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)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Sex Differences v. Dogma by Walter R. Dolen


Excerpts:

Sex Differences v. Dogma by Walter R. Dolen

Sex Differences v. Dogma 1997 by Walter R. Dolen
All rights reserved, except as follows:  You may download this work for personal use only, not for commercial use.
Published by the BeComingOne Press

Excerpts:

"[Radical feminism] . . .has robbed females of their femininity, and has taken away the potential joy of motherhood:

    "Many mid-career women blame the movement for not knowing and for emphasizing the wrong issues. The ERA and lesbian rights.... The bitterest complaints come from the growing ranks of women who have reached 40 and find themselves childless, having put their careers first. Is it fair that 90% of male executives 40 and under are fathers but only 35% of their female counterparts have children? 'Our generation was the human sacrifice,' says Elizabeth Mehren, 42, a feature writer for the Los Angeles Times. 'We believed the rhetoric. We could control our biological destiny.... Nonprofessional women, poor women, minority women feel their needs and values have been largely ignored by the organized women movement, which grew out of white, middle-class women's discontent.... Ask a women under the age of 30 if she is a feminist, and chances are she will shoot back a decisive, and perhaps even a derisive, no."

and:

Against Family

    Contrary to what moderate feminists may project, the feminists' dogma did play a big part in the disintregation of the American family because the hardcore leaders were and still are against the family unit:

    "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." [19]
    "The traditional family, with all its supposed attributes, enslaved woman; it reduced her to a breeder and caretaker of children, a servant to her spouse, a cleaning lady, and at times a victim of the labor market as well." [20]

    Contrary to radical feminists' dogma marriage is anything but detrimental for women. But because marriage is deemphasized today by the feminists' propaganda both women and children are being hurt, as well as the future well-being of our nation and other nations. Radical feminists manifest their lack of commonsense here. As we further examine the movement you will see much more of their extreme anti-family bias. Even the United Nations in its "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," declared rightly that "the Family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."[21]

[21] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Dec 10, 1948, by the General Assembly of the UN [My note:  The problem here is of course, that the feminists are changing the intepretation of the definition of what constitutes a family.  The trend is to work toward a society consisting of families that are comprised only of mothers and children.  That is not the meaning of any of our laws, but the application of our laws is based on their interpretation.  The latter is determined by what is currently politically correct. --WHS]

and on:

Militant Homosexualism

 . . .
Another obnoxious aspect of radical feminism is the factor of militant homosexualism in their leadership. Notice:

"A vital relationship between lesbians and women's liberation is in their mutual interest in a time of changing relationships. Lesbians are the women who potentially can demonstrate life outside the male power structure that dominates marriage as well as every other aspect of our culture. Thus, the lesbian movement is not only related to women's liberation, it is at the very heart of it."[23]

    The real leaders of the movement are female-homosexuals. Their militarism make them extremists: they want to push their anti-male and pro-homosexuality on all females, starting in grade schools. There seems to be a deep hatred or fear of males in them.
    In reality the word 'homosexual' is self-contradictory. Sexual behavior can only happen between two biologically different (dyadic) but complimentary individuals, not two similar individuals. The extremists of radical feminism are really HeteroPhobics, not homosexuals. They hate, fear, or despise males.
. . .

and from chapter 3 of the book:

Sex Role Development

    From the pop-educated, especially in the last two or three decades, has come a propagative movement against traditional sex roles. Even as far back as 1935 Margaret Mead wrote about the need for freer sex roles.[1] Mead believed that women should be able to take part in more activities usually associated with men. Others before her called for more freedom from sex role stereotypes.[2] Sex role stereotypes have to do with our expectations about the behavior of males or females: men work outside the home, do the heavy work, fight the wars, dominate all spatial ability jobs (mathematicians, Engineers, Architects), and control the most powerful institutions; women bear and nurse the babies, care for the young, work in or near the home, do the family cooking, etc., and when they work outside the home they work in more occupations that deal with children and interrelationships between people. Generally in all cultures, men are expected to work mostly outside the home and help provide for their family, while women are expected to stay near or at home and care for the children, and to work in and around the house, cooking, etc.

    But in the last several decades sex roles are being challenged[3]: Not only are more women working, but more women are working who have children. In 1990 only 18% of women with children under 18 were not working outside the home. At the beginning of the latest phase of women's lib there were articles like, "Do Children Need Sex Roles?,"[4] "Are You Harming Your Son Without Knowing it?,"[5] which dictated to us about the "right" of junior to play with dolls, and the "right" of the little Miss (Ms) to play baseball. "

[My note:  What this proposes is feminist logic: It's not fascism when we do it!that it's women's choice to work or not to work.  What it ignores is that to be a stay-at-home mom is work to, albeit not work that brings in any cash – even though it often does wonders for the equity and well-being of a family, something that can easily be measured in financial terms and proves that without doubt families headed by two married biological parents are substantially better off in virtually all possible respects than any other "families" are.  The major difference in outcomes is whether natural fathers are present or not.
   What it also ignores is that many households with only one income earner find themselves with an income that is below the poverty level.  That provides a great incentive for many women to go to work.  The fallacy of that is that for the majority of these families in which the mothers , too, find them selves in the work force, there isn't any real net benefit, only the illusion of it, especially in view of
punitive taxation directed at families headed by heterosexul, married parents. --WHS]

Sex Differences and Their Implications
Chapter four from Sex and Politics

"If we don't understand the opposite sex, we don't understand the differences.  Sex is two becoming one."  

[And a well-functioning civilization comes about and thrives only when the two sexes live together in harmony --WHS]

______________
Posted 2000 02 18 (previously part of the bibliography at sex_pol.htm)
Updates:
2001 02 10 (format changes)