Gender Images/Indiscriminate Chivalry/Misandry



“Girls are made of sugar ΄n spice ΄n everything nice.  Boys are made of snips ΄n snails ΄n puppy dog tails.”   — Anon.

Listen to the experts: Esther Vilar, in her best seller The Manipulated Man, calls the American male “the most exploited, the most suppressed, the most manipulated man on the face of the earth;”  Linda Bowles said “It isn’t even close, the most abused, vilified, and sexually harassed Americans are white, heterosexual males.  I don’t know why they put up with it — and I wish they wouldn’t;”  Cato said “And we who govern all men are ourselves governed by our women;”  Blackstone said “Woman is the favorite of the law;”  University of Wisconsin sociologist Professor Ersel E. LeMasters claimed that women are boss in most contemporary families.

Writer and TV personality Doug Giles says “Masculine values are vanishing from within our nation faster than a Chimichanga dipped in motor oil would zip through your digestive tract.”  In many circles, opprobrium attaches to being pale and male – almost an ‘Original Sin.’  The phenomenon seems to have gotten into the drinking water.  Women are practically canonized by simple virtue of being female, long-suffering heroines all but gleaning coal from railroad yards.  Females must be condescended to like “special” children whose crayon drawings of flowers everyone must praise.

Two or three Fathers’ Days ago Kathleen Parker satirized the image of the “Three-D Dad: dumb, dorky and dispensable.”  She says “It’s a wonder men still submit to the altar.  If we did to motherhood what we have done to fatherhood, we’d all be wearing riot gear.  That a father revolt is inevitable seems a matter of cultural physics and human nature.  Human beings can withstand only so much contravening pressure against what is in their interest or necessary to their survival.  Meanwhile, old-fashioned masculinity is demeaned as we celebrate ‘metrosexuals.’  Raising children without their fathers is simply another, unfortunately accepted, form of child neglect.”

Opponents of gender fairness falsify what everyone knows to be true and assert what everyone knows to be false.  There was a joke about an imaginary headline in the New York Times, “Tidal Wave Strikes New York.  Women and Children Suffer Most.”  Well, it’s no longer a joke; an AP story reported just that: Angie Daze, a program manager with a Canadian group called Reducing Vulnerability to Climate Change, said in a Dec. 6-17, 2004 conference “Severe weather caused by global warming can pose greater physical danger to women than men.”  Other speakers said women in poor countries are particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, “Women are highly dependent on the environment for their family responsibilities in developing countries,” said one environmental worker based in Bangladesh, “Any type of environmental degradation impacts them more severely than men.” In warfare, men sacrifice life and limb in defense of women and children.  Still, Marylin French in her recent The War Against Women claims most casualties in wars are women and children.  I’m not kidding.

Female glorification, not of the fairy godmother type, is demonstrated by the, seriously taken, demand for a statue of a “combat woman” to be erected at the Vietnam War Memorial to specially and separately memorialize the eight women who died in Vietnam, only 1 by hostile fire, contrasted with 58,000 men who died there, most by hostile fire.

Men have never quite reached that level of sainthood.  In fact are often depicted as knuckle-dragging abusers who beat their wives on Super Bowl Sunday.  If a man cheats on his wife he is an unfaithful, philandering playboy.  If a woman cheats on her husband she is searching for a meaningful, emotional relationship.  Fearful of molesters, Air New Zealand and Qantas have a policy of moving men sitting next to unaccompanied children.  Consider the situation of the Negro male; victim of prejudice in both dimensions, race and sex.  His demeanment has helped make the black family an infrequent, or at best matriarchal, arrangement.

The popular sport of male-bashing is ubiquitous.  Advertisements and situation comedies denigrating males are still common in the big media.  T-shirts sporting “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” are popular items.  TV shows, even common gossip, make men out to be all types of bad guys; from litterbugs, through abandoners of pregnant women, to bloodthirsty killers.  “Dead white males” are high on the list of Feminist bogymen.  On TV it is considered comical to kick men in the testicles.  In the “All in the Family” series, only Archie Bunker was ever heard flushing the toilet, to great laughter.  Evidently ‘Saints’ Edith and Gloria never defecated.

The male qualities that protected and preserved the race down through the ages are largely shunned as undesirable in modern society.  Words must conform to political correctness.  We can’t say “policeman,” “fireman,” “mailman,” “foreman” “Congressman” or “Chairman,” because the connotations are good (Must say “Chairperson,” etc.).  But we can say “gunman,” “con man,” “garbage man,” and “Chairman Mao” because those connotations are bad.  Then there’s “bad guy” and “manhunt.”

Liberator writer Max Friedman objects to the zeitgeist thusly, “The woman’s champion runner in this year’s marathon is getting $30,000 more than the male winner!  (Not to mention some $130,000 more than those few dozen men who will finish ahead of her, but will be paid zilch.)  Men are too intimidated to complain.”

The federal government has conscientiously pursued, and rightly so, a course of eradicating discrimination based on race but has studiously ignored that based on sex (except for alleged anti-female discrimination).  The very term, “men’s rights,” reeks of political incorrectness.  It turns off neo-liberals and conservatives alike.  While the situation has improved somewhat of late, such attitudes have become calcified in our culture.  The attack on males and manhood may be a rebellion against authority, with which men are often identified, or were.  Ironically these sentiments adversely affect women also, because attacks on manhood are attacks on all humanity – indeed on creation if you will.

How did this situation come about?  To answer that we have to go back to the days of patriarchy, “once upon a time,” when man was king and woman was considered socially and legally to be inferior, mere chattel.  Offsetting woman-protective ideas, laws, and practices were in vogue, many of which persist to this day.  The famous writer Dr. Samuel Johnson in the 18th century observed that “Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.”  Now the law gives them much, as will become apparent herein.  These customs, which postulate the false planted axiom that all women are ladies, are commonly referred to as “chivalry.”  Originating in the 12th and 13th centuries, chivalry was a quaint consideration, not unlike the bowling handicap, extended to ladies, as distinguished from all women, in deference to their feminine charm, their gentle and retiring ways, general physical weakness, as well as to their baby-making capability.  Many privileges attached.

In pursuit of chivalry, men went to war, gave up their seats in lifeboats (“women and children first”), worked harder, placed ladies on pedestals, and offered a host of other considerations.  Knightly gallantry was in vogue.  The issue is further developed in Part III of this book. Chivalry Trade-offs: The Double Standard Justified.

Though classic chivalry is dead, thanks to Feminism (hoist on their own petard), perverted chivalry thrives.  Greatly diluting its original intent, chivalry is generally extended to all females, most offensively by judicial Galahads few of whom can or do distinguish between ladies and women.  This, of course, gives all women the best of both ways of thinking.  Lip service is paid to equality, but women are considered more equal (George Orwell, call your office).  Many take advantage of their role, thanklessly and undeservedly expecting or demanding all sorts of considerations.  Sometimes it arguably works to the good: his wife’s tears largely delivered confirmation to Justice Alito.

Send mail to Webmaster  with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2017 Men's Defense Association
Last modified: March 30, 2017