Androgyny
!

 

Home
Up


A malignant infection is attacking the masculine and feminine images, especially the former.  Like a child going through phases, the western world has recently experienced phenomena, considered by this writer at least to be unhealthy: a general subordination of male characteristics, innocent-appearing egalitarianism and inter-gender exchange of functions.

Sex distinctions are fading and unisex is on the rise.  Adherents seem to consider normal sexual characteristics restrictive and to resent traditionally distinctive members of either gender.  One can hardly distinguish sex by given names anymore.  To tell the boys from the girls these days one has to check the sweaters; and that isn’t foolproof.  More than once I’ve been made to feel like a pervert ogling the wrong sex.  It’s becoming more appropriate to describe individuals as mostly male or mostly female; instead of man or woman, boy or girl; and to use the pronoun “it” instead of “he” or “she.”  Government forms may list M, F and O (for other).

A large segment of the population seems to be at war with normal life.  Some have mounted an ill-conceived move to rid us of all distinctions between men and women.  They denounce masculinity as “macho,” and likewise denigrate true femininity.  Rambo and John Wayne are bogeymen, except it’s OK for women to imitate them; witness the many actresses clumsily playing tough cops and other male roles.  TV Kiddie Comics has “The Powderpuff Girls” as crime fighters.

Male actors and advertisement characters are models of neutered masculinity.  A media fad is to portray women as smarter and tougher than husbands and male co-workers, or as martial arts experts beating up men.  It is also popular to portray women as brilliant doctors and lawyers, mouthing lines usually written by men, in numbers out of proportion to their existence in real life (The same fad occurs with race, but that’s beyond the purview of this book.)  In old movies we often saw two men performing all sorts of heroics, vying with each other over the favors of a beauty whose only contribution to anything was being the prize, but such scenarios were often more realistic than those in today’s movies.

Women are buying almost as many pants in department stores as are men.  Men are buying cosmetics, earrings and other female accoutrements.  Female bartenders and waitresses wearing neckties look somehow out of place.  For what it’s worth, Deut. 22:5 instructs us “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel; for he that does these things is abominable before God.”

This phenomenon is too widespread to be attributed to a mix-up in hormones.  Long a pet theory of the writer, these observations have been verified by a leading clinical psychologist, Dr. Fred Brown, head of the psychology department at New York’s Mt. Sinai Hospital.  Also by child psychiatrist Arthur Kornhaber, Dr. Ralph Greenson (Marilyn Monroe’s former psychiatrist) and child psychiatrist Thomas Johnson of San Diego.

Those families wherein women have assumed the male family functions of breadwinner and authoritarian, putting husbands to work in household chores, somehow seems unnatural, and is.  If some persons choose to live otherwise, they have that right.  They do not have the right to expect others to submit to their deviations.  This seems a good place to throw in a Scottish proverb, “It is a sad house where the hen crows louder than the cock.”

A bill pending in the California legislature (where else?), if it becomes law, would remove all references to gender in public schools.  According to the Capitol Resource In­stitute (CRI), the legislation sponsored by lesbian Sen. Sheila Kuehl, “could potentially require gen­der-neutral bathrooms in our schools and all references to ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ or ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ removed from school textbooks as the norm.”  Another California bill, which has already passed in the state Assembly and is expected to be approved in the state Senate, gives the California State Superintendent of Public Instruc­tion the power to withhold state funds from school districts that do not promote trans-sexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.

At a meeting of the United Nations’ Commission on the Status of Women, the focus was on the role of men and boys in achieving gender equality.  The bottom line was clearly stated, “We must nurture boys into developing more feminine characteristics — gentleness, compassion and tenderness, among others — and train them away from the more typically male aggressive and competitive behaviors.”

The attempt to manipulate kids into opposite sex interests extends far beyond entertainment.  The programming begins with very young children and continues through the school years, and even thereafter.  Seventy five percent of primary and secondary schoolteachers are female, many of whom try to recondition boys to be more feminine, often medicating them with Ritalin.  Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says there over 300 publications by the U.S. Department of Education promoting parity in education, none of which are designed to improve the situation of males.  Federal funds can actually be cut off to a state which doesn’t advocate androgyny in its school books.  This borders on the unhinged.

Sex melders have almost completely achieved social integration.  Most high schools, colleges and universities in the U.S., including the military academies, have been forced or persuaded to integrate by sex.  There are all sorts of federal legislation cutting off funds to states and institutions which drag their feet in melding the sexes and in persecuting males.  Federal courts have declared sexually segregated schools to be unconstitutional, excepting women’s schools for all practical purposes.  The privilege to elbow their way into women’s schools and clubs hasn’t been available to men.  At this writing nineteen women’s colleges remain single-sex versus only 3 men’s colleges.  In a pitifully small gesture of defiance I quit donating to my prep. school and college after they went co-educational.

A 1972 amendment to Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been (wrongly, I submit) interpreted by Feminists in the Department of Education and former President Clinton’s Office of Civil Rights to blindly enforce a proportionality quota system that blatantly discriminates against male athletic teams; and courts perform legalistic contortions to support such notions – contrary to the statement of Title IX’s author, Rep Edith Green, that “…the establishment of quotas would be prohibited.”  Doing nothing for women, Title IX nonsense simply feeds the anti-masculine animus of Feminists.

The numbers game has resulted in the elimination of hundreds, perhaps thousands by now, of male teams: 171 colleges dropped wrestling, 37 colleges dropped football, 27 dropped outdoor track, 25 dropped swimming, and 10 abolished ice hockey.  In some schools, men's track and field and gymnastics went by the boards.  Title IX quotas killed the University of California’s Los Angeles swim team that spurred Mark Spitz to his records.  Private swim clubs can still train champions, but other sports such as wrestling and track depend entirely on school-based competition.  The promising baseball players at Howard University lost their chance to develop their skills and become stars.  Our future Jesse Owenses have been replaced by less talented women who took an athletic scholarship to get free college tuition, not necessarily because they were keen on sports.

The act’s interpretation – the “proportionality test” – pushes girls into sports in which few are interested and many get hurt.  Nevertheless, sports writers maintain the pretext of great importance for girls’ sports.

A few years ago only 200 U.S. high-school girls participated in ice hockey nationwide (more probably play now).  In Canada Brigitte LeBlanc, a 14-year-old Moncton girl, wasn’t satisfied playing hockey with the boys.  She wanted more, so she petitioned the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission to grant her the right to use the boys’ locker room.  Astonishingly, she won.  Then there’s Robyn Waite, the Ontario high school girl who played quarterback on the boys’ football team.  Before her, there was Justine Blainey and Hayley Wickenheiser, who fought for and won the right to skate with the boys.  Coaches have aptly called this scheme “sheer idiocy.”

Of course, the door doesn’t swing both ways; female athletes continue to have the luxury of maintaining girls’ teams and girls’ clubs.  That guys do not have that right is discrimination.  Surely, there are a few 14-year-old boys out there who wouldn’t mind gaining entry to the girls’ locker room.  But you can bet that day will never come.

A woman can play on the men’s PGA golf tour, but a man can’t play on the women’s tour.  The LPGA wasn’t good enough for Annika Sorenstam, so she decided to tee off with the men during a 2003 PGA tournament.  One bright, shining exception to this nonsense is the success of Hootie Johnson, Chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club, home of the Masters golf tournament.  The National Council of Women’s Organizations pressured major advertisers financing the Masters to require sexual integration of the tournament in 2003.  They lost that battle when the tournament proceeded without advertising revenue.

 That sham boxing match some years ago between a professional woman boxer (loaded with male hormones, no doubt) and a little man who had never won a fight is an example of the lengths to which people will go to hide gender differences.  Ditto the decades-earlier tennis match between a young Billy Jean King and an old Bobby Riggs.

Until reform comes about, freedom of association will continue to be trampled on to promote less important rights.  Author Steven E. Rhoads says, “Only when we begin to take sex differences seriously enough to see that men are intrinsically more attracted to sports — and need sports competition more than women do — will we be able to design public policies that are just, functional, and sensible.”  The Bush administration has shown signs of recognizing the problem by authorizing rules allowing schools to use surveys to gage which sports students want to participate in, surveys which can provide evidence in defense of commonsense proportionality in providing gender-based sports activities.

On September 3, 1974, the Santa Cruz, California, Board of Supervisors, adopted an ordinance permitting women to sunbathe bare-breasted.  Their rationale was that the only constitutional alternative was to require men to wear brassieres.  In March 2004 in Daytona Beach Florida, Elizabeth Book was arrested when she exposed her breasts during Bike Week to protest laws that bar women from publicly going topless.  Volusia County Judge David Beck agreed with Book’s contention that she was exercising constitutionally protected free-speech rights, and threw out the nudity charge.  That Constitutional ‘right’ doesn’t apply to men who expose themselves.

A Seattle judge, Barbara Yanick, dismissed charges against two topless sun-bathers, declaring the city’s lewd conduct ordinance unconstitutional because a Washington school rule barring girls from playing football with and against boys was declared by the State Supreme Court to be unconstitutional (What else can you expect from the left coast?).  Joseph L. Hess, Chairman of the Baltimore County Liquor Board, ordered a male go-go dancer to “wear a bra or something” because a local ordinance requires female employees of licensed establishments to “conceal their nipples and lower (parts of) breasts.”  Rumor has it that the next legislative demand will be that men must squat to urinate.  In Santa Cruz, Seattle or Baltimore County it might pass.

It’s bad enough that female prison guards can watch male prisoners at shower and toilet, and women reporters are allowed in male athletes’ locker rooms – not vice versa however.  In The War Against Men Dr. Hise reports that Chris Gatling, a forward on the Toronto Raptors basketball team, was fined $10,000 and forced to apologize for joking about the situation.

To quote Margaret Mead:  “If any human society large or small, simple or complex, based on the most rudimentary hunting and fishing, or on the whole elaborate interchange of manufactured products is to survive, it must have a pattern of social life that comes to terms with the differences between the sexes.”

If the androgynous trend continues, man as unequivocally male and masculine will become as rare as the definitely female and feminine woman.  In his A History of Marriage and Family, Australian Professor Willystine Goodsell posits that the causes of modern western social decline are identical to those which caused the fall of the Roman Empire.  Women took on non-traditional roles when men left to fight the Punic Wars, and remained in those roles after the wars.  This led to promiscuity, divorce and widespread demoralization.  One need not be a college professor to see the parallels; in many cases, occupying that profession seems to be a hindrance.

Referring to this situation in France, in 1831 Tocqueville said:  "It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.”
 


Send mail to Webmaster  with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2013 Men's Defense Association
Last modified: October 12, 2013