Black Operations: Letters to the Savages.
In the war between the sexes the male side is at an eternal disadvantage. The media presents us as pigs and serial murderers while Madison Avenue puts forth commercial after commercial documenting our stupidity and artificiality. We have very few means with which to defend ourselves. On their side is Emily's List and almost every charitable foundation in North America. On ours is Edward Kennedy and Paul Wellstone. Although less than one percent of the overall female population, radical feminists are represented as being the entire population by the left-wing media. On television, the ever pernicious National Organization of Women and the National Abortion Rights Action League are referred to as being "womens' groups." They are womens' group in the same sense that the Archie Bunker on "All in the Family" represented political conservatives (per Rob Reiner, that bastion of fabrication, which he labeled him on the show Hardball). They are interviewed as being the guides to women's beliefs and these views are then disseminated throughout the press and, in the case of the super bowl link to increased domestic violence, rarely have any legitimate link to reality or history. Other than yelling at one's television set there is rarely any means in which to combat their lies about us. I encounter few flesh and blood radical feminists, and on the rare occasion when I do, I become so overstimulated that my arguments are too rushed and I present myself in far too threatening a manner. Therefore, I decided on a new tactic. I would bring the arguments directly to them via the email links at their websites. Yes, I thought, email would be the perfect method for hiding one's tone and intentions. I knew that I couldn't use my real name (as there are few female Bernards) so I adopted the monikers of Beatrice or Bernadette. I decided to use Aesopian language as a means to disguise my true intentions. I took on the tone of general cluebag and knee-jerk leftist as a further means to fool my targets. It was a difficult assignment but when stupid, futile gestures need to be made I'm the perfect male for the job.
Letter One: Home of the Harridans.
I decided by first entering the dragon's lair: the National Organization of Women website. I won't lie to you. It's not a pretty place. Deceptively swathed in the peaceful color purple it contains a sea of anti-American, and anti-anybody who is not a radical leftist, articles and cartoons. It also ran a poll asking whether the "use of the term girl when referring to grown women is derogatory" [I know what your thinking but that's what it said I didn't make it up]. They also have an extensive catalogue of propaganda presents for yourself or for your most gender androgynous friends. The site sells stuff too like tshirts saying "God is coming and she's really fat." Well, let's just hope God isn't feeling amorous when she gets here then. I went to the AskNOW area and asked the question
Dear NOW,
I'm having a real hard time with this guy at work (we call him Uncle Fire)
Who keeps arguing with me all the time about Radical Feminism. He just
doesn't get it! Is there any way you could help me defeat some of his
arguments. I'm sure you can because I'm sure he's the one who's sexist
and certainly not us. First, he says that how can women be more
empathic than men when they willingly abort their offspring. He claims
that this isn't empathic but I told him it's a women's choice. Also, your outrage about the truckers above, right? Second, he keeps saying that male brains average 1600 grams and female brains average 1200 grams so how can women be superior intellectually. I told him Einstein had a small brain weight but he says they're correlated at .40. What should I say back? Third, he claims there's no discrimination against women entering politics. He says that the lower number of women in politics is due to their not accruing a reproductive advantage from acquiring status. He says that Madelyn Albright, even though she was Sec. Of State, isn't attractive no matter what her position is so why would any female risk personal malignment and being a sellout to run for office. He thinks women are above that sort of thing. That's a hard one because I have no desire to run for public office. He says Gary Condit is a great example of why men dominate public offices (a harem came with the election). Is he right? I mean, I don't know. 4. Lastly, he says that if gender is a social construct then how can feminists vilify testosterone and say it causes violence. If testosterone causes violence then that sounds like there's a biological disposition. I'm stumped here.
Help!
Beatrice Chapin
Then I skirted over to feminist.com to the Ask Amy area. I wrote a thoughtful and emotional paragraph. This site is nearly as offensive as the first and I decided to play up to Amy vanity and narcissism before hitting her with the hammer (she's not a real person, AskAmy is a composite of work from the geniuses at the site).
Amy,
I love your FAQs answers. They're so insightful! You must have a Ph.D.-
in everything! Have you thought about running for office! I feel so good
on your site. It feels so warm and earthlike in the den of my sisters at Feminist.com well, anyway. I have to ask you something though. This guy named Bill I work with is so annoying! He's totally an antifeminist (if there is such a thing). He regards radical feminism as be a lesbian conspiracy. Isn't that looney? He says that Ti Grace Atkinson, as you know the first president of NOW's New York chapter, said "feminism is the means, lesbianism is the ends." Why would she say that? Did she really say that? I'm not a lesbian. Can't I still be a feminist? Bill says that feminists try to get "normal" women to hate men so they increase their status and thereby receive access to the most beautiful and youthful of the female population. Sounds kind of sexist to me! By lowering the status of males, he says, lesbians are trying to make themselves look like a legitimate counter-option. Is that true? That's an offensive notion, don't you think? He also wants to know why if feminists are anti-male they try so hard to look like men. I don't know what you look like but I know I don't try to look like a man. How gross! But why do lesbians wear men's clothing, get buzz cuts, and let themselves go. Help? He says there's a book out that says that lesbians batter themselves in relationships. Is that true? What the fuck? He's lying isn't he? He said that some other guy was running a website out of California that claims that domestic violence rates are gender stable- meaning that women batter men as much as men batter us. No way! Really? Help? Is this all about picking up women? Help!
Thank you very much,
Bernadette Chapin
Then I turned to a site whose owners really irritate me. Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards have a website set up concerning their book Manifesta: Young women, Feminism, and the Future. I've read several book reviews of the work and many of the reviews contained this rather curious sentence. "As with many feminist conversations we have witnessed, all threads eventually led back to food, sex, and hair." [TNR, Stansell, posted 1/12/2001] I read this quote over several times and then called my friend, Dana, on the phone and read it to him. I still can't believe that ideological Zenas would be so foolish as to include a quote that incriminating in their work. I guess to these Third Wave Feminists this quote is apparently something to be proud of. To these young ladies there is probably nothing more profound than a society that is structured on meaningless prattle. Well there was only one thing to do, I sent Bernadette forward to get to the bottom of this morass. I emailed them the following question to them but the stuff about O'Reilly really hurt me to put in but under the circumstances I had to include it. I did make one mistake though as I incorrectly because it was John Gibson who interviewed had interviewed her as O'Reilly had the day off.
Jennifer/Amy,
Hey, I saw Amy on O'Reilly the other night. How can you stand him? I
would of puked. Anyway, great job! But I was wondering, somebody told
me in your book that you wrote "eventually all strands of [women's]
conversations led back to food, sex, or hair." Is that true? Doesn't it make us sound superficial and shallow? Why would you write that? We have more important things to say than that, don't we? Also, I, like you, am in my 30's and I was wondering if you had any encouraging words about the future. I feel like men liked me better when I was younger. Is that because they're shallow or are they expressing an evolutionary interest in youth and fertility? My boyfriend, Dana
[he earned the fabricated reference I thought]
is always talking about evolutionary psychology and it scares me. Am I getting over the hill? It seems like there are good biological reasons for a loss in power, are there? I know you'll know more about this than me. He told me as women lose their reproductive potential they have less power. Is he just trying to scare me? I work as a school psychologist and I heard another school psychologist say that women having children at an older age was the best thing that ever happened to the special education business because of increased birth defects. Well, I already know that's true but how do you respond to the accusation that "we should get it done while we're young and on top of the hill" and not when we're older and have less reproductive power.
Help! I know you must have some answers!
Bernadette Chapin
I'm sure they do have answers but I haven't heard back from any of them and Robert Schaeffer from patriarchy.com says I never will.
