Manly no more
Posted: November 03, 2006
1:00 am Eastern
By Ilana Mercer
I was stocking up on groceries at Fred Meyer when I heard this fretful falsetto. “Honey, look at these ingredients. Oh my God. Check the percentage of trans fats. It’s outrageous!” The fussing, believe it or not, was coming from a man. He was hopping up and down on spindly legs, beckoning his wife excitedly. I quickly moved on, thanking my lucky stars that the spouse had gravitated automatically to the hardware section of the store and was itching to move on to Home Depot.
Whenever I venture out, I encounter this not-so-new breed of man. Typically, he’ll have a few spoiled, cranky kids in tow and a papoose strapped to a sunken chest. He’ll be laboring to make the outing to Trader Joe’s a “learning experience” for the brats – one that every other store patron is forced to endure. This generic guy oozes psychological correctness and zero manliness. He’s not necessarily effeminate, mind you. Rather, he’s safely androgynous and most certainly not guy-like in the traditional sense. As personalities go, he and the wife are indistinguishable.
I’ve often wondered whether decades of emasculation – legal and cultural – have bred these men. It would seem my hunch may have more merit than I imagined. On Halloween, Dr. Thomas Travison and colleagues at the New England Research Institutes in Watertown, Mass., released this hormonal horror story: American men are indeed losing the stuff that makes them mucho.
“A new study has found a ‘substantial’ drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s.” The average levels of the male hormone have been dropping by an astounding 1 percent a year. A 65-year-old in 1987 would have had testosterone levels 15 percent higher than those of a 65-year-old in 2002. Aging, slouched, pony-tailed hippies, everywhere apparent, look more flaccid, because they are more flaccid.
The reasons for the reduction in testosterone levels remain unclear. A rise in obesity and a decline in smoking have been suggested, since “testosterone levels are lower among overweight people and smoking increases testosterone levels.” The Marlboro Man was certainly manly and fit-looking. Other researchers have implicated estrogen-mimicking chemicals, ubiquitous in the environment.
Conspicuously absent from the report are changes in life experiences over time. These trends are, however, routinely referenced when discussing incidence of this or the other disease or deficiency in women. Breast cancer is said to be associated with the modern woman’s propensity to delay or forfeit childbearing. Osteoporosis is exacerbated by women’s sedentary routines – they do less weight-bearing work than they used to (although in Kazakhstan, women still do plenty of plowing).
Boyhood today, for example, means BB guns and “bang-bang you’re dead” are banned. Tykes are required to hack their way through a page-turner like “One Dad Two Dads Brown Dad Blue Dads.”
The smashing success of politically incorrect books such as “The Dangerous Book for Boys” proves how desperate little boys are to be boys again – the book reintroduces a new generation of youngsters to the joys of catapult-making, knot-tying, stone skimming, astronomy and much more. (Concocting rocket fuel from saltpeter and sugar is not in the book, but is a lot of fun – or so my husband tells me.)
Boys are hardwired for competition; the contemporary school enforces cooperation. Boys like to stand out; team-work obsessed, mediocre school teachers teach them to fade into the crowd. Boys thrive in more disciplined, structured learning environments; the American school system is synonymous with letting it all hang out.
Sons are more likely to be raised without male mentors, since moms, in the last few decades, are more likely to divorce (and get custody), never marry or bear children out of wedlock. The schools have been emptied of manly men and staffed by feminists, mostly lacking in the Y chromosome. Although boys (and girls) require discipline, the rare disciplinarian risks litigation.
Then there are the effects of years of Ritalin. Teachers prefer girls (many narcissistic, feral, female “pedagogues” have even taken to sexually preying on boys). To make boys more like girls, they’ll often insist that they be plied with “Kiddie Cocaine.” Children as young as two are being medicated with a substance whose side effects include liver damage, cardiac arrhythmia and death. Writing for the PBS’ “Frontline,” Dr. Lawrence Diller, who favors Ritalin, cautions that “despite 60 years of stimulant use with children … some as-yet-undiscovered negative effect of Ritalin still could be found.” (Hampered hormonal levels later in life, perhaps?)
When boys leave secondary school, they discover that society privileges girls in tertiary schools and in the workplace. Why, even girls favor girls. Most swoon over the washed-out, asexual anchor, Anderson Cooper. In TV newsrooms, cherubic-looking, soft-spoken “girlie-men,” such as Bill Hemmer and Don Lemon have replaced deep-voiced, macho men. Tom Brokaw, for example. Women say they look for partners who are “sweet and sensitive.” If they’re having children with men who grow bum-fluff for stubble, then perhaps they’re breeding out testosterone.
Is it at all possible that the feminization of society over the past 20 to 30 years is changing males, body and mind? Could the subliminal stress involved in sublimating one’s essential nature be producing less manly men?
The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is a delicate homeostatic feedback system, intricately involved in regulating hormones and stress. Has it become the axis of evil in the war on men?
Just asking …
Read more: Manly no more http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52755#ixzz1Xv4YKDcL
Betty Friedan: “Mommy” was a Commie
July 27, 2003
(Reader’s Note: This summer I am revising important articles that predated my web site.)
“Comrades, you will remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy … The attacking army was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan Horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy camp.”
–George Dimitrov, Comintern General Secretary, August, 1935.
Betty Friedan, the “founder of modern feminism” pretended to be a typical 1950’s American mother who had a “revelation” that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career.
What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn’t say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government. See “The Communist Manifesto” (1848).
Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) “the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States.” In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.
Daniel Horowitz, a History Professor at Smith with impeccable Liberal and Feminist credentials documents all this in his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press 1999). Horowitz cites a union member who described how a Communist minority “seized control of the UE national office, the executive board, the paid-staff, the union newspaper and some district councils and locals.”
Betty Frieden doesn’t want anyone to know her radical antecedents. Throughout her career, she said she had no interest in the condition of women before her “revelation.” She refused to cooperate with Professor Horowitz and accused him of “Red-baiting.”
Why? Because her book “The Feminist Mystique” (1963) would not have sold over five million copies if her subversive background were known. Communists operate by subterfuge — pretending to be just like us. This is the “Popular Front” strategy that consisted of starting idealistic movements in order to ensnare well-meaning people, usually students, workers, women, artists or intellectuals. The membership was ignorant that their organization was funded and controlled by people with a totally different agenda. This is also the principle behind freemasonry, Zionism and Communism itself. Essentially the adherents are dupes.
Willi Munzenberg, an early confidante of Lenin, organized the Popular Fronts in the 1920’s and 1930’s and referred to them as “my innocents clubs”. He pioneered the protest march, the demonstration, the radical bookstore and publication, the arts festival, and the recruitment of celebrities (“fellow travellers.”)
In the words of historian Stephen Koch, Munzenberg “was amazingly successful at mobilizing the intelligentsia of the West on behalf of a moralistic set of political attitudes responsive to Soviet needs. In the process, he organized and defined the ‘enlightened’ moral agenda of his era.” (Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas Against the West, New York, 1994, p.14.)
In a 1989 interview, Babette Gross, the wife of Willy Munstenberg, described the Popular Front modus operandi:
“You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. You claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don’t really understand politics but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break.” (Koch, p. 220)
Friedan observed this principle when she helped start second-wave Feminism, which is a classic “Popular Front.” The very name, “the woman’s movement” and claim to be for “equality” are but a smoke screen for a diabolical crusade to destroy the institution of the family. For example, feminist professor Alison Jagger calls the nuclear family “a cornerstone of women’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.” (“Feminist Politics and Human Nature,” 1988)
The “Congress of American Women,” a Popular Front organization founded in 1946 reached a membership of 250,000. It was disbanded in 1950 after being required to register as a “foreign agent” by the U.S. Government. Feminist historian Ruth Rosen writes that the “CAW’s agenda prefigured much of the modern women’s movement that emerged in the sixties.” (Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America, New York, 2000, p.28.)
The FBI kept tabs on the “Women’s movement” but found no direct connection with Soviet subversion. Ruth Rosen, herself a veteran, finds this ironic.
“Ironically, the FBI searched for signs of subversion in the Women’s movement but couldn’t recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for Communists and bombs, the women’s movement was shattering traditional ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBI could ever imagine. Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement, create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society. But at the time these ideas were not what the FBI considered subversive.” (260)
By attacking the social fabric, feminists inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria has driven a wedge between men and women. Women have been psychologically neutered. They are encouraged to pursue sex and career not family. The US birth rate has plummeted from 3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 2 today, the lowest level in history. [Replacement is 2.1] The marriage rate has declined by 1/3 while the divorce rate has doubled since 1960. More than half of all first-born US children are conceived or born out of wedlock. (William Bennett, “The Broken Hearth” p.13)
The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. The question is why? How could a sick subversive philosophy that openly pits women against men have been able to succeed?
The disconcerting answer is that monopoly capitalists are behind both Communism and Feminism and use them to undermine the political and cultural institutions of Western Civilization.
Rockefeller-Rothschild cartels own most of the world and naturally assume they should control it too. They own most of our politicians, media and educators. Their goal is a “new world order” (a.k.a. “globalization”) in which they remake mankind to fit their nefarious ends.
Betty Friedan, take a bow.