Tuesday, August 25, 2015

#LikeAGirl Part 2: Perception vs Reality

The commercial sparked a social media movement with many people proclaiming the need to change the perception of what it means to be "Like A Girl". However, is this truly a beneficial thing for girls or is it harmful?

While there are many differences between males and females, one of the most debated is the fact that men are stronger than women. There are plenty of areas where women are benefitted over men. Physical strength is not one of those areas. Men are 50 percent stronger than women in brute strength. This is just one example of an area where men have benefitted over women. The greater muscle mass of men is the result of testosterone-induced muscular hypertrophy. Men also have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments. This doesn't mean that women can't be strong, just that men are stronger on average. Likewise, certain activities are just better suited for the way men are built compared to the way women are built.

The prime examples that show case this physical difference is in sports and the military. For decades now women have tried to change the perception that woman are just as capable in sports and military than men but this is not true and many women are now suffering the fate of learning it first-hand.

If you don't believe that then just take a look at the women who actually have joined the military themselves. They will tell you "All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs. heavier than her with their gear on." The military is a rigorous physical obstacle for men but it is even worse for women. As one female veteran said "No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment." How can a woman going through PMS symptoms handle a battlefield where she is facing all male opponents? In addition to this, women who join the military face a much higher risk of sexual assault than civilian women. There is also concern about some women making false accusations to try and ruin someone's career over personal disputes.

The fact of the matter is, America is lucky to still be the superpower that it is and even entertain the idea of "women in combat" let alone imploring it. Other countries however are not as PC as we are and will never send their women to fight ours. We are sending our women against men who will absolutely want to rape and kill them, they are the enemy. The military exists not only to protect our country's freedoms and rights but also our women from getting raped. How can we protect our women from getting raped when they are being offered in the first lines of war? It only makes logical sense that the enemy would take advantage of this to humiliate us and fulfill their carnal pleasures as well. A great example of this is Jessica Lynch, a US Army veteran who was captured in Iraq in 2003 at just 19yrs old and still suffers from nightmares of her rape and torture while captive. “I met the man of my dreams, and I wanted this family. I wanted this life. I didn't want to be just a broken soldier with nothing,” she said. She also admitted that she was afforded opportunities that were based on her gender; opportunities that men couldn't get. Feminists tried to push her as a "Female Rambo" which actually insulted her and caused her to speak out. She doesn't understand why feminists would try to push her as the hero when she did nothing and the real heroes died, according to her own testimony. She credits men like Joe D. Dowdy, who picked up soldiers in harm's way, and Sgt. Donald Walters, "who actually did fight until the very end". In an interesting side note, there were also 2 other women with her in the attack who were far less embraced by the media. Both of the other women were non-white single mothers with one deceased and one a second-generation veteran who had been captured and held longer at a different location.

In sports, the situation is no different as these girls end up wasting millions of taxpayer money to sue a school to let them play a sport with boys and then turn around and sue them when they get injured. One example: "Tawana Hammond, her lawyer says, was just entering her senior year and was the fastest runner at Francis Scott Key High School, on the northwestern fringe of Baltimore's suburbs, when she tried out for the football team. Three years later, she is missing half her pancreas, has amassed what her mother says are medical bills exceeding $200,000. And she is suing the Carroll County Board of Education because, she contends, no one told her "of the potential risks of serious and disabling injury inherent in the sport," according to a lawsuit filed in the county's Circuit Court last week." This woman had the nerve to give such an argument as "'They don't tell the stories on TV,' said Peggy Hammond, Tawana's mother, in a brief telephone interview today from her daughter's Baltimore home. 'You hear about a football player getting a knee injury. They don't tell you about nearly dying.'" Well one of those reasons is because men just don't get as injured as women do playing sports and when they do, they don't blame the sport or company that provides it. Plenty of NFL players have been injured with out suing even when they could/should have. Additionally, this is just another example of not taking self-responsibility and making society pay for it. While some of these cases get thrown out by the judge, it doesn't change the tax money already spent on it's failed pursuits. Also, these girls sue for improper equipment despite the fact that the equipment is bought in bulk and there were never enough women who wanted to play these sports before, to order special equipment for them. Ironically enough, with all of the suing to "be allowed" to play there are also girls who sue for being "forced to play".

So we've seen how much girls struggle when they try to join the boys in sports. What about when boys want to join the girls in sports? When the exact same scenario occurs with a boy suing to join a girls team, how does society respond? They ban that team from competition because 1 boy is too much of an advantage in an all-girls league as it creates a "competitive imbalance". As one parent of a competing team put it, "It's a girls' sport and we played them in the last game and he's a goal tender - it's a key position. It made a difference in the game." One argument against the boys playing on the girls team was actually that it "sets a bad example for girls". "What is this teaching our girls? ... It's okay to break the rules?" asked one mother. Apparently no one thought girls were breaking the rules when they tried to play with the boys. Eventually though, "society" wins and gets the boy to quit the team so the girls won't have to miss out on the play-offs. After all, girls shouldn't be denied, right?

Sunday, August 23, 2015

#LikeAGirl Part 1: Sexist Campaign?


At the Super Bowl 2015, an ad known as “#LikeAGirl” was aired for the first time. Since this initial airing, it has been reported as “groundbreaking” and “redefining” what it means to be a girl. If this is “groundbreaking” and “redefining” then what labels do we give to the group of feminists who said these exact same claims 50 years ago? It was 50 years ago that feminism took to the streets of America to “redefine” what it meant to be a wife and mother and made a “groundbreaking” change when they successfully pursued so many women to abandon their posts at home for careers instead. So how is this commercial noted as such a revolutionary message that speaks for girls against society so many decades later? It’s a feminist lobbyist lie. Feminists have had major influence on society and women are just as much of “society” today as men are.

Let’s start with “Always is a company that sells products for females. Why should they care about boys?” Well that’s just not true.
Always is a brand of the business Procter & Gamble which also owns Gillette so they actually should be more of a gender-neutral company. They’ve been running the “Like A Girl” commercial for 6 months and have yet to debut any campaign for young boys. It is true though, that the Vice President of the company in charge of the Always brand is a woman.

Secondly, one of the most important things to note here is that it debuted during the Super Bowl. If this commercial wasn’t directed at boys then advertisers made a fundamental mistake here which is hard to believe considering how much money and research they put into it.
The average price of a Super Bowl ad is $4.5 million. The Super Bowl itself notoriously and historically has the largest male TV audience for any program year-round.  Women of all ages spend more time than their male counterparts watching TV but the numbers change regarding football. Almost three quarters of men (73%) and over half of women (55%) claim they watch football regularly. Look at the Super Bowl and both numbers increase but men (at 83.1%) are more likely to actually watch whereas women (at 70%) plan to watch.

Now, some argue “Why shouldn’t men have to see this commercial? It makes women
feel bad to treat their female sexuality as shameful or secret.” Sure, but can we then talk about the shamefulness and secrecy of what’s considered to be men’s sexuality and puberty? Elissa Stein, a feminist author, wrote that such advertising wasn’t always allowed on TV at all and that this ad is about “being a girl or a woman who has a period, and that’s okay.” A U.S. Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit in 1979 brought an end to the National Association of Broadcasters' ban on TV and radio ads for condoms. But it wasn't until AIDS spread rapidly in the 1980s that condom commercials became more common. Today, some major TV networks and cable stations still will not air them, while others will with restrictions.” These restrictions usually include only being allowed to air after a certain time in the late evening (usually 11pm). The 5 fields with ad limits are Tobacco, Condoms, Pharmaceutical Drugs, Alcohol and Junk/Fast Food. One of these pertains specifically to male sexuality and puberty while none of these pertain to female sexuality or puberty. In addition, the 1 field that does pertain to male sexuality is undoubtedly aired the least. “The first tampon brand to advertise on television was Rely, which started airing ads in two test cities (Rochester, NY, and Fort Wayne, IN) in July 1975. When Proctor and Gamble wasn't bombarded with protests for their audacity, Playtex quickly followed suit with competing commercials.”  The biggest obstacle a tampon commercial has faced since then is in 2010 when Kotex’s commercial was banned by major networks for using the word “vagina”. “Even when the company substituted "down there" for vagina, two of the networks still wouldn't run the ad, so the company was forced to drop the idea altogether. That provoked Amanda Hess, author of The Sexist blog, to observe: ‘Now, the commercial contains no direct references to female genitalia – you know, the place where the f**kingtampon goes.’” Typical feminist sexist reaction. This “campaign” was done after looking closely at data that found that “girls experience a significant drop in self-confidence when they hit puberty”. While there is no doubt about this, the true concern is whether or not boys were even included in this data? Were boys found to have high self-confidence when they hit puberty or were they just ignored because they don’t purchase at the high rate that girls do after watching commercials? “Most estimates say that women account for between 2/3 and 80% of U.S. consumer spending.” With all of this “groundbreaking” thought towards girls and their self-confidence during puberty, has anyone even dared to mention what happens to boys’ self-confidence when they hit puberty? In addition to new growth and hair (which can be difficult especially concerning underarms), boys go through a change in their voice, develop an Adam’s apple and develop acne. Those are some quite obvious signs of change. This means every time a boy goes through puberty, he is physically exposed as going through this transition and he cannot hide it. While boys’ vocal chords are developing, they can even sometimes wake up with a croak and cracking in their voice instead of talking normally in the transition. If these changes weren’t enough, there is also a physiological and chemical change that makes them fully aware of 2 things: 1) How much their female counterparts have also developed. 2) How much their body is aching (yes, literally aching) for a sexual release. Boys are considered capable of procreation upon their first ejaculation, which occurs about one year after the testicles begin to enlarge… Erections, too, are unpredictable during puberty [involuntary]. They may pop up for no apparent reason—and seemingly at the most inconvenient times, like when giving a report in front of the class.” When boys get sexually excited, the main sign is that they get an erection. When girls get sexually excited, there is no main sign but more subtle ones. This again exposes males and their vulnerability during puberty before they have gotten a chance to get a hold on things. Some boys even experience wet dreams where they ejaculate in their sleep. Do boys get any kind of understanding, sympathy or campaigns for their troubles? Indignant mothers and teen girls rally against boys and berate them for their puberty, telling them that they need to learn to“not see females as sexual creatures”. How is that supposed to even be possible when they are heterosexual and how can they control something that is involuntary and genetic? Not only do these boys have no avenue for a release but they can’t even notice their female peers’ attractiveness when on full display. In addition, when discussing a personal release for boys without girls involved, they are told such horrible lies as it will “damage your health: it can cause cancer, give you a sexually transmitted infection, affect your eyesight, or make you go mad. It causes hair to grow on your palms or any other part of your body, and it stunts your growth.
Talk about being shamed for going through puberty! Is anyone offering these young boys solutions or are they just yelling limitations at them? Compared to “you run/hit/throw like a girl” it doesn’t seem like girls are really more shamed for their puberty than boys. There is also a question of what doing anything “like a girl” has to do with female puberty other than the fact that this ad was sponsored by a company that sells products relating to female puberty. Further commercials from this campaign give messages like “girls are unstoppable”, blaming society for stopping women from making achievements. This begs the question, where are these girls parents? Why aren’t there parents teaching them to deal with these issues? Aside from this, there are more women in high-ranking jobs in society today than ever before. How did these women get there if they were “stopped by limitations of social norms”? In this same commercial, girls are shown physically destroying paper boxes with their “limits” written on the front. Will there ever be such a commercial with young boys being allowed to physically destroy things to get out their aggression, or is this something we wouldn’t want to teach them? Will there ever be such a commercial with young boys being allowed to publicly write their fears and limits for society to see or will we keep shaming them and making them hide in the dark?

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Working Girl: A Woman Under The Influence


One of the drawing points of feminism has always been the opportunity for women to “have it all” but at what cost? Feminism told women that they could do everything a man could do and therefore should be encouraged to compete with him in his field. What they didn’t tell women was how differently men and women would approach similar tasks.

Just as the majority of women have relied on their men to do the hard work outside of the home for thousands of years, so have the majority of men relied on their women to do the hard work inside of the home for thousands of years. Over time there have been many women who chose to work in primarily male fields instead of being housewives but they were always few and far in between. When the feminism trend struck the USA in the late 1960’s however, many housewives and would-be housewives decided to work instead. There was no way that men could have seen this coming nor any reason why they would want to embrace it. Men know what it’s like to work a long hard day and the last thing on their mind when they come home is to continue work doing household chores. This is why the balance of husbands working and wives staying home was so beneficial to the marriage and family. There was a real partnership between men and women that allowed both to enjoy as much of their time as possible while maintaining a healthy, secure and positive home. Despite the increase of women joining the workplace, no such increase took place in men trying to become house-husbands. In addition to this, no women were trying to marry any men who didn’t have jobs and proposed being house-husbands. The result of this was that now men and women were both working but women were still the ones with the primary housework load.

To convince women that their new lives would pay off, feminism promised that the women would be happier after pursuing their careers in the workplace.  Well it is 50 years later and studies show that women in America are less happy then they ever have been before. On the flip side, men’s happiness has either stayed the same or slightly increased. When feminists were confronted with this astounding evidence, one got such replies as “It’s so surprising because there are so many more opportunities [than ever before].” Nothing further was debated on this finding.

What good does having more opportunities do if women don’t feel secure enough to make the decisions that they want? Most women after decades of feminist rhetoric still do not want to spend their whole lives in the workplace until retirement the way men do. When was the last time anyone’s heard a mother (or father for that matter) say on their death bed that “I wish I would’ve spent more time on my career than wasting it with my family.”? Yet the reverse of that statement has been uttered far too many times. The majority of American women still dream of settling down to not only be a mother but an active mother who gets to be there for their child’s first steps, words, tooth, school day, school play, music recital, sports game, etc. Unfortunately one thing feminism has actually been successful at is guilt-tripping women into taking on more than they can handle at one time. Since feminists couldn’t get rid of women’s natural desire to become mothers, they manipulated them into abandoning their full mother role all in the name of “choice”. Now generations of American women are living with guilt and regret that they would never have chosen for themselves if they had truly understood the cost of the choices that they were making.

Women can “have it all” and truly always could in this country. The way women maneuvered this difficult task before was by pacing themselves and choosing their priorities so as to be as successful as they possibly could be, both in the workplace and at the home. Because women do have a biological clock for having babies, it is exigent that a woman who wants to be a mother prioritizes finding a husband before the best men/fathers are taken.
Post-feminism women are encouraged to compete with men which, more often than not, repels them instead of attracting them. Too many women pursue careers while ignoring committed relationships until their biological alarm goes off and they are at Step 1 (Finding a Man) to becoming a mother. If they’d secured a husband first, their only task would be the consent of their husband to also be ready for parenthood. This is one of the fundamental reasons that women are less happy than they ever have been before.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Feminists or Lobbyists?

There is a wide misconception in the United States that the feminists are just an ideological movement focusing their support on the everyday values of the average woman. This could not be farther from the truth. The sole function and purpose of NOW (National Organization for Women), the first and largest of America's feminist groups, is that of a lobbyist group. In recent years, NOW has been focused on political policy issues at the expense of core women's civil liberties issues. That in itself isn't that surprising, but what is surprising is who has been leveling these allegations: Former High-Ranking Feminist Leaders.

Tammy Bruce served as the LA NOW Chapter President in the early 1990's before resigning and critiquing the "failings of NOW". Bruce was focusing on sexual and domestic violence when she led an organized protest march after being outraged by the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial. While NOW President Patricia Ireland accused Bruce of being "racially insensitive", Bruce countered that, "I was already a thorn in the side of NOW, but when I said race doesn't matter if you're a woman and your husband's fist is coming at your face, I was denounced." Bruce quit NOW, deciding that they were focusing more on racial aspects in the case instead of focusing on the women's issues involved. After leaving, Bruce got her Bachelor's degree in Political Science and now teaches a class called "Feminism 2.0" to correct the mistakes that feminism has made and focus on all responsible women, careerists and homemakers.

Deborah Watkins served as the Dallas NOW Chapter President until 2003 when she left to found the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas chapters for The National Coalition For Men. The NCFM "is dedicated to the removal of harmful gender based stereotypes, especially as they impact boys, men, their families and those who love them" which is the exact opposite of NOW's mission statement. The reason for the complete 360 as she stated, was the "hypocrisy and male bashing by NOW". One specific point Watkins has brought to spotlight is abortion in terms of male's reproduction rights. As she says, "How can men’s reproductive concerns be addressed, or the rights they ask for possibly be granted, when the male perspective never gets talked about or written about by those who deal with reproductive issues?"

These are just a couple of examples of the critiques posted against NOW and US feminism in general. These organizations like NOW are choosing to spend their time, money and efforts on goals that disable and alienate the majority of their constituents. To add insult to injury, these focuses often get taxpayer money involved for dissatisfying outcomes.

Thursday, May 28, 2015

The Feminist Mystique

In order to understand a movement's true intentions, it is important to look at it's founding. Contrary to popular belief, there was no "feminism" movement or "feminists" until 1963. A woman named Betty Friedan authored the cultural sensation The Feminine Mystique, based on her personal experience and projections of women around her. She is the woman who coined the "feminist" and "feminism" terms, as well as triggered the "feminist movement" as we know it today. She soon partnered up with Gloria Steinem, who is arguably one of the most legendary feminist icons. Together they managed to portray themselves as progressing an earlier and very different movement, Women's Suffrage, despite no common ground or relation other than gender (ironically).

The Women's Suffrage movement in the United States took place in the late 1800's to early 1900's, concluding in 1920 with a national victory. Prior to this, women's suffrage was decided at the state level (like most other political issues) but only a few states actually allowed women to vote. Once this goal had been realized, the group and movement became a great remnant of the past.. until 40 years later when feminism needed credibility. That's when Gloria Steinem started referring to both feminism and women's suffrage as two steps within the same overall "women's movement/liberation".

Feminism, as Steinem poignantly said, "seeks for a revolution and not a reform". There is no one issue that they want to resolve but rather an entire nation and our human nature that they want to change. This is completely opposite of the Women's Suffrage which simply fought for one specific issue. For this reason, feminism took on a different name then "suffragettes", much like when a company changes it's name when it's bought or starts selling different products.

The Feminine Mystique was written in the post-WWII era, which happened to be the perfect time and place for it. Life was traditionally suburban, crime was low, technology was on the rise with constant new inventions, there was a spirit of rebellion amongst the youth, and civil rights became a major socio-political focus. Unlike the Depression era generation before them, the Baby Boomers decided to engage in much more self-indulgent and self-destructive behaviors. Technological advances had left the average American enjoying far more leisure time and comforts. This led to a disintegration of character and work ethic.

Betty Friedan was no exception to the behavior of this era. She willfully married into a mutually abusive relationship and had children that she was not ready for. Her personal experiences led to her projecting that all women despise their role as wife and mother. This was the subject of her book and the origin of the "feminist movement" as we know it today.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

The Rebirth of Femininity and Masculinity

This blog was created from the devotion of furthering the development of the social union between the sexes. Our goal is to help society progress beyond feminism to true egalitarianism. There have been many sways towards the different extremes when the true key is simply balance. The latest of these imbalanced sways is feminism which focuses exclusively on one gender at the other's expense. We're not suggesting any regression to some past 'golden age' but rather an evolution that combines the tried and true with our new age of discovery through proven science and statistical research. While we acknowledge anomalies and rare exceptions, our primary focus is on the relevant, average and most likely. Exception based policies and a general over focusing on the smallest of social milieu can only serve to weaken individual choice while corrupting the common good.