'Dads on the Air' to Host Author of "The Woman Racket"

This is the book I've been waiting for - maybe even on par with Nathanson and Young's books!
On Amazon U.S. as of today, it is only listed as "Pre-order", which means you might have to wait a while. But it is available for shipment NOW from the U.K. (both Amazon and publisher's web site). The publisher has a funky order form - easier to use than Amazon's but don't make any mistakes! It is offered "new" from various retailers on Amazon U.K., starting at about ten pounds, apparently less expensive than it is if bought from the publisher's site.

-ax

P.S. I can hear the whining from feminists already: "A man came up with this B.S. - further proof that men are too analytical, in keeping with the patriarchal outlook".

the truth and the data are there. it only takes an open, maybe trained, and at least intelligent mind to interpret it honestly and fairly. unfortunately pampered feminists have and will continue to scream so loudly as to make it as hard to hear as a quaterback in the Superbowl. combine that w/ closed door and prejuducial family courts and bought and paid for legislatures w/ 30+ years of feminist inspired laws, and it makes the truth almost indistinguishable from the anti-male BS, downright fabrications and lies they spew.

"the truth will set you free" (paraphrase Jesus)

i hope and Pray the author gives it his best shot. this sounds on the surface like good news. can't wait to get a copy.

Excellent writing. The author completely destroys any semblance of feminist "logic."

(Excerpt) -

"We’re also told that women are disadvantaged, and that they’ve got this way because of oppression by men. We’re never told how or why this could be. We’re not told why—especially if men and women are supposedly the same—there would be any point in one sex oppressing the other.
We’re not told how it can be—if indeed men are different to women and oppress them—that by most measures it is not women who are disadvantaged but men (or, at least, a large sub-group or even the majority of men). Nobody tells us why men are maligned as if they’re at one with the very few at the top of the pile, whereas all women are championed irrespective of who they are, what they have done, or how they have lived their lives."

On Thursday Amazon.com will belatedly announce the release of my book, The Woman Racket.
It's just been some admin glitch of theirs that has produced a delay in registering that indeed there were copies in their warehouse.
There will be some conservative mags and radio stations in the USA providing helpful publicity following this.

In the UK last week there was a full-page article about the book in the national free paper beloved of all commuters, the Metro -- on Valentine's Day, would you believe! (Well, you ought to, if you know journalists). The Guardian national newspaper ran with one of their columnists explaining that she'd been given the book by the paper to review it, but that she wasn't going to, and why! Yesterday there was a big review in the (Scottish) Sunday Herald.

Even with the problem with Amazon.com, the publisher has already had to reprint to meet orders and stock requests, so despite having no launch as such, things have started off well.

I was less impressed with Moxon on the air than with the excerpts from his book. I don't believe that the thesis of dominance hierarchy was clearly stated in his interview or in the excerpts of the book available online (though I must reserve judgment until I give the book a careful reading).

Moxon asserts that there are two parallel dominance hierarchies: one for men and one for women. Men compete with each other to establish their ranking in the social order; likewise for women. It makes no sense, from the perspective of evolutionary biology, for men and women to compete (at least where reproduction is concerned); therefore, there is no patriarchy per se, only two dominance hierarchies, in which men and women inevitably and unwittingly find themselves, due to the force of a four billion year evolutionary heritage.

The reduction to biology I think is intended to show that the prevalent phenomenon of misandry is hard-wired into the sexual selection process: males are designed to be continually tested, denigrated, "done down" in Moxon's phrase. The whole process is designed to filter out the unworthies, for the survival of the fittest. All the crushing child support orders; extortionate alimony; false accusations; the requirement that males prove (in the UK) that female sexual partners gave their consent (according to a list of tests the law states they must apply); the tendency among journalists to de-emphasize the sex of male victims of violence, notably by designating battle age non-combatant males unworthy victims (consider Adam Jones' "Effacing the Male") and to emphasize the sex of the worthy victims of violence (females): all of this is in service of the female reproductive prerogative (the "Women Racket" in Moxon's provocative phrase), but rationalized according to the prevailing feminist doctrine, according to Moxon. The ones that survive, who don't react to the continual testing, and whatever other tedious nonsense is expected of them, are worthy mates--for the time being, until they are jettisoned from their households and made to pay for the privilege.

Moxon's theory is partly motivated by the desire to provide scientific support to Warren Farrell's Myth of Male Power. If the theory is true, the testers can go "f" themselves. Work should be pursued for its own sake, and never to impress potential mates. The other dominance hierarchy can go support itself.

Moxon seems to think biology is destiny. In other words the vast bulk of men will always be downtrodden compared to most women - in ALL societies.

That's a scary thought.

If true, then it almost makes irrelevant, books by Farrell and some other authors. At least irrelevant in the sense, that these books may never lead to any type of "gender transition movement" (Farrell's stated goal).

-ax

All right, you've got me interested. I'm gonna have to read it. Congratulations, Steve.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

These are all very important steps. But let us not forget that awareness that you are being ripped off (have been geting ripped off for a long time) is only one (gigantic) step. You must throw off the psychological chains of false assumptions and a false worldview. We must rip the veil away to see what is true.

However, let us not remain in the position of simply complaining about how feminist dominated society cheats and mistreats men.

We must move beyond victimization to self-empowerment. You will not be truly free until you take charge yourself. If this (enormous) process of self discovery leaves us only complaining about our mistreatment, but not doing anything about it, then we are only halfway there.

As further explained in my book, once you see that society's propaganda is layer upon layer of bull, you have to rise up and take charge as a man. Reject what society is telling you. Be the man... whether anyone likes it or not (they will).

It occurs to me that Moxon's dominance hierarchy theory might explain why the mens' movement seems to languish in the margins by comparison with the womens' movement. If DH theory means that the vast majority of men suffer at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy (the rest excel at something, and few are willing to settle for mediocrity--these claims have to be made sociologically substantive and quantified, incidentally, but let's take them at their unanalyzed face value for the sake of argument), then most men will be unwilling to join another dominance hierarchy: the mens' movement, in which most will be unable to assert themselves. And since men in this theory are hard-wired to excel or go find some other hierarchy, many vote with their feet.

I for one found the same tiresome struggle for dominance in the mens' movement: conservative blowhards; diatribing soap-boxifiers; self-styled political pundits; mewling psychiatrists weeping over not seeing their kids for decades (that was supposed to engender a sympathetic, mobilizing anger, I guess, but I never had the courage to have kids in view of the risk of separation from them and impoverishment at the hands of the anti-male military-industrial-divorce complex).

Without irony, I offer myself as an example: having attempted to join the movement, and feeling not a little resentment over trading one dominance hierarchy for another, I withdrew from it--at least from what little organization there is--to do what I can on my own.

Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.
Translation: I refuse to take my place in your dominance hierarchy.

This is a place where men respect their fellow man and talk about the unjust hatred of males in our world. There is no hierarchy here. We are all as important as each of the other members of this movement. We just have realized that if we don't unite and fight the injustice that has been imposed upon our gender, it will continue indefinitely. Thus, I am a proud supporter of the men's movement, and I don't see it as a hierarchy in any regard.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

I hope you don't really believe that (not that I'm religious).

I'm sure when feminism first started out there were problems and disagreements within that movement, and if Moxon's ideas had been known at the time, an argument probably could have been made by someone as to why "women will fail based on their inherent characteristics, and the system(s) which they therefore generate".

Yet somehow they pulled together and made advances.

Of course all of this applies to feminism as it existed before the 80's, that is before it came to be dominated by ideologues.

Remember, not everything in life falls under any one "umbrella", or system. Moxon's is but one set of ideas which, even if correct, do not explain everthing (that is my suspicion, although I haven't read the book yet). It is rather, another angle from which to view life.

-ax