logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 
 
 
 

On the Status of Men in France


March 07, 2003

The misery of being a French man

By Charles Bremner

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-602312,00.html

FOUR decades of feminism have turned middle-class French men into miserable creatures who are intimidated by women and losing their way in an increasingly matriarchal society, a study says.

Men aged 20 to 45 believe that they have paid a heavy price for the social, legal and professional empowerment of women since the onset of the Pill and women's liberation in the 1960s, according to the analysis for Elle, an up-market women's magazine.

"Men of all generations are suffering," it said. "They feel diminished, devalued in a society where things feminine are perceived as positive and all-powerful values."

Men under 35 in particular felt that they were being treated as sexual objects by predatory young women.

Elle was surprised by the sense of victimisation and the anger of men towards women - especially among the younger generation - revealed by the Centre de Communication Avancée study. "They think women have gone too far, too quickly, without setting any limit to their demands or ever questioning themselves," Elle said.

Modern men see women as "castrating, vengeful, power-hungry and obsessed by men's sexual performance".

The study, based on interviews with four 12-man focus groups of urban professionals, was commissioned to mark International Women's Day tomorrow.

The findings echoed the refrain of male grievance familiar over the past decade in France and across the Westernised world.

While sounding a concerned tone for men, Elle noted that French women were still paid 30 per cent less than men, still performed 80 per cent of household chores and remained the main victims of domestic violence. It might have added that France still has fewer women in senior executive roles or high positions in the professions or politics than most EU states.

Men, the survey said, were driven to distraction by the conflicting demands of modern women. They were paradoxically being encouraged to adopt feminine traits while women still expected them to be virile. "Masculinity is in crisis . . . there is no longer a model for building a masculine identity.

Man no longer exists," the magazine said.

"Being a male today is a nightmare. The male identity feels battered by the paradoxical demands of women . . . and a society that is going their way, from law, morality to advertising and techniques of reproduction . . . One gets the impression that a new war of the sexes is emerging, with the former dominated becoming the dominatrixes".

Men blamed advertising and the media for treating them as useless or sexual objects. They had suffered various phases of "destabilisation". In the Sixties and Seventies they had experienced the moral revolution and the doctrine of female equality.

In the Eighties they had faced "implosion" through an explosion of models, from Golden Boys to gays and the Rambo type. In the Nineties they had been stressed by unemployment, aids, globalisation and the failure of the "masculine" technocratic model of society that had prevailed in France.

Younger men were said to be more unhappy than their elders. The 25-35 group felt that women "consume men and abuse them sexually". The saddest group seemed to be those aged 20-25, who the magazine defined as "subjugated and feminised".

"It is not rare that they cultivate a gay image in which they find a model for acceding to femininity. Behind the abandonment of their virility there lies another odd ideal: that of 'homosexual fusion' with the woman, a loss of differentiation between sexes." 


Commentary by Fathers for Life

The article is right on the button, with one notable exception. It would be great to see the source of the data for the claim that women still lag behind in the job market with respect to being paid 30 percent less than men, and that they still are under-represented in executive and leadership positions. The latter thought was apparently not mentioned in the original French article and was a comment added by Charles Bremner.

Feminists have an odious reputation for misrepresenting statistics. They are prone to distort things by quoting them out of context. However, incessant feminist propaganda more than compensates for that serious feminist handicap of not telling the truth, all of the truth and nothing but the truth, proving Hitler right. If you tell lies, tell big ones, tailor them to the capacity of the masses to comprehend, and tell them all-pervasively and incessantly. In short order the lies will then be accepted as the truth.  Most importantly, as Hitler said further, never underestimate the enormous capacity of the masses to forget. Few subjects of interest illustrate that better than the feminist focus on pay equity.

It would truly surprise me if French women were being discriminated against as claimed with respect to being paid 30 percent less for equal pay and equal hours worked.

Firstly, it is probably against the law to do that in France, just as it is in other developed nations. Secondly, the feminists rationalize that their claim of women being underpaid is valid because women's annual incomes are on average less than corresponding incomes by men. However, upon closer examination it is found that any differences in pay between men and women are entirely due to the choices made by women.

Women in the work force work on average fewer hours per week than men (about 10% fewer hours). They also limit their careers somewhat by choosing jobs that provide convenient hours, convenient job locations and convenient types of work. Studies that controlled for level of experience, hours worked, level of education attained, tenure on the job as well as for job choices made found that women earn as much as men for identical quality and quantity of work. If anything, if both men and women worked more than about 44 hours per week in identical jobs, then it was found that women earn more than men do.

As the authors of one of those studies (commissioned by Statistics Canada) stated, if anything, discrimination in pay is in favour of women. A similar study done in the US found that women's pay is, at 95 to 98 percent of men's pay, most definitely not disastrously differentiated. Moreover, that study, too, found that if the aspects relating to women's choices are being controlled for, then the "glass ceiling" vanishes. (For details see Pay Equity - Is there discrimination against women?)

Not too surprisingly, feminist-controlled Statistics Canada never publicized the objective and thorough study they had commissioned, and they subsequently still promoted on several occasions the feminist myth of unequal pay for women, although negative public reactions to those claims eventually forced them to somewhat correct their biased editorializing.

As to the claim that women still do 80 percent of all household chores, the short answer to that was provided by Laura Schlesinger on her talk show to a woman who called in to complain about that very issue. The woman was a stay-at-home mom. Her husband was working 12-hour shifts and worked overtime on weekends. Laura Schlesinger asked the women how much of her husband's work she does.

The woman didn't understand Dr. Laura's point, and is doubtful that either the author of the article in Elle or Charles Bremner will.

The long answer is contained in objective studies that consider all contributions that both men and women make to their families, and that then normalize those contributions before making any comparisons. It is found in books like Women can't hear what men don't say, by Warren Farrell.

Warren Farrell illustrates, with a questionnaire containing an objective and comprehensive list of about 50 activities that both men and women routinely perform to operate a family, that feminists conveniently forget about many of the things done by men.

There is an obvious aspect of men's work that is not taken into account when feminists cart out their somewhat shabby and threadbare household-chores statistics. The performance of household chores does not involve long hours of commuting to the job.

Moreover, many of the household chores that men do: fixing things, changing the oil on- and washing or repairing the family car, cutting the lawn, cleaning the gutters, unplugging sinks, etc., are not counted in the hours of household chores the feminists love to harp on, because such "men's work" is routinely and even deliberately ignored, even by men themselves. Interestingly, as Warren Farrell points out as well, even at home, the odious, dirty and dangerous jobs, just as in working-life elsewhere, are being performed almost exclusively by men. It is no accident that men comprise 19 out of 20 job-accident casualties. Men are disposable, and why waste precious women's lives on things that are much better relegated to men.

Lastly, as to women's under-representation in political and executive positions, that is primarily a matter of women's choices. There has never been a problem with getting women into those positions, from Cleopatra's times, through those of Queen Elizabeth I, Katherine the Great and Margaret Thatcher, to the present ones, where women now, qualified or not, receive preferential treatment to get them there. If women are not equally present in those positions, then that is not because men prevent them from getting there. It is largely because women don't want to be there in spite of all and anything men and all of society do for women. It is ludicrous to blame men for women not getting what women don't want.

...And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizens fall under the dominion of their wives, ....But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.

—Aristotle, in Politics, (350 B.C.)
(see annotated full text of that part of Aristotle's Politics)

The difference is now that women don't just rule the rulers, they are the rulers, to boot. It is not a question of women having exchanged one position for the other. The enormous power that women already had got expanded to the point where it is now overwhelming and smothers men. But there is far more to Aristotle's observation than meets the eye.

The elites of today are not the ostensible leaders of government, church, commerce and industry. They centre themselves instead in three areas of society: the interest groups, the media and the bureaucracy. The interest groups propose, the media endorse, and the bureaucracy enact. The politicians and the leaders of business, cowed by the media, acquiesce.

Ted Byfield, in the Alberta Report , March 9, 1998, page 44
(for a consenting opinion, see A Conspiracy For Fred, 2001 11 26)

That is a sobering thought, but it appears to be much worse than that. We must not forget that the interest groups in power have so much power because they comprise many of the leaders of church, commerce and industry, comprise and control much of the media, and, for all intents and purposes, comprise, totally dominate and control practically all of the bureaucracy. Of course, one of the most powerful interest groups of all is feminism in all of its manifestations. The bureaucracy is a feminist power structure that operates according to feminist standards. Most of the rules pertaining to behaviour of personnel in the bureaucracy were wrought by fashioning them through the feminist gender-lens. They are rules favoring women, not equal rights within the bureaucracy.

Consider that today's decisions are hardly made by politicians but by the bureaucracy. The power of the bureaucracy is far greater than that of politicians. That was true in Hitler's times and is even more true now. If even a government office for the examination and promotion of the Status of Men is staffed predominantly with women, then women's power is indeed far greater than we thought all along.

Can you imagine what the women's groups would say if any office for the Status of Women were to be staffed by men, any men? In Canada, for example, when Hedy Fry was still Minister for the Status of Women, her department had a staff of about 120, that is, 119 women and one man, a homosexual and naturally pro-feminist man. In comparison to efforts of that magnitude to promote the Status of Women, the Austrian allocation of a staff of half a dozen, of whom only two are men, seems quite pitifully inadequate for the promotion of the Status of Men.

Furthermore, aside from the fact that men and women in families are violent against one another anywhere in about equal proportions, and that there are close to 500 women's shelters in Canada but no battered men's shelters at all except for the local jails (where the presence of female guards is now all-pervasive), there is not a single women's shelter in Canada where men -- police officers or even transsexuals who are pro-feminist activists -- are permitted to enter, with one exception: men who are plumbers. Plumbers, especially because they are men, are good enough to unplug the drains on sinks and toilets in women's shelters. It is not that women can't do that themselves, but as long as there are men to do it, why should any woman stoop so low as to clean up her own mess, right? That is the new reality of "equality", where women are "more equal" than men. That is not equitable equality! It is a sham and a human rights disaster.

Women's power is now absolute and totalitarian, and men are second class citizens, nothing more than beasts of burden, and, come to think of it, that is the way it has been since antiquity:

Feminism four hundred years ago — Oppression of Women?

"It is an amazing thing to see in our city the wife of a shoemaker, or a butcher, or a porter dressed in silk with chains of gold at the throat, with pearls and rings of good value....and then in contrast to see her husband cutting the meat, all smeared with cow's blood, poorly dressed.... but whosoever considers this carefully will find it reasonable, because it is necessary that the lady, even if low born and humble, be draped with such clothes for her natural excellence and dignity, and the man [be] less adorned as if a slave, or a little ass, born to her service."

— Lucrezia Marinella, Venice, Italy, 1600
The Nobility and Excellence of Women Together
With the Defects and Deficiencies of Men

Quoted on page 22 of
If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules
(Translation into French)

More of Lucrezia Marinella's writings

There you have it, some women, and most of the feminists love to go along with them on that and even promote the idea, feel that men are nothing more than little asses, born to be servants to women.

Don't get me wrong about any of what I said here. It does not bother me that I do any of the onerous and dangerous work around the house. I don't mind doing it because I love my wife and she loves me in return, especially for the things we do for one another without even dreaming that these could or should be entitlements.

The big difference between my wife on the one hand and Charles Bremner, the editors of Elle and feminists anywhere on the other, is that my wife, just as countless women anywhere who wish for nothing better than that the feminists would just go away, it is that my wife appreciates the work being done for her and that I appreciate what she does for me.

My wife feels that the feminists robbed society of far too many niceties and civilities already, such as the mutual respect that the sexes once had for one another. She does not think that it is her right to have me or any man as her servant. She thinks that she is privileged to have someone who extends niceties of life to her and loves me for doing it. Besides, I am much better than she is in doing roof repairs, if for no other reason than that she is seriously afraid of heights. She is the one who coined the expression: "If women want to be truly equal to men, then they will die like men, just as often for the same reasons and just as early." Most of all, having been a part of the job market for many, many years and having made the deliberate choice of the better of two worlds, she is well qualified to make a well-informed comparison between the two and to make the right choice.


What the Austrian bureaucracy intends to do to alleviate the problems with the Status of Men in Austria.


See also:

Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry (Off-Site)

White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2002 03 08
Updates:
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)