HERE IS A LIST OF ARTICLES WHICH SHOWS HOW SO-CALLED FEMINISM OR WOMEN'S LIBERATION HAS LEAD TO THE MALE FEMALE "RELATIONSHIP CRISIS", AND SUBSEQUENTIAL DECLINE OF "FAMILY VALUES" IN AMERICA.

Because big business makes money off Women's Liberation by selling books, liquor, ciggarettes, diet formulas etc. , it is very rare for the media to criticize Feminism or Women's Liberation in any form. So the articles below are indeed worthy of your attention, because they are rare. Furthermore, because of the explosion of the Internet in the late 1990s it is now easy to observe and study the decline of Feminism. The articles that blacktown.net has posted are some of the best written documenting societies growing impatience!!

JUST CLICK ON TITLE TO READ ARTICLE, THEN SCROLL BACK TO TOP OF PAGE
BLACK WOMEN EMULATING WHITE WOMEN'S MALE BASHING by Arthur James Philadelphia Tribune, January 25, 1994	HAS FEMINISM GONE TOO FAR? Guests: Camille Paglia & Christina Hoff Sommers (RADIO TALK SHOW TRANSCRIPT)	RACIAL BIAS SEEN IN SPECIAL EDUCATION by Greg Toppo Associated Press (ARTICLE ON HOW WHITE CHILDREN ARE NOT LABLED RETARDED AT THE SAME RATE AS BLACK CHILDREN, YET IT IS WHITE CHILDREN SHOOTING UP SCHOOLS)
LONGING FOR FATHERS by Jesse Peterson [Reprinted from Issues & Views, Spring 1996]	WILL BOYS BE BOYS? "Society is turning against boys when what they need is help" By John Leo	NO DAD AT HOME 20/20 ABC NEWS REPORT TRANSCRIPT Wednesday, November 17, 1999 (SURPRISING INVESTIGATION INTO THE SINGLE MOM PHENOMENA IN THE WHITE COMMUNITY!!!)
SOUTHERN BAPTIST DECREE THAT WIVES SHOULD 'SUBMIT' ANGERS SOME June 11, 1998 Chicago Sun-Times by Ernest Tucker, Staff Reporter (ARTICLE WHICH SHOWS HOW WHITE CHURCH PEOPLE ARE PUTTING A STOP TO THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT BY DECLARING WHAT A WOMAN'S ROLE NEEDS TO BE)	FEMINISM UNDER FIRE "Modern-day feminism is intellectually dishonest" by Ellen Klein (BOOK REVIEW)	THE CIVILIZING POWER OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY [Review of George Gilder's VISIBLE MAN, new edition published by ICS and Discovery Institute; first published in 1978. Reprinted from Issues & Views, Fall/Winter 1996]

Black Women Emulating White Women's Male-Bashing by Arthur James Philadelphia Tribune, January 25, 1994 Let's get one thing straight: I intensely dislike rap music. This may seem ironic coming from someone who went to school with and helped Gil Scott-Heron in his formative years, and who gave the original Last Poets one of their first gigs back in the late '60s. Both of these artists were among the founding fathers of rap. And I especially dislike gangsta rap. I grew up when all kinds of Black music required a high level of instrumental and vocal skill, and rap music offers neither. Yet, despite my dislike for rap, I feel that today's young Blacks are entitled to claim this limited means of expression as their own. I agree with a previous Op-Ed writer who justified rap as the voice of the young, whether we like it or not, because in my own youth the older Blacks disliked just about everything that characterized young people, particularly anything having to do with the Black consciousness movement. There may be become justice in all of this, because it may be the Blacks are in the terrible shape we're in today because too few listened to the young activists in the Sixties. Maybe rap music is a much less eloquent means for today's youth to express their own dissatisfactions. In a word, rap may be a call for Blacks to redeem themselves in the eyes of their own children.   Which leads me to Ms. C. DeLores Tucker and the photo of her being handcuffed in Washington, D.C. for obstructing the entrance of a record store during her protest against gangsta rap. Ms. Tucker and her ilk are fond of telling white people what solutions will and will not work for the betterment of Black people, which approaches are "band- aid" solutions, and which ones go to the root causes of the problem. Yet, now that middle-class Black people have to confront their own people about problems in the community, they do exactly what they accused whites of doing, which is attacking the symptom rather than the problem. You have to be less than insightful to believe that rap is the source of any of our social problems, no matter how unpleasant to the ears it may be. That's like blaming Howard Stern and Def Comedy Jam for sexual promiscuity and AIDS. Thus, we now see more clearly that white people do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Furthermore, it should also be apparent that whenever so-called Black leaders come up empty-handed in solving real problems, they safely attack symbols instead. So along with hypocrisy, we have incompetence and moral cowardice.   But it doesn't stop there with Ms. C. DeLores Tucker and many of her Black sisters. If you carefully notice, these people came out of the woodwork primarily to protest that aspect of gangsta rap that purportedly demeans Black women. I mean, rap has been going on for quite a few years now, and both male and female rappers have been saying some pretty strong and unpleasant things about life, each other's gender, sex, you name it. But it seems that the sole concern of this coterie of middle class Black women is the protection of the image of Black women. In other words, damn the brothers because they don't have a positive image to defend; thus, no protest about the demeaning of Black males. And never mind that 99 percent of the killing involves Black male victims; rather, instead, carry a protest placard that shouts "Gangsta Rap Is Rape." You almost get the feeling that white, middle-class women from N.O.W. wrote those placards and organized Ms. Tucker's march, but unfortunately that's not the case. Why dirty white feminists' hands when you can always rent a Negro?   What I'm getting at is neither simple nor complex, but it does require that a person has been listening very closely to what has been going on in this country for the last 20 years. After the '60s, Black movements waned, white middle-class feminism blossomed. They took center stage and commenced the male-bashing that has become a cultural norm in this country. Pathetically, middle-class Blacks (and especially middle- class Black women) have a tendency, when they don't have anything going for themselves, to mimic whatever white people are into. Thus, during this same period, when record numbers of Blacks begin graduating from college, a number of educated Black women began bashing Black men, using "a failed, male-dominated and male chauvinistic Black movement" as the basis for their attack. This attack against Black males went on since the mid-'70s; despite the obvious fact that many of these same successful women would have never been able to attend college had it not been for that "failed Black movement." But why give the brothers any credit when the sisterhood is on a roll?   The last 15-20 years have witnessed a substantial increase in the size and incomes of the Black middle class. Most of the Black middle class is made up of Black women (didn't know that, did you?; and many, if not most, are single and without children. Thus, it may be said that the greatest beneficiaries of "the failed Black movement" have been Black women. These women, in mimicry of their white counterparts, have assigned to their gender all kinds of exclusively female attributes like being inherently nurturing, intuitive, sensitive, cooperative, supportive, and so forth. Now if all this good stuff is true (do you doubt it?), you would think that Black women of such means and alleged character would have a great deal to show in the way of not only helping less fortunate African-Americans, but of creating their own social movements that would clearly demonstrate that they are the equal of any Black man in leading struggle. (After all, they have our "failures" to learn from.) And so I ask you: Look around! Have you seen anything shaking in the last 15 years? Can you name a single Black female organization that has accomplished in 15 or so years anything that comes close to what the allegedly "male-dominated, failed Black consciousness movement" accomplished in a mere five years? Surely they weren't busy caring for children, because most of them don't have any. So what have they been doing?   Aside from establishing a nationwide anti-Black male movement, there is considerably more for which these women can be credited. For example, they, along with their white feminist cohorts, did establish a plethora of social assistance programs in impoverished urban areas. The only problem I have is that all of the programs were for women. But wait. Many also became successful writers, playwrights, scholars and actresses. Trouble is, so many built their accomplishments on Black male-bashing. Unlike today's Black female gangsta rap protesters, there was no outcry, no marches by outraged Black men when we were getting it on the chin. And, of course, no Black women boldly came forth to insist that the Black male-bashing cease. To the contrary, coming down on the brother was the in-thing, a shortcut to big bucks and stardom, and remains so to this day. Sharazad Ali was one woman who spoke up for the brothers; but later she had to hire bodyguards to protect her from the "inherently nurturing" sisters. (Hope she made a killing, still.)   There has been a growing, somewhat unnoticed trend in Black America, and it has to do with successful Black women, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, not only putting down Black males in general, and not only prioritizing the interests of Black women, but also placing themselves above criticism of any kind. Worse yet, these same Black women will flatly deny all of the above. Among other disturbing things, what this translates into is a significant breakdown in dialogue between the sexes. It is a situation that breeds mistreatment, distrust, vicious competition, and anger. One well known activist involved in the movement to stop the violence among Black males informed me of an all-Black male conference scheduled soon; and he told me that, during the open rap sessions, he anticipates hearing a great deal of anti-female discussion. He said that he is finding more and more Black males who actually hate Black women.   So, if middle-class Black women like C. DeLores Tucker are outraged about the damage that gangsta rap is doing to the image of Black women, maybe they ought to examine more closely the reality of Black women, and leave the image part alone. And while they're at it, maybe they might even find the integrity to talk to a Black male, and discover why he calls "certain kinds of Black women" all those unpleasant names.   Arthur James, Black Women Emulating White Women's Male-Bashing., Philadelphia Tribune, The, 01-25-1994 ___________________________________

RACIAL BIAS SEEN IN SPECIAL ED Associated Press Sunday, March 4, 2001 WASHINGTON--Black students end up in special education classes much more often than whites, setting them apart and saddling them with less-demanding work and lower expectations, new studies say. School officials respond that special education often is the only resource they have to help children with learning and emotional difficulties. "In some places, schools are confronted with kids who are not learning adequately, and they search for solutions," said Paul Houston of the American Association of School Administrators. "Special ed is one of those solutions. . . . Realistically, in many cases, schools don't have those resources available to them, outside of the special ed system." A series of studies commissioned by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University said black public school students are three times as likely as whites to be identified as mentally retarded and in need of special education services, which ideally include placement in smaller classes with more individual tutoring and instruction by specially certified teachers. In many cases, researchers said, students in special education classes are kept apart from their peers and have teachers who are not certified in special education. The curriculum is watered down and school districts often label black students as emotionally disturbed when they have learning disabilities. The richer the school district, the more likely that black male students would be labeled mentally retarded, the studies said, pointing to especially high incidences in five states--Connecticut, Nebraska, South Carolina, Mississippi and North Carolina. "Across the board, this is a problem for minority students," said Daniel J. Losen, a lawyer for the civil rights project. Losen said minority students often end up in special education programs because their parents lack both knowledge of the system and of their legal rights under federal law. Nationally, there were fewer Latino students proportionally in special ed classes. This did not hold true, however, in districts that had large numbers of Latino students. Using 1997 Education Department data, the studies found that, nationwide, black students were 2.9 times as likely as whites to be identified as having mental retardation. They were 1.9 times as likely to be identified with an emotional problem, and 1.3 times as likely to be identified with a specific learning disability. American Indian students also were slightly more likely to be identified as mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed or with a specific learning disability. A spokeswoman for Education Secretary Rod Paige said the department is awaiting results of a separate study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. The report will be issued as early as this summer, she said. Teachers unions welcomed the findings. National Education Association President Bob Chase said the NEA "has long decried the misplacement of minority students in special education programs and classrooms." Alex Wohl, a spokesman for the American Federation of Teachers, said, "One of the things that we emphasize . . . is the ability to help teachers develop better teaching skills, particularly in the early grades, because that's where they're overloaded." Vince Ferrandino of the National Association of Elementary School Principals and a former commissioner of education in Connecticut, said the findings weren't surprising. "If we're talking about `leaving no child behind,' as the president has indicated, then we have to think about these children as well," he said. The studies recommend that the federal government more aggressively enforce special education rules and that states intervene where minority students are overrepresented in such classes. Associated Press ___________________________ (AND THE EXACT DAY AFTER THE ABOVE ARTICLE WAS IN THE NEWSPAPER, THERE WAS YET, ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING IN SANTEEN CALIFORNIA MARCH 5, 2001, THEN IN SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA MARCH 22, 2001!!!!) Gunfire at San Diego-Area School Updated 5:22 PM ET March 22, 2001 By BERNIE WILSON, Associated Press Writer EL CAJON, Calif. (AP) - Three people were injured Thursday in a shooting on a high school campus less than three weeks after two students were killed and 13 people wounded in an attack at a nearby school. A suspect was in custody and was being taken to a hospital, police Capt. Bill McClure said. Two adults had minor injuries, he said. Other details were not immediately released. Students poured out of Granite Hills High School after the midday shooting as law enforcement officers searched the campus amid confusion over the circumstances of the gunfire. "My information right now is that no one was seriously injured," said Granger Ward, superintendent of Grossmont Union High School District. "The school is locked down and they are going room by room to bring them out and evacuate the school." Granite Hills, with 2,900 students, is just a few miles south of Santana High School in Santee, where a 15-year-old student allegedly killed two classmates March 5. Both schools are in the same district 17 miles east of San Diego. The shooting at Granite Hills was reported at 12:54 p.m. and firefighters took one victim to a hospital, a Fire Department spokesman said. Ambulances were dispatched along with a helicopter ambulance. Ryan Carrillo, a sophomore at the school, told KGTV-San Diego that he heard gunshots as he walked to a bathroom near the school office. "It sounded like an explosion, like in a chemistry class or something," he said of the first two shots he heard. After hearing five more shots, he ran out of the school and into a nearby park. Students hugged and cried as they gathered in the park as parents ran about, frantically searching for their children. ___________________________

Has Feminism Gone Too Far? Talk Show Guests: Camille Paglia & Christina Hoff Sommers Think Tank™ With Ben Wattenberg Airdate: November 4, 1994 By special arrangement with Think Tank and Think Tank On-line.   Christina Hoff Sommers is the author of Who Stole Feminism? : How Women Have Betrayed Women. Camille Paglia is the author of Sexual Personae, Sex, Art, and American Culture : Essays, and Vamps and Tramps   MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. There are many feminists and scholars who contend that America is still a patriarchal place where women are victims and adversaries of men. We will hear that point of view in a future program. But for the next half-hour we will hear a different idea from two prominent and controversial feminists: Camille Paglia and Christina Sommers.   The topic before this house: Has feminism gone too far? This week on Think Tank. Joining us on this special edition of Think Tank are two authors who have made themselves unpopular with much of the modern feminist movement. Camille Paglia is professor of humanities at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia and best-selling author most recently of "Vamps and Tramps." Her criticisms of modern feminism caused one author to refer to her as the spokeswoman for the anti-feminist backlash. Our other guest, Christina Sommers, is an associate professor of philosophy at Clark University. In her recent book, "Who Stole Feminism," she accuses activist women of betraying the women's movement. She wrote the book, she says, because she is a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.   Christina Sommers, what has feminism become?   MS. SOMMERS: The orthodox feminists are so carried away with victimology, with a rhetoric of male-bashing that it's full of female chauvinists, if you will. Also, women are quite eager to censor, to silence. And what concerns me most as a philosopher is it's become very anti-intellectual, and I think it poses a serious risk to young women in the universities. Women's studies classes are increasingly a kind of initiation into the most radical wing, the most intolerant wing, of the feminist movement. And I consider myself a whistle-blower. I'm from inside the campus. I teach philosophy. I've seen what's been going on.   MR. WATTENBERG: Camille, what has feminism become?   MS. PAGLIA: Well, I have been an ardent feminist since the rebirth of the current feminist movement. I'm on the record as being -- as rebelling against my gender-role, as being an open lesbian and so on. In the early 1960s I was researching Amelia Earhart, who for me symbolized the great period of feminism of the '20s and '30s just after women won the right to vote. When this phase of feminism kicked back in the late '60s, it was very positive at first. Women drew the line against men and demanded equal rights. I am an equal opportunity feminist. But very soon it degenerated into a kind of totalitarian "group think" that we are only now rectifying 20 years later.   MR. WATTENBERG: Is this the distinction between equity feminism and gender feminism? Is that what we're talking about?   MS. SOMMERS: That's right. Yes.   MR. WATTENBERG: Could you sort of explain that so that we get our terms right?   MS. SOMMERS: An equity feminist -- and Camille and I both are equity feminists --is you want for women what you want for everyone: fair treatment, no discrimination. A gender feminist, on the other hand, is someone like the current leaders in the feminist movement: Patricia Ireland and Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi and Eleanor Smeal. They believe that women are trapped in what they call a sex-gender system, a patriarchal hegemony; that contemporary American women are in the thrall to men, to male culture. And it's so silly. It has no basis in American reality. No women have ever had more opportunities, more freedom, and more equality than contemporary American women. And at that moment the movement becomes more bitter and more angry. Why are they so angry?   MS. PAGLIA: Mmm-hmm. (In agreement.) This is correct. In other words, I think that the current feminist movement has taken credit for a lot of the enormous changes in women's lives that my generation of the '60s wrought. There were women in the mid '60s when I was in college who did not go onto become feminists. They were baudy and feisty and robust. Barbra Streisand is a kind of example of a kind of pre-feminist woman that changed the modern world and so on.   Now, I think that again what we need to do now is to get rid of the totalitarians, get rid of the Kremlin mentality --   MR. WATTENBERG: Now, hang on, when you say --   MS. PAGLIA: Wait -- and here are the aims of my program. We've got to get back to a pro-art, all right, pro-beauty, pro-men kind of feminism. And --   MS. SOMMERS: I think she's right to call it a kind of totalitarianism. Many young women on campuses combine two very dangerous things: moral fervor and misinformation. On the campuses they're fed a kind of catechism of oppression. They're taught "one in four of you have been victims of rape or attempted rape; you're earning 59 cents on the dollar; you're suffering a massive loss of self-esteem; that you're battered especially on Super Bowl Sunday." All of these things are myths, grotesque exaggerations.   MR. WATTENBERG: Well, why don't you go through some of those myths with some specificity?   MS. SOMMERS: Well, for example, a few years ago feminist activists held a news conference and announced that on Super Bowl Sunday battery against women increases 40 percent. And, in fact, NBC was moved to use a public service announcement to, you know, encourage men "remain calm during the game." Well --   MR. WATTENBERG: How can you remain calm during the Super Bowl! (Laughter.)   MS. SOMMERS: Well, they might explode like mad linemen and attack their wives and so forth. The New York Times began to refer to it as the "day of dread." One reporter, Ken Ringle at the Washington Post, did something very unusual in this roiling sea of media credulity. He checked the facts -- and within a few hours discovered that it was a hoax. No such research, no -- there's no data about a 40-percent increase. And this is just one of so many myths. You'll hear--   MR. WATTENBERG: Give me some others.   MS. SOMMERS: According to the March of Dimes, battery is the number -- the leading cause of birth defects. Patricia Ireland repeats this. It was in Time magazine. It was in newspapers across the country. I called the March of Dimes and they said, "We've never seen this research before." This is preposterous. There's no such research. And yet this is being taught to young women in the colleges. They're basically learning that they live in a kind of violent -- almost a Bosnian rape camp.   Now, naturally, the more sensitive young women --   MR. WATTENBERG: What about rape? Is that exaggerated by the modern feminists?   MS. SOMMERS: Completely. This idea of one in four girls victims of rape or attempted rape? That's preposterous! And there's also a kind of gentrification of rape. You're much more likely to be a victim of rape or attempted rape if you're in a high crime neighborhood. The chances of being raped at Princeton are remote. Katie Roiphe talked about being at Princeton. She said she was more afraid -- she would walk across a dark golf course and was more afraid of being attacked by wild geese than by a rapist. And yet the young women at Princeton have more programs and whistles are given out and blue lights. There's more services to protect these young women from rape than for women in, you know, downtown Newark.   MR. WATTENBERG: Where do you come out on this?   MS. PAGLIA: Well, one of the things that got me pilloried from coast to coast was when I wrote a piece on date rape for Newsday in January of 1991. It got picked up by the wire services, and the torrent of abuse that poured in. I want women to fend for themselves. That essay that I wrote on rape begins with the line "Rape is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in civilized society." I absolutely abhor this broadening of the idea of rape, which is an atrocity, to those things that go wrong on a date --acquaintances, you know, little things, miscommunications -- on pampered elite college campuses. MS. SOMMERS: I interviewed a young women at the University of Pennsylvania who came in in a short skirt and she was in the Women's Center, and I think she thought I was one of the sisterhood. And she said, "Oh, I just suffered a mini-rape." And I said, "What happened?" And she said, "A boy walked by me and said, `Nice legs'." You know? And that -- and this young woman considers this a form of rape!   MS. PAGLIA: That's right.   MR. WATTENBERG: What role in the development of this kind of thought that the idea of sexual harassment and whole Anita Hill thing have? Was that sort of a --   MS. PAGLIA: That's fairly recent, actually. It was in the late '80s that started. I mean, that was a late phase. I think probably the backlash against the excesses of sexual harassment have -- you know, have really finally weakened the hold of PC. I believe, for example, in moderate sexual harassment guidelines. I lobbied for their adoption at my university in 1986. But I put into my proposal a strict penalty for false accusation. All right? I don't like the situation where the word of any woman is weighed above the testimony of any man. And I was the only leading feminist that went out against Anita Hill. I think that that whole case was pile of crap.   MR. WATTENBERG: Why?   MS. PAGLIA: Well, I think it was absurd. First of all, again, totalitarian regime, okay, is where 10 years after the fact you're nominated now for a top position in your country and you are being asked to reconstruct lunch conversations that you had with someone who never uttered a peep. Okay? This is to Anita Hill: "All right, when he started to talk again about this pornographic films at lunch in the government cafeteria, what did you do?" "I tried to change the subject."Excuse me! I mean, that is ridiculous. I mean, so many of these cases --   MS. SOMMERS: He never touched her.   MS. PAGLIA: He never touched her. Okay? That was such a trumped-up case by the feminist establishment.   MR. WATTENBERG: Do you sign onto that?   MS. SOMMERS: Well, I've changed. I mean, initially I was just carried away with the media and thought, "Oh, Saint Anita." And later I thought about it and actually learned from some experts on sexual harassment that her behavior was completely untypical. She did not act -- the career lechers --usually a woman is repulsed and will not follow him from place to place, and usually there are many women who will come forward who have had the same experience. These things were not true in his case. It now seems to me quite likely that he was innocent of these charges.   MS. PAGLIA: Completely innocent. And I must say, as a teacher of 23 years, if someone offends you by speech, we must train women to defend themselves by speech. You cannot be always running to tribunals. Okay? Running to parent figures, authority figures, after the fact because you want to preserve your perfect, decorous, middle-class persona.   MR. WATTENBERG: This is Catherine MacKinnon, who says speech is rape?   MS. PAGLIA: Yes, I'm on the opposite wing. Catherine McKinnon is the anti-porn wing of feminism. I am on the radically pro-porn wing. I'm more radical than Christina. I --   MR. WATTENBERG: Are you pro-pornography?   MS. SOMMERS: For adults. I'm trying to be very careful about it for -- you know, I feel in our society -- for children. But I'm horrified at the puritanism and the sex phobia of feminism. How did that happen? I mean, feminism -- it used to be fun to be a feminist, and it used to have a lot of -- it attracted all sorts of lively women. Now you ask a group of young women on the college campus, "How many of you are feminists?" Very few will raise their hands because young women don't want to be associated with it anymore because they know it means male-bashing, it means being a victim, and it means being bitter and angry. And young women are not naturally bitter and angry.   MS. PAGLIA: We had a case at Penn State where an English instructor who was assigned to teach in an arts building where there had been a print of Goya's "Naked Maja," a great classic artwork, on the wall for 40 years. All right? She demanded it be taken down because she felt sexually harassed by it, because the students in the classroom were looking at it instead of her. Okay? Now, this is ridiculous. This is part of the puritanism of our culture. I want a kind of feminism that is pro-beauty, pro-sensuality. Okay? That is not embarrassed and upset by a spectacle of the beauty of the human body!   MR. WATTENBERG: What about this argument that came up recently that girls in elementary and high school are neglected by their teachers? Is that -- have either of you --   MS. PAGLIA: A bunch of crap.   MS. SOMMERS: It's a hoax.   MS. PAGLIA: A bunch of crap.   MS. SOMMERS: I mean, it's all -- it's really an incredible case of just junk science. The American Association of University Women hastily threw together a survey of 3,000 children and asked them about their sense of well-being and their self-esteem, and they never published it. It'a not -- it hasn't been replicated by scholars. Adolescents don't see significant differences -- the majority don't see significant differences -- between levels of self-esteem between young men and young women. Yet the AAUW said it was true. It's an advocacy group. Their membership was drying up. They were losing, you know, several thousand members a year. They needed an issue. They brought in a new group and they got on the gender-bias bandwagon and basically struck gold. They now -- you can call an 800 number. They have short-changing girls mugs and t-shirts. (Laughter.) And they were so positively reviewed in the media that they can use --   MS. PAGLIA: Oh, the media was utterly credulous. I couldn't believe it when MacNeil/Lehrer totally -- they fell for it like suckers that night.   MS. SOMMERS: Well, they would ask young men, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" And boys would say things like rock star or sports star. And girls would say lawyer and doctor. So they declared a glamor gap and said that there's a glamor gap, that girls don't dream their dreams. Well, most children don't have the talent to be rock stars. The sensible ones know this. So the way I would interpret those findings is that girls mature earlier and boys suffer a reality gap.   MS. PAGLIA: Right, right.   MS. SOMMERS: But this was the kind of question that was asked. Yet not one journalist that I'm aware of, except the Sacramento Bee, because they wrote to me and said, "We question this" -- they didn't do what Ken Ringle did at the Washington Post. They didn't send away for the data. They relied on the glossy brochures.   MR. WATTENBERG: Let me --   MS. PAGLIA: And the question of attention in the classroom, too. As experienced teachers, okay, this idea that you measure, okay, how much attention the teacher is paying to the boys and girls to determine how much that the student is valued, and it was discovered that the teacher was making more remarks to the boys. You're keeping them in line! Okay? The boys you have to say, "Shut up, be quiet! Do this thing. Are you doing your homework?" Like this. The girls, all right, they do their homework. They're very mature. And girls at that age are rather sensitive, and I as a teacher am very aware -- as a teacher of freshmen, all right -- that the girls are sitting there pleading with you with their eyes, "Don't embarrass me in front of the entire class." Okay? I'm very aware that I seem to be talking often to the boys. Tut that is just because they're so -- their egos are completely -- I mean, they're so unconflicted. Okay? They love attention. They're like yapping puppies. You know what I mean? They don't care about making fools of themselves once they start.   MR. WATTENBERG: The boys?   MS. PAGLIA: The boys make fools of themselves, blah, blah, blah, blah! Okay? The most intelligent students hang back. All right? I was very silent in class, myself. Okay? And so I -- and I like to just take notes. All right?   MR. WATTENBERG: That sounds like you're anti-male now. You're saying, "Now I'm offended."   MS. PAGLIA: No, no!   MS. SOMMERS: But they can be immature.   MS. PAGLIA: The boys are immature.   MS. SOMMERS: The AAUW would ask children: "I'm good at a lot of things." And you could say, all the time, some of the time, usually, but you know -- and a lot of little boys, the 11 to -- would say, "All the time, I'm good at everything all the time." And girls, being a little more reflective, will give a more nuanced answer. The AAUW counted everything except "always true" meaning that they were suffering from a dangerous lack of self-esteem. They declared an American tragedy. American girls don't believe in themselves.   MS. PAGLIA: Right, and the girls' are doing better in school.   MS. SOMMERS: Girls are getting better grades.   MS. PAGLIA: Right.   MS. SOMMERS: More go to college.   MS. PAGLIA: Right.   MS. SOMMERS: More boys drop out. More boys are getting into drugs and alcohol.   MR. WATTENBERG: And most of the teachers are women in any event --   MS. SOMMERS: Yes. And to add to that, it's supposed to be unconscious --   (Cross talk.)   MR. WATTENBERG: -- a point you made, I guess, in that.   MS. SOMMERS: Yeah.   MR. WATTENBERG: The -- what about the argument -- you hear less about it now, and perhaps the data has changed, but that women only make 59 cents for every dollar that --   MS. PAGLIA: First of all, what was omitted from that is what kind of jobs are women gravitating toward? I mean, Warren Farrell, in his book, "The Myth of Male Power," has a lot of statistics that show men are taking the dangerous, dirty jobs like roofing, okay, the kind of gritty things that pay more -- commissioned sales that are very unstable. Okay?   It appears that a lot of women -- where the real biases occur, okay, those barriers must be removed. But this is an inadequate kind of a figure. It doesn't allow for the fact that most women, in fact, in my experience, too, like nice clean, safe offices, nice predictable hours and so on, and they don't want to, like, knock themselves out in that kind of way. I mean, every time I pass -- after reading Warren Farrell's book, every time I pass men doing that roofing tar, okay, breathing those toxic fumes and so on, okay, I have a renewed respect for the kind of sacrifices that men have made.   MR. WATTENBERG: That 59-cent number --   MS. SOMMERS: It hasn't been for --   MR. WATTENBERG: -- is now 71, but even that was --   MR. SOMMERS: It's now 71 cents, and that is not correct because you have to control for age, length of time in the work place. And if you look at younger women now, the age -- the wage gap is closed. It's now -- when they have children, it's 90 cents. But if they don't have children, it's now closer to what --   MS. PAGLIA: It would be outrageous if people were doing exactly the same thing and being paid a different wage. Okay? But that is not at all the basis for this figure.   MR. WATTENBERG: Legalized abortion has come to be viewed as the central issue of the feminist movement. Is that an appropriate spot for it to be? That --   MS. SOMMERS: It's an important issue. I believe, in choice, but I think there's an obsession with feminists with that issue, which is -- and it's also very -- it leaves a lot of women out of the movement. There should be a place in women's studies, there should be a place in women's scholarship for traditionally religious women. There are Christian -- conservative Christian women who are scholars, Orthodox Jewish women who are scholars, Islamic women who are scholars. Why don't -- why isn't there any place for them in women's studies? Because there's a litmus test --   MS. PAGLIA: Yes.   MS. SOMMERS: -- and you have to be pro-choice or you need not apply.   MS. PAGLIA: I'm radically pro-choice, unrestricted right to abortion. However, I have respect for the pro-life side, and I am disgusted by the kind of rhetoric that I get. I support the abortion rights groups with money and so on, but I cannot stand the kind of stuff that comes in my mailbox, right, which stereotypes all pro-life people as being fanatics, misogynists, and so on, radical and far, you know, right and so on. I mean, it is   MS. SOMMERS: It is so condescending and so elitist.   MS. PAGLIA: It's condescending. It's insulting. It's elitist. It's anti-intellectual. It's a deformed --   MS. SOMMERS: It's very anti-intellectual. The arguments on abortion philosophically -- and I teach applied ethics -- if you really understand the issues, you have to have some questions, especially about second trimester abortions where you are quite likely dealing with an individual.   MR. WATTENBERG: What is your view today? How would the average American woman, if we could ever distill such a body, how does she view this new feminism?   MS. SOMMERS: Well, the average American women, first of all, is rather fond of men. Okay? She has a husband or a father or a brother or -- you know? So the male-bashing is out of control right now. I mean -- and if you look at a lot of the statistics that I deconstruct in my book. You know, that men are responsible for birth defects, that men -- Naomi Wolff has a factoid she has since corrected, but she says 150,000 girls die every year starving themselves to death from anorexia. This was in Gloria Steinem's book. It got into Ann Lander's column. It's in women's studies textbooks. The correct figure, according to the Center for Disease Control, is closer to 100 deaths a year, not 150,000.   MS. PAGLIA: Three-thousand times exaggerated or something.   MS. SOMMERS: It's, you know -- so Naomi Wolff put is this way. She said young -- it's a holocaust against women's bodies. We're being starved not by nature, but by men. And --   MS. PAGLIA: They want to blame the media for anorexia, when in point of fact anorexia plays white middle-class households. It is a response to something incestuous going on within these nuclear families.   MS. SOMMERS: Mainly upper-middle-class --   MS. PAGLIA: Yes, right.   MS. SOMMERS: -- overachieving white girls.   MS. PAGLIA: Yeah.   MS. SOMMERS: And by the way, if 150,000 of these girls where dying, you would need -- it would be -- you would need to have ambulances on hand at places where they gather like Wellesley College graduation and like you do at major sporting events. (Laughter.) But why didn't anyone -- it's funny, but no one caught the error.   MS. PAGLIA: No one caught it. The media was totallyservile! Every word that came out of Gloria Steinem's mouth or Patricia Ireland's mouth is treated as gospel truth. For 20 years the major media, when they want "what is the women's view?" they turn to NOW. Okay? NOW does not speak for American women. It does not speak even for all feminists.   MR. WATTENBERG: NOW is the National Organization --   MS. PAGLIA: National Organization for Women, which --   MR. WATTENBERG: National Organization for Women.   MS. PAGLIA: -- for Women, which Betty Friedan founded, but which soon expelled even her. Okay? They've been taken over by a certain kind of ideology. All right? I'm in constant war with them as a dissident feminist and so on, and -- you know, and it's taken me a long time, you know, to fight my way into the public eye.   MR. WATTENBERG: All right, let me ask this question: What are the policy implications of this idea of feminine dictumhood?   MS. SOMMERS: It's a disaster. These women are -- I will give them one thing. They're brilliant work-shoppers, networkers, organizers, moving in, taking over infrastructure. They're busybodies. There has never been a more effective, you know, army of busybodies. And they know how to work the system. So they will hastily throw together a study designed to show women are medically neglected or women have a massive loss of self-esteem -- one in four. And then they move to key senators. Senator Biden seems to be especially vulnerable.   MS. PAGLIA: Oh! What a weak link. What a weak link.   MS. SOMMERS: Patricia Schroeder, Senator Kennedy. But it's Republicans, too. They're quite carried away. Congressman Ramstad from Minneapolis.   MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, they're afraid of the TV commercials running against them, which is --   MS. SOMMERS: That's right.   MS. PAGLIA: Yeah, that's right.   MS. SOMMERS: And then we're getting -- we now have a gender-bias bill that went through Congress that's going to provide millions of dollars for gender-bias workshops. What the politicians don't realize is that feminism is a multi-million dollar industry. The gender-bias industry is thriving. They're the work-shoppers and the networkers out there.   MS. PAGLIA: The bureaucrats are really profitting --   MS. SOMMERS: Consultants and bureaucrats.   MS. PAGLIA: It's a tremendous waste of money.   MS. SOMMERS: And it's not based on truth.   MS. PAGLIA: It should go into education. That money should go directly into education to improve the system.   MS. SOMMERS: I spoke to a teacher yesterday who taught in Brooklyn, and there were no books to teach English.   MS. PAGLIA: Oh, pathetic!~   MS. SOMMERS: And yet there are going to be -- there's going to be $5 million now, plus a lot more from the education bill, for workshops on gender-bias in the classroom, which is a non-problem compared to far more serious problems. So I consider many feminists to be opportunists. They move in on real problems. There is a problem of violence in our schools. They'll turn it into a problem of sexual harassment --   MS. PAGLIA: Yes.   MS. SOMMERS: -- which is nothing compared to the problem of violence and instability. They'll move into under-performance of our kids.   MS. PAGLIA: All this money should be going into keeping public libraries open so that the poor can go in and take out a book the way my immigrants, you know, parents were able to and the way I was able to. It's outrageous that we have the closing-down of public libraries, and the conditions of inner-city schools is disgraceful. And all this money wasted going to bureaucrats?   MR. WATTENBERG: Camille, let me ask you this: Does the case you make undermine traditional family values? Would a conservative listening to what you are talking about in terms of sensuality and sexuality and pornography and so on, would they say you are undermining and corroding family values in America?   MS. PAGLIA: Probably they would, but my argument in all my books is rather large. I say that Western culture was formed as two great traditions -- the Judeo-Christian and the Greco-Roman -- and they have contributed to each other and they're in conflict with each other. And I -- what I -- my libertarian theory is of a public sphere/private sphere. Government must remain out of the private sphere for abortion and drug use and sodomy and so on. The public sphere is shared by both traditions. I have respect for the Judeo-Christian side. I'm calling in "The Activism in Feminism" for a renewed respect for religion, even though I'm an atheist. So I think that there is much in my thinking that I think would reassure people of traditional family values.   MR. WATTENBERG: Let me ask you this question to close of both of you: What should the 1990s equity feminist believe in and believe remains to be done for women?   MS. SOMMERS: The first thing, I think we have to save young women from the feminists. That's at the top of my agenda. And I say that as a very committed feminist philosopher. I went into philosophy. It was a field traditionally dominated by males. I got my job as a professor to encourage more young women to enter this field, to be analytic thinkers, to be logicians and metaphyscians. And, instead, in feminist philosophy classes you'll often have young women sitting around honoring emotions and denigrating the great thinkers instead of, you know, studying them, mastering them and benefitting from them.   MR. WATTENBERG: So you --   MS. SOMMERS: That's one thing. The other thing, more traditional feminist issue, is probably the double-shift. As women, we're doing a lot of things men traditionally did; they're not doing what we traditionally did. And so women do bear more responsibility at home. But if we're going to solve that problem, I think we have to approach men as friends --   MS. PAGLIA: We have to -- yes --   MS. SOMMERS: -- in a spirit of respect instead of calling them proto-rapists and harassers and -- MS. PAGLIA: The time for hostility to men is past. There was that moment. I was part of it. I have punched men, kicked men, hit them over the head with umbrellas. Okay? I am openly confrontational with men. As an open lesbian, I have been -- you know, I express my anger to men directly. I don't get in a group and whine about men. So, oddly, I give men a break and admit the greatness of male, you know, achievements and so on. What we have to do now is get over that anger toward men, all right, and we have to bring the sexes back together. Reconciliation between the sexes is the first order of business.   MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Thank you, Christina Sommers and Camille Paglia for your critique of modern feminism. We will be hearing an opposing view on a future program. And thank you. We enjoy hearing from our audience. Please send comments and questions to: New River Media, 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20036. Or we can be reached via e-mail at thinktv@aol.com. For Think Tank, I'm Ben Wattenberg. ___________________________

FEMINISM UNDER FIRE Feminism Under Fire is the first systematic analysis of modern-day feminism and the personal memoir of Ellen R. Klein, a philosopher coming of age and coming to terms with feminism as it relates to university politics and teaching. Klein entered graduate school and the world of professional philosophy in 1984 and soon became aware of sexism existing in classrooms, texts, and the real world. She attended a national conference on feminist philosophy in 1988 and found herself questioning her commitment to feminism. As fate would have it, she left the conference determined to learn everything she could about feminist philosophy and was asked to teach a course entitled "Feminist Philosophy." Circumstances and rigorous research have enabled her to offer the critical analysis of feminism found in Feminism Under Fire. Restrained, if not repressed, by the current climate of political correctness, mainstream philosophers have been reluctant to attack feminism, instead relegating it to the status of a crazy aunt in the attic of the discipline. Klein climbs the forbidden steps and opens the door to a critique of contemporary feminism. She takes on the task of differentiating between feminist philosophy, non feminist philosophy, and feminist non-philosophy. She analyses feminist epistemology, philosophy of science, and pedagogy. She helps the crazy aunt down the staircase and leads her into the dinner parlour. Feminism Under Fire is ruthlessly analytical yet eminently accessible. Klein's lucid and provocative prose undresses academic feminism and exposes its pretensions, dogmas, fallacies, and peccadilloes. Klein recognizes the rampant sexism that permeates academia, but believes modern-day feminism is "intellectually dishonest and scandalously unscholarly" and even more oppressive toward women. She concludes that the true way to feminist liberation is not to fight against the philosophical method, but to embrace it. Feminism Under Fire is sure to be a popular weapon in the gender battles and the culture war currently raging in America. Furthermore, it should appeal to everyone with an interest in the tumultuous and far-reaching implications, both academic and philosophical, of contemporary feminism. Ellen R. Klein is assistant professor of philosophy at the University of North Florida, Jacksonville. ___________________________

No Dad at Home 20/20 ABC TV NEWS REPORT Wednesday, November 17, 1999   CHARLES GIBSON If you have been watching television this week, you know ABCNEWS has been taking an in-depth look at some of the problems facing boys in a series we call America's Sons. Tonight, a population that's growing at an alarming rate Ñ boys being raised without a father in the house. Lynn Sherr discovered that, while it's not easy, single mothers can learn to listen and talk with their sons, but first they have to learn to decipher the code. LYNN SHERR (Voiceover) For Sharyn Anti and her 11-year-old son, Gillon, Sunday is for church, a source of strength. And these days, Sharyn says she needs all the help she can get. (Sharyn Anti and Gillon in church) Unidentified Clergyman Lord, remember your church throughout the world. SHERR (Voiceover) A single mother, living on the north shore of Massachusetts, Sharyn says Sunday services are among the few times she is at peace with her son. When they get home, there is very little of it. (Church service; Sharyn and Gillon praying at church) GILLON This is not how I'm going to eat. I'm going to eat how I usually eat, and you cannot do anything about it. You can't. This is what I want to do. You have no control over what I do. SHERR (Voiceover) With their permission, 20/20 placed two cameras in Sharyn's home. (Video of Sharyn and Gillon having confrontation at home) GILLON You're not doing this to me. Ms. SHARYN ANTI I asked you to get dressed. You're still not dressed. GILLON I'm doing my work, like you told me to do. SHERR (Voiceover) Eight hours a day for three straight weeks, the cameras recorded every single mother's nightmare, a boy she can't control. (Video of Gillon throwing tantrum) GILLON I don't care if I don't get dressed. This is even more important. Ms. ANTI No, it isn't. GILLON Yes, it is. Ms. ANTI If you had gotten dressed when you got up Ñ don't hit me. Don't hit me. GILLON Shut up and get away from me! Ms. ANTI There are days you have that where, especially after we have a big, like a big fight or a blowup, you know, and I just feel like, ÔOh, is it ever going to get any better?' SHERR What Sharyn Anti faces in bringing up a son without dad around is echoed in a growing number of American households. Today there are more boys living without their fathers here than in any country in the world. Unidentified Boy #1 Without a father, we cannot follow talks, and sometimes late at night I think, ÔHow come I don't have a father?' and I wish I had one. Unidentified Boy #2 Well, I've never gotten mad, but I've gotten pretty sad to where I cried a lot. Unidentified Boy #3 Every time I think about him, I feel pain and sadness. SHERR (Voiceover) The ache in the heart for an absent father makes many boys sad and angry. The question is, can they ever get beyond the pain without a dad around. (Boys talking to Lynn Sherr; video of Gillon and Sharyn at home) Ms. ANTI Your dad wants to talk to you... SHERR (Voiceover) It has traditionally been assumed that this acting out, which child psychologists say can be a sign of repressed emotion, is something single mothers are powerless to handle. (Sharyn and Gillon in confrontation at home) Dr. WILLIAM POLLACK I absolutely disagree. SHERR (Voiceover) Dr. William Pollack, a child psychologist, says moms can provide much of what a boy needs from his father. In his book, ÒReal Boys,Ó he says single moms can find out what's really troubling their boys and learn to handle them the way many dads do instinctively. And he says one key is to understand that their boys communicate very differently from girls. (Dr. William Pollack; cover of Pollack's book, ÒReal BoysÓ; men with young boys at park) Dr. POLLACK Well, little boys in our society are still brought up according to what I call the boy code. They're told to be rough and tough and stand on their own two feet. And they have to be a big little man, sort of a little John Wayne at five. Very rarely do boys cry in public, because they feel ashamed or they are ashamed. SHERR (Voiceover) Pollack says if moms don't realize that, they may miss that the outer toughness can be hiding problems. For example, when Gillon throws things around the house he is really covering up an underlying sadness, but it's not obvious. When we asked whether things would be different if his dad were there, he said (Video of Gillon and Sharyn in confrontation at home; Gillon and Sharyn talking to Sherr) GILLON No. SHERR (Voiceover) In fact, during the day 20/20 spent with Gillon, he was reluctant to talk about his father, who had left the home when Gillon was five, and now sees him once a month. But with his mother's permission Dr. Pollack easily drew him out, using what he calls "action talk." (Gillon playing basketball; Gillon talking to Pollack) Dr. POLLACK It could be playing a game of hoops. It could be, dare I say, playing a video game. But it's an activity. SHERR And while they're engaging in that action? Dr. POLLACK Then you bring up the feelings and the talk, and then all of a sudden, the boy can open up. SHERR (Voiceover) Watch as Dr. Pollack encouraged the youngster to play with his toy soldiers and later to draw. During action talk, Gillon finally admitted that he was missing his dad. (Gillon and Pollack playing with toy soldiers; Gillon drawing) Dr. POLLACK Your parents got divorced, right? GILLON Yeah. Dr. POLLACK What was that like? Do you think you might have been sad then? GILLON Probably. Dr. POLLACK Probably were? GILLON Mm-hmm. Dr. POLLACK What makes you think you were probably sad? GILLON Just because he left. Dr. POLLACK Because your dad left the house? GILLON Yeah. Dr. POLLACK And that he never came back? GILLON Mm-hmm. Dr. POLLACK It might hurt inside to remember? GILLON Yeah. SHERR (Voiceover) Notice that Gillon is only talking because his hands are engaged in another activity. That's action talk. Dr. Pollack says single moms must also recognize the cues a boy gives when he is ready to talk. Again, it's not that boys never want to share their feelings, it's just that they indicate their willingness to do so differently from the way girls do. (Gillon drawing; Group of girls) Dr. POLLACK He won't say, ÔMom, let's have a heart-to-heart personal conversation.' He'll say, ÔIs dinner ready? Is it time to go visit dad?' And what he's saying is, ÔI want to communicate with you.' not necessarily talk. SHERR Excuse me? ÔIs dinner ready?' is a kid wanting to communicate with you? Dr. POLLACK Absolutely. That's the boy's way of saying, in a way to save face without saying, ÔI've got pain, I need help,' ÔMom, let's get in touch in some way.' SHERR (Voiceover) Believe it or not, you are watching Gillon trying to get in touch. (Video of Gillon and Sharyn doing homework together) GILLON Hello, Gillon. Want to see my nose hair? SHERR (Voiceover) Dr. Pollack says Gillon is giving clues that he wants to talk about the fight they had earlier. (Video of Gillon and Sharyn at home) Ms. ANTI What did I say about the chair? GILLON Sorry. Ms. ANTI You are going to break the chair. I don't... GILLON Sorry. Sorry. How did you get this chair, anyways? SHERR (Voiceover) ÔHow did you get the chair?' Don't think for a minute that this 11-year-old boy is interested in where mom bought the furniture. Dr. Pollack says it's a cue. But Sharyn doesn't get it, and misses an opportunity to talk with her boy by insisting he go back to his homework. (Video of Gillon and Sharyn at kitchen table) Ms. ANTI Do you have 27 done yet? SHERR What you're saying is that the single mom needs to be more sensitive to her son and try to get him to communicate with her? Is that right? Dr. POLLACK More sensitive to the kinds of ways that boys may communicate, which is through action and through cues. SHERR (Voiceover) What happens when you miss opportunities to communicate with your son can be seen in another family where we placed our cameras. (Jamie Marshall and Linda in kitchen) LINDA How much homework have you gotten done? Mr. JAMIE MARSHALL I've done the math. LINDA Come here, talk to me so I can see you. Mr. MARSHALL No. SHERR (Voiceover) 14-year-old Jamie Marshall, from Philadelphia, is a creative, bright student. (Jamie playing outdoors) Offscreen Voice That's great. SHERR (Voiceover) But while the baggy pants and spiked hair are his way to stand out, in fact he is disturbingly typical of boys without fathers in the home Ñ hiding his sadness, pretending there is nothing wrong, and that mom can do it all. (Jamie with Sherr in park) Mr. MARSHALL At least from my experience she's Ñ a lot of times she's been able to, like, sometimes play both roles. SHERR (Voiceover) His mother, Linda, works as a chef for a catering company. She never married Jamie's father, who still lives in the area and, although they talk on the phone each week, sees Jamie only occasionally. Essentially, Linda has raised Jamie by herself since he was born. (Linda at work preparing food) LINDA I think we have a very close relationship, and I think that we're friends, for the most part. You put your fingers like this. SHERR (Voiceover) They are friends when they cook dinner together. But afterwards, it is a nightly battle to get him to do his homework. (Linda showing Jamie how to cut onion) LINDA Where are you on your social studies? Mr. MARSHALL I'm doing it! LINDA You're on section one, section two? Mr. MARSHALL One, leave me alone. SHERR (Voiceover) Something is bothering Jamie, although he doesn't want to talk about it. Even I could see how difficult it is for him to say what's really on his mind. (Jamie and Linda walking with Sherr in park) SHERR Do you feel sometimes that you'd rather have a man to go to in the household? Mr. MARSHALL There's some things that I just don't feel like telling my mom. And a lot of the time in those cases I just talk to my friends or whatever. SHERR (Voiceover) What terrible secret is Jamie telling his friends but hiding from his mom? At our request, Dr. Pollack tried action talk again. He encouraged Jamie to draw, and as the boy sketched this figure, half angel, half devil, only then did he begin to talk about how sad he was over the death some years ago of a close friend of his mother's, who had become the most important male figure in his life. His mom thought he had gotten over it. (Jamie and friend walking to school; Jamie talking to Pollack; Jamie drawing; photo of Jamie as young child with adult male friend) Mr. MARSHALL I've gotten to the point thinking about suicide and stuff. Dr. POLLACK Do you think she knows how depressed sand and suicidal sometimes you might feel? Mr. MARSHALL Sometimes I don't Ñ I like won't talk to her about it just because I don't want to worry her or whatever. Dr. POLLACK So sometimes you want some space first. Mr. MARSHALL Yeah. Dr. POLLACK And sometimes you feel it will overwhelm her? Mr. MARSHALL Yeah. SHERR (Voiceover) But moms need not feel overwhelmed, he says, if they use some of his methods. Single moms may be able to communicate with their sons before the problems start, the way their absent fathers might have done. Give your boys space, he says. Listen for cues, try action talk. Single moms may not be the same as dads, but armed with these tools, they can be powerful indeed. (Jamie and Linda talking; Gillon talking to Pollack; Sharyn and Gillon in happy moment) GILLON You're smiling, mom. You're smiling. Ms. ANTI But not for long. 20/20: Single Moms and their Sons Content and programming copyright 1999 ABC News. Transcript by Federal Document Clearing House, Inc. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to ABC News. This transcript may not be copied, resold or redistributed in any media. ___________________________

Southern Baptist decree that wives should `submit' angers some June 11, 1998 Chicago Sun-Times BY ERNEST TUCKER STAFF REPORTER   The Southern Baptist Convention's declaration that women should ``submit graciously'' to their husbands has angered some churchwomen, but leaders contend it signals strong support for the family.   ``I'm very frustrated but not surprised. This is another indication of them saying this type of hierarchical model is the only one they see in Scripture,'' said Cheryl Hammock, 52, of Chicago, a lifelong Southern Baptist. ``I don't read those passages the same way.''   Now a full-time volunteer with several organizations, including the 60-member Cornell Baptist Church, 5001 S. Ellis, where she and her husband have belonged since 1968, Hammock said she would pray over a decision to discuss splitting their moderate congregation from the Southern Baptists.   ``If you back up and talk about both husband and wife being submissive to Christ ... it is more an equal leadership model. I think that's what Christ would have us portray,'' she said.   However, at least one Chicago expert said the Southern Baptists may benefit from this strong ``countercultural'' public stance, which is based on New Testament passages, including Paul's Letter to the Ephesians.   ``They may pick up new members who are hungry for authority,'' said Martin Marty, University of Chicago professor emeritus, who said this hierarchical stance was in line with ones taken by conservative groups such as the Promise Keepers.   More than 8,000 delegates representing 16 million Southern Baptists attended Tuesday's vote in Salt Lake City. The convention delegates added four paragraphs to the ``Baptist Faith and Message,'' the first time in 35 years the statement has been amended.   The article states that a husband has ``the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect and to lead his family,'' and adds that in turn ``a wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.''   ``It sounds like they are following a very basic statement out of Paul's writings,'' said the Rev. Jim Queen, executive director of the Chicago Metropolitan Baptist Association. His group, with some 45,000 members in Cook and DuPage counties, is among the largest of the area's Baptist groups.   R. Scott Appleby, director of the Cushwa Center for the study of Roman Catholicism at the University of Notre Dame, said the word ``graciously,'' which is not in the Bible, was meant to convey the voluntary nature of this non-binding action, which carries no punishment if broken.   He said Roman Catholic bishops took a more liberal interpretation four years ago, stressing ``mutual'' submission of husbands and wives.   Some Baptists were upset with the convention's action.   ``This bodes very badly for women,'' said the Rev. Susan Lockwood, the former pastor of Cornell Baptist who left three years ago to join the more moderate American Baptists. ``The fundamentalists consider this a holy war--take no prisoners.''   And Alice Gleeson, of the First Baptist Church of Palatine said, ``I have a problem with it because the way it's phrased is not the way it is in the Scriptures.'' ___________________________

LONGING FOR FATHERS by Jesse Peterson [Reprinted from Issues & Views, Spring 1996]   While in Prattville, Alabama, I accepted an invitation to speak at a youth detention center of approximately 57 young men. The theme or topic of discussion centered around the father. Hardly any of these youngsters had experienced a relationship with their own fathers. Some spoke of stepfathers. Their entire life experience had been the influence of the woman, which had totally consumed their spirit, mind and body. These young men, inmates or wards of the state, thought like women, and they acted like women. They were highly emotional, intensely angry, and very reactive. They had no respect for manhood.   The young men spoke of their fathers with strong contempt, saying that `men are no good and they are weak,' and that there was nothing that a man could teach them that a woman could not teach. Some of the youth commented that when they look at their surroundings, they could only see weak men, such as drug addicts, unemployed men, and men who were not in charge of the home.   One of the younger boys told how his father had left him, married a woman with other children, and had nothing further to do with him. No contact, no relationship with him at all. He described feeling very hurt about this. Eventually, most of the 57 boys at this center stood up and admitted their desire and need for a good father; and how deep within them they longed for their fathers (as we all do). These young men had no inkling or idea of what it is to be or become a man.   When I look back and see what has happened to the black family and community, due to the absence of good fathers, I shudder to think of the destruction to come. And I believe that if this issue is not dealt with, in all honesty, we will one day have such a state of disorder that it will be totally beyond our capability to control.   When I observed and spoke to those young men in the center, I could see that truly their need was not for affirmative action, not welfare, not programs, but the crucial need in the lives of those young men was the attention of a father. It was, finally, heartwarming to observe some of the boys in this group, who stood and shared the need they felt for a close father figure.   In Michigan, I had the opportunity of being invited to speak at an affirmative action hearing, that was held at the Capitol building. There were representatives from various groups and organizations, such as the NAACP, etc. Michigan, along with California, is making an attempt to right a wrong by abolishing affirmative action. This audience basically was made up of blacks, homosexuals and liberal white womenÐmost of whom, collectively, hate America.   Speaker after speaker, went to the rostrum and begged and lied about the tremendous need for affirmative action. The white feminists, who were only interested in pushing their own agenda, implied that black people somehow are unable to take care of themselves without the special assistance of government programs. That certainly conveys a message to me, that they don't think very highly of blacks as a people. It is even more sad that there were black representatives from the state who were in agreement with this notion. Black liberals are simply selfish deceivers, whose first priorities are themselves, not the black race.   In short, I advised the meeting to get rid of affirmative action, as it causes dissension and hatred between races. Also, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been liberal white females. Affirmative action was never intended to help black people. Once again, blacks have been used. I further stated that the problem is not lack of opportunity, not white people, not racism. The problem stems from the lack of strong families with parents who hold sound, godly principles.   Black men need to overcome anger, so they can take back their lives from the enemies who parade as friends. They must become heads of their families again, and begin to appreciate being productive citizens. Then and only then will we begin to see a change in the black family, which will extend to the community and to the country at large.   Jesse Peterson is president of Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (B.O.N.D.), a national organization of men dedicated to `rebuilding the family by rebuilding the man.' (See article in Issues & Views, Spring 1994.) For information, contact: B.O.N.D., P.O. Box 86253, Los Angeles, CA 90086. ___________________________

The Civilizing Power of Marriage and Family [Review of George Gilder's VISIBLE MAN, new edition published by ICS and Discovery Institute; first published in 1978. Reprinted from Issues & Views, Fall/Winter 1996]   For reasons that have been endlessly chronicled and analyzed, tens of thousands of black men have removed themselves from playing productive roles as fathers and husbands. These men are in prisons across the country, roam the streets of cities and towns, and are attached to activities that undermine the cohesion of every community they pass through. It is this missing masculine drive and energy that is at the heart of why the poor black community continues in its downward spiral, seemingly to oblivion. The loss of productive masculine input is an incalculable one. The condition of the black masses will never be altered until men are restored to their right and proper place within the bonds of family life. For those who hold firmly to the soundness of the previous statements, George Gilder's "Visible Man" has long been a special book. In it, Gilder first introduced a basic theme that he developed in later works, that is, when bureaucratic institutions undermine or replace the economic function of men, men are unlikely to play positive roles in the ongoing sustenance of community life. Society suffers, and may not long survive, when men are no longer under the influence of what Gilder calls, "the civilizing power of marriage and family." An End to Family In the mid-1970s, while writing a series of articles in Albany, New York, Gilder followed the life of Mitchell Sam Brewer, a young black man in his early 20s. The two men developed a rapport, as they spent almost two years in an unusual friendship. Brewer's background was ghetto typical: a record of arrests for violence, that included assault, disorderly conduct and rape. Charges were usually dropped, forgotten, or reduced. His childhood also had been ghetto typical, that is, spent in the company of women, with no close ties to men or male authority. Brewer was one of the thousands of fatherless and unsocialized youth who learned early that he need never take responsibility for most of the choices he eventually would make throughout his life. Gilder shows that the reason why men like Brewer can assume such an apathetic posture is due to a welfare state gone berserk. Citing anthropology and common sense, Gilder shows the dangers that come when men are released from normal societal pressures to play their special role as chief providers for the families they make. To release men from this primary economic role that they have filled throughout the ages, and to make it possible for women to financially support out-of-wedlock children, puts an end to the need for family. The release of large numbers of young men from the bonds and disciplines of marriage and family, says Gilder, always leads to a threat to social stability. Men find structure and purpose and become responsible men through marriage and work. Without a stable family order, in which adult men civilize the young men, terror necessarily rules. No array of daycare centers, police powers, social welfare agencies, psychiatric or drug clinics, special schools and prisons, can have any significant effect. When men are deprived of any family role and robbed of male discipline, they will turn to the perennial male equalizers, that is, greater physical strength and aggression. Welfare as a Trap Through the life of Sam Brewer, Gilder describes how welfare becomes a snare to men, not because they themselves are on the dole, but because the women are. With no reason to hold jobs, and the uncertain remuneration from their criminal activities, these men are assured of a roof over their heads (when desired) by a succession of compliant welfare mothers. As one relationship breaks down, and he loses his bed and board, the rolling stone simply maneuvers himself into the apartment of another welfare recipient. In effect, these men are just as dependent on the provisions of welfare as are the women. For both men and women, all society's incentives are against work and marriage. In another of his books, "Men and Marriage," Gilder tells of the seductive call of welfare to young girls: "On your 16th birthday, the government will offer you a chance for independence, in an apartment of your own; free housing, medicine, and a combination of welfare payments and food stamps worth several hundred dollars a month." Gilder says that this may not seem like much to the sociologists, who like to deny the impact of welfare on illegitimacy, but these benefits are hugely beyond the pittance offered a girl by her mother, and far beyond the earnings of any of the men she is likely to meet. "It is all offered on one crucial condition. You must bear an illegitimate child." It is not surprising, says Gilder, that, faced with such an overwhelming inducement from the state "millions of young women have indeed launched such children into the welfare culture." It is now so common, so routine, that it has become a way of life. The chief cause of poverty, says Gilder, is the utter failure of socialization of young men through marriage. Yet nearly all the attention, subsidies, training opportunities and so-called therapies of the welfare state focus on helping women function without marriage. The welfare state attacks the problem of the absent husband by rendering him entirely superfluous. In the black community, we see the consequences of these malevolent social policies on a monumental scale. In the life of Sam Brewer, we see the consequences up close. After a brief stint in the Marines, Brewer returned to civilian life and Albany. In the fashion typical of men from his undisciplined and rootless background, with no real goals to work toward, he blew a good job after engaging in a fight. Throughout his time in military service, he had hoped to have greater access to or custody of an illegitimate daughter, who had been born before his departure. These attempts were thwarted at every turn. Gilder writes that Brewer, "had not yet fully comprehended the Catch-22 of American manhood. Although a man might need women and children most when he is moneyless and dejected, it is precisely such a man, at those times, who is barred from all durable access to family life. Sam was seeking from women and children the very sense of manhood and affirmation that he would have to have already if he was to get them." From this point, Brewer's life now follows in earnest the familiar pattern of the street thug, the marginal man, who deals drugs, makes the requisite trips in and out of prison, and subsists off women. Welfare Provides the Cop-Out It is this distorted relationship between men and women that is the heart of Gilder's story. A distortion that will prevail, says Gilder, for as long as feminist ideology maintains the power it now has to shape the social policies of the welfare state. Gilder calls the loss of young black men an "unspeakable social tragedy." A tragedy that will continue, "as long as welfare feminism is the regnant ideology of government, ravaging the lives and families of the poor by emasculating and demoralizing their men." Gilder writes, "The differences between the sexes are the single most important fact of human society." The drive to deny this basic fact, "in the name of women's liberation, marital openness, sexual equality, erotic consumption, or homosexual romanticism, must be one of the most quixotic crusades in the history of the species." Yet advocates of all these "freedoms" would take our society into uncharted waters, where no other social group has ever ventured before. Spurred on by what Gilder calls an "imperious feminism," all public institutions in society, from government to academia to Hollywood, work to enhance women's sexual independence and aggressiveness. In defiance of anthropological evidence and centuries of tradition, feminist ideologues behave as if the immutable differences between the sexes can be wished away or, more accurately, legislated away. The black community should be viewed as a virtual feminist paradise, since its women possess, through their ties to government, financial authority, while its men are economically and socially subordinate. Gilder describes Sam Brewer's fits and starts, as he takes jobs and loses them. Men like Brewer just can't break the cycle. They know what men are supposed to do, and are expected to do under normal conditions-but welfare provides them with the option to cop-out altogether. Gilder says, "All the sociological prattle about the tradition and strength of black matriarchy cannot obscure the tragedy of a culture where the vast majority of children grow up without fathers." It is male authority, he insists, that is the solution to the problem of the underclass, not re-hashed social programs. Not a Favorite of the Feminists Does it come as a surprise to learn that, in 1974, Gilder was denounced as "Pig of the Year" by the leading feminist group, the National Organization for Women? He appears to wear this credential proudly. There is probably not a feminist who, at one time or other, has not wanted to wrap her fingers around George Gilder's throat. He is everything that feminists despise-white, male, brilliant, and unapologetic. He is a foremost specialist on high technology and economics, and this is the hat he usually wears when not writing his social works that enrage liberals. His technical books bear titles like, "The Quantum Revolution in Microcosm," and his magazine articles tell of "The Coming of the Fibersphere." Yet, when he writes about men gone astray, he writes from his head and his soul, as a man aware of his own human nature. He is not observing from some lofty perch, but seems to see the potential for personal demise in any man who is denied the guidance of community and male authority-and is then further confronted with the powerful seductions of the welfare state. When it comes to the effects of the welfare trap, Gilder says the situation is not essentially different among whites. Poor white men can no more compete with the benefits of welfare than can blacks. "For steadiness of income and variety of benefits, no normal man, white or black, can compete with welfare as a provider. Who of us anywhere works hard without a system of constraints and necessities, whether social or financial pressure, normally combined in the demands of women?" What happened to Sam Brewer and the men in his Albany neighborhood is what can happen to any men, once the fundamental underpinnings of culture are destabilized or destroyed. "It is necessity," says Gilder, "that is the father, not only of invention but also of character. The welfare state takes away far more than it ever gives. The problem is not wasted money. The problem is that welfare wastes people." Workfare and Taxes Regarding welfare reform, Gilder sees no value in so-called workfare. Besides the potential that a workfare program has to further expand the welfare state, he sees in it the same direct attacks on the male role of provider. And Gilder has much to say about the perversity of taxation. As the government destroys families at the bottom end of the economic scale through welfare, it also works to destroy them at the upper levels through taxation. In "Men and Marriage," he describes the impact of changes in tax structure and other government policies: "Since 1950, all increases in personal taxation have fallen on married couples with children. While mothers of illegitimate children receive massive benefits, and single or 'child-free' couples have faced no increase in average taxation, taxes on couples with children have risen between 100 and 400 percent. A key reason is the evaporation of the child deduction, which would be worth some $6,000 today if it had risen apace with incomes and inflation since World War II." There could not be a better demonstration of the truth of the maxim that, "the power to tax is the power to destroy." In his other books on social issues, "Men and Marriage," "Wealth and Poverty," "Naked Nomads: Unmarried Men in America," Gilder continues to drive home his major theme about the impact of marriage and family on social order, as he does in "Visible Man." In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Gilder referred to economist Thomas Sowell as a "brave Olympian sage." Along with Sowell, Gilder deserves to wear this mantle as well. All books by George Gilder are in bookstores or can be purchased from Discovery Institute, 1201 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; (206) 287-3144. Copyright © 1996 Issues & Views Walter E. Williams, Chairman, Department of Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA J.A. Parker, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Washington, DC   ___________________________

Will boys be boys? Society is turning against boys when what they need is help U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT Outlook 7/17/2001 By John Leo   In my first daughter's prekindergarten class, run by parents in Greenwich Village, the children were from all sorts of ethnic and class backgrounds, but they always sorted themselves out by sex. The girls sat quietly at tables, drawing and talking. The boys all ran around screaming like maniacs, bouncing off the walls, raising so much ear-splitting commotion that my first reaction each day was a fleeting urge to strangle them all. I do not believe that these male tots were acting out their assigned masculine gender roles in the patriarchical order. I think the obvious is true: Boys are different from girls. They like rough-and-tumble play. When they alight somewhere, they build something, then knock it down. They are not much interested in sitting quietly, talking about their feelings, or working on relationships. They like action, preferably something involving noise, conflict, and triumph. Teachers know that girls are better suited to schooling. So if you want to teach boys, allowances must be made. One of the tragedies of the last 20 years or so is that school systems are increasingly unwilling to make those allowances. Instead, in the wake of the feminist movement, they have absorbed anti-male attitudes almost without controversy. They are now more likely to see ordinary boy behavior as something dangerous that must be reined in. Or they may tighten the screws on boys by drafting extraordinarily broad zero-tolerance and sexual-harassment policies. Worse, they may simply decide that the most active boys are suffering from attention deficit disorder and dope them up with Ritalin. Two straws in the wind: Four kindergarten boys in New Jersey were suspended from school for playing cops and robbers at recess with "guns" (their hands, with one finger pointed out). Teasing, ridicule, and making unflattering remarks are now listed as sexual harassment violations for 4-year-olds and up in public schools in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood. Boys are good. "It's a bad time to be a boy in America," Christina Hoff Sommers says in her important new book, The War Against Boys. "We are turning against boys," she writes. "Boys need discipline, respect, and moral guidance . . . . They do not need to be pathologized." Sommers's book is packed with examples of the anti-male attitudes that pervade the public schools. At University High School in Pacific Heights, Calif., boys must sit quietly though a "Women's Assembly," in which women are celebrated and men are blamed. Boys in one San Francisco class are regularly put through feminist pacesmade to enjoy quilting and forced to listen as girls vent their anger at males. When Barbara Wilder-Smith, a teacher and researcher in the Boston area, made "Boys Are Good" T-shirts for her class, all 10 female teachers under her supervision strongly objected to the message. One of the 10 was wearing a button saying "So many men, so little intelligence." Some schools use the Bem Androgyny Scalenamed for feminist psychologist Sandra Bemto measure success in getting rid of those pesky masculine traits in boys. In his book, The Decline of Males, anthropologist Lionel Tiger says women have taken charge of the public dialogue on gender and decisively bent it to their advantage. That is certainly true of dialogue about the schools. We spent most of the 1990s fretting about bogus research claiming that the schools were shortchanging and damaging girls, when the truth is that boys are the ones in trouble. Boys are much more likely than girls to have problems with schoolwork, repeat a grade, get suspended, and develop learning difficulties. In some schools boys account for up to three fourths of special-education classes. They are five times more likely than girls to commit suicide and four to nine times more likely to be drugged with Ritalin. Student polls show that both girls and boys say their teachers like the girls more and punish the boys more often. Girls get better grades than boys, take more rigorous courses, and now attend college in much greater numbers. While the traditional advantage of boys over girls in math and science has narrowed (girls take as least as many upper-level math courses as boys, and more biology and chemistry), the advantage of girls over boys in reading and writing is large and stable. In writing achievement, 11th-grade boys score at the level of eighth-grade girls. The Department of Education reported this year: "There is evidence that the female advantage in school performance is real and persistent." The school failure of so many boys, magnified and fanned by anti-male hostility, is a severe social problem. Women now account for 56 percent of American college students and the male-female gap is still widening. It is 60-40 in Canada and 63-37 among American blacks. These numbers, always overlooked in media laments about "underrepresentation," have several ominous implications. One is for much more fatherlessness. College women who can't find college-educated mates won't marry downthey will likely just have their babies alone. It's time to discuss some remedies, including vouchers, single-sex schools, and programs targeted at specific problems of boys. Save the males. ___________________________

BLACKTOWN MENU
GO TO CHAPTER 1 ARTICLES	CLICK HERE
GO TO CHAPTER 2 ARTICLES
GO TO CHAPTER 3 ARTICLES
GO TO CHAPTER 4 ARTICLES
GO TO CHAPTER 5 ARTICLES
NEW CHAPTER!!!!-------------> GO TO CHAPTER 6 ARTICLES
NEW CHAPTER!!!!-------------> GO TO CHAPTER 7 ARTICLES
NEW CHAPTER!!!!-------------> GO TO CHAPTER 8 ARTICLES
GO TO MUSIC AND SPEECHES!!
GO TO UPDATE PAGES FOR NEWEST LINKS AND ARTICLES
WHAT IS BLACKTOWN.NET??? (WHAT IS OUR MISSION???)
MESSAGE BOARD TO DEBATE AND DISCUSS FEMINIST WITCHCRAFT!!!
CLICK HERE TO WRITE US SOME EMAIL!!!