“I know personally several couples where the wife is a militant liberationist and the husband has been brainwashed by his spouse to be an Uncle Tom and a traitor to his gender. In all these cases, after a long hard day at the office or at teaching to support the family, the husband sits at home tending the kids while the wife is out at Women’s Lib meetings, there to plot their accession to total power and to denounce their husbands as sexist oppressors. Not content with the traditional mah-jongg set, the New Woman is reaching for the final castrating blow-to be accepted, I suppose, with meek gratitude by their male-liberal spouses. It has been noted for years-and especially by Europeans and Asians – that too many American men live in a matriarchy, dominated first by Momism, then by female teachers, and then by their wives.”-Murray Rothbard, Against Women’s Liberation
“The feminist critique started when some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men. Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man. The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.”-Roy F Baumeister, Is There Anything Good About Men?
“In some schools in England where gender equality is taken very seriously, the parable of Three Wise Men has transformed into Three Wise Women, and baby Jesus in the crib is a baby girl. Also, today the best desk editors anywhere in the civilised world are under pressure not to use the pronoun ‘he’ as a neutral reference to God (the devil may be referred to as ‘he’). And ‘man’ cannot be used anymore to refer to humans. This is a moronic pretense of modernity because, as historian Jacques Barzun has explained in his book, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, the word ‘man’, like many other words, has two meanings. One is male, and the other is human. In fact, the most demeaning word in the English language is ‘woman’ because, from an etymological point of view, it refers to someone whose existence is defined by a relationship with a man. Also, it is astounding that when there have been so many brilliant women writers who have created remarkable prose about women, the feminist slogan that has stood out is: ‘A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle’. Popularised by feminist Gloria Steinem, the slogan not only reeks of a certain literary impoverishment, but is also not factual as evident from the lives of almost all the women we know, including Gloria Steinem who in the year 2000, at the age of 66, to the resounding gasps of impressionable girls, married David Bale, the father of Batman, Christian Bale.”-Manu Joseph, The Power Of Nonsense
“Take two hypothetical cases: A: a virtuous nun or married lady charges Willie Kennedy Smith with rape; or B: a bar-hopping party girl, picked up at 3:00 A.M. agrees to go on for drinks and other frisky activities to the Kennedy compound, and then, after some cuddling, charges rape. “What do the feminists want? Will they only be satisfied if (a) the two parties sign an express consent form before the act, and then (b) sign another one immediately after? And have them both notarized on the spot, with forms sent in triplicate to their respective attorneys and to the county clerk? If so, the notary publics in college towns are in for a thriving business, plus some Peeping Tom (or Tomasina) opportunities on the side. Well, now, drinking indeed! Are we now to include in rape any sex taking place after liquor is imbibed? Isn’t everyone familiar with the old poem and the social reality it reported: “Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker?” Everyone is responsible for whatever he or she imbibes, unless the guy spiked the girl’s drink without her knowledge (not mentioned in any of these cases) and everyone is responsible for their own actions, liquor or not. Come off it, ladies; “date rape” my foot!”-Murray Rothbard, Date Rape On Campus
“Punishment differs in proportion to the severity of the crime, and most of us agree that someone clubbing a victim and making off with his gold watch deserves a more severe punishment than a kid stealing a grape from a fruit-store. Is it then unreasonable to assert that coercion taking place after lots of drinks, a 4:00 A.M. return for drinks and hi-jinks at the fellow’s home, and consensual cuddling is less reprehensible than attacking and raping a stranger on the street? Note that I am not saying that “leading the guy on” justifies or exculpates later coercion and rape; but it should mitigate the severity of the crime and the ensuing punishment. Which is why most people have the sound instinct that “date rape,” while reprehensible and indeed criminal, does not reach the deeply reviled status of “stranger rape.” So perhaps momma’s caution about visiting guys in their homes late at night had something to say for it after all?”-Murray Rothbard, Rape Or Rape?
“The more meritocratic the field, the more feminists accuse it of discriminating against women. In mathematics, new proofs either quickly fail or are accepted forever. In contrast, women flourish most in notoriously faddish, cliquish domains like the humanities. In Harvard’s English department, 20 out of 51 professors are women, and at less exclusive colleges, they often comprise a majority.”-Steve Sailor, The American Conservative
“Summers did not, of course, say that women are “natively inferior,” that “they just can’t cut it,” that they suffer “an inherent cognitive deficit in the sciences,” or that men have “a monopoly on basic math ability,” as many academics and journalists assumed. Only a madman could believe such things. Summers’s analysis of why there might be fewer women in mathematics and science is commonplace among economists who study gender disparities in employment, though it is rarely mentioned in the press or in academia when it comes to discussions of the gender gap in science and engineering. Many of Summers’s critics believe that talk of innate gender differences is a relic of Victorian pseudoscience, such as the old theory that cogitation harms women by diverting blood from their ovaries to their brains. In fact, much of the scientific literature has reported numerous statistical differences between men and women. As I noted in The Blank Slate, for instance, men are, on average, better at mental rotation and mathematical word problems; women are better at remembering locations and at mathematical calculation. Women match shapes more quickly, are better at reading faces, are better spellers, retrieve words more fluently, and have a better memory for verbal material. Men take greater risks and place a higher premium on status; women are more solicitous to their children.”-Steven Pinker, The New Republic
“On Sunday, she wrote in a column in The Times of India: ‘Can they do no better than launch cheap, personal attacks on a woman?’ For a moment let’s be gender neutral and agree that cheap personal attacks should be made on no one. Let us then turn to De’s Twitter account a few days before this attack was made. This is her tweet after Raj Babbar said that Rs 12 can buy you a lunch in Mumbai: ‘Never understood what the beautiful, intense, sensitive Smita Patil saw in the Blabbering Babber. Maybe he fed her 12 rupee meals?’ Don’t fault Babbar for thinking this is a cheap personal attack. Even if there are no Rs 12 meals on offer in Mumbai, bringing in a long dead wife sort of qualifies for it. Would we call it Maximum City, Maximum Misandry?”-Madhavan, Open Magazine
“Gender equality is no more morally required than a 0% interest rate on loans. At risk of sounding unromantic, gender relations are basically a barter market. Men compete for women, women compete for men. If there happens to be a high male/female ratio, terms will be unequal in women’s favor; if there happens to be a low male/female ratio, terms will be unequal in men’s favor. The same goes for the countless other factors that shift supply and demand. For example, if male-dominated hobbies like videogames became more fun, demand for women (a.k.a. supply of men) falls, and women typically get a worse deal in their relationships. I don’t see that women in modern First World countries receive worse overall treatment than men. In fact, people take male suffering less seriously than female suffering. Consider the endless jokes about male prison rape. Furthermore, existing First World law generally favors women in both the labor market (e.g. discrimination and sexual harassment law) and the marriage market (e.g. child support and child custody).”-Bryan Caplan, Econlog
“The real social conflict is not between groups, but within groups. People who are below-average for their group make life worse for people who are above-average for their group. Women who get job training and then quit to have children hurt the careers of single-minded career women, because they reduce the profitability of the average woman. The upshot: If you really want to improve your group’s image, telling other groups to stop stereotyping won’t work. The stereotype is based on the underlying distribution of fact. It is far more realistic to turn your complaining inward, and pressure the bad apples in your group to stop pulling down the average.”-Bryan Caplan, Econlog
“For a decade, feminists have drilled their disciples to say, “Rape is a crime of violence but not sex”. This sugar-coated Shirley Temple nonsense has exposed young women to disaster. Misled by feminism, they do not expect rape from the nice boys from good homes who sit next to them in class.These girls say, “Well, I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy’s room without anything happening.” And I say, “Oh, really? And when you drive your car to New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?” My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished. But at the same time, the police — and I — have the right to say to you, “You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?”-Camille Paglia, Rape And Modern Sex War
Tell Me What You Think
Powered by Facebook Comments