Androphobia

Posted on Friday, November 16 at 11:14 by Diogenes
Psychologists who measure IQ have never found any statistical difference between the intelligence of men and women. High, middle, and low IQs are found in both sexes! There is no scientific proof of male inferiority! The mythology of male brutishness and stupidity has been spread by the androphobes without a single shred of statistical evidence. Do you believe men are innately brutal? When no other human being was willing to nurse the lepers on Molokai Island, it was a male, Father Joseph Damien, who went there to care for those unfortunates. Or consider these further suppressed facts about maleness: Although they were men, Michaelangelo, Sir Christopher Wren, and Frank Lloyd Wright are almost universally considered great architects. The first Feminist pamphlet published in this country was written by a man -- Tom Paine (who also wrote the first anti-slavery pamphlet.) The most original music of this century, Jazz, was created almost entirely by Black males. Free public libraries, which made more knowledge available to more people than any invention before the computer-net, were founded on gifts made by Andrew Carnegie, who was not just male but a rich white male! Leonardo da Vinci made hundreds of great contributions to both science and art despite the triple handicaps of being Gay, left-handed and male. Men including Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Sean McBride have played important roles in the struggle for world peace. Although Shakespeare, Dante, and Homer were males, they wrote poetry generally considered as good as anything by Hilda Doolittle. Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach were men and yet they wrote music at least as good as that of Hildegarde of Bingen. Males such as Newton, Einstein, and Archimedes made contributions to science as important as those of Marie Curie. The cure for yellow fever, saving the lives of millions, was found by a man, Major Walter Reed. Despite the androphobic mythology/ideology, at no time in history except the present was maleness considered a shame, a disgrace, or a sign of inferiority. All the "major" religions (those having millions of followers) were founded by males born in Asia (Confucius, Lau-Tse, Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed.) Men were responsible for such basic discoveries as the sailing ship, the compass, the steam engine, the electric light, the AC generator, the computer, and many others. And males created over 90% of mathematics. All of this sounds strange, bizarre, almost unbelievable, I know. We have all had so much brainwashing by the androphobic meme that we scarcely can believe males have ever done anything but shoot one another, rape women, and blow people up. Androphobia is the one respectable bigotry -- the only form of group-libel that is "politically correct" and goes unchallenged almost everywhere. Male achievements, thus, have been systematically excluded from "the universe of discourse" -- i.e. what "nice" people talk about. Let us clarify the ideology of androphobia. I think androphobia can be defined as the transfer to all males of the negative stereotypes that the Ku Klux Klan and other neanderthal types assign only to black males -- mental inferiority, of course; emotional childishness, or "inability to think rationally;" brutality -- i.e. sub-human status, criminality, sexual violence, etc. (You see? All the old racist clichés except "a great sense of rhythm.") I thus regard androphobia as merely a transmutation from racism to sexism, an "advance" that is not an advance at all. Let me make this very clear. I do not oppose Feminism; on the contrary, I reject all forms of group stereotyping and dehumanization. Androphobia (or male-bashing) has no intrinsic or necessary link with Feminism, and many Feminists utterly reject androphobia. To use an analogy, Marx said that "anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools." Similarly, I regard androphobia as the Feminism of imbeciles. I oppose androphobia as psychological gendercide. I believe it underlies the wide spread male depression (which psychotherapists recognize as "epidemic") and also explains much of the soaring suicide rate among boys and young males. The suicide rate among boys aged 16 to 19 is four times that of females, and the suicide rate of men between 20 and 24 soars to six times that of females (according to the U.S. Department of Health Statistics.) This self-destructiveness has increased steadily, among males, for 30 years -- since the rise of the androphobic ideology. Few want to grow up male in a society where maleness is defined as a sign of incurable inferiority or criminality. Androphobia has created the kind of tension that psychologists call a "double-bind." A classic double-bind, as Gregory Bateson defined it in his pioneering work on the subject, involves (a) an impossible situation one cannot escape, and, (b) just as crucial, a social rule that forbids verbal comment on the impossibility of the situation. Gays, blacks, Hispanics, and all other minorities retain the freedom to comment on their situation -- even to comment angrily or to protest in the streets. However, one cannot comment on androphobia these days. It is not only "politically incorrect" but virtually unthinkable. To talk about the subject at all remains under a very big taboo -- while millions of boys and men stagger from depression to suicide annually. For instance, in 1979, psychologist Roy Schenk attempted to give a workshop on men's oppression at the annual conference of the Association for Humanistic Psychology. He announced in advance that the seminar would investigate what it does to the psyche of boys and men to grow up "being perceived as morally inferior to women." The AHP would not allow the workshop. This year, I tried again, offering a similar workshop at a New Age conference that had had me as workshop leader several times in the past. They also would not allow this subject to be discussed at all. Consider the "logic" of androphobia, and how it deliberately contradicts known facts. Remember: 98% of the men in this country have never been in prison or committed a violent crime, but the androphobe insists that all men are "violent." Some of the most tender, beautiful music in the world was written by men such as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, but the androphobe insists all men are "insensitive." To repeat: all the major religions based on justice and love were founded by men (Asiatic men, in fact) -- but the androphobe insists all men are "greedy" and "competitive." This kind of "logic," based on totally ignoring all inconvenient facts, is common to all forms of racism, xenophobia and bigotry. In fact, if you listen to the rantings of any leading androphobe (such as Andrea Dworkin, Carol Hemingway, or Robin Morgan) and mentally change the word "male" to "Jew" every time it appears, the result would be totally indistinguishable from the rantings of Hitler, because the "logic" of bigotry is the same in all cases. It is the "logic" of ascribing one essence to a miscellaneous group, which is only possible when all real-world daily facts are replaced by generalized abstractions. but this flight into abstraction is "politically correct" and virtually nobody dares to challenge it. Thus, the "evil" of maleness in our society today, like the "evil" of witchcraft in medieval days, is beyond debate or discussion. The "no comment" taboo applies, leading directly to the double-bind that triggers mental breakdowns. Males, thus, have become the only minority that can be slandered and demeaned with any and all group stereotypes, in "respectable" media, and with no rebuttal allowed. All other minorities can "fight back" against group libel, but men who try to fight back against stereotypes and group libel are regarded as crazy, or "in denial," or beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse. Fortunately, this is beginning to change -- a little. We look forward to a day when sanity and common sense triumph over bias, and all men and women, all people of all races, are judged one at a time and not condemned by group stereotypes. Meanwhile, anti-Semites (and most other bigots) can only circulate their lunatic rantings through badly printed journals with tiny circulations, while the androphobes still have free access to all major media and can endlessly spout the most idiotic forms of sexism while claiming to oppose sexism. As Shakespeare said (with a few minor revisions and updates): "I am a man. Hath not a man eyes? Hath not a man hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed, and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a woman is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?" http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1996/4-apr96/wilson04.html from my hardcopy files

Note: http://www.backlash.com...

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:18 am
    Thank-you

  2. Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:31 pm
    "In fact, if you listen to the rantings of any leading androphobe (such as Andrea Dworkin, Carol Hemingway, or Robin Morgan) and mentally change the word 'male' to 'Jew' every time it appears, the result would be totally indistinguishable from the rantings of Hitler, because the 'logic' of bigotry is the same in all cases."

    Very true. And if you apply the same technique to the writings of Robin Mathews, Heather Mallick or David Orchard, only in their case changing "American" to "Jew", and you'll see that androphobia is not the "only respectable bigotry", at least not in Canada anyway.

    Actually, in Canada, we have a few acceptable, elite-approved bigotries - that against Americans of course, but also ones against rural Canadians, Western Canadians (especially Albertans) and the overtly Christian.

  3. Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:27 pm
    Aw Hell, inde, Are you still using “Jew” as the all encompassing word for a large and diverse group that now includes the Khazars you have no Semitic blood?

    That’s exactly like saying “Tree” to identify *all* trees.
    By now one would reasonably expect now that you have slyly introduce ethnicity to a gender issue you would realise to say “Jew” as “thee definition” is intellectually dishonest.


    ---
    "When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

    William Blake

  4. Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:49 pm
    Man, talk about missing the point. I was simply using the comparative device employed in the article *you* cut-n-pasted in lieu of actually contributing original content. If you have a problem with the word Jew (or with Jews), substitute any ethnic, religious, national or cultural group that *you* consider worthy of protection against bigotry.

    I was simply pointing out that the same double-standard that the author correctly identified in bigotry against men also applies to other elite-sanctioned bigotries in Canada.

    But since you raised the subject of your issues with Jews, WTF does it have to do with anything if not all members of the Jewish faith are of direct Middle Eastern ethnic heritage? If this (much disputed, by the way) Ashkenazi/Khazar theory is true, so friggin' what? Does it make it okay to hate so-called "non-Semitic Jews"? Are Jews still not an "identifiable group" under Canadian hate laws even if they are not ethnically homogeneous?

    With apologies to Shakespeare, if you prick a Khazar, does he not bleed?

  5. Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:43 am
    aaaaaaaaaah, this is the old indie I remember so well.
    Very much the case of the kettle and all that with you ain't it? You and the leopard



    ---
    "When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

    William Blake

  6. Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:56 pm
    "Very true. And if you apply the same technique to the writings of Robin Mathews, Heather Mallick or David Orchard, only in their case changing "American" to "Jew", and you'll see that androphobia is not the "only respectable bigotry", at least not in Canada anyway."

    Your example does not hold any basis in reality.

    If you look for the word 'American' in Robin's last 20 stories, it appears in only 4. And then it is preceded by the words 'North' or 'Latin'.

    In two others, you find the sentences "improved by American aid, with Nato troops." and "With Preston, Ernest Manning worked to Americanize Canadian politics"

    So, replacing 'American' with 'Jew' results in no bigotry at all.

    Sorry, you'll have to look to another scapegoat for your perception that Canadians are Anti-American. Have you tried Jack Layton, or Stephane Dion?

    ---
    The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

  7. Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:43 pm
    "I was simply pointing out that the same double-standard that the author correctly identified in bigotry against men also applies to other elite-sanctioned bigotries in Canada.

    But since you raised the subject of your issues with Jews,..."

    I see. It was I was it the introduced ethnicty to the thread?
    By now we all have had examples of your wounded ego with respect to your race.

    indie old bean In all the time you've been postiong here there as not bee an "I was simply..." in your contributions.
    That is not to say yout assertionas are complex. They are however, convoluted


    ---
    "When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

    William Blake

  8. Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:31 am
    Imagine someone writing "to be anti-Jewish is to have a truly enlightened soul".

  9. Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:36 am
    Cause and effect. You play the game of coming as close to overt anti-Jewish rhetoric as possible while attempting to maintain plausible deniability, and I give you the rolled up newspaper.

    Note to that you haven't addressed in the slightest the substance of my criticism. Why is it okay to hate Jews who are not ethnically Middle Eastern?

  10. Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:44 am
    My race? Just what do you purport that to be? If I'm reading you correctly, you're sounding just like Topham now, trying to "out" people as Jews.

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and you're a free speech absolutist as opposed to a bigot. Do you believe that there are any "identifiable groups" that should be protected against hate speech, or do you not believe in the need for such protection? Should people, for instance, who promote hatred of blacks or women or gays be allowed to do so with impunity?

  11. Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:46 am
    “Cause and effect. You play the game of coming as close to overt anti-Jewish rhetoric as possible while attempting to maintain plausible deniability, and I give you the rolled up newspaper.”

    Oops I had forgotten that only you are allowed to assess what is and what is not.
    You will have me as you see me and no other way and then in a show of imagined superiority show how you give me the rolled up newspaper. Classic!

    ”Note to that you haven't addressed in the slightest the substance of my criticism. Why is it okay to hate Jews who are not ethnically Middle Eastern?”
    And you note how bogus your claim of my hating any race is.
    You see what you want to see and are determined to do so How does one “address’ your delusion, It simply is.





    ---
    "When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

    William Blake

  12. Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:00 am
    “My race? Just what do you purport that to be? If I'm reading you correctly, you're sounding just like Topham now, trying to "out" people as Jews.”

    You simply must do something about your persecution complex, My Dear Fellow.

    ”Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and you're a free speech absolutist as opposed to a bigot. Do you believe that there are any "identifiable groups" that should be protected against hate speech, or do you not believe in the need for such protection? Should people, for instance, who promote hatred of blacks or women or gays be allowed to do so with impunity?”
    Hehehe You truly are an amusing fellow indie. The ‘When did you sop beating your wife.” shtick is so easily identified and expected from you that you must fine some other tactic to continue doing what you accuse me of. You speak as if the politically correct catch phrase emanates only from one source when in fact “hate speech” can be witness from all races.

    Stay with your delusions indie as they are old friends who cannot seem to abandon.



    ---
    "When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

    William Blake

  13. Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:22 pm
    "And you note how bogus your claim of my hating any race is."

    Sigh. Okay then, what is your point about this Khazar stuff? Why should any of us care what the specific ethnic mix of the Jewish community is? Why is it so important that you insert it into discussions where it has no relevance (such as this thread)?

  14. Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:29 pm
    1. Do you believe that there are "identifiable groups" that should be protected against hate speech?

    Valid answers are "yes", "no" or "I choose not to answer".

    2. Are "Jews" one of those groups?

    Valid answers are "yes", "no" or "I choose not to answer".



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news