Women's Liberation

Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPS) Frances Green, Margaret (Peg) Kirchner, Ann Waldner and Blanche Osborn leaving their B-17 bomber, "Pistol Packin' Mama" at the WASP training school, Lockbourne Army Airfield, Ohio, during WWII. None of them were military or served in combat.

I'd like to help do something about it.

I have been a big fan of women (yes, all women) since well before most of them today were even born. I think it is really clever to have two genders; one wouldn't have been nearly enough, and three would almost certainly have been way too many. I feel sorry for those men who, for whatever reason, find other men more sexually attractive than women. Nature seems intent on removing them from the breeding pool. In addition, I am personally offended when women profane themselves by trying to be equal to men. I can't for the life of me imagine why any woman would want to sink that low!

In addition, I am absolutely convinced that it is the basic function of male human beings to protect, honor, cherish and provide for women (yes, all women) involved in the basic function of female human beings, which is child bearing and rearing. Pregnant women tend to be less physically and psychologically agile than normal, not optimum for hunting or gathering in a world filled with mortal danger. Also, juvenile humans naturally tend to scare away prey and attract predators. Thus, the survival of the human race depends on us men doing our job of hunting and gathering in the field for women doing their job at home, even if they haven't done it yet. Call it "love" if you want. As a widower, I try to fulfill my male identity, such as it is, by caring for women generally. I consider this a worthwhile vocation.

The first step in changing an undesirable situation is often to determine how it happened to occur in the first place. Having been around long enough to see the current anti-women situation arise, I believe I have more insight into the matter than average. What follows is my personal interpretation. I suspect that some readers will accuse me of being a sexist, or maybe something worse. I don't care. An epithet is merely a label applied by a bigot, a different name for the same thing named, and I am already on record as not caring about that. Besides, nobody's forcing anyone to read this. Feel free also to disagree.

My admiration for women began early in my teens, when Marty McFly's parents were in high school in "Back to the Future." With three brothers, a sister, and one sibling on the way, Marty's mom Lorraine Baines was a pretty typical postwar teenager. Lorraine's mother may have worked in industry during WWII, freeing the men for urgent combat duty. I don't recall anybody back then expressing the opinion that it was unfair that only the boys were conscripted to fight, suffer and die overseas. Nobody would have expected girls to be drafted. Girls like Lorraine were expected to get married, have babies, and raise a family, all economically supported by a loving husband, if he managed somehow to survive WWII or Korea (or Vietnam, or Kosovo, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, etc. etc. etc.).

Following a tradition begun by their earliest ancestors, girls of that time newly arrived at adulthood recognized that sexual activity would likely result in pregnancy, a situation sometimes referred to as "Andromeda's chains." So they tried to make sure that they could get pregnant only by males dedicated to their long-term welfare and that of their children. They concentrated on being attractive, pretty, soft, cuddly, desirable and sexy, in ways that suggested exclusivity as well, such as "going steady," wearing "slave bracelets" and the their "steady's" rings or other jewelry. They managed to convince us boys that a future with only them would fulfill our wildest dreams. To tell the truth, we teenage boys didn't need convincing. Motivated by our own natural instincts, that "peaked" as soon as we reached puberty, we usually just wanted to "do it" with them. But they called the shots! We boys characteristically tried to "see how far we could get," (Like Biff Tannen, for example) but the girls got to decide how far that was. Boys who didn't follow the rules were "taken care of" by the others (even George McFly)!

What the girls usually demanded in return for sexual favors was a lifetime of devotion in which they cared for the home and children, like Lorraine's mom, and we cared only for them, like Lorraine's dad. They were willing to give us exclusive sex to get exclusive love. They also demanded that we treat them with tenderness and respect and deport ourselves in a manner worthy of their affection. We, in turn, tried to live up to the standards they established for us. We also worked to establish a good enough career to support them in the manner to which they expected to become accustomed, more than willing to give them exclusive love to get exclusive sex. There were "easy" girls, of course, but they didn't get much actual love because that is based upon exclusivity. They served as dramatic, concrete examples of what should have been a dire warning to future generations!

There were other inequities too. Women had the right to vote for almost two generations, but could be rejected for a job solely because of their gender. They were considered "unfit" for physically demanding or dangerous occupations. They were often refused admission to colleges and technical schools that concentrated on the educational requirements of male wage earners, but were more than welcome in their segregated institutions of higher learning that taught "feminine" subjects. Without a reliable source of independent income, few of them had credit, including mortgages or car loans in their own names. Pregnant women were expected to stay home and prepare for the baby. A women could be fired from almost any job simply for getting pregnant.

The upside of this situation, for women, at least, was their ability to command support, care, love and protection from available men by appealing to our most basic motivations, those involving reproduction. It established a balance of power in which the boys' basic desire simply to "do it" was moderated by most girls' refusal to "do it" at all unless they had a durable marriage contract with a reliable wage earner and, in modern times, an expensive ring. "Andromeda's chains" thus bound the father of her children as much as they did herself, and "the hand that rocked the cradle ruled the world!" This situation is rooted in our very biology, and can be upset only by the intervention of artificial, unnatural, technology.

This is exactly what happened on June 23, 1960, when the US FDA approved the first female contraceptives. For the first time in human history, female sexuality was disconnected from human reproduction. "Andromeda was freed from her chains." "The pills" weren't perfect, but they were good enough! The Woman's Liberation Movement had begun!

Virtually overnight, women started copulating like rabid weasels without getting pregnant. "Mother!" became a dirty (or at least a pejorative) expletive as women all over the civilized world competed with each other for blatant objectification as "playmates," "pets," "sex symbols" or "life support systems for vaginas."

Traditional taboos against adultery and fornication came to be seen as "restrictions on a woman's right to her own body." Male reverence for and protection of women as bearers of our children and heirs vanished like sand castles in the rain. Having put up with male sexual infidelity in return for love since earliest antiquity, women decided that they now had a right to be equally as unfaithful, not recognizing that men had just as much built-in psychological demand for sexual exclusivity as the women did for exclusive love. Evolution selects for both, but the women stopped holding up their traditional end of the bargain. By the time a modern women found somebody who truly loved her and was dedicated to supporting her and her children for life, she often had several, sometimes scores of, sexual partners. Some of them even kept score and bragged about it! They still wore pure white dresses publicly to proclaim their virginity at their weddings, but most of them were lying! Sometimes they were pregnant with another man's child as well. They occasionally lied about that, too.

Honestly, ladies, how's that working out for you?

Men were initially delighted with the prospect of getting sex without having to make a commitment to "love, honor and cherish 'till death do us part" or even to give anything more than a milliliter or so of glandular secretion, and maybe a Big Mac and an order of fries. Eventually, however, the truth began to percolate through our insensitive male brains that we were getting sex for next to nothing, but not sexual exclusivity, which is what our psychology demanded. That was available from only the very young or the very unattractive. Men began to see children as sex objects, which contributed to their exploitation and promiscuity as well. Faced with choices between legally unavailable children and otherwise undesirable (but "unsoiled") women, increasing numbers of us sought sexual exclusivity with other men.

Women began to experience similar anomalies. They found to their dismay that giving sex didn't necessarily result in getting love and support, which their psychology craved, and which was still required for their reproductive survival. Increasing numbers of them began seeking what they needed from other women. Liberated from the restrictions imposed by unwanted childbearing, they began streaming into the occupations and workplaces that their mothers had reluctantly occupied as a temporary wartime evil. We men thus found ourselves competing by instinct in our formerly exclusive male "hunting grounds" with invaders who were armed with intellect and cunning as well, and with a desperate fundamental need for the material support they formerly got from us!

One of the things they did not do was give up their traditional feminine advantages. Active competition involved mostly those jobs that were relatively safe, traditionally feminine, or in which there were enough men around to do the heavy or dangerous work to make things seem equal. They wanted equal benefits that men had, but not equally harsh working conditions. It is no coincidence that the Occupational Safety and Health Act became law in 1970, when the Women's Liberation Movement became universally recognized, and when 53% of registered voters were female. The simple fact is that one thing the women did not accept were the hazards to which historically they had been perfectly willing to expose their fathers, uncles, brothers, husbands, lovers and sons. They have never, for example, moved to change Selective Service registration to include drafting women as well as men.

In the military, women demanded, and received, assignment to formerly all male occupational specialties, against the strenuous objections of seasoned male generals and admirals who foresaw the chaos this is even now causing. The basic problem is that the military has yet fully to adjust to the fact that a mixed gender workforce has unique potential for disaster that all male or all female organizations do not. For example, a recent widely reported problem concerning women Marines alleged that nude pictures of some of them had been circulated among something like 30,000 male Marines. One has to wonder where all those pictures came from (and who were allowed to take them and why). Regardless of the intended purpose of compromising photographs, they can't be circulated among strangers if they aren't taken in the first place!

The supposed advantages of assignment of women to formally all male duties has yet to be conclusively demonstrated, either here or elsewhere. The few female pioneers such as Army Rangers, Air Force combat pilots and Navy SEALS who "have proved that a woman can do the job as well as a man" are selectees from the best of the best of the best. Of course they can do the job as well the average man, and the average woman, for that matter. The question is, can the average woman do the job as well as the average man? If so, there isn't any reason why they shouldn't be doing it. If they can do it better, they should be doing it exclusively, and the men should be doing something else!

The women themselves are absolutely against anything like fair competition on an equal basis. In a profession where incompetence can get one killed, they have studiously avoided open competition with men, such as, for example, all female ship crews or combat units that could be objectively measured against the performance of traditional all male units to prove, one way or the other, whether the ladies are actually as capable as they strenuously claim. Many of them obviously are, of course, but "many" does not mean "most," or "all!"

In countries whose very survival depends on the efficiency of their military (such as Israel), service members of both genders are assigned on the basis of aptitude, not political expediency. Women in those armed forces achieve high rank, just as the men do, by demonstrating their leadership and capacity for increased responsibility in things they do well, which is often different from direct combat. As one Israeli officer explained to me, "In our country, we do not have the luxury to use our armed forces as a vehicle for social experimentation."

One missed opportunity to demonstrate female equality in military-type duties arose with the Women's' Airforce Service Pilots, civilian women who flew military aircraft ferry flights in WWII, as shown in the picture. Of about 25,000 women who applied to join the WASP, 1,830 (7.32%) were accepted. Over 41% of those washed out, leaving 1,074 who passed the training and actually joined. Safely after the conflict, they shamefully lobbied for, and received, veterans' benefits, even though they had never, in fact, been veterans; they never served in the military, had never been in combat, and could (and did) quit any time the going got tough. Thirty-eight of them died on the job, thirty percent of the combat included casualty rate for male aircrews, but none were from enemy action. The WASPS reserved getting killed by an armed enemy exclusively for military (male) pilots.

To be sure, there were women in the military in WWII. They were called WACS and WAVES. During a time when the future of our society depended on rational, apolitical assignment policies, servicewomen were assigned only to jobs considered, and demonstrated to be, appropriate for women. They were segregated from the men, as a result of which sexual harassment and assaults of, upon and by them were rare. They served with honor and distinction, and after the war justly received the veterans' benefits they had earned for their heroic military service to their country. Unlike any of the WASPS, over four hundred of them were killed in combat in WWII.

That didn't stop the non-military women from claiming credit for winning WWII, though. A recent solicitation for funds for the National WASP-WWII Museum reads in part, "In fact, the historic flight of the Enola Gay... may never have been recorded if it were not for the skill and talent of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP)." In actual fact, the "historic flight of the Enola Gay," as well as all the other combat operations over Japan, was accomplished exclusively by military men who, unlike the WASPS, were ready and willing to fly into the thick of Japanese anti-aircraft fire. They trained for the atomic bomb missions by doing precisely that.

Women naturally pressed what workplace advantages they had over men in other ways, too. Our work clothing, which for centuries had been basically utilitarian and protective, was upstaged by female competitors who managed to display a generous amount of leg, a well-rounded bottom, and provocative cleavage. This and other factors met with hostility in male dominated workplaces, where the women were seen as unqualified, inexperienced interlopers. Women, however, had the overwhelming advantage in such cases of getting rid of the competition by charges of "discrimination," "workplace harassment" and worse. They also took full advantage of being able to "screw their way to the top." They were willing to accept professional advancement or huge amounts of "hush money" in exchange for sexual favors to morally depraved but influential men. Glass ceilings all over the world began shattering.

We males responded in various ways. Where possible, competition was arranged only between members of the same gender, such as in athletics and a declining number of gender-specific professions. Some of us took up the challenge regardless of advantage or disadvantage on either side, with gains and losses in both camps. Others of us attempted to enforce sexual exclusivity over women by manipulating, controlling, abusing and exploiting them. Many women were threatened with injury or death if they ever left or had sex with somebody else. Some of us carried out those threats, and are still doing that! Today, if a woman is murdered, it is too often by somebody who claimed to love her.

Women continued to have children (at times of their own choosing), however, and we continued to father them. We just quit supporting them. We quit marrying many of the mothers, too, and we rarely stayed married long enough to raise their children to maturity. Having been assured that women were now able to provide for their own material and social needs, we began letting them do just that. Sometimes, we were ordered by a judge to do otherwise, but we didn't always do it even then! Few women retained the option of being traditional wives and mothers, as expected family income became too great for only the husband/father to produce it. Andromeda's chains to her biology were thus replaced by equally durable chains to her means of making the living necessary for her very survival and that of her children.

The chains aren't gone, they're just changed by technology. Modern American women have come to regard various kinds of contraceptives as a right absolutely necessary for their well being, well ahead of proper nutrition, hygiene and education. A recent controversy regarding this "right" is the US Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. et. al.. The Court agreed with the plaintiffs that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which the respondents claimed exempted them from providing artificial birth control, applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations.

The Court also agreed that the Department of Health and Human Services' mandate for employers to provide contraceptives substantially burdens the respondents' exercise of religion. It declared that the Government had failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering the government's interest in the matter, in specific violation of the Act. The resulting public consensus among women (including all the women on the Court) was that this ruling was tantamount to denying all women everywhere (yes, all women!) the contraceptive methods to which they had become psychologically addicted. Once again, the women expected other people to do what they wanted, instead of using some of the money Hobby Lobby was paying them and just buying the drugs they felt they needed! In this case, what they wanted was to violate the plaintiffs' Constitutional right to freely exercise their religious beliefs in preference of their own. Whether religious belief is actually involved is, of course, another matter entirely.

So far, none of them has explained why women didn't protest against the RFRA when it was passed in 1993 with only three dissenting votes in the whole Congress, (Senators Harlan Matthews, Jesse Helms and Robert Byrd - all men) or how frustrating, even for a time, the most fundamental of human female abilities, to conceive and bear children, contributes to their feminine health!

The Women's Liberation Movement has changed everyone's lives socially, economically, and politically. The cover of LIFE magazine on September 4, 1970, described it as "the revolution that will affect everybody." It did not, however, predict that the effect would necessarily be good! As it turned out, even women themselves couldn't sell it. There are precious few statues or other memorials to feminist leaders because men don't want them and women don't care enough to commission, produce, purchase or erect them. There are scarcely any historical books or films about "the revolution;" neither men nor women are that interested in producing them. There are college courses in "women's studies," but almost no professions available for either men or women with only that degree. Feminist leaders are not memorialized by dedication of schools, parks, libraries or public holidays. Nobody cares! Women constitute a majority of the voting population, and a majority of people who admit to actually voting. Why aren't they exercising the political power for which their mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers fought so hard?

I submit that it is because the Women's Liberation Movement is based on the big lie that unequivocal female equality with men is something to be desired. Modern women want much more than equal social and economic opportunity; they want others to give them the benefits of equality, while leaving the advantages of inequality they now enjoy alone!

Ladies, regardless of how much you would like it not to be so, you just can't have it both ways! To be equal is to erase the unique and absolutely essential distinctiveness of gender that makes us who and what we are.

One hears modern women complaining vehemently about assault, rape, unwanted sexual advances, discrimination in virtually everything, and lack of support for feminine needs, goals, ideals and values, but they don't seem actually to be doing anything to change that. The signs, slogans, demonstrations, obnoxious interruptions of other people's daily routines and general bitchiness don't actually accomplish anything except portray them as self-deluded and increasingly frustrated! Today's women want the sexual dominance over men their mothers and grandmothers enjoyed, but they don't seem either willing or, indeed, able to reestablish it. They want us simply to give it to them. However, the only reason they seem to be able to come up with is that they think we ought to. I don't know of any man who thinks that is a good enough reason. It's the men they have to convince; not themselves. So far, they're doing it exactly wrong! No wonder they're frustrated!

This frustration has unexpectedly created an increasingly common phenomenon known informally as the karen. The word comes from from the Burmese "ka-reng," "a wild and unclean person." It originally appied as a perjorative to the indigenous people of eastern Myanmar and western Thailand. In the United States, it has come to mean a disagreeable, outspoken, often poorly educated female bigot.

The stereotypical karens are mean for the pupose of being mean. They purposely cough on unvaccinated babies during a pandemic when everyone else is wearing a mask. They prevent residents of multi-family housing from using the facilities because they claim the victims "don't belong." They question the legitimacy of children in front of their parents and the legal residency or citizenship of people who don't look like them. They mow their lawns while people next door are celebrating a wedding. If arrested for breaking the law, they scream, complain and assault officers. They do everything possible to give women a bad name, without any redeeming features whatever. The only good thing I can think of about them is that they are so repulsive that their reproduction potential is likely very low! Who would want to have sex with such a horrible person?

Recently, some such women have begun using ISIS terrorist tactics in an apparent attempt to frighten us all into giving them what they want (whatever that is). The tactic is to target some famous (and usually wealthy) male personality with allegations of past rape or other sexual misconduct in a way that makes it all but impossible to prove, usually because all potential evidence is long gone. The beauty of this technique is that, lacking any hope of a conviction in criminal court, where proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is required, the complainant turns to the civil court system, where only a "preponderance of evidence" is required as "the only way to get justice from a failed system." Often, the "court" is that of public opinion, supported by a prurient media, where absolutely no evidence is required. It works, too. If the celebrity is rich enough, he usually settles out of court with a gag order and payment of an "undisclosed sum" as the price of getting the accuser off his back. I call this the "Nafissatou Diallo technique." It made Ms. Diallo a millionaire from her suit against French celebrity Dominique Strauss-Khan (against whom all criminal charges were dropped for lack of evidence in 2011).

We men get the message, of course, "You guys better do what we want or we'll cut off your head castrate you extort really big bucks from you and destroy your reputation!" So far, this tactic has had limited success because the women involved put their emphasis on bitching, such as making allegations on TV interviews, instead of taking positive action like producing hard evidence and swearing out actual complaints.

Politically, on the other hand, it has been phenomenally successful against a very small number of public officials who consider the unsubstantiated opinions of a handful of women to be more important than those of the tens or hundreds of thousands of voters who elected them. This is probably a valuable public service, inasmuch as persons of such delicate sensitivity probably should not have been elected to representative office in the first place. Moreover, it has indeed rightly exposed actual egregious exploitative behavior that its victims chose, at the time, quietly to tolerate in return for, ah, "compensatory benefits." But it has also had the unfortunate effect of giving current and future social and professional relations with women (yes, all women) the reputation of being toxic, to be avoided where at all possible.

Lest anyone accuse me of "victim shaming," be advised that I am second to none as far as preventing real victimization is concerned. Rape is a crime. Sexual assault is a crime. Simple assault is a crime. Ladies, if you are ever raped or criminally assaulted, Don't let him get away with it, even one time, even one day! Immediately contact law enforcement so the criminal can be arrested, tried and convicted. Conviction can also be powerful arguments for subsequent substantial civil judgments without even the hint of victim "consent." But waiting years to report a crime makes you complicit, by omission if nothing else, because it makes prosecution that much harder and puts others at risk while you remain silent. Failure to do the right thing, or doing the wrong thing, because of fear of the consequences otherwise is called "cowardice," and is as reprehensible in women as it is in men!

Unsubstantiated female accusations against men are unlikely to ever work to women's favor on a large scale, because it makes the accusers our opponents, adversaries, and foes. We men are the ultimate predators, our species' established natural masters at dealing successfully with those kinds of threats. That's why we have historically been so much more successful hunters, soldiers and conquerors!

Furthermore, this is the United States of America, not the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In this country, an accused is innocent unless and until proved guilty of an actual crime in a court of law by a jury of his (or her) peers. Anyone here who chooses to ignore this fundamental principle has only himself or herself to blame for the consequences.

That having been said, "inappropriate behavior" does not rise to the level of a crime just because somebody did it a lot, or because something is now thought to be "inappropriate" that wasn't then, or because somebody did it, whatever it was, in the presence of somebody else who didn't like it who was involved only as a witness or bystander. If somebody is doing something you don't like, just leave! Walk out! Take a taxi home! Don't associate with that person anymore! He'll eventually get the message if you do that consistently! But be very careful whom you accuse of what. In some places other than Hollywood or the political arena, women who accept money or professional opportunities in exchange for, um, "compromised virtue" are known as prostitutes. No matter what happened afterward, prostitution, for whatever reason is was conducted, is a crime!

One has to wonder what would happen if a rich, famous motion picture producer or director made a public statement such as:

"...I would also like to thank those members of the Academy who supported my decision to make public the circumstances of my short, unwanted relationship with the individual who attempted to seduce and blackmail me into inclusion in the production of my films. I hope that this person, and others who might otherwise make the same mistake, have learned that talent and hard work, not perverted sex, are the criteria of success in our profession."

To solve a problem, it often helps to examine facts bearing on it, assumptions in the absence of facts, and possible options for solution. In the case of men doing things to which women take offense, however, most of the facts are at least partially in dispute, the assumptions probably are also, and there is little agreement on what options are available or by whom they should be exercised. People on both sides of the issue are likely to reject any suggestions that are incompatible with their established prejudices. I suspect that the fact that I am a man may lead to rejection of my views on that basis alone. Therefore, instead of proposing what I am convinced are reasonable options, I submit the following ideas as food for thought.

The first one that comes to mind is the foregoing definition, that men are thinking, saying or doing things that women don't like and the women want us to stop. Every single speech about this subject I have heard from women has demanded that men do, or stop doing, something because women want us to. Unfortunately, wanting something doesn't do anything to get it. If women are just going to want things to change, the most direct (and only) solution seems for them to modify their wants accordingly, to be content with the status quo.

The way I understand it, this is not considered a viable option because of the perception that we men should change our behavior. Unfortunately, believing something doesn't make it so, either. Maybe they are right; so what? Men do things for reasons that seem good to us, just as women do things for reasons that seem good to them. Why should we change? What do we get out of it? It certainly isn't sex, we get that already. We can buy it if nothing else. What other incentives do the ladies have?

It isn't affection, that's for sure. Modern women seem to have forgotten how to be affectionate. They often confuse it with "lewd" or "raunchy." Whatever affection is, it is not simple absence of acrimony, bitchiness, bitterness, cattiness, churlishness, cruelty, disagreeableness, ill temper, revenge, malevolence, malice, meanness, nastiness, rancor, resentment, rudeness, spite, unfriendliness, unkindness, unpleasantness, venom, and viciousness. We men know from experience about those attributes too well! Besides, what we want is exclusive affection - dedication and faithfulness. That is mostly gone with the wind.

It certainly isn't class, either. Women of Lorraine Baines' time enhanced their attractiveness and ability to manipulate men by fashions and customs established by rich, universally admired society women in England and France. Modern conventions more resemble those of despised ill-bred vagrant whores in third world countries. Today's women buy ragged, ill-fitting clothing new that starving homeless whores would have thrown away three generations ago. They blithely appear in public in costumes in which Lorraine and other women of her time would have refused to be caught dead! They seem not to understand the nature or function of underwear for example, not to mention pajamas or shoes. Ladies, what the hell is wrong with you?

And don't even get me started on tattoos, for God's sake! Do the ladies really think they are attractive? Really? Then why do they put so many of them where they don't have to (and often can't) see them?

Contemporary remarks by males - that the reactions women find so objectionable might possibly be motivated by the message they broadcast of being "easy," "cheap," "skanky," "sluts" - are often condemned as highly offensive. They are seen by many as suggestions that victims are somehow responsible for the purported criminal acts of their alleged attackers. That may or may not be, but the punishment of criminals, however severe, is accomplished (if ever!) only after they commit an actual crime, not instead of. I, for one, would like to see the women do something to prevent the rapes and other bad things, instead of punishing alarmingly increasing number of rapists for perpetrating them, regardless of alleged provocation. Demonstrating or complaining about it, much less accusing someone of it without presenting legal proof, doesn't seem to be doing much good! One has to wonder if women really have absolutely no power to determine their fate. If they don't, who gets to decide what happens to them and why? If they do, why aren't they using it more? Is the indignation of assumed victimhood or satisfaction of a conviction for rape, whatever that may be, really worth the trauma of the experience? Really?

Just to be clear, calling positive action "victim shaming" isn't helping. The victims are the ones most at risk. Shouldn't they be taking the most action beforehand to solve the problem? The fact is, "speaking out," "breaking silence," "reporting molestation," "testifying in open court," "making use of the press," "demonstrating," "holding them accountable," "prosecuting them," "letting people know" "punishing them," "refusing to be intimidated" "standing up for what is right" or "bringing them to justice" is NOT the same as "preventing them from doing bad things" in the first place.

In preparation for a "20/20" program about Malala Yousafzai, the teenage Pashtun Nobel Laureate, ABC news anchor Diane Sawyer interviewed a group of conservative Pashtun women, recorded the interview, and broadcast it on national television. When asked how they saw a western "liberated" woman like Ms. Sawyer, they depricatingly expressed the opinion that she was hopelessly confused, that she had surrendered her feminine prerogatives and protections in a doomed attempt to compete with men. They unanimously agreed that their own lives were much more secure. Whether they are right or wrong, it is what they believe, and it colors their world view and perception of their self worth and role in society. The fact is, there are admittedly small groups of women throughout the world who are, or have been, rarely, if ever, abused or assaulted. What do (or did) they do? Why don't the other women do that?

The simple fact is that things are not what they "should" be, or what we would like them to be, or what we think they are. Things are the way they are! Often the most difficult part of the solution to a problem is to determine what it is, and why it is that way! Solutions based on other than reality, especially a reality that one chooses to dispute or ignore, are forever doomed to failure. Also, as Albert Einstein (a man, but a smart man) once observed, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

Placing blame or assigning guilt for things doesn't help either; the current sorry plight of modern "liberated" women is no exception. It may make the ladies feel morally superior to us, but it doesn't solve the problem! Modern women are cheerless, dejected, depressed, despairing, despondent, disconsolate, dispirited, doleful, downcast, downhearted, forlorn, gloomy, glum, heartbroken, hurting, joyless, lugubrious, melancholy, miserable, morose, mournful, sad, sorrowful, unhappy, woebegone and woeful, a situation they are forthright in forcefully expressing to anyone interested, and to the rest of us as well! Maybe that's why their suicide rate is higher than anybody else's. If they don't resolve the causes of this pernicious situation, the effects aren't likely to change either, at least not for the better.

By the way, for anyone who doesn't know, we men find these unpleasant attitudes extremely repulsive and annoying. If the ladies think that intentionally irritating us is working at all in their favor, they are at best grievously misinformed.

True women's liberation ought to involve empowerment for them to accomplish things they want: expecting men to do that for them isn't very liberated; plus, it isn't working, either. If the ladies are really interested in resolving their problems instead of just bitching about them, they need to take a long, hard, dispassionate, objective look in the mirror at themselves; what they are doing and what they are not doing and why, and what the actual results are. If they do that honestly, they may be shocked by what they see! We men certainly are!

For the first time in the history of the United States, women recently had the opportunity to elect to the highest office in the land a superbly qualified female candidate with over 30 years of successful public service. Opposing her was a wealthy, vulgar, elderly male with an immigrant trophy wife young enough to be his daughter with no apparent qualifications and no public service at all, someone who openly insults, denigrates, exploits and assaults women. He is the absolutely perfect scapegoat for feminine ire, the stereotypical "rich dirty old man." This opportunity was freely given to American women in 1920 by the exclusively male legislatures that passed the Nineteenth Amendment. As a direct result, over 50% of the electorate are women. They had the ability to override, by sheer numbers, whomever the male voters chose, if they wanted to. In the subsequent Presidential election, the entire world saw proof positive that American women (yes, all women) were not really serious about empowering themselves if it involved electing even a competent and experienced woman. What they really just wanted was to have a man to blame when things don't go their way. Sixty percent of white women could have determined who became President. The entire human race was watching!

As usual, a majority of American women decided that having a man to blame instead of pursuing their own interests was the better choice! Virtually overnight, they started getting together in millions (with funny pink hats) to do just that! Even he was taken aback. "We just had an election," he remarked. "Why didn't these people vote?"

Fortunately, in the next election, American women decided to stand up and be counted! Having eliminated the qualified female candidates for President in the primaries, they nonetheless elected a morally straight male candidate who had the courage and good sense to select a superbly qualified female running mate who is now the Vice President of the United States. Mr. Biden's election was as much due to her qualifications as his own. He also, against fierce political odds, put an end to what was a 99.93% probability of overt historic racial and gender discrimination by nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court. I for one am eager to see where this release from tradition will ultimately take us. It will be a refreshing opportunity, in the next election, for all of us (yesallvoters), to be liberated from restricting our choices to less than half of our our citizenry by denying women their rightful place to determine their nation's destiny.

Recently though, a disturbing test case played out in Georgia. The Republican Party put itself squarely behind the "pro-life" lobby, which really means "anti-maternal right of choice." "Pro-life" Georgia Republicans nominated a candidate who is a former football player, a profession, incidentally known for unrecognized brain injury. This man had no discernable political experience, or expertise, or respect for truth or common sense. He ran on a platform consisting of a complete ban on abortion "because he is a Christian who is for life." One of the four mothers of his four children has accused him, with evidence, of paying for an abortion of her first child and pressing for the abortion of her second with him. He claimed she was lying, with no rebuttal of her evidence to the contrary.

Opposing him was the incumbent, and current, United States Senator who had been the senior pastor of Douglas Memorial Community Church until 2005, when he became senior pastor of Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church, an office once held by the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King. This man's position on abortion is to support the mother's right to choose, which should certainly be of interest to women, "yesallwomen," especially those who "choose life."

The Georgia Senate election was too close to call in the 2022 midterm elections, so the Nation had to await the results of a runnoff election that revealed a disturbing fact: for every group of voters who supported "women's issues," there was an equally large group of people who voted the other way. Women as a group (yesallwomen) failed to vote as a bloc to secure recognition of their maternal rights, increase in their child care benefits, recognition of their achievements, or any other concerns mainly of women. I consider it a sad, disappointing and threatening fact that almost half of Georgia voters selected Hershel Walker to represente their state in the United States Senate! Of couse, Georgia voters sent Marjorie Taylor Greene to Congress, twice, so one should probably not be too surprised!

According to the Center for Americasn Women and Politics, Women have registered and voted at higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980, with the turnout gap between women and men growing slightly larger with each successive presidential election. Women, who constitute more than half the population, have cast almost 10 million more votes than men in recent elections. American women as a group can outvote US male voters in any federal election, and most state elections, to secure the rights that they certainly deserve.

Why aren't they doing it?

Could it be that they just prefer to have things to bitch about?

John Lindorfer