Explaining The Anti-Male Media: How The Lace Curtain Works


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Explaining The Anti-Male Media: How The Lace Curtain Works

Explaining The Anti-Male Media: How The Lace Curtain Works
Teflon
Contributor
Teflon
How the Lace Curtain Works: The Eight Step Plan

The Lace Curtain works…

• By the training of feminists in women’s studies’ programs who then become the only experts on gender in all institutions working on gender questions.

In the process, the three other major perspectives of the gender dialogue go unrepresented. The perspectives of:
o non-traditional men who feel both sexes’ traditional role needs changing, and both sexes need equal compassion in making that transition. This group sees itself as temporarily focused on men’s issues, but ultimately being part of a gender transition movement. They believe that historically neither sex was a victim, they both had roles necessary to survival. (Although this is the group with which I identify, I do not believe it should be more than one-fourth of the gender discussion.)
o traditional women – the 65 percent of women who do not consider themselves feminists (according to a CNN-Time poll);13
o traditional men (the equivalent of the 65 percent of women who do not consider themselves feminists). This includes Promise Keepers and men agreeing with Rush Limbaugh.

The effect? Almost every aspect of male-female relationships is studied and legislated from the feminist point of view, not the traditional female or male point of view or the perspective of the non-traditional male. Within the feminist point of view, we will see how the victim feminist perspective dominates those of empowerment feminists in the areas that apply to the Lace Curtain.

This bias is not stagnant. It can begin anywhere in the system and spread like the ripple begun by a pebble tossed in a pond. Feminists in the women’s bureau of the department of labor may subcontract a study to academic feminists, the results of which are promoted to a feminist media which does not question the bias, and the resulting hard news and soft news create public support for politicians to create legal changes that in turn fund more feminist academic and government studies….

This gives feminist perspectives so much value the system “buys” more feminists. How?
* By awarding feminists with honors, scholarships and careers.

We will see below the 1,700 funding sources for women and the complete lack of comparable sources for men; the way 30,000 women’s studies courses support professors who think feminist and teach feminist, while virtually no comparable men’s studies courses exist with teachers who think “masculist,” if you will; the way the Human Resource and Development divisions of most large corporations allow only a feminist approach to gender, thus creating careers for tens of thousands of additional feminists. Even some of the most prestigious awards, like Pulitzer Prizes and National Book Awards, are given to women with feminist world-views, like Susan Faludi and Toni Morrison, but never to a man or woman who specializes in men’s issues.

With the Lace Curtain’s structure and funding intact, its next step is defining the issues and non-issues, the heroes and villains. It does this by…
* By defining two-sex issues from only the woman’s perspective.

Thus, we discuss domestic violence against women, not domestic violence against men; we study schools from the perspective of the neglect to our daughters, not our sons; we define health issues as women’s health, not the 34 neglected areas of men’s health outlined below; we define work-in-the-home as housework, remaining blind to the fifty areas of men’s contributions; we discuss dating from the girls’ perspective of boys coming on too strong, not boys’ perspective of fearing being rejected or their feelings about girls not sharing the risks of rejection.

Even if men (e.g., legislators) are competing to solve the problem, they are competing to solve a Lace Curtain definition of the problem. The men may be accused of male dominance, but they are actually working for women – dominated by women’s concerns without even knowing men’s exist.
* By creating victim data to catalyze “Victim Power.”

Female-as-victim data is publicized, male-as-victim data ignored. We saw in the chapters above how men as equal victim of domestic violence data has been kept out of the public consciousness for a quarter century. The best way to ignore data is to not ask questions to discover it to begin with. Thus we see below how the Census Bureau asks only women about child support payments. And finally, victim data is also created by falsification, as we saw with the United Nations falsification of housework data.

When the problem is worse for American men, as with suicide, or circumcision, find a country in which it is as bad for women and headline it as worse for women. Then portray this woman’s problem as caused by men or patriarchy.

The effect? Woman-as-Victim catalyzes the protector instinct in all of us, leading us to create advantages for women, from affirmative action and scholarships to special legal defenses. It creates female Victim Power. This tempts feminists to ignore data and perspectives empathetic to men for fear of destroying this female Victim Power.

Does male victim data catalyze a parallel male victim power? No. It catalyzes the “cringe response.” Why? Our fear is that a man who needs help cannot protect. Cringe.
* By making illegal the problems growing out of the traditional male role and ignoring the problems growing out of the traditional female role.

Thus deadbeat dads becomes a major issue, denial of visitation a minor issue. We expand the ability to prosecute rape and ignore false accusations of rape. Since women’s new role is working outside the home, equal rights to the workplace are a major issue, men’s equal rights to the homeplace and fathering are minor issues. Since men are the sexual initiators and more likely to be above women at work, we prioritize the problems of sexual harassment, and ignore the problems of sexual advantage – for example, the advantages Monica Lewinsky received that other interns did not, and the awarding of damages to future interns to compensate for the suspicion with which they will be viewed.

The effect? Once the man is portrayed as perpetrator, the perpetrator’s story is suspect and the media is hesitant to cross-examine the presumed “victim” – it doesn’t want to appear to be “blaming the victim,” or “not believing the victim.” Thus the media drops its investigative mandate.
* By neglecting to define men’s issues.

Other men’s issues, like the lack of a men’s birth control pill, male-only executions, male-only draft registration, men’s health, equal pay for equal dating, or false accusations of domestic violence or child molestation, especially during custody battles etc., are not defined in the public consciousness at all.
* By labeling people who disagree with victim feminism as “sexist,” and if they persist, putting their careers at risk.

While feminist thinking is honored and turned into careers, the reverse is true of non-feminist thinking. I am often approached by men when speaking to corporations about their fears of being honest about women in the workplace. I recall a man at Bell Atlantic who said, “If I suggested that at 7pm, the only people left in my department are men – and that’s why we get promoted faster – I’d be setting myself up to never be promoted again!”
* By men’s silence.

The reasons for men’s silence and the price it exacts are the theme of this book, [Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say] so no explanation required here except that without it the Lace Curtain would not exist.

http://www.menweb.org/lacecur1.htm

08-27-2006 11:06 AM

Re: Explaining The Anti-Male Media: How The Lace Curtain Works
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

** non-traditional men who feel both sexes’ traditional role needs changing, and both sexes need equal compassion in making that transition. This group sees itself as temporarily focused on men’s issues, but ultimately being part of a gender transition movement.

I’m just old enough to remember how feminists used to say the promise of feminism was that it would free both sexes from their traditional roles. Boy did that turn out to be a crock… Instead, feminism mostly devolved into deriding the very worst aspects of the traditional male (all men are violent warmongers, rapists, knuckleheaded slobs, etc.) and claiming that those were inherent in male nature. Feminism now works actively to keep men “in the harness” (Herb Goldberg’s phrase from his 1976 book “The Hazards of Being Male”. While there have been plenty of works debunking the feminist stance on male nature — “The Myth of the Monstrous Male” has been around 25 years now — none of them seem to have been read or paid attention too.

Naturally, this full frontal attack on males was about where men with a non-traditional leaning ceased being feminists. It doesn’t seem like very many feminists have clued in on the extent to which they’ve lost the support of many men who once would have sided with them on many things. For example, even if I’m in support of women’s full reproductive rights theorectically, why should I bust my butt for women to have those rights when I myself have no reproductive rights whatsoever (beyond non-participation or surgery). I just watch with amusement at the lost opportunities and wonder why they don’t figure it out: if men had reproductive rights too, the combined coalition supporting reproductive rights for people would represent such a large amount of political support that those rights could never be rolled back by the minority which the extreme right is. After all, we’re not trying to impose our beliefs on them.

The disturbing trend I see is that if you’re critical of the feminist program in any way they immediately accuse you of being a right-wing religious nut of some sort who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And women, or so we’re told, are better listeners, more intuitive, caring and empathetic, etc! Even the Promise Keepers aren’t that bad. I see this all the time as an MRA (men’s rights activist) and it does nothing to lend credibility to anything they then say. All it does is show how out of touch they are.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

08-27-2006 11:45 AM

Re: Explaining The Anti-Male Media: How The Lace Curtain Works
average_reader
Newbie
average_reader
rriigghhtt.

Big bussiness owns and runs the media and you know it.

08-27-2006 05:32 PM

Re: Explaining The Anti-Male Media: How The Lace Curtain Works
sunhawk
Regular Contributor
sunhawk
It would be good to keep in mind that, as a male, you are most likely not aware of the ways your gender is favoured because they are virtually invisible to you as part of the conventional patriarchal society – those situations will seem natural or only logical. As a result, since benefits to women are not considered either natural or logical, they stick out to you like a sore thumb.

As well, discrimination against women may not show up on your mental radar because it is not happening to you or your gender. I once had a male colleague try to tell me that “discrimination against women doesn’t happen anymore!” but his qualifying evidence was that he hadn’t personally witnessed any. When I brought up examples that had occured with both of us present, he was confessed he did not remember any of those events. And why would he? They didn’t directly affect his life.

08-27-2006 11:34 PM

Re: Explaining The Anti-Male Media: How The Lace Curtain Works
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

It would be good to keep in mind that, as a male, you are most likely not aware of the ways your gender is favoured because they are virtually invisible to you as part of the conventional patriarchal society – those situations will seem natural or only logical. As a result, since benefits to women are not considered either natural or logical, they stick out to you like a sore thumb.
This is complete and utter folderol.  It reads like it was copied verbatim from a Women’s Studies sociology text.

Please provide proof of the ways in which men are favoured in the allegedly ‘conventional patriacrchal society’ we live in.

Cites, studies, surveys and links please.

As well, discrimination against women may not show up on your mental radar because it is not happening to you or your gender. I once had a male colleague try to tell me that “discrimination against women doesn’t happen anymore!” but his qualifying evidence was that he hadn’t personally witnessed any. When I brought up examples that had occured with both of us present, he was confessed he did not remember any of those events. And why would he? They didn’t directly affect his life.

What discrimination?  Like the fact that 57% of college enrollees are women?  Like the fact that women live 7 years longer than men?  Like the fact that breast cancer gets $22k per annual death in federal funds and prostate cancer gets $16k?  Like the wage gap myth which simply does not exist?  Like the fact that men have higher unemployment rates than women?

08-28-2006 03:00 AM

Re: Explaining The Anti-Male Media: How The Lace Curtain Works
sunhawk
Regular Contributor
sunhawk
This is complete and utter folderol. It reads like it was copied verbatim from a Women’s Studies sociology text.

I find that extremely amusing considering I have never owned such a text nor have I taken Women’s Studies courses, my preference was for studying social trends from both genders.

Please provide proof of the ways in which men are favoured in the allegedly ‘conventional patriacrchal society’ we live in.

Cites, studies, surveys and links please.

Certainly. Let’s pick an example profession: doctor.

from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=10886471

“Time pressure in ambulatory settings was greater for women, who on average reported needing 36% more time than allotted to provide quality care for new patients or consultations, compared with 21% more time needed by men (P .01). Female physicians reported significantly less work control than male physicians regarding day-to-day aspects of practice including volume of patient load, selecting physicians for referrals, and details of office scheduling (P .01). When controlling for multiple factors, mean income for women was approximately $22,000 less than that of men. Women had 1.6 times the odds of reporting burnout compared with men (P .05), with the odds of burnout by women increasing by 12% to 15% for each additional 5 hours worked per week over 40 hours (P .05). Lack of workplace control predicted burnout in women but not in men. For those women with young children, odds of burnout were 40% less when support of colleagues, spouse, or significant other for balancing work and home issues was present.”

“Professional socialization, a long and intensive process of learning how to become a physician by instilling knowledge, values, and a set of occupational norms, has been thought likely to lead to a convergence of values and practice styles of physicians. However, newer research suggests that differences of practice styles persist between male and female physicians.11–15 Women are more likely to practice in primary care fields and to pay more attention to preventive services, health education counseling, and the psychosocial needs of their patients.16–19 Communication styles of female physicians have been shown to improve health outcomes,13,20 lessen disenrollment in managed care plans,21 and decrease chances of malpractice litigation.”

“In addition, recent research suggests that given the phenomenon now occurring in for-profit managed care whereby physicians are assessed as to their economic profitability to plans, female physicians may fare poorly in a system in which, “it doesn’t count unless you can count it.”26 Because they spend more time with patients, participate in more collaborative decision making, and pay more attention to preventive practices, female physicians may be less productive if measured by simple measurements of numbers of patients seen or resources utilized.”

Essentially, the study reported that while women are acknowleged to take longer to perform medical practices due to their tendency to go that extra mile, so to speak, yet their workplace generally favours the quicker and less-involved approach taken by male medical practioners, leading to women having a higher risk of becoming burnt out.

What discrimination? Like the fact that 57% of college enrollees are women?

Yes women are finally allowed in academia but women are by no means treated as equals.

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3/205

“Among the 1814 faculty respondents (response rate, 60%, female faculty were less likely to be full professors than were men with similar professional roles and achievement. For example, 66% of men but only 47% of women (P 0.01) with 15 to 19 years of seniority were full professors. Large deficits in rank for senior faculty women were confirmed in logistic models that accounted for a wide range of other professional characteristics and achievements, including total career publications, years of seniority, hours worked per week, department type, minority status, medical versus nonmedical final degree, and school. Similar multivariable modeling also confirmed gender inequity in compensation. Although base salaries of nonphysician faculty are gender comparable, female physician faculty have a noticeable deficit (–$11 691; P = 0.01). Furthermore, both physician and nonphysician women with greater seniority have larger salary deficits (–$485 per year of seniority; P = 0.01).”

Like the fact that women live 7 years longer than men?

Are you telling me you are not aware that men statistically visit the doctor very little compared to women?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/01news/newstudy.htm

“Even excluding pregnancy-related visits, women were 33 percent more likely than men to visit a doctor, although this difference decreased with age. The rate of doctor visits for such reasons as annual examinations and preventive services was 100 percent higher for women than for men and medication patterns differed significantly.”

Of course women are going to live longer because they are more committed to taking care of their bodies.

Like the fact that breast cancer gets $22k per annual death in federal funds and prostate cancer gets $16k?

Please cite your sources.

And what about the money spent on ego-boosting drugs such as Viagara? Pfizer spends $3 billion a year on the advertising alone, because men have more interest in improving their sex lives than visiting the doctor for an annual checkup.

Like the wage gap myth which simply does not exist?

I’ve already adressed this but I can find more examples if you like.

Like the fact that men have higher unemployment rates than women?

Please cite your sources

And it isn’t difficult for me to find evidence to the contrary:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050906/d050906a.htm

“The study also showed that while the focus of previous studies has been on unemployment among men, women were actually more affected by chronic unemployment than men. Women comprised 55% of the chronically unemployed population, the problem being especially acute for single mothers.”

08-28-2006 06:41 PM

Re: Explaining The Anti-Male Media: How The Lace Curtain Works
sunhawk
Regular Contributor
sunhawk
i’m just testing the resurface function here, seeing if it works

08-28-2006 08:08 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: