Video: Roots of Feminism & A Call To Arms

I would like to introduce my readers to an outstanding MRA who goes by the name of barbarossaaaa on YouTube but you can call him Ryan.

NOTE::Ryan can get a little heated and angry at times but he has good intentions and is simply frustrated at the state of things...






On Women in the Workforce:
"Nowadays the working woman hastens out of the house early in the morning when the factory whistle blows. When evening comes and the whistle sounds again, she hurries home to scramble through the most pressing of her domestic tasks. Then it’s off to work again the next morning, and she is tired from lack of sleep. For the married working woman, life is as hard as the workhouse. It is not surprising therefore that family ties should loosen and the family begin to fall apart. The circumstances that held the family together no longer exist. The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation as a whole. The old family structure is now merely a hindrance." "Communism liberates women from her domestic slavery and makes her life richer and happier." -Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

On Childcare:
"The state is responsible for the upbringing of children" "The woman who takes up the struggle for the liberation of the working class must learn to understand that there is no more room for the old proprietary attitude which says: “These are my children, I owe them all my maternal solicitude and affection; those are your children, they are no concern of mine and I don’t care if they go hungry and cold – I have no time for other children.” The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers." -Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

In her book The Second Sex famous feminist Simone de Beauvoir wrote: “A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” (p. 760)

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -Simone de Beauvoir

“Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole F*#@+*g patriarchy!” -Gloria Steinem (Detroit Free Press, April 15, 1974)

“For the sake of those who wish to live in equal partnership, we have to abolish and reform the institution of legal marriage.” -Gloria Steinem


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY DEAR COUNTRYMEN AND WOMEN PLEASE READ:

Stalin's Communist Playbook Is In Motion

Alexandra Kollontai: Stalin's right hand woman.
Valerie Jarrett: Obama's right hand woman.


A thanks to Christina Hoff Sommers
and http://www.marxists.org

The First Congress of Working Women was held on November 19th 1918. This for Kollontai was a real advance, and a vindication of her agitation for a separate women’s section within the Party which she had been advocating since 1906.

A year after this took place it became evident that something more was needed because it was proported that the oppression of women went so deep. The Women’s Department or (Genotdel) (replicated by Obama and the new Council on Women and Girls) thus replaced the committee.

This new department was to mobilize them for practical political activity. Jessica Smith in Women in Soviet Russia (1928) describes conflict between men and women in Changing Attitudes in Soviet Russia and records debates in which women accuse the men of condescension (oppression) and patronage or (misogyny) & (patriarchy).

As the communist revolution grew and took control over the state The ‘Genotdel’ was dissolved in 1929 with the official explanation that "equality" or the Marxist ideal of a classless society had been achieved and as such an independent women’s movement was no longer necessary.

It is important to note that one of the first orders of business for the Council on Women and Girls was to divert the stimulus package to women in vast entirety.

Upon meeting the approval of the Women's Party ( Council on Women and Girls) Obama tasked Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, Joseph Biden's chief economist, with preparing an extraordinary report that calculated not only the number of jobs the plan would likely create, but the gender composition of the various employment sectors and the division of largess between women and men.

Romer and Bernstein delivered "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" on January 10. Though what is now 82% of all jobs lost were to men, they concluded that the stimulus package now "skews job creation somewhat towards women." (Please google and read "No Country For Burly Men" by Christina Hoff Sommers.)

Karl Marx recognized the importance of usurping to populous through women.
Through the feminine and in defense, protection and provision for her, in being told she is not fairing well, her inherent entitlement to such and the labors of man and the state will emerge. In being told it is his fault men can be usurped. He will not dare question the advocacy for such. Women will surrender to their own needs, men will surrender to the needs of women and both to the provision of state and working industry.

- "Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included."-- Karl Marx

God save the Republic

Men's Rights!?....Yawning..& More Yawning at Hofstra University Case

A Syndication of:
Yawning at Hofstra
Thursday, September 17, 2009
By Paul Elam
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/17/yawning-at-hofstra/

In what has become a more or less common turn of events, the female Hofstra University student that accused five men, including one classmate, of gang raping her in a school dormitory bathroom has recanted the charges. That’s legal and media speak for admitting she cheapened herself by taking on five men willingly on a men’s room floor and lied about it later out of what little capacity for shame she had.I suppose, I say yawning, that this is the time for outrage. And there are plenty of reasons for it, starting with Nassau Police Detective John Allen, commander of the special victims squad. Allen announced in a press conference that the men had tricked the 18 year old woman into coming to a dorm by taking her cell phone.“Clearly,” he said, “I think the cell phone was taken to lure her away from the crowd to do her harm.”And of course, in the Nassau Police Department as in so many others, “Clearly” means she said so.

And next we have Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice. After releasing four of the men from jail (the fifth was still being hunted down), Rice issued a statement that a criminal investigation would be conducted but that no decision had been made as to whether to file charges against the woman.Rice already has more evidence of an actual crime committed by the woman than she did against the four men that were incarcerated. Which is to say that she didn’t have any evidence against them at all save a single allegation. And she is waiting now for what, the fair application of justice? Due process? Her next hair appointment?I guess we can also save some indignation for when, over the next few days, stories of the woman’s mental health issues and other reasons emerge to soften her treatment. This will happen, regardless of the DA’s decision on whether to prosecute, and it will be used to lessen the consequences, if any, for what the woman did.After all, we shouldn’t imperil the future of a woman simply for committing a possible felony that lead to the false imprisonment and public humiliation of four innocent men.And I suppose that there should be some ire directed at the media, who continue to print the names of the men but not their disgraced accuser, hiding the name of the only real criminal in the story. Her name will come out now, but only after the search engines bring back a few thousand returns on the names of the men.There should be too, I assume, and yawning again, a fair amount of finger pointing at feminists who pushed for and got these insane rape shield laws, resulting in so many travesties of justice, so many lives ruined.Truth tell, though, when I read what one of the accused had to say about the matter, I’d rather focus all my anger at him. In fact, I want to put him back in jail myself and throw away the key.Upon being released, accused Stalin Felipe had this to say:“Basically, I have no hard feelings toward her. I don’t know why she did it. I don’t know her so I don’t want to say anything bad about her.”Bottom line is, if this guy wants to give her a pass, why should anyone else give a damn?And the truth is that this guy is not unlike most men. Even with their neck planted squarely on the guillotine, if a woman’s hand is on the lever, the last words of men will likely as not be, “I’m sorry if I get your blade bloody.

”Men are, it seems, the greatest masochists of all time. Whatever you do, don’t get between a man and an opportunity to excuse a woman for whatever harm she causes to others.You’ll be road kill in a nanosecond.And that is precisely what men are becoming. They are like dumb animals that wander onto the super highway of gender politics, unable to grasp the concept of speed and Mac Trucks. After getting hit, the ones who don’t get squashed flat simply limp off to the shoulder, covering their pain with a smile and saying, “Please, ma’am, may I have another?”Is this blaming the victim? You better believe it. And it is blame they have coming. Truckloads of it.I am not going to bother asking. ‘where is the outrage?’ It’s like asking ‘where is the free health care?’ There isn’t much point in pursuing fantasies. I’ll leave that to police departments and DA’s. They have become experts at it.I know that in the minds of many I am supposed to point to the nobility of men’s desires to protect women at all costs. That is why men continue to remain silent while they are destroyed before each other’s eyes. Yeah, that’s the ticket, it’s the nobility.

Normally, I’d expect feminists to find a way to mistake cowardice for nobility. Such delusions seem more their forte. It’s disgusting to see so many men do it. But such behavior has become part of the modern masculine repertoire. And frankly I am growing weary of men, myself included, protesting modern affairs as long as we are leaving jails and courtrooms like grinning weasels, wearing our disgraces like badges of honor.Where are the Duke three? Why are they not all over this story? Why aren’t they doing anything to help prevent what happened to them from happening to others?I’ll tell you where they are. They are busy being men. Which is to say that they are doing nothing at best, doing more damage at worst. It is the same place the Hofstra five will be by early next week. And with that they will join the legions of men wrongfully accused, falsely imprisoned, publicly humiliated and shamefully silent.The only way that this is going to change is if some shepherds emerge to protect a flock that is incapable of, and unwilling to, protecting itself.It is going to be a hard job.

Not only do the sheep need to be protected from the wolves now stalking them, they have the unfortunate tendency to collude with the wolves themselves, to seek their approval and attention, and to extend to them blanket exonerations, even as the wolves size them up and make dinner plans.The same sheep also have the insane habit of pushing each other into the line of fire whenever they get the chance. They then stare at the carnage of their dead brothers in front of them, in the words of Don Henley, “uncomprehendingly, like cows at a passing train.”It reveals a bitter truth that advocating for men is trying to extend the lifespan of lemmings.And so it isn’t just standing guard for the shepherds, it’s remaining on suicide watch the whole time. And it explains why so many efforts for men to organize and make things happen result in exactly squat. It’s easier to heard snakes with a stick.Better that a few shepherds go wolf hunting on their own than to take the sheep with them, keeping in mind the whole time that the sheep themselves could be sneaking up behind them.

In what has become a more or less common turn of events, the female Hofstra University student that accused five men, including one classmate, of gang raping her in a school dormitory bathroom has recanted the charges. That’s legal and media speak for admitting she cheapened herself by taking on five men willingly on a men’s room floor and lied about it later out of what little capacity for shame she had.

I suppose, I say yawning, that this is the time for outrage. And there are plenty of reasons for it, starting with Nassau Police Detective John Allen, commander of the special victims squad. Allen announced in a press conference that the men had tricked the 18 year old woman into coming to a dorm by taking her cell phone.

“Clearly,” he said, “I think the cell phone was taken to lure her away from the crowd to do her harm.”

And of course, in the Nassau Police Department as in so many others, “Clearly” means she said so.

And next we have Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice. After releasing four of the men from jail (the fifth was still being hunted down), Rice issued a statement that a criminal investigation would be conducted but that no decision had been made as to whether to file charges against the woman.

Rice already has more evidence of an actual crime committed by the woman than she did against the four men that were incarcerated. Which is to say that she didn’t have any evidence against them at all save a single allegation. And she is waiting now for what, the fair application of justice? Due process? Her next hair appointment?

I guess we can also save some indignation for when, over the next few days, stories of the woman’s mental health issues and other reasons emerge to soften her treatment. This will happen, regardless of the DA’s decision on whether to prosecute, and it will be used to lessen the consequences, if any, for what the woman did.

After all, we shouldn’t imperil the future of a woman simply for committing a possible felony that lead to the false imprisonment and public humiliation of four innocent men.

And I suppose that there should be some ire directed at the media, who continue to print the names of the men but not their disgraced accuser, hiding the name of the only real criminal in the story. Her name will come out now, but only after the search engines bring back a few thousand returns on the names of the men.

There should be too, I assume, and yawning again, a fair amount of finger pointing at feminists who pushed for and got these insane rape shield laws, resulting in so many travesties of justice, so many lives ruined.

Truth tell, though, when I read what one of the accused had to say about the matter, I’d rather focus all my anger at him. In fact, I want to put him back in jail myself and throw away the key.

Upon being released, accused Stalin Felipe had this to say:

“Basically, I have no hard feelings toward her. I don’t know why she did it. I don’t know her so I don’t want to say anything bad about her.”

Bottom line is, if this guy wants to give her a pass, why should anyone else give a damn?

And the truth is that this guy is not unlike most men. Even with their neck planted squarely on the guillotine, if a woman’s hand is on the lever, the last words of men will likely as not be, “I’m sorry if I get your blade bloody.”

Men are, it seems, the greatest masochists of all time. Whatever you do, don’t get between a man and an opportunity to excuse a woman for whatever harm she causes to others.

You’ll be road kill in a nanosecond.

And that is precisely what men are becoming. They are like dumb animals that wander onto the super highway of gender politics, unable to grasp the concept of speed and Mac Trucks. After getting hit, the ones who don’t get squashed flat simply limp off to the shoulder, covering their pain with a smile and saying, “Please, ma’am, may I have another?”

Is this blaming the victim? You better believe it. And it is blame they have coming. Truckloads of it.

I am not going to bother asking. ‘where is the outrage?’ It’s like asking ‘where is the free health care?’ There isn’t much point in pursuing fantasies. I’ll leave that to police departments and DA’s. They have become experts at it.

I know that in the minds of many I am supposed to point to the nobility of men’s desires to protect women at all costs. That is why men continue to remain silent while they are destroyed before each other’s eyes. Yeah, that’s the ticket, it’s the nobility.

Normally, I’d expect feminists to find a way to mistake cowardice for nobility. Such delusions seem more their forte. It’s disgusting to see so many men do it. But such behavior has become part of the modern masculine repertoire. And frankly I am growing weary of men, myself included, protesting modern affairs as long as we are leaving jails and courtrooms like grinning weasels, wearing our disgraces like badges of honor.

Where are the Duke three? Why are they not all over this story? Why aren’t they doing anything to help prevent what happened to them from happening to others?

I’ll tell you where they are. They are busy being men. Which is to say that they are doing nothing at best, doing more damage at worst. It is the same place the Hofstra five will be by early next week. And with that they will join the legions of men wrongfully accused, falsely imprisoned, publicly humiliated and shamefully silent.

The only way that this is going to change is if some shepherds emerge to protect a flock that is incapable of, and unwilling to, protect itself.

It is going to be a hard job. Not only do the sheep need to be protected from the wolves now stalking them, they have the unfortunate tendency to collude with the wolves themselves, to seek their approval and attention, and to extend to them blanket exonerations, even as the wolves size them up and make dinner plans.

The same sheep also have the insane habit of pushing each other into the line of fire whenever they get the chance. They then stare at the carnage of their dead brothers in front of them, in the words of Don Henley, “uncomprehendingly, like cows at a passing train.”

It reveals a bitter truth that advocating for men is like trying to extend the lifespan of lemmings.

And so it isn’t just standing guard for the shepherds, it’s remaining on suicide watch the whole time. And it explains why so many efforts for men to organize and make things happen result in exactly squat. It’s easier to heard snakes with a stick.

Better that a few shepherds go wolf hunting on their own than to take the sheep with them, keeping in mind the whole time that the sheep themselves could be sneaking up behind them.

The Male Guilt Complex

It occurred to me recently how divided male identity has become, how in conflict many men really are from the continuing assault on masculinity.

I realize that men are told how horrible we are so often that men, in our minds divide ourselves and our identity into two camps, the good man and bad men. We tell ourselves all the time that the masculinity our society continually attacks is not our masculinity, that we are the good man, the nice guy, especially to women.

The guilt complex runs so deep that we constantly placate to the shaming, we constantly want women to know that we are not "him", the bad guy, the evil masculine, the so called "typical male".

Those that have not found the sound reason of Men's Rights carry this burden, it weights heavy upon them, my brothers, those, the many who feel they have to tell themselves and show the women in their life I am not him, I am not him, that is not me, I am different, I am a good man, a nice man, I am not like most men I hear about, I am not him I swear, I am different. I am ok, please trust me.

Steve Bergman is a member of Men-4-Change and enters our school buildings in an effort to help boys with what he calls relationalization to the feminine. He states:

"In our work, we ask thousands of eighth-grade boys, "What do you want girls to know about you?" It rips your heart out to hear what they say: "I'm not really like this. I'm a nice guy underneath. I act like a pervert, but I really care. Don't believe my behavior and my actions."


Steve works to help young boys become more feminine and to realize why male sexuality is wrong, why being male is wrong and needs to be reformed...

"All the pressures in the culture demand that the little boy disconnect from his relationship with his mother to become a man. The culture says only in disconnection can you become a strong self that can grow." (One need not disconnect with the feminine to become male, one must be more feminine)

"People tell me, "You're just talking about the feminization of men! You just want men to become like women." We're not talking about the feminization of men, but about the "relational-ization" of both genders. If that, in this culture, is taken as feminization, we are in big trouble. That's what we're up against."

(In other words there is something fundamentally wrong with masculininity and only by relationalization to the feminine, only by getting young boys not to disconnect from the female archetype of mother, as he has stated above, can we get boys to be more agreeable to what females want, to behave and move toward a feminine ideal.)




Men know this burden I speak of well. This burden has ruined their innocence of spirit and that of boys. I hope my fellow men may realize, upon reflection, the forces they are up against and exactly how many horrible things they are told about themselves when they realize they are not alone in these thoughts, this experience.....

Men, despite the message you receive there is nothing wrong with being male. You are not those many things. You are not base, primitive, unevolved, selfish, a jerk or your sexuality perverted. You are not a bumbling, incapable man-child fool of a man they show you on TV. Do not be afraid, do not be shamed. You do not need to be reformed by gay men to make you acceptable. ("Queer Eye For The Straight Guy"). You do not need to apologize for being male. Reject your popular culture, reject misandry, reject male subjugation, reject the lack of respect for fatherhood, join us, lets go our own way!

Debate With A Feminist

You say: "Kids stay with their mothers because children are drawn to their mothers."

More than 79% of Americans feel the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home. Research shows that the lack of a father in the home correlates closely with crime, educational and emotional problems, teenage pregnancy, and drug and alcohol abuse.

Source: Ad Council United States

-------------------------------------
You say: "Pop culture shows women as sex objects"

And pop culture shows men as success objects, horses asses, pigs and jack asses (donkeys), thrown into garbage cans by women, beaten and humiliated, so what is your point exactly, that only women deserve advocacy and are oppressed??

HERE are a few examples for you.....

-------------------------------------

You say: "And only 40% of college degrees are male because 40% of college *students* are male. Its not that men arent given degrees, its that they choose to not go to college in the first place"

No see, men are not admitted to college because they are not given equal opportunity under Affirmative Action, Title IX and women only loans and scholarships. Furthermore all competitive\resource reward based learning models have been removed from schools and are now cooperative learning models.Statistics also show that boys that come from fatherless homes do more poorly in this regard than girls.

--------------------------------------
"Women are 51% of the U.S. population and the voting public."

No they are 51% population and 54% of the voting public

"But there are 82 male Senators and only 17 female Senators. There are 44 male Governors and only 6 female Governors. 83% of House representatives are men, only 17% are women."

Again women do not run for office at ANY level of government in the proportions men do and furthermore females tend to vote for male candidates..No one is holding women back especially since women are the voting majority and decide elections. In politics the politicians serve and cater to their voting base, in America this is women, politicians strive to appease and perform the bidding of their constituents. It is women that dictate laws and policy from family law to the federal level.

---------------------------------------
You say "Womens success and ascent in the business world is determined less by their actual ability compared to men and more by their appearance."

Men's success in the mating world is determined more by their ability and less by their appearance. Can you see how sexual selection and female preference play a role here??? Besides, this is the first I've heard such and assertion, can you provide a empirical study or data showing women are promoted by their looks and not how much money they make for a company. Your assertion is counter intuitive to basic economics.

I can tell you that intelligence has been correlated with bodily symmetry and proportion or what is also know as the golden mean or ratio or Fibonacci Sequence i.e. good looks or beauty. However certain people are specialists in a specific adaptive trait. By enlarge though the two are indeed proportionally related and in general selected adaptive traits are aggregated and expressed.

Have you measured the mean statistical variance of the good looks of males that are promoted or how tall they are? Perhaps intelligence is the trait being promoted and it is the correlation to good looks you notice only in the female. Correlation is not causation. Furthermore as always you feminists are only looking at one half of the picture.

---------------------------------------
You say: "and they should not have the system of support and education set up for them to combat the fact that men keep women down?"

Most certainly NOT given that women keep men down by these very policies such as Affirmative Action and Title IX and earn 60% of college degrees because of them. Also can you demonstrate to me "how men keep women down" ?

I can certainly demonstrate to you how women keep men down and then demand we give them the fruits of our labor anyway...
---------------------------------------
"Women are kept out of the business world"

"Not true...next

"they are kept out of politics"

Women do not run for political office at ANY level of government in the proportions men do and furthermore women overwhemingly vote for men, that's a fact.

"and despite being half the population, they are (except for a handful) excluded from any stereotypically male-dominated or higher echelon positions in life"

No they are not....next
--------------------------------------

No this is a hybrid society or a full blow matriarchy. You cansee this in terms of men's rights especially in relation to marriage.

You have to understand that in no time in our previous history were women objectified and sexualized than they are now in our post feminist sexually liberated society. Female sexuality used to be part of her private married life and now it is public and promiscuous. Sexual availability of unmarried females is now common fact.
--------------------------------------
"professional women receive 75% of the money men do for the same job."

Actually the Raw Wage Gap is a measurement of the disparity in earnings of all men and women in the workforce and not "the same job" Many factors account for a slightly lower female capitol production capacity as a whole of the workforce. Hours worked, industry of employment, full time or part time, maternity leave etc etc etc. Please learn more about the "Raw Wage Gap" of 76 cents to the dollar.

--------------------------------------
"9 out of every 10 cases of sexual assault are against female victims."

For the sake of argument I will assume your statement is true and in that case:

96% of all workplace deaths are males.
85% of the homeless are male
80% of suicides are male
98% of combat deaths are male
40% of college degrees are male

So what is your point, that men should not have equal rights and protections under law? Men should not have advocacy and that the only problems that matter are women's problems? That men are responsible for everyones welfare and women are not? That the pain and suffering in this world is the fault of and responsibility of men to solve?

I will tell you this maam, I have never seen women as a socio-political class dedicate their energy to the welfare, well-being, material, physical provision and safety of men and boys but rather quite noticeably to yourselves in ENTIRETY.

Given what I've seen of female social and political activity the forementioned is noticeably absent in regard of men by women. In contrast men have been known to drown themselves in sub freezing water so that women may live.

The influence of the general female nature or ethos in politics and social policy in general is of grave concern to me... I don't know how much longer men can be your beast of burden and yet say nothing...Maam, trust me when I say that when men are complaining of pain you had better listen as he will not do so until his back is nearly broken and many times I FEAR only after the fact will he do so. As you may know male value is heavily weighted in external utility and do our best to bear our burdens in silence by self terminating our own lives, taking it like men, getting tough or dying, sucking it up, manning up etc...


It would be wise for the sisterhood to listen and act on behalf of men. You must not forget your men. You must remember the men in your social policy or we will all suffer...we already are.......

I can only say that I am not alone in my sentiment. This will become apparent to you in time, I can assure you of that.......

"No Country for Burly Men" Feminists Divert Stimulus Package

No Country for Burly Men
How feminist groups skewed the Obama stimulus plan towards women's jobs.
by Christina Hoff Sommers
06/29/2009, Volume 014, Issue 39

A "man-cession." That's what some economists are starting to call it. Of the 5.7 million jobs Americans lost between December 2007 and May 2009, nearly 80 percent had been held by men. Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan, characterizes the recession as a "downturn" for women but a "catastrophe" for men.

Men are bearing the brunt of the current economic crisis because they predominate in manufacturing and construction, the hardest-hit sectors, which have lost more than 3 million jobs since December 2007. Women, by contrast, are a majority in recession-resistant fields such as education and health care, which gained 588,000 jobs during the same period. Rescuing hundreds of thousands of unemployed crane operators, welders, production line managers, and machine setters was never going to be easy. But the concerted opposition of several powerful women's groups has made it all but impossible. Consider what just happened with the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Last November, President-elect Obama addressed the devastation in the construction and manufacturing industries by proposing an ambitious New Deal-like program to rebuild the nation's infrastructure. He called for a two-year "shovel ready" stimulus program to modernize roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, public transportation, and dams and made reinvigorating the hardest-hit sectors of the economy the goal of the legislation that would become the recovery act.

Women's groups were appalled. Grids? Dams? Opinion pieces immediately appeared in major newspapers with titles like "Where are the New Jobs for Women?" and "The Macho Stimulus Plan." A group of "notable feminist economists" circulated a petition that quickly garnered more than 600 signatures, calling on the president-elect to add projects in health, child care, education, and social services and to "institute apprenticeships" to train women for "at least one third" of the infrastructure jobs. At the same time, more than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Obama not to favor a "heavily male-dominated field" like construction: "We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges." As soon as these groups became aware of each other, they formed an anti-stimulus plan action group called WEAVE-- Women's Equality Adds Value to the Economy.

The National Organization for Women (NOW), the Feminist Majority, the Institute for Women's Policy Research, and the National Women's Law Center soon joined the battle against the supposedly sexist bailout of men's jobs. At the suggestion of a staffer to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, NOW president Kim Gandy canvassed for a female equivalent of the "testosterone-laden 'shovel-ready' " terminology. ("Apron-ready" was broached but rejected.) Christina Romer, the highly regarded economist President Obama chose to chair his Council of Economic Advisers, would later say of her entrance on the political stage, "The very first email I got . . . was from a women's group saying 'We don't want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.' "

No matter that those burly men were the ones who had lost most of the jobs. The president-elect's original plan was designed to stop the hemorrhaging in construction and manufacturing while investing in physical infrastructure that is indispensable for long-term economic growth. It was not a grab bag of gender-correct programs, nor was it a macho plan--the whole idea of economic stimulus is to use government spending to put idle factors of production back to work.

The president-elect responded to the protests by sending Jason Furman, his soon-to-be deputy director at the National Economic Council, along with his senior aides to a meeting organized by Kim Gandy and Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal. Gandy described the scene:

I can't resist saying that this meeting didn't look like the other transition meetings I attended. In addition to the presence of more women, the room actually looked different--because Feminist Majority President Ellie Smeal had asked that the chairs be set in a circle, with no table in the center.

The senior economists listened attentively as Gandy and Smeal and other advocates argued for a stimulus package that would add jobs for nurses, social workers, teachers, and librarians in our crumbling "human infrastructure" (they had found their testosterone-free slogan). Did Furman mention that jobs in the "human infrastructure"--health, education, and government--had increased by more than half a million since December 2007?

One could pardon him for not being argumentative. His boss at the economic council, Lawrence Summers, had become a national symbol of the consequences of offending feminist sensibilities and had been opposed by feminists in his appointment to the top White House post. Gandy and Smeal found their circle partners to be engaged and curious and were delighted that they stayed longer than scheduled: "We left feeling that all our preparation would bear fruit in the form of more inclusion of women's needs, and we were right."

They were right indeed. Our incoming president did what many sensible men do when confronted by a chorus of female complaint: He changed his plan. He added health, education, and other human infrastructure components to the proposal. And he tasked Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, Joseph Biden's chief economist, with preparing an extraordinary report that calculated not only the number of jobs the plan would likely create, but the gender composition of the various employment sectors and the division of largess between women and men.

Romer and Bernstein delivered "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" on January 10. They estimated that "the total number of created jobs likely to go to women is roughly 42 percent." Lest anyone miss the point, they added that since women had held only 20 percent of the jobs lost in the recession, the stimulus package now "skews job creation somewhat towards women."

In triumph, Gandy, Smeal, and their sister activists turned their attention to Congress. They perfected a special "handshake pitch" for members of Congress to be used when reminding them of the importance of rebuilding our human infrastructure, intoning, "That infrastructure is fragile too." With Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on board, the revised recovery act sailed through Congress, and President Obama signed it into law on February 17.

In her March "Below the Belt" column on the NOW website, Kim Gandy could not contain her elation over "this happily-ever-after 'stimulus story.' " When she and her allies saw the final recovery package, they were amazed to find "over and over" versions of "very specific proposals that we had made." More than that, the programs NOW had proposed had vast sums of money next to them--"numbers that started with a 'B' (as in billion)," Gandy said gleefully. "It's impossible to convey just how many hours we put into this issue during December and early January and how fruitful it really turned out to be."

Right again. It is now four months since the bill was signed into law. A recent Associated Press story reports: "Stimulus Funds Go to Social Programs Over 'Shovel-ready' Projects." A team of six AP reporters who have been tracking the funds find that the $300 billion sent to the states is being used mainly for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services. According to Chris Whately, director of the Council of State Governments, "We all talked about 'shovel-ready' since September and assumed it was a whole lot of paving and building when, in fact, that's not the case." At the same time, the Labor Department's latest (June 5) employment report shows unemployment rates of 8 percent for women and 10.5 percent for men. "Unprecedented" is what Harvard economist Greg Mankiw called the new 2.5 percentage-point gender gap. "It's the highest male-female jobless rate gap in the history of BLS [Labor Department] data back to 1948," said Mark Perry.

There is great room for debate over the effectiveness of government stimulus programs, and over how much impact a focused "shovel-ready" spending program would have achieved by now. What is not debatable is that changes in the American economy and workforce are favoring service sectors where women are abundant and that the current severe contraction is centered on sectors where men, especially working-class men, predominate. That an emergency economic recovery program should be designed with gender in mind is itself remarkable. That, in current circumstances, it should be designed to "skew" employment further towards women is disturbing and ominous.

Here is a clue to what has happened. The op-ed attacking the "macho stimulus plan" invoked Abigail Adams's famous admonition to her husband to "remember the ladies" at the Constitutional Convention, and concluded, "Obama would be wise to do the same and balance the package." It is, of course, preposterous to think of Abigail Adams, or any of the illustrious feminists of yore, proposing to "balance a package," much less opposing an effort to put unemployed men back to work. The historical allusion is revealing.

Within living memory, the American feminist movement was a valiant, broad-based vehicle for social equality. It achieved historic victories and enjoys continuing, richly deserved prestige for its valor and success. But it has now harnessed that prestige to the ethos and methods of a conventional interest group.

Recall that the Obama administration has taken extraordinary steps to insulate itself from the machinations of organized lobbyists, establishing strict limits and procedures for contacts and communications of every sort. Yet its first major policy initiative was transformed by an orchestrated barrage of emails, op-eds, online petitions, open letters, faxes, phone calls, scripted handshakes, and meetings. And the administration went to great lengths to satisfy its petitioners that their proposals had been adopted directly into law. The administration (and Congress) must have been thinking that groups such as NOW and the Feminist Majority were crusading for social justice, when in fact they were lobbying for their share of the action, to the detriment of urgent necessities.

A Washington feminist establishment that celebrates the "happily-ever-after" story of its victory over burly men cannot represent the views and interests of many women. Those men are fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, and friends; if they are in serious trouble, so are the women who care about them and in many cases depend on them. But NOW and its sister organizations see the world differently. They see the workplace as a battlefront in a zero-sum struggle between men and women, where it is their job to side with women. Unless the Obama administration and Congress find the temerity to distance themselves from the new feminist lobby, the "man-cession" will deepen and further mischief will ensue.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of The War Against Boys and editor of The Science on Women and Science, forthcoming from AEI press.

Feminists for Life? Feminist for family?

THE FEMINIST MESSAGE: Women need housing provided for them, daycare to dump their children in, and paid maternity leave or they will be forced to abort their children.
To rely on marriage, family and a husband and father to help with these things in unacceptable to feminists.



College age, independent women need the above and not marriage or a family to provide these things? When will women be responsible for theirselves, their choices and their actions? The same old message isn't it. Abortions are the result of women who are not provided for or protected enough by the system. Motherhood and Family must be socialized, communized or capitalized to provide for the needs of women is the message. We have to do more to meet the needs of independent women so they can support a child with or without a family. So they can do so as a single mother.



NO, it is the result of "independent" women who have not met their OWN needs and that of children and a family. No one, including the government and society is responsible to help women raise their bastard children. Remember 40% of ALL births in the United States are now to single mothers. The message is clear, if only government and society can provide and protect women with entitlements we can raise that 40% even higher.