The movie is about three women who are dumped by their now-successful husbands for "trophy wives." In real life, this happens. In real life, most women trash one guy after another until they either grow up (usually in their late thirties, it seems), marry some poor schmuck they will later dump, or they marry a jerk who, if successful, dumps them for that trophy wife.
As even pop feminists will admit, women initiate at least 80 percent of all divorces in America. As statistics featured in the Fathers & Families section in this month’s OrgNews indicate, a lot of fathers are getting screwed (in the figurative sense), while the mainstream everything perpetuate the lie that it’s all the other way around. What this adds up to is a lot of pent-up female guilt that has but one outlet: rage.
The First Wives Club is dipping into a bottomless well of shared female rage.Fortunately, this bigotry has not gone unanswered:
"It’s raw sexism," insists David Usher, who helps edit a men’s magazine, The Liberator. "We stereotype men and women, and they act out these stereotypes, and it goes straight into the divorce courts."Although TIME does cater primarily to the anti male mentality, they do provide partial balance: "There is no shortage of jilted husbands out there." Moreover, unlike anyone closely connected with the movie or the new rage women’s movement, they do admit the "trophy wife" phenomenon pertains primarily to a very small segment of the population, like Ivana Trump:
Poorer women will see little in The First Wives Club that they can relate to. "This idea of leaving for a new trinket is more for people who are used to living well," observes Betty Nordwind, executive director of the Harriet Duhai Family Law Center, a nonprofit legal-aid service in Los Angeles.What makes this movie significant is not that it’s about no-class women and the no-class men they love to hate (we have plenty of movies about no-class men and the no-class women they hate to love), but that so many women embrace it as a proud expression of their bigotry.
Even the Ku Klux Klan would not be so bold.
Now, the city of New York is opening an all-girls junior high school in East Harlem. Okay for girls, but not for boys? That seems to be the question:
Because the constitutionality of separate public schools for boys and girls has not been settled, and because the school in New York presents a clear test case, this initiative may wind up in the Supreme Court soon.Almost certainly, new rage women will argue both sides -- grousing on the one hand that girls need girls-only schools to protect them from boy-germs, but insisting, on the other, that girls-only schools perpetuate the patriarchal victimization of women and the government needs to impose harsh controls on boys in coed schools to assure they don’t act like boys so girls can behave however they want.
Do you ever get the feeling these people are a processor shy of a motherboard?
The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, (H.R. 1946/S.984) (PRRA), would provide the means for individuals and interested organizations to challenge decisions made by "public schools, libraries, health and welfare programs regarding his or her child's health or education." The ladies at NOW consider this bill to be "dangerous."
Sure, they’re right. It will set a dangerous precedent. Next thing you know, parents will want to choose their children’s names, too!
Never fear!
Thanks to the hard work of women's education advocates, funding for the Women's Educational Equity Act (WEEA) was restored on July 11th as an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill.NOW says call your senator to encourage their support; NOTNOW says call to complain that under Title IX the rights of male students to educational equality are being violated enough already, and the funding presently going to those most served by the system needs to be redirected to support the educationally disadvantaged: i.e., men.
Nationally, women business owners now hire over 15 million people, or 35 percent more people than Fortune 500 companies.Why are these women business owners paying their women employees less than men? Could it have anything to do with other mitigating factors, like the fact men average more overtime, work at a particular job on average more years than women do, and so on?
No! Couldn’t be. Must be all those women business owners are really agents of the evil patriarchal empire.
But (as if we didn’t already know) that’s not the only gripe pop feminists have.
Women between the ages of 15 and 44 pay 68 percent more out of pocket on health care than do men.Could this have anything to do with the fact women live longer than men, or that in this age group men visit the doctor far less than women do?
Nah!
"There is lots of literature showing social services weren’t developed with men’s issues in mind," said Jim Henning, with King County’s Department of Community and Human Services.It would have stayed that way, too, but for the efforts of three local equalitarians, including Dave Ault, codirector of Men’s Rights, Inc. - ERA Project:
"There are a lot of resources for women -- which we applaud," said Ault, "but there’s a terrific lack of resources for men in the area."Given the history of such programs in the Seattle area, it’s highly likely local pop feminists will end up running it. They run the City of Seattle office of Human Rights (which explains the anti male bias), they dominate Eastside Mental Health (in Microsoft’s neighborhood), it stands to reason they will have the run of this program, too. But it’s a start.
A final note: even though this is a significant program affecting the entire county, only a local newspaper ran the story. Long known for its anti male bias, The Seattle Times, Washington state’s largest newspaper, completely ignored it. What a surprise.
Well, we hope Rep. Schroeder pays close attention to the lesson six-year-old Jonathan Prevette, of Southwest Elementary School, learned from being suspended for kissing a classmate on the cheek: show no affection. At least not to members of the opposite sex.
"This makes children wonder 'Should I hug somebody?'" (Jonathan's mother, Jackie Prevette) said. "It's no wonder we have all these people with behavior problems."Ironically, while Mrs. Prevette feels the Lexington City Schools overreacted, in principal she agrees with them:
She will ask the school board to make allowances for children in the third grade and younger who have no concept of sexuality.Hold off teaching children to show no affection until the fourth grade? Hey, that makes sense. Sure it does.
And what would that be?
At the Beijing conference, representatives of 189 nations adopted the Platform for Action, which called for improvements in the areas of economic opportunity and security, education, health care, personal safety and reproductive rights.Okay, American men have no reproductive rights, American men die younger than women, account for almost all on-the-job deaths and most fatal injuries, American men who survive into late middle- and old-age consume as much health care as women, while men in younger age groups get less health care and receive less attention from the health care industry, for the past several years American men have suffered a higher rate of unemployment than women, and somehow the pop feminists seem to think all that translates into greater economic advantages for the average male?
Hey, if they want it, I say let them have it!
Keep the fathers away from the children, and the children will be safe.
Children of single parents have a 77% greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse and an 80% greater risk of suffering serious injuries than kids living with two parents.Damn! Just can’t protect the kids from their dads.
Of kids maltreated by birth parents, 75% were harmed by their mothers and 46% by their fathers. (Source: Department of Health and Human Services.)Another pop feminist myth bites the dust.
Well, not in every case, but the Establishment generally frowns on fathers who kidnap their kids from the custodial mother, and pop feminists scream bloody murder. But when the kidnapper is the mother, that’s different.
More than 10 years ago, Elizabeth Morgan stuck things into her daughter’s vagina and otherwise abused the girl to demonstrate what she alleged her ex husband, Eric Foretich, had done. Abuse to prove abuse? What’s wrong with this picture?
The court awards physical custody to the father, Morgan kidnaps the kid, the court actually sides with the father for a change and jails Morgan, who later takes the girl to New Zealand to live with the maternal grandparents.
Enter the male dominated, oppressively patriarchal U.S. government:
Last week, Congress passed a bill allowing both mother and daughter to return to the United States without legal repercussions.First, we have a dirty-minded school marm accusing a boy of sexual harassment for kissing a friend on the cheek, now the federal government is aiding and abetting a pop feminist criminal. Once again, the opposition proves they are our best recruiters.
In 1995, the Washington state legislature entertained a bill that would make getting a divorce marginally difficult.
The Washington state bill was hardly radical. It would have altered the state’s existing no-fault law only modestly, giving couples an option to sign a prenuptial contract that would essentially preclude no-fault divorce.The bill bombed. Why?
The first representative to rise in opposition during the floor debate was Democrat Marlin Applewick, the minority floor leader.Applewick is a divorce lawyer who, for the past 14 years, has profited from the disintegration of the American family in Seattle where he practices when he’s not in Olympia fighting legislation sponsored by Washington Families, an organization dedicated to fairness and keeping both parents involved in the lives of their children after a divorce.
Am I the only one who thinks there may be a conflict of interest, here?
In response, the Educational Testing Service is adding a new section to test writing skills that, they believe, will address the alleged bias. Naturally, rather than embrace the change graciously, new rage women attacked:
However, Sara Mandelbaum, staff attorney for the ACLU Women's Rights Project, said the decision "to redo the test is an admission that something was implicitly wrong with the test."She is missing the obvious: they did it to shut the pop feminists up. Of course, it didn't work. What do you think they will learn from that?