You know how you hear feminists and race grievance hucksters decrying things like “disparate impact?” and “under representation?” and such? These things are supposed to prove — prove, I tell you! — the pervasiveness of insidious discrimination in our country. Discrimination against black Americans, brown Americans, women, gays, transgenders, etc. They don’t, though. Not all the time, that is.

Here’s a video that helps to explain:


In the video, one Sally Satel who calls herself a “Factual Feminist,” and who works with Christina Hoff Sommers debunks the notion that “the sciences are sexist,” or that any kind of discrimination against women goes on at all in the sciences. To the contrary, she says in her video, the sciences appear to be, largely, disciplines in which the pursuit of truth continues without undue regard for the sex of the ones doing the pursuing.(1)

One quick note: it’s important to note that the feminists who rule the roost never, ever, not ever want to get within 100 miles of the word “Factual,” because that never ends well for them.

In this video, one of the points that Satel makes is that in some areas, women do appear to be “under represented.” She then says that the data seem to indicate that women are choosing to stay at home with young children much more frequently than men. One quick point in this  regard from someone who knows: One factor in that “choice” is the fact that, overwhelmingly, men do not have the same choice. Oh, that’s not always the case, but in the vast majority of cases it is.

Granted, there are no laws forbidding men from opting out of work for a few years to take care of the kids, but very powerful social pressures push men out of the home and into the workplace. Overwhelmingly society believes:

  1. Men are bad at child rearing. Not that men are less good, but that men are actually bad at it.
  2. Women are good at child-rearing — again, not just less bad at it, but actually good at it.
  3. This produces significant pressures on women not to let the incompetent father(s) of their children stay at home with the young ‘uns.
  4. A significant reason for the perpetuation of this myth is the money and power that accompany being the primary “caregiver” for one’s children. It’s like a financial insurance policy.(2)
    • It’s a sure thing — though the extent is unknown — that women opt to “take care of the children” in order to bank this insurance policy against the possibility of divorce or the departure of the husband.(3)(4)
    • It’s likewise a sure thing that women aggressively guard this massive area of financial power that they own nearly exclusively, against the possibility that men either might have some access to it, or might be required to pay less into it.
  5. This “insurance policy” option is almost entirely unavailable to men.
  6. Another consideration in the equation is the rather astonishing machine that is a man. They’re unbelievably hardy, durable, long-lasting engines of wealth generation for any family. Frequently ridiculously so, often at the expense of their own health, welfare and happiness. They’re such amazing engines of wealth creation that they generate their own pressures to continue that dynamism uninterrupted by anything that would even slow it down, much less put it on hold for five or ten years. Men are nearly completely unaware of this pressure, because it’s been there forever. It’s a Fish ==> Water kind of thing.
  7. This obvious sex-based discrimination has resulted in the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from men to women for no good reason other than that women have manipulated the system to put in place the above-described, discriminatory “insurance policy.”
  8. The truth: Neither sex is the better parent. Fathers and mothers tend to be different parents, one from the other, which simply reinforces the point we’ve made in these pages: the optimal parenting configuration — by far! — is the two-parent, mother-father(5) family unit.

The point is that, previous to Feminism, this country has had a generalized picture in their minds about men and about women. In this view, for example is the notion that, for example, men are stronger disciplinarians, while women are the nurturers. These are on the “good side” of the view of men and women “out there.” On the bad side, though are things like: men are more often drunks, more violent, worse parents, while women are less rational, more emotional, more frivolous.

Feminism has demanded the stripping of all the bad characteristics from the general view of women, leaving behind today’s stereotype, which is even more of a caricature: Women are strong, quiet, long-suffering, wise, colossi whose only obstacles are the generally dim-witted, brutish men in their way.

Wonder whether this is true? Item 1: One need only look back at the one-time controversy over the word “shrill” that took place a few years back. All of a sudden, we were supposed to stop using the word, because it was supposed to be demeaning to women… even though it is an objective truth that a woman’s voice raised to a shout is frequently… shrill. Item 2: Try simply to ask the question: Are women in general as rational as men? Item 3: Try to pose the question: Are women in general as intelligent as men? Item 4: Try to pose the question: Are men in general as intelligent as women? In today’s society, you might have a great deal of difficulty even posing the questions in Items 2 and 3, whereas it’ll be quite easy to pose, then discuss, the question in Item 4.

Why? Easy: The questions in Items 2 and 3 imply the possibility that someone might think, and defend the notion, that women are less rational or intelligent than men, contradicting the “correct” thinking that Feminism would require. While the question in Item 4 implies the possibility that men are in general less intelligent than women. That conclusion is okay as far as Feminism is concerned.

No such excising of the negative characteristics in the general view of men has ever happened. The result of all this is the realization of the Primary Goal of Feminism: #1: The general realization (whether correct or incorrect) that there is serious conflict(6) in man-woman relations, and #2: It’s all men’s fault.

I leave you with the following video. It comes from a woman in India who poses the intriguing question: “Men, Where is your outrage?” Her question is directed at men in India, but she might as well be posing it to all western men as well.  She says that all warnings to women to stay in at night, to avoid potentially compromising situations, actually imply that men are all brainless, mindless brutes, incapable of interacting with women without wanting to grope or rape them.

We’ve said in these pages, that people live up, or down, to society’s expectations of them. Western men have, however, been surprisingly resistant to the ludicrous caricature that Feminism has painted of them, and have remained the most productive, generous, generally benevolent group in the history of the world. That’s the image of men that we should be painting in America.


— xPraetorius


(1) This is not, by any means, to say that the sciences are immune to politics, they aren’t. In fact, scientists seem hyper-attuned to the political fads of the day, even subordinating truth to “discovering” whatever finding will produce the most taxpayer-generated funding dollars. Environmentalism is a particularly egregious example. And: remember “the Gay gene?” Gone. Why? Abortion, and the possibility of identifying a “gay” baby, just as we can identify a Down Syndrome baby. So, of course, no more “Gay gene.” This, by the way, is one of those rare examples where mixing  politics and science actually resulted in a good thing. The idea of “designer babies” — killing baby after baby until you find the “right genetic mix” — ought to make anyone recoil in horror.

No, scientists don’t discriminate by race or sex, but they sure do allow politics to soil what ought to be a noble discipline.

(2) If for reason of divorce, the woman were to lose the man’s income, she can count on friendly courts and judges ruling that she’s entitled to a significant chunk of her ex-husband’s income for a very long time.

(3) What would happen, I wonder, if one were to add child support and alimony into the calculations that arrived at the 77 cents on a dollar myth. If you recall, to arrive at that number “researchers” simply tallied up the average amount of money men earned over their lifetimes, and compared that with the average amount for women. If however, you measure incomes correctly, you compare like work with like personal situations at like ages, and you find that there’s no difference at all in men’s and women’s compensation levels. To the contrary, women are frequently paid more. What, again, would happen, though, if you were figure non work-related payments like alimony and child support — both overwhelmingly paid by men to women — into the first calculation?

(4) If you’re suggesting that I’m suggesting that women are much more ruthless, more mercenary, more coldly calculating in their thinking about relations with men, you would be right. Anecdotally, I remember my now-ex wife telling me once — up-front, right to my face! — that she figured she’d wait ’til we got to 15 years before she divorced me, because she knew she’d get more in the settlement. As it turns out, you get more each five year block you last. True to her word, we were “married” 15 years and a week, when she served me with divorce papers. I put the quotes around the word “married” because I’m figuring that we were never actually  married. In fact, I told her that once. My quote, in one of my better bons mots: “On [the date] I got married and you didn’t.” Which was true. On [the date], my “wife” simply checked off another box on her Life checklist. The next major boxes on that list were: Two kids and Divorce.

(5) Not, by the way, father-father units, or mother-mother family units. The point is that differences in perspective — important differences in perspective — are often, and naturally… counter-balancing. Introducing the idea that there should be the possibility of different, even opposing, perspectives on any given situation is a deeply important understanding for a successful life.

(6) “Correct or incorrect.” There is conflict in the relations between men and women, but a good deal of this friction has been manufactured out of thin air by the slanderous fictions of Feminism. While feminists were insuring that any “incorrect,” negative characteristics were excised from the general view of women, likewise any “incorrect” positive views pertaining to men were equally aggressively proscribed, all while the negative stereotypes about men were amplified.

Think I’m exaggerating these cultural trends? Ask yourself when was the last time in an action film that you saw a man (villain or hero) beat up a woman? Now reverse the question: When was the last time you saw a woman (heroine or villain) beat up a dude? Easy: I don’t think I’ve ever seen the former, but I see the latter all the time. Yes, I’ve seen men hit or abuse women on TV, but he’s always a villian, always a brute, always a bad guy.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s