Is there any greater act of cowardice than ignoring the opinions of your foes? Pundits who set up straw men, pretend that their opposition does not exist, and/or shout down their peers, do not so much as win arguments so they do in promote mass confusion. If you want to find truth and persuade others then you should study and vigorously refute the works of your opponents. This is particularly true with the bugbear of women’s (supposed) oppression in America. Even though it seems bizarre for anyone to survey the landscape and regard women as disfavored, the positions of feminist critics must be taken seriously. Jenny Dombrowski, in an article recently penned for the Baltimore Sun is one such commentator.

In a piece called “There’s Still Plenty Left for Women to Fight For,” she spouts positions that are fairly standard and commonplace among the nation’s grievance mongers:

If indeed the women’s movement is over, then why are women still treated as objects in our
society? We are inundated with images of perfection at every turn: from the check-out line of thegrocery store to the movie theater to the billboards along the highway. We’re informed how to slim our thighs. We’re made the object of ridicule and rescue in most films. Then there’s the overwhelming presence of pornography. A simple Google search for “porn” elicits more than 85 million hits. What this leads to is the most sweeping social issues of our society: eating disorders, poor self-esteem, sexual harassment, violence and abuse. Every two minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in America. And women still make 74 cents for every $1 a man makes, according to news reports. How’s that for “women’s lib”?

Although her accusations are quite preposterous, I will live up to my burden of rejoinder by analyzing them because crazed feminists multiply and become more powerful when good men think they’re above responding to them.

Are women treated as objects in our society? Of course not, the only justification for such thinking arises from their often being handled like religious relics. Pleasing them and meeting their needs is now the basis of our societal structure along with our domestic laws, consumer goods, and perhaps television in general.  They are the lords and masters of the land. Ms. Dombrowski would be wise to look up “equitable paternity” or a host of other inequitable decisions within the legal system if she truly has any interest in ascertaining the nature of Woman’s true status. It seems that nothing will ever satiate the activist’s desire to unbalance the playing field as they have “championed blatant favoritism toward mothers in child custody disputes, often to the point of vilifying fathers” which has resulted in a stance best described as “maternal chauvinism.” The Duke lacrosse case, in which feminism mixed with the media’s acquiescence to the edicts of political correctness, nearly had dire consequences for the young men cast as villains by the authors of that PC fairy tale. In North Carolina we learned that women certainly do lie about rape and that there is no shortage of men who will believe them. 

Concerning imagery, if women are so inundated with snapshots of perfection in check out lines then they need look no further than to themselves for the placement of blame. Women, as opposed men, are the major purchasers of publications featuring the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Brittany Spears, and Christina Aguilera. Does anyone truly believe that Cosmopolitan, The Star, The National Enquirer, and Shape are written for a male audience? This is merely yet another example of feminist mental concreteness. They are so low functioning they suspect that their peers will binge and purge or suction down a bottle of Prozac every time they see a starlet in a leotard. People just aren’t like that. Most women are either motivated by or indifferent to visual representations. Were they not, there would not an obesity problem. They could just flip through Women’s Health and never eat pizza again. Sadly, most feminists no more know their constituents than they do the decade in which the First World War broke out. Lastly, if women are informed of ways to slim their thighs it’s because they asked to be; if they didn’t, then the glossies wouldn’t sell. It is fortunate that they do because excess fat weakens the joints, the heart, and the skin while a lack of exercise retards the brain.

Ms. Dombrowski also does not like the way in which women are represented in film. I have to agree with her here as it seems to me that women are inordinately depicted as heroines and champions while men are portrayed as wimps or psychopaths. Apparently though, she does not see movies I do and brings up the phantom bogeyman of ridicule. I guess she has never heard of Oxygen or Lifetime, cable channels devoted entirely to presenting women as empowered superheroes—a perspective that can be ironically juxtaposed with the channels’ actual viewership which consists of irritable, discombobulated, depressioniacs.

The notion of women being rescued also bothers her. I guess she’d be happier if they were shown getting snuffed out and their bodies left in ditches. This would allow for true equality as more women getting whacked on TV would convince young impressionable minds that sleeping with the fishes isn’t something reserved for men alone. In all seriousness though, any discussion here is immaterial as the individual perspectives of filmmakers have nothing to do with the stance of the state. The only remedy for her claim would be government censorship. I have no doubt that corrupt senators like Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy would be happy to “man” such a committee, but I do hope that they’ll consider adopting my suggested name for it before beginning their inquisitions. The National Association of Zeitgeist Interrogators is not taken as far as I know and would make for an acronym which reveals both their personal dispositions and domineering domestic agenda.

How unfortunate it is that Ms. Dombrowski brought up a word like “rescue” in her harangue because her stated rationale for writing the piece elucidates her being a person very much in need of deliverance—at least professionally. She is a graduate teaching assistant at George Washington University (presumably), but the job appears to have done little to bolster her abilities. She is so emotionally and intellectually fragile that she once had to flee the classroom rather than listen to a student contradict her about the need for a men’s movement. These must be heady days for women if disagreements with others provide them with a legitimate excuse for walking off their jobs. Here we have an individual so privileged that she can make her intolerance, cowardice, and incompetence publicly known without fear of reprisal. Clearly, being a leftist academic is nice work if you can get it. Ms. Dombrowski possesses the life of leisure, luxury, and the warm fuzzies which emanate from the diminishment of your students’ knowledge base.

Then we come to porn [with these people, what doesn’t begin with porn?]. It seems that lurid imagery is ubiquitous nowadays which means…nothing. Her argument is a non-starter. Erotica doesn’t oppress women. It generally doesn’t do much more than allow one to get some extra sleep. Many people purchase or freely obtain pornography and the act of doing so does not lead to the pathologies she outlines. Clearly, with such a wild accusation, the burden of proof lies on the side of the claimant, and this claimant has offered us none. If Ms. Dombrowski does not like raunchy flicks and pics then I suggest that she not watch them. Otherwise, she should offer up some support for her quips. Of course, we know that porn is not anti-woman because, if it were, then a large chuck of the market would not be devoted to the entertainment of gay males. No doubt that these fellows would be mightily disappointed should their cherished steroid freaks be replaced by 40 DD silicone queens. The plain fact is that women aren’t oppressed by people looking at nude representations and neither is anyone else. Generally, most feminists try to separate themselves from the magically insane world of the, now deceased, Andrea Dworkin, but I guess Ms. Dombrowski remains interested in subletting a bit of space upon that twisted archipelago.

As for the maladies she describes, there is no causality between them and her previously mentioned complaints. Anorexia is a serious psychiatric condition and one with a high co-morbidity with other disorders. It does not come about as a result of looking at magazines or understanding that fat is a cardio-vascular, rather than feminist, issue. By implying otherwise, she demeans those women afflicted with it; the same women with whom she pretends to take an interest.

Concerning psychopathology, it is present within a small minority of humans across all populations. Cruelty and sadism are not manufactured in a printer’s shop; nor are they an outcome of using “he” instead of “he or she” in daily speech. Sexual harassment is one of the areas in which feminists are known to lie the most, but we should expect this given the subjective and non-substantive nature of the “crime.” Within the Sexual Harassment Industry, all the outrageous bias, dishonor, and mendaciousness of the feminists is prominently on display—a rotten infrastructure which Christina Hoff-Sommers labeled: “Ms. Information.” The appalling unfairness of their positions is evident in the response a feminist professor gave when accused of sexual harassment. It seems she kissed her students upon a podium and then announced, “graduate students are my sexual preference.” Once caught, she argued that no charges against her were possible by definition alone as “[f]emale sexual harasser seems like a contradiction in terms…feminism invented sexual harassment…[it] is a way men obstruct women from doing work.” Luckily for the country, semantics has yet to officially replace fact as a determiner of guilt.

Then we come to the “pay gap” complaint which illustrates that a lie remains a lie no matter how many times you repeat it. No proof is offered for her 74 percent figure and that’s because there is none. Interestingly enough, at work I saw a government poster citing this same exact figure but no evidence or rationale is provided upon it either (but it does show how much our state is guided by activists). When single women are compared to single men, “the gap” between them is only 5 percent.  The presence of married women in the configuration increases the disparity as many of them decide to put their energies into their children and family rather than careers.  The job I currently hold is one such example as I was my employer’s second choice. It was offered to someone else first, but she declined it due to the position being full-time. Millions of men wish that they had her choice; we work all day or we die. Feminists like Ms. Dombrowski avoid nuance altogether when discussing the wage differential. That women take more time off, avoid jobs requiring relocation or travel, work for fewer hours, and shun high risk jobs are major factors behind the insignificant chasm.  Varying priorities, as opposed to discrimination, is its root cause. 

What’s the solution to all this whining disguised as argumentation? Ms. Dombrowski knows:

A good first step would be standing up and demanding that Congress pass the Equal
Rights Amendment, which was first introduced in 1923 and has yet to pass. Why the fuss?
Because the ERA plainly states: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

Of course, Ms. Dombrowski is totally wrong because such a law is already on the books. In this statement we witness the radical feminist incapacity for abstract thought along with their complete lack of education. The Equal Rights Amendment wasn’t passed for a variety of reasons, but none was more convincing than the fact that it was completely superfluous. Discrimination based on sex has been prohibited for over 40 years due to the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It states repeatedly throughout its provisions that it is unlawful to discriminate based on an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…”

Since 1964, women have possessed exactly the same rights as everybody else, so how’s that for women’s lib? They came, they saw, they won, and now they act as if it never happened. Kenneth Minogue said it best: Feministas are “intellectuals without an intellect.”

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island, and is currently at work on a book concerning women. This is a four page excerpt from a chapter he just finished on women and supremacy.

1.  Dowbrowski, Jenny. “There’s Still Plenty Left for Women to Fight For.” Baltimore Sun. December 28, 2006. Here is the link at which the article was reprinted: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1228-20.htm
2.  How about 70 to 80 percent of television? One wants to say that sports are for men, but, with Prince, Justin Timberlake, and Janet Jackson all appearing as halftime entertainment at recent Super Bowls, I am no longer certain of it.
3.  This term is defined and expounded upon in the final chapter concerning marriage.
4.  Young, Cathy. “Six Years of Culture Wars.” Reason. January 23, 2007. Here is the link: http://www.reason.com/news/show/118168.html
5.  Ibid.
6.  Kaye, Walter H. et al. “Comorbidity of Anxiety Disorders With Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa.” The American Journal of Psychiatry. December 2004.
Here is the link: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2215
7.  Really a “giving out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500” situation if there ever was one.
8.  Hoff-Sommers, Christina. “Ms. Information.” American Enterprise Research for Public Policy Research. February 23, 2003. Found at aei.org.  Here is the link: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.16709,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
9.  Patai, Daphne. Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998. p.108.
10.  Ibid.
11.  O’ Beirne, Kate. Women Who Make the World Worse: And How their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining Our Families, Military, Schools, and Sports. (New York: Sentinel, 2006).
p.54
12.  Ibid, 54
13.  Lukas, Carrie. “Money Isn’t Everything.” Nationalreview.com.  April 19, 2005. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lukas200504190751.asp
14.  Ibid.
15.  The phrase repeated in a myriad of places with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Document found at The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s website. Here is the link: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html
16.  Minogue, Kenneth. “The Goddess the Failed.” National Review, November 18, 1991. p.46.