Feeds:
Posts
Comments

On the 14th of January, last year, a private citizen known as Charles A. Antonnelli filed a bill to the Massachusetts Legislature. On the 2nd of March, this year, Georganne Chapin, J.D., the Executive Director of the organization Intact America, gave her testimony to the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary about the proposed Senate Bill 1777, which is also known as the Massachusetts State Prohibition of Genital Mutilation Act. This bill is designed to be a state-level modification of the earlier Federal Prohibition on Female Genital Mutilation Act, which outlawed circumcision for female babies in America. Astonishingly, this bill was never amended by order of the Supreme Court to give equal protection to male infants, as the first section of the 14th Amendment demands, with its famous equal protection’s clause. This bill is to be that amending, in at least one State.

The bill borrows heavily in wording from the federal act, by clearly defining what constitutes an act of “genital mutilation”. The Massachusetts bill will continue to prohibit any cutting or infibulations of the labia majora, labia minora, and clitoris; and, it will add the penis, glans, foreskin, nipple, breast, and vulva to the list of protected organs, thereby granting fundamental and equal protections to babies of both genders.

Other than this being the beginning of equal treatment under the law for men and boys, there are many other reasons to be ecstatic about this bill. For those who don’t know, circumcision is an unnecessary medical procedure, which permanently removes many vital tissues. Included are 24,000 nerve endings that these boys and men will never get back, of which all of the meissner’s corpuscles, which are the fine-touch receptors. Volume 99 Issue 4 of the British Journal of Urology records how much neurological damage is done by circumcision; and, charts the lack of sensitivity in a circumcised penis. Neither the American Association of Pediatrics nor the American Medical Association support routine neonatal circumcision, and for good reason.

It’s hard to imagine how this procedure ever began in this country; but, it’s not that old. Circumcision began to be practiced and advocated for in the late 1870’s, as a “cure for masturbation”. It was out of a hatred for male sexuality that this practice grew and became standard among families. The practice of cutting off large sections of boy’s penises came immediately after the period when parents forced young boys into strange chastity belts to prevent them from so much as touching themselves. Psychiatrists during this period are now famous for declaring that masturbation lead to insanity. Being the sane people they obviously were, they opted for tying babies down to flay them alive.

This Bill is being met with harsh criticism, primarily from religious fundamentalists, who claim that this bill removes their 1st Amendment Rights to free religious practice; but, how could their freedoms be infringed, when it’s neither their body nor the religion of the baby’s, per se? They claim a religious right to the bodies of others. The bodies in question are sovereign beings, who deserve the right to do with their body what they want, and not be forced to have what others want done to it. Not to lean on old clichés; but, his body, his choice. If he wants to be circumcised, he can choose to have the procedure done at the age of adulthood. After all, it’s his body right, or do others own it?

If those, who oppose the bill, continue to claim their religious right to do with his body what they want, then what do we do, when other religions claim ownership of their bodies? The Jews may claim a religious right to take knives to the bodies of babies; but, the Muslims claim a religious right to take knives to the bodies of Jews. Both of these practices are against the secular laws of our nation, and it is more than reasonable to prohibit both, for the same reasons. Religion is not a sufficient reason to maim and assault others, whether a baby or an adult.

To be perfectly blunt, there is no reason sufficient for forcing this upon anyone, and Massachusetts may yet earn great praise in the history books for being the first state to end this abomination. After all, Senate Bill 1777’s very name has historical significance: July 8th of 1777 was when Vermont became the first state to abolish slavery, and adopt male suffrage. It’s a sign that this bill is long overdue, after all, baby boys are not the property of their parents and they deserve a voice too.

The magnificent Ayn Rand, philosopher extraordinaire, wrote against what she saw as anti-industrialism and an end to progress and civility. A great many have followed in her footsteps, and adopted her philosophy of Obectivism. One such individual is Peter Schwartz, who has written on a multitude of subjects, varying from politics to morality. He has often spoken out against primitive things such as bigotry. Included in that, have been his criticisms of feminism, for their biased and slanted view against men, women, and individuality. The following is an example of his work.

The original post can be found here. Enjoy his methodical reasoning.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Feminism’s War on Objectivity

by Peter Schwartz

While feminists claim to be pursuing justice for women, it is becoming ever more apparent that their actual goal is the obliteration of justice. More precisely, their aim is to eliminate that which makes justice possible: objective standards.

Instead of urging employers, for example, to adopt objective standards of merit in hiring and to apply them consistently to all candidates, irrespective of the (irrelevant) fact of gender, feminists call for the very opposite. They demand the lowering or the suspension of standards, in order to accommodate certain women. They no longer argue that women who meet objective qualifications ought not to be rejected solely on account of their sex (an argument which would merit moral, though not legislative, backing); rather, they declare that females who fail to qualify should be accepted solely on account of their sex.

When faced with the fact that most female applicants were unable to meet the New York City Fire Department’s strength requirements, feminists successfully sued to have the standards changed so that a “sufficient” number of women could pass. They did not care that there is an objective need for stringent physical standards for firefighters. To feminists, gender transcends everything, including reality and logic.

This attitude is evident in the response of women’s groups to two recent news events.

Feminists championed the just-enacted Civil Rights Act of 1991. This law creates a legal presumption of wrongdoing whenever a company’s practices–such as employment tests–have a “disparate impact” by sex (or race or other collectivist criteria). Thus, if proportionately fewer women than men pass a truck-driving test (or if fewer Eskimos than non-Eskimos meet a high school diploma requirement), the employer can be charged with “discrimination.” And while the legislation nominally exempts practices that are “job-related,” this amounts to mere lip-service. For how many employers would risk the time and money to mount a defense, when the legal burden is on them to prove “non-discrimination”–to prove it, that is, to the satisfaction of the same mentality that considers it unjust discrimination to test a prospective firefighter’s ability to lift heavy weights?

A similar disregard for objective standards was manifested during the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas confrontation. There, feminists instantly flocked to Hill’s side, accepting her testimony as undeniably true and condemning those who subjected her to cross-examination in a quest for facts. The feminist complaint was not that Hill was being judged by different stndards than men are–but that she wasn’t, i.e., that because she was a woman accusing a man of an archetypically “male-chauvinist” crime, her veracity should have been indisputable.

These feminists are indifferent to the principle that a process of justice requires objective judicial standards; positive evidence supporting the charges must exist even before the convening of any hearing or trial; the burden of proof must lie with the accuser, since a negative cannot be proved; the accused must be considered inocent unless proven guilty; and the accuser must consequently be intensely scrutinized, doubted and challenged. But feminists maintain that objective standards are immaterial, and objective facts non-existent. To them, the respective genders of accuser and accused in this case reveal who is the victimizer and who is the victim.

This approach represents not a search for “better” standards, but a jettisoning of standards as such–and of objectivity. According to Marxist ideology, there is no objectivity in human reasoning, but only “proletarian logic” and “bourgeois logic,” with one’s economic class determining the contents of one’s mind. Feminism likewise contends that objectivity is impossible. Feminists believe that standards–in jurisprudence, in employment, in any sphere–are the products of a “male power structure.” They maintain that the “class interests” of men compel them to perceive reality from a distorted, prejudiced perspective–that men, by biological necessity, “just don’t get it.”

If there is no objectivity, then the basis for deciding who is entitled to what is not the standards of justice, but the whims of any collective (enforced by the politics of pressure-group warfare). This is why feminists do not insist that one hire a female worker who deserves the job, or believe a female witness because she has earned credibility, or include in a university’s curriculum a female author whose works merit study. Feminism’s essential message–a message demeaning to all rational, conscientious women — is that the female gender needs to be granted the unearned.

Justice is the objective evaluation of individuals. By embracing the non-objective, feminism can pursue nothing but the unjust.

Linguistic Misandry

Often, a language absorbs the prejudices of its speakers, like a sponge. New phrases, words, and entendres enter a tongue through the very people that, speak it. When they wish to refer the thing they hold in contempt, the colloquialisms they utter, are heard, repeated, and eventually standardized. Through this phenomena many bigoted sentiments can enter a culture subconsciously, often repeated by those who realize not what they say, as though they were only parrots. This can result in a severe bias against the people, who are being spoken of illy. More often than not, those, who are held in contempt by the language, do not realize it is they who are mocked, and repeat these sentiments, as though it were everyday speech. Imagine that.

The following is an assortment of misandric words and phrases, which are now standardized and cemented into our vocabularies. Included, will be their etymology, their definition, and why they impact the societal view of males negatively. Since it easier to see double standards and biased attitudes for what they are, when the same standards and attitudes are applied to a different group, female oriented versions of the following terms have been provided, so that it easier to see why they are insulting and demeaning. Hopefully this will allow a great deal of empathy to form.

  1. badguyThis is a phrase to describe a person, who is lacking moral character or one, who has committed some wrong. It implies, though, that all wrongdoers are male, since it is the title for females who lack moral character, or have committed a wrong, as well as the title for males of the same persuasion. The reverse would be to say “badgal”.
  2. girls are made up of sugar, spice, and everything nice, while boys are made up of snakes, and snails, and puppy dog tailsThis is a saying said often to children, that denotes that everything about girls is good, while everything about boys is bad. The reverse would be to say “boys are made up of sugar, spice, and everything nice, while girls are made up of snakes, snails, and puppy dog tails.”
  3. ladies and germs– This is an old greeting in comic routines towards the audience. It is a pejorative phrase, which implies that men are neither mannered nor cleanly. The reverse would be to say “germs and gentlemen”.
  4. man-made disasterThis is a phrase which means that a catastrophe was started by humans, in some way, shape, or form. It implies, however, that only males are responsible for calamities. The reverse of this would be to say “woman-made disaster“.
  5. mansplaining– This is a neologism that is used to describe what is seen as a male habit of explaining things in a patronizing manner. It is often used to degrade and devalue the statements and beliefs of men in internet forums, by implying that the male speaker doesn’t really know what he is talking about, simply because he is male; and, it furthers and perpetuates stereotypes against men about just that. The reverse of this would be to say “femsplaining
  6. the fairer sexThis is a title bestowed upon the female sex, which claims that they are more graceful, decent, and virtuous than males, simply because of their gender. The reverse of this would be to say that “males are the fairer sex.”
  7. women and children firstThis is an ancient maxim and pseudo-law, which reinforces a mandate, in the minds of men, that they are of less value than their female counterparts; and, should sacrifice for them regardless of the situation and regardless of the cost incurred by them. The reverse would be to say “men and children first”.

This is the transcript of an interview between Cristina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, and Ben Wattenberg, on the subject of feminism and its misandry. The conversation is marked by the question, “Has feminism gone too far?” Throughout the discussion, many example are brought up by these two feminist scholars, as to how modern feminists have brought sexism, slander, hysteria, and misdirection into the women’s movement. Decide for yourself, dear readers.

The original can be seen here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guests:
Camille Paglia & Christina Hoff Sommers

Think Tank™ With Ben Wattenberg
Airdate: November 4, 1994

Christina Hoff Sommers is the author of Who Stole Feminism? : How Women Have Betrayed Women(order on-line) Camille Paglia is the author of Sexual Personae(order on-line) Sex, Art, and American Culture : Essays, andVamps and Tramps (order on-line)

Ben Wattenberg
Ben Wattenberg

ANNOUNCER: “Think Tank” has been made possible by Amgen, a recipient of the Presidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen, bringing better, healthier lives to people worldwide through biotechnology.

Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, the William H. Donner Foundation, the Randolph Foundation, and the JM Foundation.

MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I’m Ben Wattenberg. There are many feminists and scholars who contend that America is still a patriarchal place where women are victims and adversaries of men. We will hear that point of view in a future program. But for the next half-hour we will hear a different idea from two prominent and controversial feminists: Camille Paglia and Christina Sommers.

The topic before this house: Has feminism gone too far? This week on Think Tank.

Joining us on this special edition of Think Tank are two authors who have made themselves unpopular with much of the modern feminist movement. Camille Paglia is professor of humanities at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia and best-selling author most recently of “Vamps and Tramps.” Her criticisms of modern feminism caused one author to refer to her as the spokeswoman for the anti-feminist backlash.

Our other guest, Christina Sommers, is an associate professor of philosophy at Clark University. In her recent book, “Who Stole Feminism,” she accuses activist women of betraying the women’s movement. She wrote the book, she says, because she is a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.

Christina Sommers, what has feminism become?

MS. SOMMERS: The orthodox feminists are so carried away with victimology, with a rhetoric of male-bashing that it’s full of female chauvinists, if you will. Also, women are quite eager to censor, to silence. And what concerns me most as a philosopher is it’s become very anti-intellectual, and I think it poses a serious risk to young women in the universities. Women’s studies classes are increasingly a kind of initiation into the most radical wing, the most intolerant wing, of the feminist movement. And I consider myself a whistle-blower. I’m from inside the campus. I teach philosophy. I’ve seen what’s been going on.

MR. WATTENBERG: Camille, what has feminism become?

MS. PAGLIA: Well, I have been an ardent feminist since the rebirth of the current feminist movement. I’m on the record as being — as rebelling against my gender-role, as being an open lesbian and so on. In the early 1960s I was researching Amelia Earhart, who for me symbolized the great period of feminism of the ’20s and ’30s just after women won the right to vote. When this phase of feminism kicked back in the late ’60s, it was very positive at first. Women drew the line against men and demanded equal rights. I am an equal opportunity feminist. But very soon it degenerated into a kind of totalitarian “group think” that we are only now rectifying 20 years later.

MR. WATTENBERG: Is this the distinction between equity feminism and gender feminism? Is that what we’re talking about?

MS. SOMMERS: That’s right. Yes.

MR. WATTENBERG: Could you sort of explain that so that we get our terms right?

MS. SOMMERS: An equity feminist — and Camille and I both are equity feminists –is you want for women what you want for everyone: fair treatment, no discrimination. A gender feminist, on the other hand, is someone like the current leaders in the feminist movement: Patricia Ireland and Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi and Eleanor Smeal. They believe that women are trapped in what they call a sex-gender system, a patriarchal hegemony; that contemporary American women are in the thrall to men, to male culture. And it’s so silly. It has no basis in American reality. No women have ever had more opportunities, more freedom, and more equality than contemporary American women. And at that moment the movement becomes more bitter and more angry. Why are they so angry?

MS. PAGLIA: Mmm-hmm. (In agreement.) This is correct. In other words, I think that the current feminist movement has taken credit for a lot of the enormous changes in women’s lives that my generation of the ’60s wrought. There were women in the mid ’60s when I was in college who did not go onto become feminists. They were baudy and feisty and robust. Barbra Streisand is a kind of example of a kind of pre-feminist woman that changed the modern world and so on.

Now, I think that again what we need to do now is to get rid of the totalitarians, get rid of the Kremlin mentality —

MR. WATTENBERG: Now, hang on, when you say —

MS. PAGLIA: Wait — and here are the aims of my program. We’ve got to get back to a pro-art, all right, pro-beauty, pro-men kind of feminism. And —

MS. SOMMERS: I think she’s right to call it a kind of totalitarianism. Many young women on campuses combine two very dangerous things: moral fervor and misinformation. On the campuses they’re fed a kind of catechism of oppression. They’re taught “one in four of you have been victims of rape or attempted rape; you’re earning 59 cents on the dollar; you’re suffering a massive loss of self-esteem; that you’re battered especially on Super Bowl Sunday.” All of these things are myths, grotesque exaggerations.

MR. WATTENBERG: Well, why don’t you go through some of those myths with some specificity?

MS. SOMMERS: Well, for example, a few years ago feminist activists held a news conference and announced that on Super Bowl Sunday battery against women increases 40 percent. And, in fact, NBC was moved to use a public service announcement to, you know, encourage men “remain calm during the game.” Well —

MR. WATTENBERG: How can you remain calm during the Super Bowl! (Laughter.)

MS. SOMMERS: Well, they might explode like mad linemen and attack their wives and so forth. The New York Times began to refer to it as the “day of dread.” One reporter, Ken Ringle at the Washington Post, did something very unusual in this roiling sea of media credulity. He checked the facts — and within a few hours discovered that it was a hoax. No such research, no — there’s no data about a 40-percent increase. And this is just one of so many myths. You’ll hear —

MR. WATTENBERG: Give me some others.

MS. SOMMERS: According to the March of Dimes, battery is the number — the leading cause of birth defects. Patricia Ireland repeats this. It was in Time magazine. It was in newspapers across the country. I called the March of Dimes and they said, “We’ve never seen this research before.” This is preposterous. There’s no such research. And yet this is being taught to young women in the colleges. They’re basically learning that they live in a kind of violent — almost a Bosnian rape camp.

Now, naturally, the more sensitive young women —

MR. WATTENBERG: What about rape? Is that exaggerated by the modern feminists?

MS. SOMMERS: Completely. This idea of one in four girls victims of rape or attempted rape? That’s preposterous! And there’s also a kind of gentrification of rape. You’re much more likely to be a victim of rape or attempted rape if you’re in a high crime neighborhood. The chances of being raped at Princeton are remote. Katie Roiphe talked about being at Princeton. She said she was more afraid — she would walk across a dark golf course and was more afraid of being attacked by wild geese than by a rapist. And yet the young women at Princeton have more programs and whistles are given out and blue lights. There’s more services to protect these young women from rape than for women in, you know, downtown Newark.

MR. WATTENBERG: Where do you come out on this?

MS. PAGLIA: Well, one of the things that got me pilloried from coast to coast was when I wrote a piece on date rape for Newsday in January of 1991. It got picked up by the wire services, and the torrent of abuse that poured in. I want women to fend for themselves. That essay that I wrote on rape begins with the line “Rape is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in civilized society.” I absolutely abhor this broadening of the idea of rape, which is an atrocity, to those things that go wrong on a date –acquaintances, you know, little things, miscommunications — on pampered elite college campuses. MS. SOMMERS: I interviewed a young women at the University of Pennsylvania who came in in a short skirt and she was in the Women’s Center, and I think she thought I was one of the sisterhood. And she said, “Oh, I just suffered a mini-rape.” And I said, “What happened?” And she said, “A boy walked by me and said, `Nice legs’.” You know? And that — and this young woman considers this a form of rape!

MS. PAGLIA: That’s right.

MR. WATTENBERG: What role in the development of this kind of thought that the idea of sexual harassment and whole Anita Hill thing have? Was that sort of a —

MS. PAGLIA: That’s fairly recent, actually. It was in the late ’80s that started. I mean, that was a late phase. I think probably the backlash against the excesses of sexual harassment have — you know, have really finally weakened the hold of PC. I believe, for example, in moderate sexual harassment guidelines. I lobbied for their adoption at my university in 1986. But I put into my proposal a strict penalty for false accusation. All right? I don’t like the situation where the word of any woman is weighed above the testimony of any man. And I was the only leading feminist that went out against Anita Hill. I think that that whole case was pile of crap.

MR. WATTENBERG: Why?

MS. PAGLIA: Well, I think it was absurd. First of all, again, totalitarian regime, okay, is where 10 years after the fact you’re nominated now for a top position in your country and you are being asked to reconstruct lunch conversations that you had with someone who never uttered a peep. Okay? This is to Anita Hill: “All right, when he started to talk again about this pornographic films at lunch in the government cafeteria, what did you do?” “I tried to change the subject.” Excuse me! I mean, that is ridiculous. I mean, so many of these cases —

MS. SOMMERS: He never touched her.

MS. PAGLIA: He never touched her. Okay? That was such a trumped-up case by the feminist establishment.

MR. WATTENBERG: Do you sign onto that?

MS. SOMMERS: Well, I’ve changed. I mean, initially I was just carried away with the media and thought, “Oh, Saint Anita.” And later I thought about it and actually learned from some experts on sexual harassment that her behavior was completely untypical. She did not act — the career lechers –usually a woman is repulsed and will not follow him from place to place, and usually there are many women who will come forward who have had the same experience. These things were not true in his case. It now seems to me quite likely that he was innocent of these charges.

MS. PAGLIA: Completely innocent. And I must say, as a teacher of 23 years, if someone offends you by speech, we must train women to defend themselves by speech. You cannot be always running to tribunals. Okay? Running to parent figures, authority figures, after the fact because you want to preserve your perfect, decorous, middle-class persona.

MR. WATTENBERG: This is Catherine MacKinnon, who says speech is rape?

MS. PAGLIA: Yes, I’m on the opposite wing. Catherine McKinnon is the anti-porn wing of feminism. I am on the radically pro-porn wing. I’m more radical than Christina. I —

MR. WATTENBERG: Are you pro-pornography?

MS. SOMMERS: For adults. I’m trying to be very careful about it for — you know, I feel in our society — for children. But I’m horrified at the puritanism and the sex phobia of feminism. How did that happen? I mean, feminism — it used to be fun to be a feminist, and it used to have a lot of — it attracted all sorts of lively women. Now you ask a group of young women on the college campus, “How many of you are feminists?” Very few will raise their hands because young women don’t want to be associated with it anymore because they know it means male-bashing, it means being a victim, and it means being bitter and angry. And young women are not naturally bitter and angry.

MS. PAGLIA: We had a case at Penn State where an English instructor who was assigned to teach in an arts building where there had been a print of Goya’s “Naked Maja,” a great classic artwork, on the wall for 40 years. All right? She demanded it be taken down because she felt sexually harassed by it, because the students in the classroom were looking at it instead of her. Okay? Now, this is ridiculous. This is part of the puritanism of our culture. I want a kind of feminism that is pro-beauty, pro-sensuality. Okay? That is not embarrassed and upset by a spectacle of the beauty of the human body!

MR. WATTENBERG: What about this argument that came up recently that girls in elementary and high school are neglected by their teachers? Is that — have either of you —

MS. PAGLIA: A bunch of crap.

MS. SOMMERS: It’s a hoax.

MS. PAGLIA: A bunch of crap.

MS. SOMMERS: I mean, it’s all — it’s really an incredible case of just junk science. The American Association of University Women hastily threw together a survey of 3,000 children and asked them about their sense of well-being and their self-esteem, and they never published it. It’a not — it hasn’t been replicated by scholars. Adolescents don’t see significant differences — the majority don’t see significant differences — between levels of self-esteem between young men and young women. Yet the AAUW said it was true. It’s an advocacy group. Their membership was drying up. They were losing, you know, several thousand members a year. They needed an issue. They brought in a new group and they got on the gender-bias bandwagon and basically struck gold. They now — you can call an 800 number. They have short-changing girls mugs and t-shirts. (Laughter.) And they were so positively reviewed in the media that they can use —

MS. PAGLIA: Oh, the media was utterly credulous. I couldn’t believe it when MacNeil/Lehrer totally — they fell for it like suckers that night.

MS. SOMMERS: Well, they would ask young men, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” And boys would say things like rock star or sports star. And girls would say lawyer and doctor. So they declared a glamor gap and said that there’s a glamor gap, that girls don’t dream their dreams. Well, most children don’t have the talent to be rock stars. The sensible ones know this. So the way I would interpret those findings is that girls mature earlier and boys suffer a reality gap.

MS. PAGLIA: Right, right.

MS. SOMMERS: But this was the kind of question that was asked. Yet not one journalist that I’m aware of, except the Sacramento Bee, because they wrote to me and said, “We question this” — they didn’t do what Ken Ringle did at the Washington Post. They didn’t send away for the data. They relied on the glossy brochures.

MR. WATTENBERG: Let me —

MS. PAGLIA: And the question of attention in the classroom, too. As experienced teachers, okay, this idea that you measure, okay, how much attention the teacher is paying to the boys and girls to determine how much that the student is valued, and it was discovered that the teacher was making more remarks to the boys. You’re keeping them in line! Okay? The boys you have to say, “Shut up, be quiet! Do this thing. Are you doing your homework?” Like this. The girls, all right, they do their homework. They’re very mature. And girls at that age are rather sensitive, and I as a teacher am very aware — as a teacher of freshmen, all right — that the girls are sitting there pleading with you with their eyes, “Don’t embarrass me in front of the entire class.” Okay? I’m very aware that I seem to be talking often to the boys. Tut that is just because they’re so — their egos are completely — I mean, they’re so unconflicted. Okay? They love attention. They’re like yapping puppies. You know what I mean? They don’t care about making fools of themselves once they start.

MR. WATTENBERG: The boys?

MS. PAGLIA: The boys make fools of themselves, blah, blah, blah, blah! Okay? The most intelligent students hang back. All right? I was very silent in class, myself. Okay? And so I — and I like to just take notes. All right?

MR. WATTENBERG: That sounds like you’re anti-male now. You’re saying, “Now I’m offended.”

MS. PAGLIA: No, no!

MS. SOMMERS: But they can be immature.

MS. PAGLIA: The boys are immature.

MS. SOMMERS: The AAUW would ask children: “I’m good at a lot of things.” And you could say, all the time, some of the time, usually, but you know — and a lot of little boys, the 11 to — would say, “All the time, I’m good at everything all the time.” And girls, being a little more reflective, will give a more nuanced answer. The AAUW counted everything except “always true” meaning that they were suffering from a dangerous lack of self-esteem. They declared an American tragedy. American girls don’t believe in themselves.

MS. PAGLIA: Right, and the girls’ are doing better in school.

MS. SOMMERS: Girls are getting better grades.

MS. PAGLIA: Right.

MS. SOMMERS: More go to college.

MS. PAGLIA: Right.

MS. SOMMERS: More boys drop out. More boys are getting into drugs and alcohol.

MR. WATTENBERG: And most of the teachers are women in any event —

MS. SOMMERS: Yes. And to add to that, it’s supposed to be unconscious —

(Cross talk.)

MR. WATTENBERG: — a point you made, I guess, in that.

MS. SOMMERS: Yeah.

MR. WATTENBERG: The — what about the argument — you hear less about it now, and perhaps the data has changed, but that women only make 59 cents for every dollar that —

MS. PAGLIA: First of all, what was omitted from that is what kind of jobs are women gravitating toward? I mean, Warren Farrell, in his book, “The Myth of Male Power,” has a lot of statistics that show men are taking the dangerous, dirty jobs like roofing, okay, the kind of gritty things that pay more — commissioned sales that are very unstable. Okay?

It appears that a lot of women — where the real biases occur, okay, those barriers must be removed. But this is an inadequate kind of a figure. It doesn’t allow for the fact that most women, in fact, in my experience, too, like nice clean, safe offices, nice predictable hours and so on, and they don’t want to, like, knock themselves out in that kind of way. I mean, every time I pass — after reading Warren Farrell’s book, every time I pass men doing that roofing tar, okay, breathing those toxic fumes and so on, okay, I have a renewed respect for the kind of sacrifices that men have made.

MR. WATTENBERG: That 59-cent number —

MS. SOMMERS: It hasn’t been for —

MR. WATTENBERG: — is now 71, but even that was —

MR. SOMMERS: It’s now 71 cents, and that is not correct because you have to control for age, length of time in the work place. And if you look at younger women now, the age — the wage gap is closed. It’s now — when they have children, it’s 90 cents. But if they don’t have children, it’s now closer to what —

MS. PAGLIA: It would be outrageous if people were doing exactly the same thing and being paid a different wage. Okay? But that is not at all the basis for this figure.

MR. WATTENBERG: Legalized abortion has come to be viewed as the central issue of the feminist movement. Is that an appropriate spot for it to be? That —

MS. SOMMERS: It’s an important issue. I believe, in choice, but I think there’s an obsession with feminists with that issue, which is — and it’s also very — it leaves a lot of women out of the movement. There should be a place in women’s studies, there should be a place in women’s scholarship for traditionally religious women. There are Christian — conservative Christian women who are scholars, Orthodox Jewish women who are scholars, Islamic women who are scholars. Why don’t — why isn’t there any place for them in women’s studies? Because there’s a litmus test —

MS. PAGLIA: Yes.

MS. SOMMERS: — and you have to be pro-choice or you need not apply.

MS. PAGLIA: I’m radically pro-choice, unrestricted right to abortion. However, I have respect for the pro-life side, and I am disgusted by the kind of rhetoric that I get. I support the abortion rights groups with money and so on, but I cannot stand the kind of stuff that comes in my mailbox, right, which stereotypes all pro-life people as being fanatics, misogynists, and so on, radical and far, you know, right and so on. I mean, it is

MS. SOMMERS: It is so condescending and so elitist.

MS. PAGLIA: It’s condescending. It’s insulting. It’s elitist. It’s anti-intellectual. It’s a deformed —

MS. SOMMERS: It’s very anti-intellectual. The arguments on abortion philosophically — and I teach applied ethics — if you really understand the issues, you have to have some questions, especially about second trimester abortions where you are quite likely dealing with an individual.

MR. WATTENBERG: What is your view today? How would the average American woman, if we could ever distill such a body, how does she view this new feminism?

MS. SOMMERS: Well, the average American women, first of all, is rather fond of men. Okay? She has a husband or a father or a brother or — you know? So the male-bashing is out of control right now. I mean — and if you look at a lot of the statistics that I deconstruct in my book. You know, that men are responsible for birth defects, that men — Naomi Wolff has a factoid she has since corrected, but she says 150,000 girls die every year starving themselves to death from anorexia. This was in Gloria Steinem’s book. It got into Ann Lander’s column. It’s in women’s studies textbooks. The correct figure, according to the Center for Disease Control, is closer to 100 deaths a year, not 150,000.

MS. PAGLIA: Three-thousand times exaggerated or something.

MS. SOMMERS: It’s, you know — so Naomi Wolff put is this way. She said young — it’s a holocaust against women’s bodies. We’re being starved not by nature, but by men. And —

MS. PAGLIA: They want to blame the media for anorexia, when in point of fact anorexia plays white middle-class households. It is a response to something incestuous going on within these nuclear families.

MS. SOMMERS: Mainly upper-middle-class —

MS. PAGLIA: Yes, right.

MS. SOMMERS: — overachieving white girls.

MS. PAGLIA: Yeah.

MS. SOMMERS: And by the way, if 150,000 of these girls where dying, you would need — it would be — you would need to have ambulances on hand at places where they gather like Wellesley College graduation and like you do at major sporting events. (Laughter.) But why didn’t anyone — it’s funny, but no one caught the error.

MS. PAGLIA: No one caught it. The media was totally servile! Every word that came out of Gloria Steinem’s mouth or Patricia Ireland’s mouth is treated as gospel truth. For 20 years the major media, when they want “what is the women’s view?” they turn to NOW. Okay? NOW does not speak for American women. It does not speak even for all feminists.

MR. WATTENBERG: NOW is the National Organization —

MS. PAGLIA: National Organization for Women, which —

MR. WATTENBERG: National Organization for Women.

MS. PAGLIA: — for Women, which Betty Friedan founded, but which soon expelled even her. Okay? They’ve been taken over by a certain kind of ideology. All right? I’m in constant war with them as a dissident feminist and so on, and — you know, and it’s taken me a long time, you know, to fight my way into the public eye.

MR. WATTENBERG: All right, let me ask this question: What are the policy implications of this idea of feminine dictumhood?

MS. SOMMERS: It’s a disaster. These women are — I will give them one thing. They’re brilliant work-shoppers, networkers, organizers, moving in, taking over infrastructure. They’re busybodies. There has never been a more effective, you know, army of busybodies. And they know how to work the system. So they will hastily throw together a study designed to show women are medically neglected or women have a massive loss of self-esteem — one in four. And then they move to key senators. Senator Biden seems to be especially vulnerable.

MS. PAGLIA: Oh! What a weak link. What a weak link.

MS. SOMMERS: Patricia Schroeder, Senator Kennedy. But it’s Republicans, too. They’re quite carried away. Congressman Ramstad from Minneapolis.

MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, they’re afraid of the TV commercials running against them, which is —

MS. SOMMERS: That’s right.

MS. PAGLIA: Yeah, that’s right.

MS. SOMMERS: And then we’re getting — we now have a gender-bias bill that went through Congress that’s going to provide millions of dollars for gender-bias workshops. What the politicians don’t realize is that feminism is a multi-million dollar industry. The gender-bias industry is thriving. They’re the work-shoppers and the networkers out there.

MS. PAGLIA: The bureaucrats are really profitting —

MS. SOMMERS: Consultants and bureaucrats.

MS. PAGLIA: It’s a tremendous waste of money.

MS. SOMMERS: And it’s not based on truth.

MS. PAGLIA: It should go into education. That money should go directly into education to improve the system.

MS. SOMMERS: I spoke to a teacher yesterday who taught in Brooklyn, and there were no books to teach English.

MS. PAGLIA: Oh, pathetic!~

MS. SOMMERS: And yet there are going to be — there’s going to be $5 million now, plus a lot more from the education bill, for workshops on gender-bias in the classroom, which is a non-problem compared to far more serious problems. So I consider many feminists to be opportunists. They move in on real problems. There is a problem of violence in our schools. They’ll turn it into a problem of sexual harassment —

MS. PAGLIA: Yes.

MS. SOMMERS: — which is nothing compared to the problem of violence and instability. They’ll move into under-performance of our kids.

MS. PAGLIA: All this money should be going into keeping public libraries open so that the poor can go in and take out a book the way my immigrants, you know, parents were able to and the way I was able to. It’s outrageous that we have the closing-down of public libraries, and the conditions of inner-city schools is disgraceful. And all this money wasted going to bureaucrats?

MR. WATTENBERG: Camille, let me ask you this: Does the case you make undermine traditional family values? Would a conservative listening to what you are talking about in terms of sensuality and sexuality and pornography and so on, would they say you are undermining and corroding family values in America?

MS. PAGLIA: Probably they would, but my argument in all my books is rather large. I say that Western culture was formed as two great traditions — the Judeo-Christian and the Greco-Roman — and they have contributed to each other and they’re in conflict with each other. And I — what I — my libertarian theory is of a public sphere/private sphere. Government must remain out of the private sphere for abortion and drug use and sodomy and so on. The public sphere is shared by both traditions. I have respect for the Judeo-Christian side. I’m calling in “The Activism in Feminism” for a renewed respect for religion, even though I’m an atheist. So I think that there is much in my thinking that I think would reassure people of traditional family values.

MR. WATTENBERG: Let me ask you this question to close of both of you: What should the 1990s equity feminist believe in and believe remains to be done for women?

MS. SOMMERS: The first thing, I think we have to save young women from the feminists. That’s at the top of my agenda. And I say that as a very committed feminist philosopher. I went into philosophy. It was a field traditionally dominated by males. I got my job as a professor to encourage more young women to enter this field, to be analytic thinkers, to be logicians and metaphyscians. And, instead, in feminist philosophy classes you’ll often have young women sitting around honoring emotions and denigrating the great thinkers instead of, you know, studying them, mastering them and benefitting from them.

MR. WATTENBERG: So you —

MS. SOMMERS: That’s one thing. The other thing, more traditional feminist issue, is probably the double-shift. As women, we’re doing a lot of things men traditionally did; they’re not doing what we traditionally did. And so women do bear more responsibility at home. But if we’re going to solve that problem, I think we have to approach men as friends —

MS. PAGLIA: We have to — yes —

MS. SOMMERS: — in a spirit of respect instead of calling them proto-rapists and harassers and —

MS. PAGLIA: The time for hostility to men is past. There was that moment. I was part of it. I have punched men, kicked men, hit them over the head with umbrellas. Okay? I am openly confrontational with men. As an open lesbian, I have been — you know, I express my anger to men directly. I don’t get in a group and whine about men. So, oddly, I give men a break and admit the greatness of male, you know, achievements and so on. What we have to do now is get over that anger toward men, all right, and we have to bring the sexes back together. Reconciliation between the sexes is the first order of business.

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Thank you, Christina Sommers and Camille Paglia for your critique of modern feminism. We will be hearing an opposing view on a future program.

And thank you. We enjoy hearing from our audience. Please send comments and questions to: New River Media, 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20036. Or we can be reached via e-mail at thinktv@aol.com.

For Think Tank, I’m Ben Wattenberg.

ANNOUNCER: This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, in association with New River Media, which are solely for its content.

Think Tank has been made possible by Amgen, unlocking the secrets of life through cellular and molecular biology. At Amgen, we produce medicines that improve people’s lives today and bring hope for tomorrow.

Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, the William H. Donner Foundation, the Randolph Foundation, and the JM Foundation.

I feel that my readership could learn quite a bit from this first person account of a circumcision procedure. For those who have never witnessed one, you might not quite understand how perverse and evil it is. Imagine you are the baby boy in this story. Held down, your body spread out against your will…strangers taking knives to you…but, you can’t move…you are tied down…you scream; but, no one stops; and, it goes on and on!…you struggle, you squirm, you cry…you are helpless; no one there is there to save you…so, there you are, all alone…in complete agony…

Now that you have empathized with the baby a little, I invite you hear what doctors don’t want you to think about- the crimes they commit against our young. The original can be read here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Day I Withdrew from “Nursing” School

by Nicole

I want to share with all of you an event that drew me into intactivism*…
Back in 1996, I began an OB/GYN hospital clinical as a student nurse. One day, I was enlisted to attend a ‘routine circumcision.’ I did not realize how much that event would shatter the very foundation of a career choice made in ignorance. I appeared in the doorway of the circ room and saw the little newborn boy to whom I was ‘assigned’ for the day. 20 years old and not having kids of my own, I did not anticipate the lurching sensation that gripped my heart. Laying strapped down to a table, so small and new….pure and innocent…trusting…all alone…no defenses…, I walked toward the baby and wanted to grab him off the table and shelter him…to tell him that nobody would hurt him…

In walked the doctor…loud…obnoxious…joking with his assistant…as if he was about to perform a 10 minute oil change…not once did he talk to this little baby. Rather, he reached for his cold metal instruments..and then reached out for his object of mutilation…this sweet newborn’s perfect unharmed penis. As I recall the screams of pain and terror.. his small lungs barely able to keep up with the cries…I turned in horror as I saw the doctor forcefully pull his foreskin around a metal object. Then came the knife…cut…cut…cut…

I stood next to the baby and said…you’re almost done sweety…almost done…
There…done. Then came the words..as that son-of-a-bitch dangled the foreskin in midair…”anybody care to go fishing?”

My tongue lodged in my throat…I felt like I was about to vomit. I restrained myself…and my duty was to then take the infant back to the nursery for ‘observation.’ Here is where I realized I couldn’t do it. I could not be a part of such a cold, sterile, out-of-touch medical model…Rather than observing, I cradled the infant…I held him and whispered comforting words as if he were my own…I’ll never forget those new little eyes watch me as if in a haze…he knew I cared about him…he knew he was safe in my arms…he knew that I was going to take him to his mommy…but, deep in his little heart, at some level, I know he wondered where his mommy was…while he lay there mutilated in what was supposed to be a safe and welcoming environment. I made a note in the chart and then caught a glimpse of myself in a mirror…my chest and face had broken out in purple splotches. My next thought? I can’t do this…I refuse to do this…this is NOT for me. I took the baby to his mother…who was complaining about ‘some pain’ she was experiencing…I never addressed her pain because I left to go to my locker…I grabbed my belongings…and hoped that my rejection of this ‘medical system’ could serve as some type of redemption for the violation of that newborn that I cradled in my arms that day. The next day, I withdrew from nursing school…and never looked back.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Intactivism stands for “Intact Activism”. It is a name taken by a number of anti-circumcision activists to show how they support the right’s of boys to be intact, as nature intended, and as is their birthright.

Again we gaze upon contempt, in the mirror that is commercialized pop culture. In the reflection, we see again the true face of society: the face of misandry. Before us, lies an attack on our youngest.

Sexism sells; and, society is buying it up by the barrel-full. The creator of this vile, tactless shirt was Todd Goldman, founder of David and Goliath, who specializes in clothing and knick-knacks. I note that, strangely, he was a boy once, so how could he produce such hateful items? Does he think that he’s stupid, or that people should throw rocks at him? I don’t know; but, his creations are abominations, none-the-less. The devil in me, wouldn’t care if this man was stoned for what he’s done. The angel in me, knows that that is unacceptable, as well as his merchandise.

His products advocate violence against boys, and there should be no tolerance for this. It’s unacceptable. In truth, everything surrounding this matter is reviling. His products against boys now number in the hundreds, and a rough catalog can be found here. In addition to advocating the stoning of boys, below we can see many of the other endorsements Mr. Goldman has for child abuse.

“Boys lie, pok’em in the eye!”

I’d make the cliché about this being ‘all fun and games’; but, I’ll get back to that soon, and besides. This is anything but fun or a game to me.

“Sling-shots are dangerous, so aim good!!”

Take careful note at the extraordinary hostility being directed towards boys. Cristina Hoff Summer’s “The War on Boys” is being actualized, due to the abject hatred our culture has for males.

“It’s all fun and games, until someone looses an eye…Then it’s a party!”

The girls will party hearty, because of this item, ladies and gentleman. And, if blinding your boy is not enough, how about this?

“Boys are stupid, run them over.”

Nothing says ‘girl power’ like a little trampling! But what if your boy, might be useful for something, after all? Mr. Goldman’s got that figured out too, ladies and gents!

“Public transportation”

But, if you already have a metro pass for the city buses, then we can always go back to the hit-&-run idea.

“Boys in da hood!”

Or maybe vehicles are not your weapon of choice. The next shirt, I’ve nicknamed the husband-beater, seeing as many future abusers of husbands we’ll go gaga over it.

“If boys are so tough, why are they so afraid of knives?”

What a good question, class. Did you know that boys are so tough that they don’t need shelters to escape domestic violence?

“If boys are so tough, why do they run from cats?”

And why not sick the animals on them too. After all that’s all boys are, right?

“Evolution of the boy”

As a matter of fact, girls should capture boys and train them!

“Boys make good pets. everyone should own one.”

After all, slavery isn’t wrong when it’s done to boys; and, boys are just dirty animals, remember? It’s a good thing Sally’s was already neutered!

“Here boys!”

Good boy! Who’s a good boy? Who is?! You are, Cuddles!

“Boys aren’t house broken!”

Bad Boy! Very bad! See isn’t having a boy fun girls?

“Girls will be girls, and boys will be toys.”

This could go forever, with the amount of misandric and sexist merchandise that David and Goliath peddles; but, I’m putting a stop to it now, because, I can’t stand it anymore! I weep! I’m welling up!

There can be no doubt, now, as to the kind of society that we live in: a sexist one, which seeks to harass and insult males at every turn, even when they’re only children!

If you feel what I do than contact the sexist company, who made all of these, at:

  • (727) 462-6205 &
  • questions@davidandgoliathtees.com

It’s time to start holding these bigots accountable for their hate. Boys are not any of the above, and they deserve our support.

Bad news from The Times of India: The Supreme Court of India has declared that “बीबी जोह बोलती है वोह सुंनो |”, or, in other words “Listen to whatever your wife says,”. That’s right; the highest court in India has ruled that husbands must defer to their wives on all matters! The ruling followed, by stating “as otherwise it could land you in trouble. Because if you do not listen to her, you will suffer the consequences.” And, what are these consequences they speak of? Likely it is the infamous Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, though, the Court has not, as yet, determined the penalty for a husband speaking his mind to his wife.

What is Section 498A, you ask? It is a piece of pseudo-dowry law that states:

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Besides sexistly only protecting female spouses from ‘cruelty’, and not male spouses, it is non-bailable, non-compoundable, and cognizable, which means that husbands accused of this nebulous ‘cruelty’ will and have been arrested without investigation or warrants; and, it cannot be privately resolved between the parties concerned. It gets worse though. This also allows relatives of the husband to be abducted without proof, on mere hearsay. Effectively, having a married male in your family, jeopardizes everybody to the passing whims of a single in-law. With this single statute, a wife may legally arrest just about anyone, in the family, on abject slander!

Indian husbands are being forced at every turn to be voiceless servants for their wives, lest they or their loved ones end up in the slammer! The Indian Supreme Court also stated that “If your wife asks you to put your face that side, put it that side. If she says, put it this side, then put it this side. Otherwise you will face trouble.” The potential trouble is immense, as we can see.

Section 498A has both its proponents and it’s detractors. Women’s groups are staunchly defending it. In January 31, 2009, Justice K. G. Balakrishnan, the Chief Justice of India, addressing India’s National Commission for Women, asserted that Section 498A is being “grossly misused” and that relatives not involved with a matrimonial dispute were often unfairly implicated. The Centre for Social Research India has released a research report opposing amendments to section 498A. It states that “The study also has observed that 6.5 percent of the total cases studied through victims’ interviews were found false at the level of investigation. Many of the accused, police, judges and lawyers, categorically said that ‘educated and independent minded women’ misuse the section.”

The kicker of the Court ruling is that it was about an appealed divorce plea from the husband Deepak Kumar, who complained that his estranged wife Manisha had ruined him and his family by implicating them in false criminal cases, including sodomy. The Supreme Court’s answer was that he must defer to his abuser’s desire to stay together!