http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/stix/2005/stix032005.htm

March 20, 2005

by Nicholas Stix


Without the marriage of political convenience of feminism and anti-white
racism, Brian Nichols would never have been in Fulton County Superior Court
on March 11, and four people would still be alive today.

It is due to feminism that a female, Deputy Cynthia Hall, would be given
responsibility for guarding a male suspect charged with violent crimes, and
who had already been caught with weapons on his person.

It is due to countless frivolous lawsuits and endless academic propaganda
that has worked its way into court decisions, that women have forced their
way into jobs where they are a danger to public safety: "Fire fighter,"
"military person," "police officer." Deputy Hall had no
business being
within fifty feet of Brian Nichols.

No difference!

For over thirty years, feminism has insisted that that "no innate
differences" distinguish women from men. In a complementary, if
contradictory strategy, feminists argue that what seems like innate
differences are more than offset by compensatory mechanisms.

Truth Differences

The "no innate differences" claim has been accompanied by claims that
differences in strength between men and women are due not to fundamental
biological differences, but to sexist socialization. Feminists have replaced
sex differences with "gender differences." They claim that
"gender" is a
purely social construct, invented by men to oppress women.

(The only place the term "gender" properly belongs is in a discussion of
foreign languages. Since the English language has no genders, no one should
ever have made gender an issue in the English-language world. In the
English-speaking world, one may properly debate the relations between the
sexes. But that feminists would impose their dogmas, of all place, on the
English-language world first, illustrates their linguistic ignorance, their
utter divorce from reality, and their conviction that they can rape reality,
if they do not like it. Every time a self-styled conservative writer uses
the term "gender," as opposed to "sex," score another
victory for feminists,
who believe that if they can force their terms on people, they can thus
force their "consciousness" on them.)

The "compensatory mechanism" strategy is typically accompanied by claims
that women are more empathetic, cooler under fire, less prone to macho
over-reactions, and somehow more intelligent than men. Such claims
contradict the claim that men and women are alike, but feminists can
contradict themselves at will, since they will make the life of any man who
dares to point out their contradictions miserable. And of course, no
feminist ever got into trouble for claiming that women were superior to men.

If we accept the "no innate differences" claim, the existence of sexual
disparities in any profession or workplace can only be explained by
reference to anti-female sexual discrimination.

Truth=Violence Against Women

Feminists have never supported their positions with empirical research.
Rather, their response to contrary facts and claims has typically been to
publicly excoriate, sue, charge with sexual harassment, and demand the
dismissal of any man who disagrees with them. As Steve Sailer has observed
in the Summers case, powerful men who are thus targeted by feminists
typically beg forgiveness, pay blackmail to incompetent feminists, and then
discriminate against qualified men.

During the 1980s, hundreds of college and universities instituted hate
speech codes, such that a student, staffer, or professor who contradicted a
feminist's lies about female abilities, or merely sough to tell the truth
about biological sex differences, could be brought up on sexual harassment
charges and suspended, expelled, formally reprimanded or fired. Although the
federal courts have since struck down the codes in the case of public
institutions, most public campuses simply ignored the rulings and maintained
the codes.

As my old grad school logic teacher, Michael Levin, showed in Feminism and
Freedom (1987), already in 1982 court decisions in lawsuits brought by
female applicants in male-dominated fields took the "no innate differences"
claim for granted, in arguing that the inability, for instance, of any
female applicant to pass the New York Fire Department's strength test was
the result of invidious discrimination. (In 1989, leftist professors and
grad students in the City University of New York system, most of whom had
never read Levin's work, and none of whom could refute it, sought to have
him fired, as revenge for his research.)

In an example of hypocrisy typical for feminism, the judges contradicted
themselves by imposing dual standards for men and women, rather than by
eliminating the strength test altogether.

The same arguments are used on behalf of lady police officers and soldiers.
Feminist activist Lory Manning promotes the no-innate-difference strategy,
in seeking to get women placed in military combat positions. Rather than
counter all the scientific evidence - much of it assembled by the
Pentagon -- that women are not physically able to function in combat,
Manning's feminist shills in the press act as if the evidence did not exist,
and quote Manning as saying that her opponents have given up arguing that
women cannot function in combat situations. Meanwhile, the SMSM suggest that
female soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are the equals, if not the
superiors, of their men counterparts.

Claire

Consider New York Times columnist http://www.geocities.com/stix/claire.html>Nicholas Kristof. Two
years ago, celebrating a coed in uniform in Iraq, who wore flowers in her
helmet (I kid you not!) while bearing a machine gun, Kristof claimed that
she was thoroughly "intimidating" the Iraqi men who saw her. In the same
column, Kristof claimed that the enemy would perceive female soldiers as
less threatening. (Which is it? "Intimidating" or "less
threatening"? Both!
In feminism, everything is "dialectical" - "Heads we win,
tails you lose.")
Unfortunately, Kristof failed to understand that in warfare, as in police
work, you want your people to be as threatening as possible to the enemy.
When bad guys or enemy soldiers do not feel threatened, they feel
emboldened. Bad guys and enemies do not feel threatened by girls with
flowers in their helmets.

Kristof argued that women would make excellent soldiers (in this context,
cops), because: They will cause the most bloodthirsty enemy troops to show
compassion, and perhaps not bomb vehicles occupied by both women and men;
They can pat down women; And hey, female journalists function fine at the
front lines, so why not infantrypersons?

Back in the real world, in 1992, Pentagon research determined that the
average man has 81.8% more upper body strength than the average woman, can
run much faster and much longer than the average woman, and that o nly 3.4%
women achieved a score equal to the male mean score for physical strength
and endurance.

The Mommy Track

In military, police, and fire training, female recruits run an easy mommy
track, while the men run a marathon. Think of the difference between a real
golf course, and miniature golf.

And bad guys and enemy soldiers alike tend to be much stronger and faster
than the average man. On TV and in the movies, tiny women may kick butt
against big, bad guys, but in the real world, sending women against enemy
soldiers or ultraviolent criminals is a suicide mission, or a case of asking
men to die defending women. (That is why, after experimenting with sexually
integrated combat units in the 1948 War of Independence, the Israeli
military dropped the idea.)

During the early 1990s, I had a chat with a chubby, 4'11" NYPD policewoman
in a subway train. As she walked along, smiling and greeting all manner of
criminals, she told me it wasn't worth it to get into confrontations with
people. But New York's taxpayers were paying her to do just that. Although
the lady surely had a partner at the other end of the train, he could not
have gotten to her in time, had she been attacked, and as a law enforcement
officer, she was laughable.

"Life is Unfair"

Steve Sailer is a foot taller than me. Now, I'd love to say, a la Fred
Sanford, "Hey, Sailer, you big dummy!" but the truth is, he probably has
about 20 IQ points on me. As Jack Kennedy said, "Life is unfair." God or
nature does not necessarily compensate for a person's deficiencies by giving
him offsetting strengths. In the NBA, for instance, some players are great
defenders, while others are great scorers. And yet, some players are great
at both ends of the court. For a time, Michael Jordan was not only the
greatest offensive player in the game, but its greatest defensive player, as
well. Most unfair.

Sure there are big, dumb, bully cops; I've been shoved around by a couple in
my time. But there is no correlation between being small and being smarter,
more courageous or more professional. In any event, all the courage,
intelligence, and professionalism in the world won't help you, if you don't
have the necessary physical equipment. There's a reason there are different
weight classes for boxers and wrestlers.

In the case of 6'1" Brian Nichols and 5'1" Deputy Hall, it
wouldn't surprise
me if Nichols had 30 IQ points on the deputy. Not that she's necessarily a
dummy, but he's that smart. People stereotypically think of violent men as
having low IQs, because the stereotype is generally true. But Brian Nichols
proves an exception to the rule.

In any event, it is the voice of reason that tells a violent felon that he
can have his way with a female officer.

There has always been police work for females, but it used to be exclusively
in subordinate roles: Matron, police administrative assistant, etc. But now,
women want the power, privileges, and pay of being policemen, even though
they lack the ability.

Some feminists have sought to get around refutations of the "no innate
differences" strategy by claiming that that notion is only operative for
"radical" feminists, but as Michael Levin showed, all feminists at least
imply it. (Even a libertarian like Wendy McElroy does!)

As if feminist dogma hadn't been responsible for enough bloodshed the
previous day, it dominated the coverage of Nichols' March 12 re-arrest. TV
news viewers were treated to endless repetitions of the videotape of the
handcuffed Nichols being led to a police vehicle by a slender, white female
Gwinnett County police officer (surrounded by beefy, shotgun-wielding men!),
as if she'd taken him in.

The "no innate differences" strategy also made an appearance in the person
of DA Paul Howard, who on Monday told reporters, "I think women are capable
of doing anything a man is capable of doing."

1=19

And yet, at Nichols' next court appearance on Tuesday, he was surrounded by
19 officers, and was shackled, to boot. What is the truth today, DA Howard?




--
Men are everywhere that matters!




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/20/05 4:59:05 AM ---