There's an element of truth to that, and it's getting worse. Says sexual harassment attorney Joseph Sellers, "It's like combat within the workplace." Which is the basis for the rationale behind Washington, D.C., prison guard Joyce Webb's complaint that she is suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome.
Plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases who add this to their list of complaints expect to win millions, and many are.
Okay, guys, repeat after me: "I feel sexual harassed by my female coworkers' sexually provocative behaviors, and I suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome as a result: I lose sleep, I feel agitated and break out into cold sweats, and only a settlement of several million will soothe my unreasonably stressed, sexually harassed soul."
The stereotypes are a myth, says Sheila Gillooly, author of Venus in Spurs: The Secret Fear of Female Commitment.
Any man who has had a run-in with a coquette could tell you that. But now that the secret's out in the open , we need to ask where it comes from? There are dozens of myths about why men fear commitment: they're immature, promiscuous, irresponsible, obsessed with conquest, etc. Why would women fear commitment?
Almost certainly, pop-feminists will find a way to blame it on men, but, being human, women fear the C-word for the same reason men do:
In a culture where parents have little time to spend with children, many are brought up desperate for emotional attachment. "They're always needing more time with mom and dad," says Michael Alvarez, program director of the Sexual Disorders Unit at Del Amo Hospital in Torrence, Calif. "the bond is an anxious bond, it's never fulfilled. We grow up thinking we're in love whenever we feel this anxious attachment...once the pursuit is over, you no longer want the prey."Pop-feminists have contributed to this problem by exacerbating the disintegration of the family. Intact families will help. But feminists have contributed to the solution, as well, with their emphasis on striking a balance between family-life and career-success.
In this context, we should not ignore Camille Paglia's observation that it's not the nuclear family that is traditional, but the extended family.
The Wenatchee witch hunts prove they were mistaken: "In testimony before Congress in September 1995, Dr. (Elaine) Foster noted that in 1992 there were 1,227,223 false allegations of child abuse."
A personal enemy or envious neighbor who wants to do you in only needs to make an anonymous telephone call to Child Protective Services. A CPS worker will show up, take your child, put the child in therapy for months until the child "recovers" memory of your abuse, and then put you in prison on the basis of the child's "recovered memory."You could be next.
The modern patriarchal family was created so that each man would "own" a woman who would reproduce for him. He then had to control the sexuality of "his" woman, for how else could he be sure that "his" child was really his? Restrictions were placed on women's lives and bodies by men; women's imprisonment in marriage was made a virtue. - Shere Hite, The Hite Report on the Family: Growing Up Under Patriarchy, excerpted in Ms, March/April 1995.Hite goes on to say that the breakdown in families is a good thing, that "far from signaling a breakdown of society, it is a sign of a new, more open and tolerant society springing up, a new world being born out of the clutter of the old."
Fortunately, there are some women out there who know better. Says columnist Linda Chavez, "These divorces are more than personal tragedies. They are a social problem with significant costs."
In 1960, 91% of children lived with two parents. No more. A whole ethos of self- fulfillment and personal happiness has replaced the ethic of self-sacrifice and concern for the best interests of one's children.That would explain why between 80 and 90 percent of divorces are initiated by women. Regardless, Chavez solidly hits the mark in conclusion: "After years of ignoring the impact divorce has on children, it's time public policy took account of what's good for children, not just what's convenient for their parents."
Reason: lack of premeditation, and mitigating circumstances. She has had a rough life.
A lot of equal rights and responsibilities advocates will moan that this is another example of how the system lets women off the hook where men fry. "She had a rough life? Oh! Poor baby. You and millions of men who have never murdered, sister!" They're right. But there's something else here to consider, too. Given the facts of the case, the governor made the right decision. (Given the facts of the Susan Smith case, on the other hand, ...)
Our question should be, when are our governors, and legislators, and judges going to start making the right decisions about men, too?
What's weird about this myth is that everybody knows it's a myth...except maybe for judges, legislators, pop-feminist pundits, conservatives, liberals, and most members of the media.
Enter that paragon of feminist virtue, a mighty icon of a woman being all she can be, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Notes William Safire, "Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady - a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation - is a congenital liar."
Say it isn't so, Bill! Next thing you know, some cheeky columnist will have the gall to suggest a lot of women lie. About sexual harassment, sex abuse, domestic violence, asparagus recipes! Where will it end?
In an article about how everyone whose retirement fund includes investments in stock funds is fueling the disproportionately high salaries of corporate CEOs, Jay Mathews attempts to justify the sky-high salaries with two questions:
American firms have paid their executives huge bonuses to keep payrolls lean and profits high, pushing the stock price higher. Japanese firms, on the other hand, have been less willing to fire workers, and their profits and stock values have suffered. "Which would you rather have your pension plan be," (Ira Kay, director of compensation consulting at the management consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide) asks, "one that is secured by the American stock market or one secured by the Japanese stock market?"Hello! Is anybody awake up there? I would want my pension fund invested in the companies that will have a strong, stable, highly trained labor force 30 years from now, when I need to live off it. Obviously, AT&T won't be one of them.
"I don't know how to get the American worker's pay up without causing inflation," (Graef S. Crystal, editor of the Crystal Report in San Rafael, Calif.) says.Again, this should be obvious: research and development creates more products, more job opportunities, and more profits. Executives whose stockholders require them to hold their stock options over the long run, and to develop new industrial and service frontiers, not only create more wealth for their workers, but for themselves, as well. The idiots who sink their profits into consumer garbage like tobacco, or escapes from reality like gambling resorts, are little more than poachers who are killing tomorrow's milk herds for today's veal.
The future of humanity is in, among other things, building factories in space, mining the asteroids for metal, and, until cold fusion becomes a practical reality, in solar power satellites. It's in investing in the future, which means investing in our communities, our children, our families, and so on. Any corporate executive who doesn't know that, and lives for "me and mine first today and to hell with tomorrow and everybody else" isn't worth cat piss.
But then (you knew I was going to tie this into gender issues, somehow, didn't you :-), given how so many women today go for the guys with the flash cash, and snub the men who work hard to create our future (the word "nerd" comes to mind), it's easy to see how these high rollers get hooked on the game.
In Seattle, two teenage boys have joined Mel.
The next social revolution may well be led by a boy in a dress.Isn't it interesting how, almost 30 years after Seattle area schools started allowing girls to dress in what formerly was considered male attire (pants), this ultra-liberal area still doesn't recognize anti-male sexism when it sees it:And the seeds of that movement may have been sown yesterday at Washington Middle School, where more than 100 middle- and high-school students gathered to show their support for two male students who were forced to change clothes when they came to school dressed in skirts two weeks ago.
Washington's student-body president, Sonya Bell, wondered why so many people were moved by the issue of boys wearing skirts.As if that should even matter. If girls and women should be allowed to wear pants to school, work, or any other function, then boys and men should enjoy the same panorama of dress options, no questions asked.Girls at her school can't wear mini-skirts, she said, but nobody's marching the streets over that.
"I don't know what they're trying to prove," Bell said.
Or, as the boys put it: "Whadda we want? Skirts! Why do we want 'em? Becuz!"