Male feminism is a riddle that I've struggled with for as long as I've
known that there was such a thing as feminism and that there were men
who supported it.

Why would a MAN become a feminist?  This was something I've always had
a hard time figuring out.

Or rather, why would a straight man become a feminist?  I sort of
understand why gay men become feminists.  They have fled from manhood;
they share the feminist distaste for the traditional male ethos; and
they worship women too much to make love to them.

But why would a STRAIGHT MAN become a feminist?

I thought that Howard Schwartz might be onto something in his "Revolt
of the Primitive". 


https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0765805375/102-5589776-5808932

But this book is awash in Freudian imagery, and it's easy to get lost
in it.

Steve Sailer's most recent article for VDARE might be the most direct,
to-the-point and plausible explanation for the greatest riddle of our
time - the existence of male feminism.

He does more than that, by the way.  He also describes some of the
unintended consequences of gender-based AA.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050306_summers.htm

Why (Some) Men Don’t Support Summers
By Steve Sailer

The Larry Summers rumpus goes on and on—with an informative but
deceptively-titled story about the gender difference "Math Myth"
making the cover of the March 7 Time Magazine—even though the
President of Harvard announced his complete capitulation to the forces
of political correctness back in January. 

The release of the transcript of Summers’ talk about why ultra-elite
universities don't have as many women as men professors in science and
engineering merely enraged his critics further. It proved to be
logical, insightful, and sensible (as I pointed out recently in the
National Post of Toronto). Indeed, Summers' bell curve-based way of
thinking suggests that he might occasionally lock his office door,
draw his blinds, and browse the website of the heretical statistician
who calls himself the La Griffe du Lion.

One interesting point that hasn't been explored: why have so many male
scientists and engineers have piled on Summers? 

Obviously, feminist intimidation plays a huge role. But some of the
gentlemen actually seem to be semi-sincere. 

No doubt a few have become true believers in the politically-correct
cant with which they have been so heavily indoctrinated. 

But a more interesting subset, however, are the male science and
engineering types who support gender quotas for women out of
self-interest. My theory: they see the feminists' vendetta against
Summers as their chance to get revenge on the female sex for its
annoying femaleness.

Why do these men insist that sexist discrimination and socialization
are the only possible reasons there are fewer women than men in their
own fields? 

Why do they demand massive social engineering to get more women to
become as obsessive about the pocket-protector professions as they
are?

Paradoxically, this is typically because of how little these nerds
appreciate women. They don't like females the way they are. They want
a vast societal effort to remold women into liking the same nerdy
things they like. 

That way, maybe, nerds can finally get dates.

It's roughly same reason you see so many butt-kicking babes in movies
aimed at male teenage comic book geeks—such as "The Matrix,"
"X-Men,"
"Charlie's Angels," and "Tomb Raider" franchises. It’s
always hyped in
the press as female empowerment. But it's driven far more by the
adolescent male's wish that sexy girls would stop being interested in
all that boring girl stuff like relationships and start being
interested in cool guy stuff, like kung-fu fighting and really big
guns.

There’s also a somewhat older male constituency for re-engineering
American society to persuade females to care more about crankshafts
and subatomic particles: scientist and engineer fathers who hunger for
a child to follow in their professional footsteps.

Increasingly, these men lack the sons who they would previously have
browbeaten into studying their specialties. Smaller family sizes mean
fewer men have sons. Roughly half of all one-child families and one
quarter of all two-child families have only daughters. So men are
putting more pressure on their little girls to follow in their
footsteps.

You see the same dynamic in kids' baseball these days. There will
eight 11-year-old boys on the field, and one girl, out in right field.
She doesn't particularly want to be there. But her dad played a little
ball back in school, and has always dreamed of a son who will fulfill
his jock dreams. However, he doesn't have one. So she has to stand in.

It would make this father's job easier if society propagandized girls
even more about how fashionable it is for girls to do traditionally
male things.

One of the ironies of gender quotas intended to encourage women to
enter male-dominated careers such as construction contractor is that
they subsidize nepotism and dynasticism. 

"Set-aside" government contracts earmarked for women-owned
construction firms notoriously end up going to firms run by
politically well-connected men—who have installed their daughters,
wives, or mothers as phony owners. And even when the woman is actually
running the construction company, she's often the daughter of a
contractor.

My favorite example: the long-running scandal in which Chicago Mayor
Richie Daley kept promising a full scale investigation to get to the
bottom of whether or not his close friends, the Duff brothers, were
indeed eligible for the millions in female-only contracts they had
received from the city.

Similarly, gender quotas in white-collar fields tend to subsidize the
daughters of the affluent. Years ago, a black lawyer pointed out to me
that, sure, he benefited from affirmative action—but so did the
wealthy young white women his corporate law firm hired, and with whom
he had to compete. 

His firm's goal was to fill their gender quota—and simultaneously do
some rainmaking by hiring the daughters of CEOs.

This explains why sex quotas aren't as politically divisive as racial
or ethnic quotas. Sure, gender preferences for women increase the
burden on white males. But, while they take from men, they often give
to their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. 

So, the net effect on a family as a whole tends to be more mixed.
Whereas with race and ethnic preferences, individuals are battling
over the treatment not only of themselves, but of their children and
grandchildren.  

Another reason few men viscerally grasp that gender quotas like those
Summers has now promised to women will work against their own
opportunities: the individual male ego. Collective male solidarity is
seldom a match for it. 

Sex preferences for women penalize the marginal male. But what Real
Man would admit to himself that he is marginal? (This was one of the
findings of Frederick Lynch’s 1992 study of white men and Affirmative
Action, Invisible Victims.)

As an analogy, consider how men tend to think about polygamy. For 20
years, I've read every article I've come across in the press about
polygamy, and they all follow the same pattern. They simply assume
that polygamy is in the interest of men, and thus examine carefully
whether polygamy is good for women. 

I finally had to write an article myself pointing out that for one man
to take four wives means that, in the normal course of events, three
men will get no wives at all. 

But in articles about polygamy, you never read about the lonely
bachelors.

This blind spot seems arise because it’s virtually impossible for a
man to imagine himself as one of the losers in a polygamous society,
rather than the one big winner. He might prefer one wife to the 150
wives acquired by a Kenyan gentleman I once read about. But his male
ego can't allow him to identify with the 149 men who end up rejected
and alone. 

This psychological quirk creates a reality distortion field in the
heads of men when it comes to gender preferences: No way could I ever
be the victim of a quota!

But there are indeed victims. And, as we see in Summers Show Trial,
one of them is truth

[Steve Sailer [email him], is founder of the Human Biodiversity
Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website
www.iSteve.com features site-exclusive commentaries.]


------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's
player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
    - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004


"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).

    - Horace, the Roman poet


Logical positivism, dominant in American and
British universities, is suicidally bent upon
establishing the impossibility of knowing any-
thing.  (As Wyndham Lewis suggested in "Self
Condemned", the neo-positivist pedant reduces
himself to a mosquito, able to wound, nearly
invulnerable to counter-assault - but only an
insect, not a man).

     - Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent
       Things


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/7/05 12:04:49 AM ---