Operation Gender War Chapter 24 – pg4

Lash – Page 4 of 8

<< page 3   page 5 >>

Spin Salon Mind Make-up

Purviewing some of the lies and the propaganda used by the “oppressed” today, out of a sheer reactive temper to get “power”, it becomes one to consider Nietzsche’s statement that man might be evil, but woman is bad. Circulating in contemporary rhetoric, claims of female abuse swarm, no matter the facts being trumped up, not built upon any reliable, provable ground.

Domestic Violence and Women. Time magazine reports that “between 22 percent and 35 percent of all visits by females to emergency rooms are for injuries from domestic assaults.”29 This statistic turns up everywhere, used to bang the anti-male marching drum. But the numbers are contradicting the Family Violence Prevention Fund and the findings of Richard Gelles and Murray Straus (1991), two university researchers working for over a quarter of a century on the subject of domestic violence.30 They are finding that in the area of domestic violence men and women batter each other in the same amount.

The source for the misinformation in Time is, in part, an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1984, whose authors had already informed the public that their sample group was not representative of Americas population as a whole. Ninety percent of the respondents to their questionnaire on domestic violence lived in inner-city Detroit. Sixty percent of them were unemployed. Also, the 22-percent figure covered both women and men, and 38 percent of men in the survey were themselves complaining of abuse. But into the 1990s, other newspaper articles and media reports still irresponsibly misuse the numbers from the flawed 1984 Detroit study.

The gender feminist believes that the average man is a potential batterer. To gender warriors like Gloria Steinem, it is a sales job, this snow job, this characterization of men as idiots, buffoons, mental cases that live to beat and batter girls, women. Steinem, founder of Ms. Magazine, is at war. Her strategy is to disseminate rhetorical shock tactics (memes), to confuse, overpower and humiliate adversaries. The gender feminists are committed to the doctrine that the vast majority of batterers or rapists are not fringe characters but men whom society regards as normal — sports fans, career employees, former fraternity brothers, pillars of the community. For these normal men, it’s said, women are not so much persons as objects. In the gender feminist view, once a woman is objectified she is therefore no longer human, thence battering is simply the next logical step. Of course the guys are rapists, brutes….

In the media it is the gender feminists’ propaganda war. And it’s made even more palatable in today’s world, where coercion is accepted as “normal” — as only the desire to gain power through any means. For example, the White House under Clintonism became a 24-hour-a-day makeover center, employing professional doctors of distortion, circumlocution traveling in the speed of warp, doing the business of spin. Thus all can take shelter in committing some sin? Can society believe that some women are adept at making the phoney look so real?

Feminist activists have a large stake in exaggerating battery and abuse, and they have virtually no conscience in doing so. The plight of the fair sex is the subject area where the spin-as-facts “tact’s” — statistics and studies on provocative issues like rape, battery, wage differences, eating disorders — promote women as victims of the oppressive patriarchal system. Their facts may not be true at all, but the gender feminists use this activist research for recruiting. They say men are a physical menace to women. End of story. That’s the agenda and feminist norm!

Gloria Steinem, long time spinster, in 1992 published Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem, which says patriarchy requires violence and “the most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home”.


Super Bowl Sunday. It is 1993, the year the military hammers out the politically correct “dont-ask, dont-tell” policy allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces. In 1993, more danger to women from their live-in “soul mates” was hyped by the disseminators of the anti-male hate hearsay. They planned to get em in front of the male refuge of competitive sporting events. Call em brutes, bastards that beat the innocent, dirty alley cats that rip bird flesh. It’s the mean men menace, those who use the exorcizing force over a physically weaker sex and claim it as a right. But here testosterone gets mixed up with psychologys take on power, and women are being taught to see male energy as dangerous. The money that men earn through aggressive action, it’s just fine to all these women. But after receiving their money, then the men can be painted into a corner as simply violent.

So it goes, as Super Bowl Sunday was proclaimed as the biggest day of the year for violence against women by a coalition of women’s groups. A large media mailing warned women: “Dont remain at home with him during the game”. The New York Times refers to the big game as the “Abuse Bowl”. And as soon as it’s in newspapers around the country, it’s like a flash-fire burned into everyones perceptions. And then just before the game, NBC broadcasts a warning to all the men in America that domestic violence is a crime.

Lenore Walker, the author of The Battered Woman, claims she had a ten-year record showing a sharp increase in violent incidents against women on Super Bowl Sundays.31 It was reported that woman’s shelters and hotlines are inundated by more calls for help from victims than on any other day of the year. According to much of the media, boy friends, husbands and fathers are explosive devices on this day. They will beat wives, girlfriends and children. Another number circulating in this myth are that hospital admissions rise 40 percent after Super Bowl games. As soon as the untruths are believed the believer lives in a false-consciousness. Falsehood and fiction get a big boost, and brains are changing, causing women and men to revile the imagined batterers, the guys. The bomb is dropped that men are very cruel and dangerous in their homes. Like the clouds of smoke that rise from a bomb site, so the false-consciousness grows, spreads, and with enough of an offensive repetition these attacks could replace truth entirely.

But Janet Katz, the author of the original Super Bowl study, says what was really found was no connection between violence and football games, and admission to emergency rooms was not associated with football games.32 All down the line, the authorities for the Super Bowl brainwash deny stating the “facts” that turn up everywhere in the media. There is no evidence that a link exists between football and wife-beating, but the general consensus has been colored. And the gender feminists have won a battle in characterizing men as freaks in the home. False, but effective, like masking with Blush-on. Those who know better turn the feminist cheek. No evidence is found but the damage is done. The misquotes and faulty reporting have brought a huge propaganda victory for the enemies of men!

History of Wife-beating: Rule of Thumb. The “rule of thumb” further portrays men as abusers. It’s in the muster melody of the gender feminist army. There is an actual myth about where the saying “rule of thumb” came from. It’s part of the collective hallucination of history the gender feminists are promoting. And they want to rewrite all the school textbooks too, to give an appropriate and slanted view of history and women. The expression “rule of thumb” is flogged to the public as originating in an English common law that allowed a husband to beat his wife with a whip or stick if it were no bigger than the diameter of his thumb. The “rule” was supposed to have been incorporated into American law. The gender feminists say this gave the husband the right to beat his wife without interference from the courts.

The system tolerates violence of men against women? It’s feminist fiction, but soon the media is again ablaze, and from Time and the Washington Post to small local rags, the spin tact’s become the facts. American law predating the revolution prohibits wife-beating. But a writer, a coordinator of the NOW Task Force on Battered Women, began the creation of the myth as fact. She says the law “explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes” and did allow the husband “the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb.”33 The spin got official status when lawyers and biased academics embraced the rule of thumb as fact. Many, of course, were misled and assumed the “tact’s” as actual truth.

Piles of propaganda placed perniciously between the genders, keeps reality at bay and lovers away, the distance getting wider as the sexes become snider, contemptuous of each other.

The deception may serve sadomasochistic females, those who sense they cannot compete with their healthy, effectual sisters, the vital, coherent and centered feminine incarnations. It’s the sadomasochists who will decide to take everything down if they can’t at least get revenge for their seemingly faulty, imperfect incarnation and their converts are increasing as their propaganda is now taught in public education, meaning that a neurotic, collective insurance is growing.

The repressed guilt from the gender feminists’ active persecution of males, combined with the rage from their victims — men — probably guarantees exploding neuroses. Over time cynical personalities will emerge in the people who have accepted life as bad and people as evil, as each successive brutal and sadistic act towards fellow humans gets absorbed into their world view. Collective insurance brings an eerie calm towards barbaric proposals and actions. This is because of the security people feel in a large group that is either suffering or causing others to suffer. Thus deranged solutions have a growing, accepted place in everyones mind. So the future is somewhat guaranteed — terror, persecution, cruelty and smart missiles — to come!

Neurotic insurance and it’s guilt is like being in a trap. It is evident when women flaunt the physical — sex as the escape, and male passion is bedeviled. So if even this cruelty makes her sexy, then there’s applause for more of the same. In the cycle, it’s more neurosis, more insurance. See, the frustration in contemporary society can be sold as rewarding if one can ride the sex neurosis, go with the psychotic flow and call orgasm the denouement, the resolution of hang-ups. Here the environment that counts is interior. Women live in the psyche, and here her eros demands company. She gets the power here. The argument is that sex is needed to calm and heal the moderns alienated torment that’s over the edge, almost. But sex is easily used for power, not for healing. And each manipulation carries some weight of guilt, some inferiority. Negativity is being raised up. Soon the witch could rule! Power bought with guilt, in each instance, increases the insurance. This self-centered and exploitative world view fosters the perplexing perception that the world must be dominated by some kind of darkened predator.

But the gender feminist conspiracy is real and if it continues to control public policy, it will lead men into a living death, spiritually bludgeoned. They will be mere shadows of men, without social purpose, withdrawn from public life and living in redundant isolation, no longer needed. Is that the feminist utopia? It is getting closer day by day. There never, ever was a rule-of-thumb law, and wife-beating has always been a crime and a sin. So it’s just more violent feminist fiction used to create a false consensus about themselves, to set the stage for the completion of their takeover of society.

Filthy lies, like the “rule of thumb”, promote an ignorant and deadly hatred, and women it is you who will be despised in the future for forgetting your men, dumping them, hoping for their ultimate defeat. Many women are afraid in the main to even criticize anything another “sister” says.

Anorexia. To get government funding, some feminist leaders produce reports and surveys that bring on the favorite wounded-bird trepidity. The female feathered in this fiction shows up again as the super-victim. Anorexia, an eating disorder for some women, is painted as the inevitable consequence of a misogynist society that demeans women by objectifying their bodies.34 It becomes men’s fault these that women are so unbalanced, mentally ill and masochistic that they won’t eat food.

It’s 1992, and Gloria Steinem (spinster) squeezes out a pungent “tact”, no matter that it’s so totally false, a blatant untruth: “in this country alone…about 150,000 females die of anorexia each year.”35 Then Ann Landers flogs this meme “tact”. And another “tact” disturber, Naomi Wolf, barks out the same lie, then states that these anorexics are starved not by nature but by men. She and her gender feminist co-conspirators say that the sick women are only trying to live up to the thin look that men demand in America! It’s evidence of the patriarchal society’s intimidation of women, and it is killing these innocent women, they say. Professor Joan Brumberg, former Director of Women’s Studies at Cornell University, was Naomi Wolf’s source. But the American Anorexia Bulimia Association said that they were misquoted — the 150,000 number was not dead girls. No, it was the number of females that suffer from anorexia nervosa. But the “boomer bitches” spread the hate-inducing meme and false figures. The virulent propaganda rages — it’s destructive force poisons the mind, spawning the development of more and more false-consciousness, as millions of lives are ushered into misery as a result of the misinformation.

The nation gets instructed — yes, the women as victims, the men as villains. The cup of arsenic called the truth of woman’s abuse is being drunk from the brim down to the very last drop. The true victims, those inhaling the meme-virus disease, are being devastated. The dead-in-the-head walk pathetically in circles, spun into a politically correct denial. Increasingly their needs are subverted, ignored or perverted into more alienation. This propaganda will hurt and is hazardous to both genders. But the gender feminists, those disciples of misandrist dogma, are scratching, screaming and using fudged numbers to rock any boat that tries to set sail, not powered by them — these princesses that model clenched fists and wail.

Battery of Pregnant Women. it’s 1993 and Bill Clinton, the man without a father, the guy brought up in a matriarchy, is the front man for the USA. It’s the year Lorena Bobbitt uses an eight-inch carving knife and cuts off her sleeping husbands penis — and is later acquitted! This was a year after Gloria Steinem wrote that the most hazardous situation for a woman was being with her husband in her own home. Patricia Ireland, the bi-sexual president of NOW, speaks to the nation on PBS: “Battery of pregnant women is the number one cause of birth defects in this country.”36 That’s her message. That’s her statement of truth, of the facts, as one of the most powerful leaders of modern American women. Thats her leadership and guiding voice, her voice of responsibility concerning how to lead the masses on her watch.

Another female, president of the woman’s Studies Association, had earlier posted a message on an electronic bulletin board about the March of Dimes. Apparently the March of Dimes reported that domestic violence against pregnant women was responsible for more birth defects than all other causes combined. The report was circulating all around the country. It was in the Chicago Tribune (April 18, 1993), Arizona Republic (March 21, 1993), and Time magazine (January 18, 1993). But the March of Dimes denied any knowledge of the report and asked Time magazine for a retraction. The author of the Time article, Jeanne McDowell, said she just didn’t check her sources. She said the San Francisco Family Violence Prevention Fund gave it to her, and they in turn received the “tact” from Sarah Buel, a director of a domestic abuse project in Massachusetts and a founder of the domestic violence advocacy project at Harvard Law School.

It’s up at the top and in the establishment; production
of the inexact,
” Information raked across the male to constrain,
to impel and to infract —
It’s in the system, this control and tact,
Lies twisted to excite, and then to attract
A target for true believers, those setting up the men
to swack.

Eventually, on December 6, 1993, Time magazine retracted. The thought that domestic battery could cause more birth defects than all other causes combined is hyperbole for sadists. All the young minds that assimilate this meme — what will their future love life now be? Voltaire left us with: “if we believe absurdities we will commit atrocities”.

Rape by Numbers. Naomi Wolf, in The Beauty Myth, cites a Ms. Magazine survey that claims that one in four women respondents had had an experience that met the American legal definition of rape or attempted rape. “One in Four” became the media headline that soon had found a home in people’s heads. Wolf and Ms. claim that women may not even know they are raped. So they are helping them realize their raped condition in a society where “sexual violence is seen as normal by young women as well as young men.”37 A woman or girl who feels “regret” after sex, or feels somehow “violated”, can qualify as a rape victim — even if she went through the sexual intercourse without any complaint! Weeks, months, years later she can charge her male sexual partner with rape. And it has become popular, this whipsaw surprise that today’s “princess” can present to her contemporary “beastly” male partner. And some serious college students believe that the number of young women raped is actually closer to one in two. It seems America is a “rape culture”.

Rape serves the gender feminists because it gets sympathy and support for females. By fudging the numbers through their unaccountable advocacy research, a huge political victory is won by these self-interested enemies of men. Many gender feminists seem to carry utopian visions of sexual relations, where there is sex without power, sex without persuasion and sex without pursuit. This is unrealistic, but “reality” is not their interest. Power is, and it seems there are no rules in their pursuit of power.

Certain studies have demonstrated that up to half of all rape allegations are untrue. And 50-percent of rape fraud is based on women who have actually admitted to lying!38 So the real numbers must be even higher.

As Hugh Nations has stated: “Rape is frequently described as a crime of violence, not of sex. Yet a woman 16-19 years old, the age of greatest sexual attractiveness, is more than 84 times more likely to be raped than a woman 50 or older.”39 Nations summary of facts about rape has led to more insights into the truth about rape in America. A survey of 610 female college students whose average age was 19 years found that 39 percent said they had said no to sex when they meant yes, and 69 percent said that they had said no when they meant maybe. Of sexually experienced women, 61 percent had engaged in token resistance. And in a survey of 507 male and 486 female college students, 63 percent of the males and 46 percent of the females said they engaged in unwanted sexual intercourse.

A Purdue University study reported in 1994 that false rape allegations provided three major functions for the complainants: an alibi, a means of revenge and a platform for seeking attention or sympathy.40 Students who recanted their claim of rape admitted to these motives. From the accumulated data, the study concludes “false rape accusations are not uncommon”. The Purdue study also states that “university women, when filing a rape complaint, were as likely to file a false charge as a valid charge”.41

The one-in-four rape figure is based on the Ms. Magazine Campus Project on Sexual Assault, conducted by Mary Koss. She had once stated that rape is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture.42 Gloria Steinem takes her to lunch, and Koss is chosen to do the Ms. Magazine national survey on rape. The one in four rape probability is now history. It became virtually the official figure used in woman’s studies programs, rape crisis centers and in woman’s magazines. Susan Faludi supported the survey. Naomi Wolf uses it’s findings.

“One in Four” is chanted during all the Take Back the Night spectacles and processions that keep young college girls and their mothers alerted to a threat that isn’t there. Politicians jump through hoops railing against imaginary criminals. And large sums of money come from public funds to combat rape on campuses. But the majority of women Koss had classified as having been raped did not believe they had been raped; 73 percent did not say that they had been raped, only 27 percent thought they had been.43 And 42 percent of those included as raped women went on to have sex with their “attackers” on a later occasion.44

Female Click Experience. At another time the women of America are asked by Ms. Magazine to try and locate their own personal “click experience”. Thats when a light “clicked” on in her head at the moment of her epiphany — when she first realized her society, her culture, cheats her in favor of men! So, it is taken for granted that men have cheated her. She is made now to see: men are self-serving and dangerous; men dominate and oppress; men write official versions of history; men have designed the whole of the college curriculum to focus on men’s aptitudes and perceptions. In a single “click” the game is considered over! Men are castigated, the woman now to burst out, having had her flash, re: being cheated, re: being in danger from her culture. And now she’s supposedly ready to create a society to serve herself.

Believing in female oppression is what the zap is about. Ms. Magazine makes it a contest of sorts. Have you realized the truth? Seen the light? Reached a level of consciousness that can handle reality, actually had a click experience? And are you now totally anchored in the knowledge you have been cheated, silenced?

Revisionist History. Filler feminism is now filling school textbooks with herstory, this pat-on-the-back crony feminism creating fantasy history.

This non-sexist history teaches lessons many
feminists wish to impart,
Even though the facts just aren’t there from the start.

Some states in the US are demanding “gender-fair” history be taught, insisting the women be given 50 percent of textbook content for their female contributions. Albeit this dishonest approach focuses on notions of fairness —that is an equal numbers of pages, equal ink going to the genders — more than on historical accuracy or faith in historical truth. It’s politically correct. What many education departments around the land of the free are instituting today is a force-fed feminist revision of history. It will obviously bolster the false-consciousness already filling the students cranial cavities, and raise embarrassingly to the fore the fantastic cultural illiteracy being championed all over the country.

The idea is to elevate some female creations so as to give a democratic-egalitarian representation in textbooks — for example, to bring some female work of art into art history so that the masterpieces by men are offset by something, anything, from the female. It could be a leap into mediocrity at the expense of the genius of another work by a male, a work that may be just short of being an accepted masterpiece. So the male work is trashed, turned out, so a female can have an equal quantity of representations — quantity perhaps devoid of comparative quality. Here today’s society is cutting it’s own throat. Women have been freed up from many of yesterday’s tasks through inventions that have made her life easier. Name one invention that has helped liberate her labors produced by a female….?

Self-esteem Propaganda. One area in which the gender feminists propaganda shows it’s deplorable and vicious agenda is in self-esteem studies about girls. The evidence actually shows that it’s boys and not the girls who are losing voice and declining in self-esteem.

Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America — that’s the title of the American Association of University Women’s (AAUW), report in the early 90s.45 The AAUW report claims that girls aura of self-esteem descends between the ages eleven to sixteen, which hinders the girls learning and achievement. This report caused headlines around the country and provoked hundreds of conferences and regional group responses. The AAUW then got politicians, business leaders and the media on board. Fifty US congresspersons sponsored a $360-million bill, as bleeding hearts ran to nurture the “shortchanged girls”. The young girls, according to some, “no longer like themselves”, doubt themselves and, of course, now needed to learn “that their lives are valuable at the same time that they learn their ABCs”.

An enormous impact, this self-esteem propaganda had, but it’s methods, analysis and conclusions once again get the verdict: “tact”! The 140,000-member strong AAUW promoted it’s report through press conferences and thousands of “calls to action” brochures distributed to it’s membership, to politicians and to journalists. And the AAUW made a polished media documentary to show all over America.

Their tale: the torture, defeat and deprecation of America’s young females. The AAUW documentary claims that eating disorders, depression and dislocation result from “undervaluing” girls. Everyone bought right in, freaking from these gender feminist “tact’s”. From schoolboard bureaucrats to politicians and the media, all focused on addressing the needs of the girls.

The devil and all went right along believing the AAUW because of it’s prominence as a major group, and therefore as credible. No journalists ever got to the nuts and bolts of the report. And like the seemingly low-IQ people today hired to read the official network news, the dummy reporters go flat straight ahead and report the spin as news. They simply print the news releases handed them by the AAUW!

A National Council for Self-Esteem was soon established as the nation chased it’s tail, scampering to help the girls feel like they do belong, and like they are competent, that they have possibilities and that they, indeed, are a somebody. It’s like the elevation given women in the nineteenth century, so much time and attention focused on women having it all go so right for them.

According to Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D., when the self-esteem report was being flogged all through the 90s, the leadership of the AAUW made: “the association into an activist arm of gender feminism. It’s current group of officers — Executive Director Ann Bryant, President Sharon Schuster, and Alice McKee, President of the AAUW’s educational foundation — are committed gender feminists who had expectations of what they would find when they initiated the self-esteem study”.46

Carol Gilligan, Professor of Gender Studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, and her theories had been behind the AAUW self-esteem survey that she helped design. Gilligan claims that during adolescence females are pushed aside and are kept in the background by society — girls are silenced and go underground not knowing what they know.

Girls, to Gilligan, are silenced by a “male-voiced” culture, the patriarchy, and she claims that she has the evidence. It’s not puberty that brings on female turmoil; oh no, instead it’s a girl-destroying society that is at fault. In 1990, the New York Times ran the Gilligan story of girls’ self-esteem being shredded. Next it was Gilligan working with Ms. Magazine, alerting the world to the plight of the girls, who are confident at eleven but just plain confused at sixteen, or so the story goes. Girls are portrayed as coming up against the wall of a culture that values women less than men.

As Hoff Sommers summarizes: “The gloomy picture of adolescent girls that she [Gilligan] presented to Ms., the AAUW, and a concerned public is every bit as distorted as any ever presented by social scientists using (in Gilligans words) androcentric and patriarchal norms.”47 The AAUW report stands as a classic example of advocacy research. The artful way in which the questions were asked and the answers were marked got the conclusion that the AAUW wanted: fear of a national crisis in the self-esteem of adolescent girls. Once the “tact’s” were out in the public domain, as one researcher said: “the whole thing is being carried on in the court of the media”.

Soon after the AAUW’s report was released in 1993, the Ms. Foundation for Women declared a Take Our Daughters to Work day. A great success, more than half a million daughters went to work with their mothers and fathers. The teachers guide handed out by the Ms. Foundation reiterated: recent studies point to adolescence as a time of crisis and loss for girls. While most girls are outspoken and self-confident at the age of nine, their level of self-esteem plummeted by the time they reach high school. Gloria Steinem was involved in Take Our Daughters to Work Day, saying the young girls, when they must take on their feminine role at age twelve or thirteen, will have to go underground, making them vulnerable to depression, pregnancy and eating disorders. But what about the boys left behind? Why arent they being catered to, encouraged to be visible, valuable and heard, and taken to work by a parent? Well, the Ms. Foundation proposed that the boys spend the day doing exercises to help them understand how our society shortchanges women.

The AAUW then gave money to Wellesley College, and it produces another report that dramatically buttressed the AAUW report on self-esteem. The Wellesley Report, “How Schools Shortchange Girls”, rants on about a “wealth of statistical evidence” that shows girls are persecuted in school. The media again buys right in, reproduces most of the propaganda verbatim. Christina Hoff Sommers states: “What is highly questionable is the value and integrity of the research and the way the advocates have deployed the findings to activate the United States Congress.”48

The Press Buys In. Just how do the nations reporters and news anchors allow this merde to pad their promotions? Except when in the cameras eye, they are so often beyond any pretense of professionalism. Do many graduates of journalism regularly check sources, or has the truth imprisoned them instead of setting them free? Chirpy, lean male and female script-reader television mouthpieces mouth the flow of words. They are getting paid to say anything that is written and stands in front of them.

Messy major issues are diced through,
These obvious orators haven’t a clue,
Or give a damn
If their spiel is totally untrue.

Spin, “tacts”, private agendas, created mass consensus, ownership of all major media by the few — and the talking heads fall into line. They read the word prompter scripts prepared to induce mass hypnosis, and apathy about neuroses. Jill and Joe public are forced at odds, off-balance, able only to work and then flake out after all the meme assault.

Lash – Page 4 of 8

<< page 3 page 5 >>