[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Excellent Column on Men and Society in Wall Street Journal
posted by Matt on 01:14 AM December 18th, 2005
The Media garypc writes "There was an excellent column in support of men's rights on the editorial page of the 12/17/05 Wall Street Journal:

You've Got Male!

By LIONEL TIGER
December 17, 2005; Page A10

Male resentment of the self-righteous and automatic public support for women's interests and issues has been increasingly on the boil for some time. Civic celebrations of antipathy to men such as the Violence Against Women Act are finally generating specific and pointed responses by men fatigued, if still baffled, by the knee-jerk assumption that they suffer irredeemably from what I call Male Original Sin."

Click "Read more..." for the rest.

Ed note: The article is given entirely here because the WSJ on-line requires registration and commitment to a 2-week trial subscription, which would effectively block most of our readers from seeing it.


"At my university as at countless others, one of the very first official greeting to students is a rape seminar predicated on the intrinsic danger which males carry with them. And in family courts, the presumption of male behavioral malefaction has yielded heartbreakingly numerous cases in which men are charged with domestic violence to which courts overwhelmingly -- often in brief hearings in which the male is not even present -- issue temporary "restraining orders." These frequently segue into permanence, and award women the dwelling they've shared, financial support and the all-important privilege of custody -- mothers gain custody in 66% of uncontested cases and 75% of contested ones. Less than a quarter of parents are awarded joint custody.

Judges issue such orders based only on the word of the alleged victim. It is small wonder the overwhelming majority of such actions are sought and achieved by women. It has been legitimately argued that there is a merciless post-marital racket of therapists, lawyers, judges and governmental advocates who prosper because it is so easy to define males as guilty.

Meanwhile, the publicly financed educational system is at least 20% better at producing successful female students than male, yet hardly anyone sees this as remarkable gender discrimination. While there is a vigorous national program to equalize male and female rates of success in science and math, there is not a shred of equivalent attention to the far more central practical impact of the sharp deficit males face in reading and writing.

There are countless thriving "women's studies" programs and only a paltry number of male equivalents. The graduates of such programs (which rarely pass the laxest test for gender diversity) staff the offices of politicians and judges, and assert the obligation of society to redress centuries of dominance by that gaseous overgeneralization -- "patriarchy."

When it comes to health status, the disparity in favor of women is enhanced by such patterns as seven times more Federal expenditure on breast cancer than on the prostate variety. And no one is provoked into action because vaunted male patriarchs commit suicide between four and 10 times more frequently than oppressed and brainwashed women. This isn't simply carping about invidious comparison, or reluctance to support legitimate social responses to the needs of women as workers, parents, citizens and virtuousi of their private lives. It is solely about inequity in law, funding and productive public attention. There is scant acknowledgment of the fact that we face a generation of young men increasingly failing in a school system seemingly calibrated to female rhythms.

A consequence is that male income falls and female income rises. Nothing wrong with that, except that men inexorably withdraw from domestic life: they become out-laws rather than in-laws. Legions of women despair of finding a mate compatible in function and vibrancy. So they go it alone: a third of babies are born to unmarried women, perhaps making a sage choice given the feckless, demoralized chaps from whom they must choose. We lead the world in fatherless families -- 40% of children fall asleep without a resident father regularly within reach.

* * *
Into this acrimonious climate has whispered a breath of spring air in winter -- an extraordinary document which may have surprising impact because of its severe countercultural implications and its almost sweet innocence of purpose. In early November, the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men issued its first report (www.nh.gov/csm). The commission was proposed in a 1999 bill by N.H. Rep. David Bickford. The House passed the bill, awarding a budget of $69,561. But months later, the state Senate stripped away funding. The commission was finally established in 2002. According to its report, the Senate's effort to defund it reflects "the inaction of good people who apparently have been led to believe that legislative activity designed to primarily benefit men is somehow not appropriate politically, financially, or otherwise."

To the contrary, the commission's report frontally accepts that there are intrinsic differences in how men and women cope with health, education, responsibility and violence. It concludes that social policies must not begin by denying differences. If you're running a zoo, know the real nature of your guests. This applies nationally, not only in New Hampshire. The clout of female voters has been transmuted into a strangely pervasive inattention to the legitimate needs of boys and men. While there remain grating sources of unfairness to women, the community is in the process of steadily creating a new legal and educational structure which generates new gender unfairness: 90% of the victims of Ritalin and similar drugs prescribed for schoolkids are boys; but even drugged they perform less well than girls. A 2005 study at Yale found nationally that even in prekindergarten boys are nearly five times more likely to be expelled than girls.

What is going on in this country?

Of course those who can do the work should receive the rewards. However, the broader question is: Who defines the work and evaluates it? The drastic occupational and familial situation of especially minority males suggests the urgency of a hard review of this issue. Were females the victims of such apparent sex-based unfairness, the legal paper attacking the matter would cloud the air like flakes of New Hampshire snow. But since it's only males...

The report is an innovative 44 pages focused on life in one state. It grips the macrocosm of stunning changes in American sociosexual and family experience. Like those which affect the terrain of a delta the changes are gradual and barely perceptible and yet suddenly it becomes clear there is a new barrier, a new channel, a new uncertainty. So with the issue of men in America. The New Hampshire report may not be a full map of the delta but its alerts us to the large reality of implacable changes. And we may not like them.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. Tiger, Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers, is the author of "The Decline of Males" (St. Martin's, 1999).

MSN, Men, Women, and Chores | RADAR Alert: VAWA Clears Congress: Some Progress, But Still Much Work to Do  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The dumbing down of Males (Score:1)
by Davidadelong on 08:59 AM December 18th, 2005 EST (#1)
So, People are starting to tell the truth at last! Not without a fight as well. Does anyone except for me see maybe a conspiricy? A conspiricy that involves almost all levels of our current government? We are under siege in this country, both Males and Females, the old divide and conguer game. How could any society band together when they are seperated and aggravated from birth, taught that the true enemy is the other gender, and some see only opportunity for wealth and power......My opinion.....
"That's what you get from Burger Chef..". (Score:1)
by Thundercloud on 10:22 AM December 18th, 2005 EST (#2)
It is strange isn't it?
Feminism creates the very kind of males it claims to despise. Potentially violent, poor, low income, more likely to to have low self esteem and more likely to be driven to commit crimes.

Then they have the audacity to complain about the types of men available to them.

Wow! I just thought of something..., Is it possible that feminism is the FEMINIST'S worst enemy, too...?

  Thundercloud.
  "Hoka hey!"

Re:"That's what you get from Burger Chef..". (Score:1)
by mcc99 on 02:23 PM December 18th, 2005 EST (#3)
I've often thought that, too. Feminism like other forms of categorical -isms is ultimately self-defeating because by creating in the class of person so despised the conditions necessary to deepen and broaden the ways those people become despicable, a self-fulfilling prophecy is created. In the case of racial bigotry and persecution (legal and otherwise), it leads inexorably to a degree of civil unrest that can't be ignored. But at least in such a case the societies in question will persevere, continue, and inevitably must create in the least a more just and tolerable situation - unless the bigotry results in a complete genocide, in which case, alas, there is no more hope for justice for the persecuted people.

This current situation with feminism and its influence on society, law, and gov't we have though is not just a problem for a given people (ie, men) but against humanity itself-- by encouraging and fostering the conditions necessary to utterly marginalize males, the only women who can be left pleased with the situation will be those who are not interested in men as mates and who also don't mind carrying weapons around all the time! An entire society of marginalized males creates not just a suicidal population of men but a homicidal and further-criminalized one as well. Witness Russia-- look at how bad it is there. That is a perfect example of the end result of persecuting the males of a society, as the Soviet gov't so aggresively and efficiently did. They added feminism of course to the mix and it only helped make things much worse. Now Russian men are in a cycle of violence and addiction from which they are not likely to emerge any time soon, while Russian women search desperately for mates anywhere outside their country. Is this the future of the entire western world, I ask? Maybe. But once so many men are in this condition, will there be any escape from the miserable results to some other society for people of either sexes? Only time will tell. I for one don't want to take the chance, which is one of many reasons why I am a MRA!
Re:"That's what you get from Burger Chef..". (Score:1)
by Bert on 06:58 PM December 18th, 2005 EST (#4)
http://www.steen-online.nl/man/
Is this the future of the entire western world, I ask?

As a matter of fact, it has already begun. Take for example my country, the Netherlands. We had one of the best medical care systems in the world, today it's totally collapsed. In Europe we were one of the richest countries, we never had poor people, today we have soup kitchens for the poor in every city. We had an advanced railroad system, today it's a disaster, even a Russian delegation, who visited us recently, was amazed that it took them more than 4 hours for a 25 miles trip with the train. When I was young there were no homeless people, that was someting that happened in far away countries, today you can find homeless people everywhere in the streets, even in small towns. These are only a few examples.

This all started when feminazism started to take over society. There were people who warned that this was going to happen as soon as the first fimiazis took place in government. But nobody would listen to them, they were accused of being anti women.

Bert
-------------------- From now on, men's rights first.
Re: Feminism + Globalization = Emasculation (Score:2)
by Roy on 07:16 PM December 18th, 2005 EST (#5)
Of all the social toxins that are attacking men today, feminism is the easiest target, and perhaps focusing on the gender wars keeps men's attention away from deeper analyses of the actual causes of male decline.

Globalization (more correctly called the ThirdWorldization of First World economies...) is a more potent adversary than feminism, though a slippery foe because we have all been taught that "competition and the free market are good."

Of course, we've also been taught that the fairer sex is moral, virtuous, and endlessly desirable.

Feminists applaud anything that disempowers men, and so women in the Western world are celebrating their route to poverty as liberation from the Evil Patriarchy.

When I was 15 years old, I worked summers as a welder in a steel factory to save money for college.

In 1967 I earned $9.80 per hour, and men with stay-at-home wives were raising families on that wage.

Today?

Feminism flooded the market with cheap labor, compelling one-paycheck families to become two (three?) paycheck families...

Globalization means American families will eventually have to be as "competitive" as a Chinese family.

You do the math....


Re: Feminism + Globalization = Emasculation (Score:1)
by Bert on 07:55 PM December 18th, 2005 EST (#6)
http://www.steen-online.nl/man/
I don't know much about math, but what I do know is that the damages of feminazism started long before anybody heard of the word "Globalization".

Bert
-------------------- From now on, men's rights first.
Re: Feminism + Globalization = Emasculation (Score:1)
by Davidadelong on 08:38 AM December 19th, 2005 EST (#9)
Yes Roy, you hit the proverbial nail on the head! In order for the "elite" to keep power they have to have different class levels in society. If they didn't they would have no one to bribe to do things against Humanity that they normally wouldn't do. The "elite" doesn't want world peace, they never have. We are suffering under a sick twisted system that sees People as nothing more than numbers, to preserve the fallacy that their propaganda machines have perpetuated on us. It is time for more People to speak the truth! Because historicaly speaking we have been here before, only the genders have changed. I suppose there are those that will want to wait until the flip flop before they open their eyes, I don't want to wait that long!
Re:"That's what you get from Burger Chef..". (Score:1)
by TomP on 08:47 PM December 18th, 2005 EST (#7)
Wow! I just thought of something..., Is it possible that feminism is the FEMINIST'S worst enemy, too...?

Fanaticism is it's own punishment. Consider the constant misery of feminist genderists who live in dread of the possibility that out there somewhere is someone who is male and happy about it. Or worse, the possibiliity that there are men and women somewhere that like and (shudder) RESPECT each other! The humanity! Oh, sorry...The humynity!

TomP
Re:"That's what you get from Burger Chef..". (Score:1)
by GregA on 03:39 AM December 19th, 2005 EST (#8)
I dont know if this topic is taboo on this site, but look at the feminist transition on porn. Starting with Andrea Dworkins take on porn, which was it caused violence and rape against women. Transitioning to Naomi Wolfs porn lament, which it causes women not to be able to get any action in bed, Because who wants to put up with the modern feminist woman?
A milestone, but still miles to go... (Score:1)
by Fidelbogen on 06:21 PM December 19th, 2005 EST (#10)
The author's characterization of 'patriarchy' as a "gaseous generalization" was an instant classic and a keeper! :-)))

Apart from that, it is surely a sign that the times they are a changin'.....when such an article appears in so prestigious a publication as the Wall Street Journal.

But when a cover story about the men's movement appears in Time or Newsweek, we'll know it has arrived on the official Big Radar Screen at last. I'm wondering how far off that day might be....

-Fidelbogen-

"Feminism has a rap sheet."

Re:A milestone, but still miles to go... (Score:1)
by Thundercloud on 11:11 AM December 20th, 2005 EST (#11)
I think we will see it sooner on the cover of TIME magazine, then on the cover of Oozeweek, Oops! I mean NEWSWEEK.
NEWSWEEK is notorious for it's anti-male slant. It is worse than TIME's.

  Thundercloud.
  "Hoka hey!"
[an error occurred while processing this directive]