhood, enslaved women in marriage, created the patriarchal family, and established private property.
According to radical feminist's interpretation of Marxist theory, the family is the root cause of oppression.
After the 1917 Russian revolution, the Communists are reported to have tried some of Marx's and Engels' theories regarding the patriarchy, but are said to have retreated in the face of disasters caused by a frontal attack on the family. However, that failure, and many subsequent ones, have not deterred the true believers in a matriarchal society of peace and love.
According to Dale O'Leary in “The Gender Agenda” (p. 103):
“The radical women of the sixties saw in Marx's and Engels' analysis the justification of their own dissatisfaction with liberal reforms. They became convinced that previous Marxist revolutions had failed because they had failed to target the family. If Marxist analysis was correct, the family was the cause of oppression and would have to be eliminated.”
Make no mistake, we are engaged in an epic battle between two incompatible ideologies with fundamentally different views of the rights of the individual and the power of the state, with the future of civilization at stake.
The competing ideologies are generally categorized under the headings of “patriarchy,” representing the present system, and “matriarchy,” representing the return of the goddess and earth mother, and a more primitive relationship between man and woman and their children.
Examples of matriarchal societies can be found in the ghettoes of any major city in America. Such warrens are hardly inspiring examples of progress, peace, and love, but true believers are undeterred by evidence.
Conversely, we believe that families are the foundation blocks of civilization, and that all progress ultimately rests on a father working to make a better world for his wife and children. Thus, we regard radical feminism as the ultimate abomination.
author of “The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality”
I would like to propose the hypothesis: Radical Feminism is a psychological disorder caused by two generations of unforgiveness in the maternal line.
I want to make it clear from the start that I am not speaking of those persons who consider themselves “feminists” because they support equal rights under law, equal opportunity, equal protection under law, and protection from violence for all persons. These positions are supported by those on the right and the left.
It is the radical, anti-life, anti-family, deconstructionist, neo-Marxist Radical Feminism that is rampant on campuses and the government bureaucracies to which I object. I believe that the founders of this movement and those who are deeply committed to forwarding its ideology are seriously psychologically troubled.
A positive supportive relationship with one's father is essential to the proper development of the male and female personality. All those who have not had such a relationship need some form of repair or remediation. Such wounds can be healed, but it requires special intervention. Abusive, or even seriously inadequate fathering can have devastating consequences.
One path which leads to Radical Feminism begins with the grandmother. The grandmother of a radical feminist is frequently married to a man who is an inadequate father. The grandmother may have had a positive relationship with her father and tolerate a certain level of misbehavior from her husband. She fails, however, to see the effect her example has on her daughter.
If a daughter (the future mother of the radical feminist) is mistreated by her father, if he is an alcoholic, physically abusive, sexually abusive, deserts the family, is an adulterer, divorces his wife, or simply has a cruel disposition, the woman grows up with a warped idea of what a man should be and how a woman should be treated. This daughter is highly likely to marry a man who abuses her. She does this because subconsciously she is trying to repair the father-wound — trying at last to win her father's love, by winning the love of a man like her father.
But history repeats itself, the father-replacement husband is often equally abusive, and sometimes more abusive because the damaged daughter-now-wife is used to being abused and has learned to accept abuse. Some of these damaged daughters interpret abuse as love. In some cases the husband is just an ordinary male, but the damaged daughter-now-wife is so angry and unforgiving that she misinterprets simple sex differences as abuse. Often these women are masters of the passive/aggressive style of behavior. They may appear to others as victims, while underneath they wage a stealth campaign against their husbands.
Additionally, although the damaged daughter longs for father-love, and father affirmation, she is also angry and bitter toward her father and has not forgiven him. She transfers this anger to her husband and communicates it to her daughter. If the daughter-now-wife is unable to protect her children from an abusive father or teaches her daughters that ordinary male behavior is abuse, the daughters grow up with a distorted image of masculinity and anger towards men.
This daughter of a damaged daughter has been betrayed by both parents. Her father, who might — had he had a strong wife who had been able to motivate him and draw out his potential virtue — been an adequate father, betrays the daughter through abuse, but the mother also betrays the daughter by not protecting her and by fueling her resentment toward her father.
As the daughter of a damaged daughter grows up, at some point she rejects her mother as a model and mother's passive/aggressive behavior, and decides to become aggressive, but she holds on to the deep seated bitterness and resentment. Voila! We have a Radical Feminist.
The moment when she decides to exchange passive/aggressive behavior for aggressive behavior is viewed as the moment when her “consciousness was raised.” From then on she tends to see all masculine behavior as evil and she recruits other women — who may have been only slightly damaged — into her army of angry, unforgiving women. To her, now fully converted to Radical Feminism, any woman who doesn't see men as evil is still under the oppression of men and needs to have her consciousness raised. The opinions and desires of these women are of no value because they haven't had their consciousness raised.
The Radicalized Feminist is filled with rage against “patriarchy” which is Fatherhood writ large, because she is filled with rage against her own father and afraid to express it. And she turns her rage on any man that comes within her purview. Yet at the same time she too longs for repair — for father-love which will heal her wound. But as much as she may want to put her world back together her refusal to forgive blocks the way. She insists that the reconciliation must be on her terms — total capitulation of the father principle. Thus the Radical Feminist dreams of a utopia where the differences between men and women do not matter. Fathers are the enemy and therefore fatherhood will be wiped out.
Mothers are also guilty because mothers are perpetual victims of fathers, therefore motherhood will also be eliminated. In the feminist dream world, there will be only non-gender identified parents, or no parents at all, only a nanny state which will create a perfect childhood, and children will at last be safe.
Because many of these angry women were sexually abused, sought male love in all the wrong places, or were victims of statutory rape, they tend to have an extremely warped view of sexuality. They use sex to gain power, to self-comfort, to seek father and mother love, and their relationships almost always disintegrate, leaving them more angry and bitter. They may marry, they may have children, but because they are totally unhealed these marriages are for the most part doomed. Their daughters are the real victims — the daughters are forced to choose between two bad examples. Usually they cling to their dysfunctional mother, because the need for mothering is even more powerful than the need for fathering.
They may be fiercely loyal to their angry mother, yet underneath know how damaged she is.
This, I believe, is the genesis of the psychological disorder that drives Radical Feminism. I wrote a column several years ago encouraging forgiveness, in particular I stressed the need for women to forgive the fathers. Four local feminists shot back responses, rambling raging attacks on me which failed to address the points I had made. Their scream was — we will not forgive, if you ask us to forgive, you are asking us to go back to being abused.
This, of course, is not true. When we forgive, we are free from the behaviors which set us up for abuse. Not forgiving perpetuates the resentment — the “re-feeling” of the original trauma. Resentment is a destructive form of self abuse, but these angry women could not, or will not hear the truth.
Radical Feminism is a psychological disorder (psyche is the Greek for soul) because unforgiveness is a disorder of the soul. When a soul is trapped in unforgiveness, the person's thinking is clouded and the behavior self-destructive. These unforgiving women are modern Medea's, who will sacrifice their own children to satisfy their need for revenge against unfaithful men.
These women will destroy the child in the womb to bring down “patriarchy”
They will rip their children away from their fathers and cause permanent damage, because they weren't properly fathered.
They will pull down every societal support for families, for motherhood, and for love, in order to create an impossible dream of a gender-neutral world.
The only answer is forgiveness. I have seen it over and over again, if a woman caught up in Radical Feminist ideology, a woman spouting Radical Feminist nonsense, can be shown how to forgive, and is willing to forgive, the disorder is healed. The Radical Feminist nonsense disappears.
Asking people to extend forgiveness to those who have really hurt them may appear to some to be difficult or even impossible, but I have found that once people understand how to forgive and why they should forgive, many are willing to try. Those who want to learn more about forgiveness and how it works should contact the International Forgiveness Institute.
If we want to heal the family and save the next generation from the evil of Radical Feminism, we have to teach people how to forgive. Anything which perpetuates the idea that it is okay not to forgive fortifies the Radical Feminist position. Once forgiveness becomes the expected response, then healing and reconciliation will become the norm, and families and individuals will be healed.
The last verses of the Old Testament remind us that this process is essential if we wish to avert the catastrophe that inevitably comes when families fall apart:
Lo, I will send you Elijah, the prophet before the day of the Lord comes,
the great and terrible day, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their
children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and
strike the land with doom. (Mal. 3:23-24)
Egalitarian feminists of the 1960s and '70s, asked whether they were prepared to give up women's traditional advantages, replied that they were willing to accept all of the consequences of equality. In the black-and-white vision of the dominant feminists of the 1980's and '90s, women have never had any advantages whatever, and even today the situation between the sexes is characterized by massive male oppression and widespread misogyny.
Here are 10 reasons why we are concerned about feminism and the National Organization for Women.
1. “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist” (National NOW Times, January, 1988).
2. “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage” (radical feminist leader Sheila Cronan).
3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, “I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world” (Gary Bauer, “Abetting Coercion in China,” The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989).
4. “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole...patriarch!” (Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of MS magazine).
5. “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft” (from “The Declaration of Feminism,” November, 1971).
6. “By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.” (Gloria Steinem, editor of MS magazine).
7. “Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women.... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world.” (Annie Laurie Gaylor, “Feminist Salvation,” The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988.
8. “In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them” (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).
9. “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981.
10. “The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it.” (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in “Women and the New Race,” p. 67).
Abbott Loop Community Church (February 1, 1991)
E-mail: lynn@abbottloop.org
Wikipedia now maintains a rather complete tabulation of radical feminist quotes if any doubt remains about the objectives and hysteria of these people.
We don't need taxpayer-funded feminist groups with an anti-male, anti-family political ax to grind destroying our communities. We stand firmly opposed to policies that:
• Forcibly separate men from their women and children.
• Eliminate our civil liberties.
• Put men in jail without trial.
• Provide an environment for our children that is proven to make criminals of the boys and whores of the girls.
Feminist politicians, male or female, certainly don't say these things in plain English, but you can recognize the rhetoric:
• They don't mention violence against men.
• They support increased use of restraining orders against men.
• They support mandatory arrests and “no drop” policies in domestic violence cases.
• They advocate increased funding for battered women's shelters but nothing for men.
• They make divorce profitable for women.
• They blame men for violence but ignore female mayhem and murder.
You cannot change something that remains hidden from you. In order to stop these one-sided programs you will need to:
• Find out what kind of family violence programs you have in your community?
• Find out whether the local program encourages the healing of families, or do they take the 'divorce' approach?
• Find out whether the local program demands the separation of a man from his wife and children or works to keep them together and fix the problem whenever possible.
• Find out if program literature makes reference to the Duluth model, or DAIP. You can be certain that it is promoting gender feminist goals if they do.
• Find out how much attention the family violence prevention program in your community devotes to violent females? As much as it does to violent males? If not, why not?
• Find out if the program promotes the idea that only men batter, women are always victims paradigm. If so Big Sister is at work.
• Ask your state representatives why your tax dollars are being used to promote divorce and the destruction of families with these draconian laws?
These are your tax dollars and no problem gets solved if you concern yourself with less than half the issues.
Women's shelters are commonly feminist-front organizations funded with your tax money. Do you think that is true in your community? If so let your state representatives know. We need family-friendly agencies in our community that deliver services to all family members and attempt to recognize and solve the problems many couples have. Our objective is to preserve families, not tear them apart.
The many images and graphics of feminist rage are in evidence against the excesses of the radical feminist movement. For example, take S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men). Their manifesto was written by Valerie Solanas' in 1967 and published in 1968, the year she shot and wounded Andy Warhol. An updated version was published in 1983 by the Matriarchy Study Group. The S.C.U.M. manifesto can be found on many Web sites besides the one we reference.
Of course there are many more Web sites of similar caliber, such as the ravings of Liz Kates, but should such small bore weapons be taken seriously?
Yes! Because our laws are now based on such dementia.
| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Chapter 9 — The Male Perspective |
| Next — Men's rights in the courts |
| Back — You can sue but you can't win (if you are a man) |
This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.