Good for the Goose…a short-short story

The Gender Gap in Empathy: A path to the end of the gender war?

Eminent expert on men's issues Dr. Warren Farrell has written a guest article on my Psychology Today blog. It asserts that reducing a gender gap in empathy is core to ending the gender war.

'White Male" Shouldn't be an Epithet: A plea for fairness in the gender war.

We’ve come to a place where “white male” is usually used only derogatorily: “White males are the beneficiary of (unearned) privilege, oppressor of women and people of color, perpetrators of havoc, from Hitler to Kavanaugh.

My PsychologyToday.com article today asserts this is unjust and issues a plea for fairness.

The Red Pill: Why many men are dispirited

Last night, I saw a pre-release screening of the movie, The Red Pill. It was created by self-described fervent feminist filmmaker Cassie Jaye, who planned on it being a hit piece on the men's movement. The film and the audience's reactions afterwards made it one of my life's more memorable experiences. I describe it in my PsychologyToday.com article today.

Are Men Treated Fairly Relative to Their Merit?

Are men treated fairly relative to their merit? My article in PsychologyToday.com today makes the case that they are not.

My Latest TheAtlantic.com Column: The Economy is Biased Against Men

Here is my just-published TheAtlantic.com column: Why the Economy is Biased Against Men.

Update: I'm delighted to report that in its first two days, the column received over 2,000 Facebook "Recommends."

A Major Effort to Get Fair Treatment for Boys and Men

As I have documented often on this blog (click "boys issues" or "men's issues" in the tag cloud on the right side of this blog,) boys and men are struggling far more than are women, yet nearly all governmental efforts are to abet women.

My apologies to regular readers of my blog who have previously read what's in the rest of this paragraph, but my favorite example is this: When women have a deficit, for example, they're "underrepresented" in engineering, massive redress is undertaken. But when men have a deficit, even the ultimate deficit--they die 5.2 years earlier than women--not only is there no redress, there are seven federal offices on women's health, none on men, 39 states have offices of women's health, six for men, and most frightening, over the past 60(!) years, a review of PubMed, which indexes the 3,000 leading medical journals, finds that there are 40 articles on women's health for every one on men's.

In attempt to restore a measure of fairness, I am a member of the Commission to Create a White House Council on Boys to Men.

This article in Forbes makes the case why boys and men need a White House Council, arguably more than we need the already existing White House Council on Women and Girls.

If you ever have the opportunity to ask a legislator why there's a White House Council on Women and Girls but not one on men and boys, that Forbes article will provide all the evidence you need.

Newsweek: Middle-Class White Men are "Toast"

It is politically incorrect but true that the middle-class white male has provided us with a disproportionately large share of what enables us all to live well. From the sewer repairman to the corporate executive, they've stayed in school through those tough plumbing apprenticeships, engineering, computer science, and finance degrees, and worked the long hours needed to design and build our homes, cure our diseases, and yes, run the businesses we invest our 401Ks in so we have some money for retirement.

Yet the current Newsweek cover story package describes the middle-class white male's freefall with near glee. Rather than calling for redress as the media does when reporting women's or minority deficits, Newsweek reports the statistics on men's evisceration with a snarky shrug. It's titled: "Sorry. He's Toast" and dubbing the tossed-aside men, "BMWs: Beached White Males." The long article in the package is called "Dead Suit Walking."

I've been a career counselor for 26 years. When I began, my clients of both sexes were equally optimistic about their future. Now, girls and women continue to feel the world is their oyster but the boys and men, from the teenagers to the boomers, are ever more scared, angry, and/or depresssed. My middle-class white males are having such a hard time finding even a lower-paying job.

So sad. How can we do this to America's unsung heroes?

Male Bashing's All-Time Low: "Boys Are Stupid. Throw Rocks at Them"

One of America's leading independent book publishers, Workman, has published a book called Boys are Stupid. Throw Rocks at Them.

Five of its eight chapters are aimed at children, three, on dating, at teens.

The book has spawned a line of tee shirts, bumper stickers, posters, coffee mugs, key chain, calendars, even a board game, all of which are available on Amazon and at other retailers. There's even a Yelp listing called, "Boys are Stupid. Throw Rocks at Them!!! Throwing More Rocks Every Day."

The author defended the book as being just for fun. Yet if the book made fun of girls, let alone of Blacks, would that book have been published by a major publisher, let alone spawned a panoply of products produced by other companies, let alone not excoriated by the media? A Google search reveals not one negative reviews of the book or outcry against the swag by any major media entity.

Indeed, MSNBC's liberal Dylan Ratigan opened his interview with the author of Boys are Stupid; Throw Rocks at Them and an opponent by asking, "What's the issue? They're having a good time, here." Ratigan closed the interview by telling the author, "Congratulations on the success of your business."

Earlier today, I had posted the entire text but I realize that might violate copyright law so I've deleted all but three chapters and include none of the copious illustrations. You'll nonetheless get a sense of the book.

Chapter 6: Boyfriends are Stupid

If you absolutely have to have a boyfriend, don't panic. Your life isn't completely over.

Why waste money on a cab? There's always public transportation. (Adjacent is a photo of a girl sitting on a boy's head, dangling a piece of pizza ahead of him so he keeps moving forward.)

What not to expect from a boy on a date: 1. hold your door open. 2. pay for dinner. 3. eat with utensils. 4. not farting or belching the entire time. 5. kiss you goodnight--this is a good thing--trust me! 6. call you again.

Phone rules: Do not wait by the phone for him to call. Most likely he doesn't even know how to use a phone.

Be afraid if your boyfriend: a. has more shoes than you, b: has bathroom products more expensive than yours, c: is on a fad diet, d: knows what kind of jeans you're wearing. And be super-duper afraid if you catch him wearing your panties.

Boy decoder: "It's not you it's me. I love you but I'm not in love with you. You deserve better. I need some space. I don't wanna ruin our friendship." They all mean the same thing but I'm too chicken to tell you:" I don't like you any more and I want to date your friend with big boobs."

What kind of girlfriend are you? Take this quiz: Let's say your boyfriend tried to kiss your best friend. Would you: a) blame yourself. b) make him cry. c) kiss his best friend. If you answered "a", close this book and hit yourself in the head with it.

Chapter 7: Break-Up Fun

The best way to break up with a boy is to pretend you don't know him.

Sometimes a boy won't accept that it's over. Be more direct: throw a rock. (Adjacent is a picture of him unconscious, frothing, with three rocks next to him.)

Maybe he says, "Don't leave me or I'll die." That's when a girl must do the meanest, cruelest, most awful things a girl can do. Make him someone else's problem: 1. Find a really dumb blond girl. 2. Introduce her to your boyfriend. 3. Run away.

Chapter 8: Training a Boyfriend

If for some stupid reason, you decide to keep a boyfriend, it's your job to train him.

Etiquette: a fork is to be used for eating food. Hint: Boys, the pointy pronglike utensil on the left side of the plate is a fork. (The left side is that-a-way<--)

A fork is not to be used for: 1. stabbing bugs. 2. sword-fighting with other stupid boys. 3. sticking up nose for booger excavation. 4. scratching butts.

Just a friendly reminder: boys aren't housebroken. Don't let them sit on your couch unless the plastic cover is on!

Boys can't accessorize: "Like that bag was so last year!"

Always check a boy before he leaves the house: 1. Make sure he zips his fly. 2 make sure his socks match. 3. Make sure he has on clean underwear. 4. Make sure his shoes are on the correct feet. 5. Make sure he's wearing pants!

And make sure under no circumstances whatsoever that a boy does laundry.

A boyfriend is not allows to spit, fart in the car, belch in front of your parents, follow you into the bathroom, make you pull his finger, put you in a headlock, put empty containers back in the fridge, dress himself, cut his own hair, give you a nickname, watch more than four hours of football in a day, and last but not least, act like he knows you in public!

Major rule: When you're telling him a problem, a boyfriend is not allowed to interrupt and tell you his opinion before you have even told him what the problem is! New Rule Rule: New rules may be invented on the spot and be retroactive.

And if he breaks the rules, just remember that for every stupid, smelly, cootie-ridden boy, there is a rock.

The Anti-Male Ethos Accelerates

A car was parked in front of a public school in the San Francisco Bay Area, the epicenter of "gender equity."

The care bore a bumper sticker, Girls Rule, Boys Drool" with a picture of a girl stomping on a face-down boy.

When I got home, I googled, "Girls Rule, Boys Drool" and there were 239,000 results, most of them text and 16,400 images. Here are some I found particularly interesting.

Imagine that you were the parent of a boy. How do you think you'd feel? He'd feel?

Your comments?

On Men at Valentine's Day

This was sent to me by an anonymous reader:

It's that time of year again: Valentine's Day. It's a time when men are castigated for being unromantic, too obsessed with sports, uncaring, and just not that "loving."

In the minds of the female-focused mainstream media and retail industries, it's a great way to guilt-trip men into buying more jewelry, flowers, restaurant meals, and whatnot. But never mind that we've commercialized another holiday that's not supposed to be commercialized.

What's this about men not being loving? Nothing could be farther from the truth. Men, in my estimation, are actually very loving. They just don't show it in the way that the media-and-retail-industrial complex portrays it. So how do men show their love? Here are just a few ways that few people notice or give men credit for:

Men show their love by waking up at 2 AM and schlepping to the store in the rain to buy a quart of chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream when a late night craving strikes.

Men show their love by checking out the things that go bump in the night, whether they're stray dogs or burglars.

Men show their love by not only obvious acts of chivalry, like opening doors, but also scraping the windshield, shoveling the sidewalk, dispatching the spiders, and taking out the trash to spare their women from these and other unpleasant jobs.

Men show their love by working in jobs that are boring, difficult, risky, stressful, dangerous, and even life-threatening so that their wives can work in jobs that are comfortable, safe, fun, and easy - or not at all.

Men show their love by worrying about what's going on in the world so their women don't have to.

Men show their love by doing those things on their "honey do" lists when they'd rather be watching the game.

Men show their love by fixing the things that are broken, whether it's a faucet or a heart.

To make a long story short, men show their love through their actions. After all, actions do speak louder than words. So ladies, if you think your man isn't romantic or loving, think again.

A Reader from Pennsylvania (It's sad that we live in a society in which he feels he had to write this anonymously.)

Female Clark U Prof: Many victim feminists' statistics are wrong

A female Clark U professor's blog asserts that much research showing women as victim is misleading or bogus: http://is.gd/j87bs

The Beginning of Men

Imagine a world without men. You wouldn't be able to read this: no computer, no computer screen, no Google, no Blogger, and no this blogger. Probably no chair you're sitting on, no air conditioner/heater that's making you comfortable in your room. For that matter, you wouldn't have a room--It and its materials were likely developed and installed by men: from the sub-floor to the roof. So are the penicillin that cured your venereal disease, the birth control pill that kept you from getting pregnant, the refrigerator that kept your baby's formula and your food fresh, the car that gives you freedom or the mass transit environmentalists prefer. Beyond necessities, men have given us information transmitters from the printing press to the television to the iPhone to the aforementioned Google, wisdom from Plato and Aristotle to Kant and Wittgenstein, Victor Davis Hanson to Christopher Hitchens. And let's not forget our revered Barack Obama. And lest all work and no play make dull boys and girls, men have given us entertainment from Shakespeare to Spielberg, Beethoven to Basie to the Beatles to Bono, Rembrandt to Rothko. You couldn't even defecate without men: What percentage of toilets would you guess were built, installed, and repaired, not to mention sewer lines cleaned out, by women? No less than lesbian feminist, Camille Paglia, wrote, "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." Here's a video that makes that point

Yet over the past 50 years, as a horrible side effect of the appropriate increase in women's opportunities, there has been an accelerating effort to diminish men. Indeed, the oppressed have become the oppressor. Previous posts have cited many examples but a few recent manifestations of that acceleration include President Clinton's Press Secretary Dede Myers', "Why Women Should Rule the World." and "New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's bestseller, "Are Men Necessary?"

But a recent and most troubling example is the The Atlantic Monthly's 2010 annual ideas issue. Picador-timed to anger the bull, it was released just before Father's Day. (Can you imagine a mom-bashing cover story preceding Mother's Day?) One of its stories: Are Fathers Necessary? by Pamela Paul. Despite a rich research literature demonstrating the importance of fathers, for example, this report from the federal government's Children's Bureau, based on merely one journal article, the author concludes that kids may well be better off raised by a single mother and even better by a lesbian couple than by a father. To make such an assertion is a head-shaker but to have such an assertion based on such flimsy evidence published in one of the nation's most prestigious magazines speaks to the pervasiveness of the accelerating chic of unjustified male bashing.

Remarkably, the Atlantic cover story (see picture above) goes even further. And perhaps not surprising, it is The Washington Post's "Story Pick." Its title: "The End of Men." Its core contention: men are better suited for the Neanderthal Era or at least the Industrial Revolution age--brawn and individual testosterone-poisoned competition. The article argues that today's success requires the woman's touch: collaborative, intelligent, reflective. And to think, all of the aforementioned modern discoveries were created by butt-scratching, hyperactive, cognitively crippled troglodytes without benefit of women's wonders.

The problem is that the male-bashing not only dispirits the intellectual men who read publications such as The Atlantic. Average men and boys receive an ever accelerating diet of male as boorish, sleazy idiot shown the way by wise women. We're in our seventh decade of man-as-oaf media: from Ralph Kramden to Homer Simpson. Even in the majority-male Superbowl audience, commercials present man as cretin: hopelessly impotent men who are literally in the doghouse, cowed by their woman master. Or they're mumbling supplicants begging for a woman judge's charity. Lest you think I'm cherry-picking, watch commercials: How often is the man superior to the woman?

Twenty-five years ago, when I began helping people choose their career, both sexes were equally optimistic about their future. Today, most of my female clients correctly believe the world is their oyster (except at the C-level, at which few women are willing to work the 70-hour weeks and move their families across the country to get the necessary promotions.) And my male clients are disproportionately despondent and/or angry--and not going to college. In 1960: the male:female ratio of college degree holders was 61:39. Today, in an era in which a college degree has become a virtual necessity, a mere hunting license for most decent employment, the ratio is 41:59 and projected to be 39:61 by 2020. (Source, U.S. Dept of Education, IES, 2009.) The male unemployment rate is now 20% higher than for women. (Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.) For the same work (in quantity and quality) women, on average earn the same as men. Indeed, even the article, "The End of Men" points out that among Fortune 500 CEOs, women earn 40% more than do their male counterparts. And in the ultimate example of the pendulum having swung too far, despite men living 5.2 years shorter, most gender-specific medical research and outreach, for the last 50 years(!) has been spent on women. Since 1920, the average lifespan advantage of women has grown 400%! While, of course, one can point to examples of unfairness to women, it's simply dishonest to assert that today, men, on balance, have an unfair advantage.

The world is better when both sexes are valued. For every wife-beating, customer-cheating, sexual harassing guy, there's at least one ethical man, working hard to be productive and to support himself and his family. For every manipulative, hormonally crazed, girls-just-want-to-have-fun woman, there's at least one woman diligently striving to have it all: career, family, and a personal life. Good people all. People with real potential to make a better society for all.

Perhaps it might surprise the author of "The End of Men," Hanna Rosin, who overreachingly wrote that men's rights groups have an "angry, anti-woman edge," this head of a men's rights group, The National Organization for Men and my co-president, Dr. Warren Farrell, per our mission statement of advocating for fair treatment of men and women, believe it's time for a truce, one that's fair to both sexes:

1. We should end the gender-bashing, male or female, in the schools, colleges, and media, for example, statements that Rosin makes in her Atlantic cover story such as that men are "women's new ball and chain." and "Maybe...(male) DNA is shifting. Maybe they’re like those frogs—they’re more vulnerable or something, so they’ve gotten deformed.”

2. It's time to end intentional discrimination against both women and men: If we are to be honest with ourselves, isn't it time to stop:

• giving women preferences in Small Business Administration female-set-aside loans,
  
• requiring only males to register for the draft and to serve in direct combat (99% of US. deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been men)
  
• women but not men allowed to have caucuses in corporations and government to facilitate women's advancement
• having many social-service programs just for women, almost none for men
• having "targets," virtual quotas for women hired but not for men
• having female-set-aside scholarships but not for men
• Women's networking and other organizations encouraged while such men's organizations called sexist with calls for the being disbanded.
• and perhaps most important to the next generation, a school system that has replaced boy-friendly competition with girl-centric collaboration, boy-friendly adventure stories, with soporific-to-boys tales of girl relationships, and history textbooks disproportionately extolling women from Sacajawea and Pocahontas to Simone DeBouvier and Sally Ride while sparing no pages to pound home the evils of white men from Hannibal to Hitler, Joe McCarthy to Timothy McVeigh, and perhaps worst of all, an insistence on ever more seatwork, which when active boys can't endure, are put on a Ritalin leash at a ratio of eight boys for every one girl.
  

3. To the extent that men could use better communication and processing skills and more modern, collaborative leadership styles to accompany the more goal-oriented individualistic ones, instead of dismissing such men as unable to communicate, let our schools, colleges, and workplaces offer such trainings.

4. We appropriately celebrate women having options other than being a stay-at-home mom. Women absolutely should have the right to, on the merits, compete for jobs from carpenter to CEO. But we must now legitimate the full range of options for men: from at least short-term stay-at-home father to 80-hour-a-week scientist. The latter should not be pathologized as a "workaholic" but revered as a hard-working contributor to society. This should be the era of the multi-option man as well as of the multi-option woman.

5. It's time for serious Men's Studies programs at universities that aren't merely a male-bashing accompaninent to female-extolling women's studies program.

6. Is it not appropriate to pay due homage to men?: who do so many of the yucky jobs women won't do (from rodent remover to roofer) invent the things that women would likely not have invented. Should we not honor the contributions fathers make to parenting. for example, they often balance many mothers' tendency to not enforce limits. They often leaven mothers' protective instinct by encouraging reasonable (okay, occasionally not so reasonable) risk-taking. Here's to fathers and to, not the end of men but to the new Beginning of Men: the fairly treated, multi-option man.

The latest painful letter from a man

Good evening. My name is XXXX and I'm going through the hardest fight of my life!! I'll try too make this short.

My wife and I split up in April of 08 and she and I agreed that my son would live with me. One day six months later, she simply took him away. I didn't know what to do so I did what they said the law told me to do. I filed a petition for paternity but she said in court that I beat her up a few times. That never happened!!!!!!!

She filed with the state attorney's and they picked up the case in Jan.09. So I have had to hire two attorneys--one for my child and the other for my criminal defense!!!!

My heart is clean and clear but I still worry because if I lose, my chances to be with my son dwindle away. I love my son!! Any tips you can provide would be so appreciated.

XXXX

Finally a Book on Men that Doesn't Ridicule Them

Save the Males has been published for three months now, is a wonderfully written and significant book,  and I'll bet you haven't heard of it. As usual, the media censors anything pro-male. 

I'd bet that if it were written by a man, it never even would have been published, let alone by Random House. Fortunately, it was written by a woman, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker.  

The book makes clear (and entertaining) how badly, how unfairly, men and boys have, for decades, been treated by the schools, colleges, media, and courts, all, ironically, in the name of gender equity.

I do have some problems with the book:

Her main motivation to write the book is not to be fair to men, but because daughters and society need men to be brave, hard workers. Men aren't worthy merely as humans; they must be beasts of burden.

She deifies family unduly. I believe that family, along with higher education, are America's most overrated icons. I've seen so many people's lives hurt more than helped by family.

How David Got Manipulated into Marrying

The client who just left my office--we'll call him David--said that his girlfriend--we'll call her Vixen-- got him to marry her with such statements as:

• "The problem is your fear of commitment." In that ploy, Vixen pathologized David's decision, which invoked in him a sense of insecurity and guilt. In fact, as David and I discussed things, it became clear that his not wanting to marry had nothing to do with "fear of commitment." He had committed to many projects and people in his life. David was reluctant to marry because he knew it offered little benefit but in a divorce, under California law, he'd likely be taken to the cleaners, forced to support an ex-wife for years.
  

• "You're unwilling to progress." Why is it progress to get a piece of paper (marriage certificate) that increases your chances of impoverishment if you break up. But David, who is a pleaser, felt guilty that he was "unwilling to progress."

Vixen took that ploy right out of liberals' playbook: Liberals--with the media's help-- converted the term "liberal" to "progressive," knowing that the term "liberal" implied big-spending, but who could be against progress? Would anyone prefer to be a regressive? Vixen's ploy made David feel guilty that he was being against progress.

• "You're just not willing to plan for the future." A marriage certificate doesn't increase your ability to plan for the future, but like the previous accusations, this one can make a guy who was moderately insecure to begin with, feel the need to cave.

And David did cave--with a $40,000 wedding. And while David is not unhappily married, if, at some point, he joins the 58% of married couples who divorce, he'll have to support the woman he divorced for years afterwards.

Dear readers, I'm not against marriage. Indeed, I've been married to my wife for more than 30 years and don't regret it. My daughter is happily married (and now pregnant for the first time.) But marriage should be a decision made with open eyes, not coerced by manipulative ploys.

Why Husbands Should NOT Do Half the Housework

I just read an article on MSN in which the author, Leslie Bennetts, urged wives to yell, nag, withhold sex, whatever it takes, to get their husbands to do half the housework.

What she fails to recognize is that the out-of-home work that the average man does is more difficult and more stressful, and takes many more hours than what the average woman does. Study after study show that even when the wife works full-time (and many women don't), the man works more hours and is more likely to have a more stressful and/or dangerous job. Those factors need to be taken into account when deciding how much housework the man should do.