The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Striker Archive
Mediocre Male Athletes Are Taking Over Women's Sports By Becoming "Transgender," New Lawsuit Claims
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Teenage girl track and field athletes are suing the Connecticut Association of Schools, the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference and other authorities for integrating biological men into women’s sports, which has allowed them to dominate.

According to the legal complaint, two male “transgender” students have been using their biological advantages to crush their female competitors in statewide track tournaments, effectively denying young women as a class the right to fair play, scholarship opportunities, and awards.

Starting in 2018, the two men, Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, have become the only two serious contenders in CIAC Women’s track races.

In the June 2018 100m Women’s Outdoor Track CIAC State Championship, Terry Miller won with a time of 11.72 seconds, with Adraya Yearwood coming in second place. The closest female, Bridget Lalonde, came in 3rd place with a significantly worse time at 12.36 seconds.

In 2019, the 55m version of the race found similar results. Miller clocked in at 7.00s, Yearwood at 7.07s, and nearest female contender Cori Richardson finished with 7.24s. The 4th, 5th and 6th place women all clustered closely with Richardson’s time, effectively left in the dust by Miller and Yearwood.

These results have been repeated over and over again. Yearwood and Miller have won 15 state championships between them, when previously the same number of awards were shared by nine different girls. Miller consistently crushes its competitors, leading to it being named “All-Courant girls indoor track and field athlete of the year” for 2018-19.

The rules of the NCAA state that a man can compete in women’s sports after taking one year of testosterone suppressing hormones. The lawsuit argues that this does not take into account the drastic differences in lung capacity, bone structure and size, and musculature that testosterone induces after puberty that can never be reversed.

The ACLU juggernaut has announced that it plans to fight these little girls in open court. The legal resources at the ACLU’s disposal, which holds more than $400 million dollars in assets and spends $120 million a year, turns any case, no matter how compelling, into an attrition-laden trek into the Russian winter.

The track on which the plaintiffs make their case is full of loaded language, looking to tap the Civil Rights act to defend normal people for once. A problem could arise with their approach, since “civil rights” laws are facially unconstitutional and thus interpreted subjectively by judges.

A plebiscite on whether men should be able to compete in women’s athletics would be a lopsided affair, with most people voting against. Unfortunately, Americans do not have the right to vote on issues that effect their day to day lives. The trajectory of this trial will be up to the personal political persuasions of the Clinton-appointed judge in question, particularly in the face of pressure by Jewish media and his elite social peers.

(Republished from National Justice by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: ACLU, Political Correctness, Sports, Transgenderism 
Hide 71 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I like how one of the plaintiffs is surnamed Soule, a Mayflower name. How symbolic.

  2. anonymous[130] • Disclaimer says:

    The photo at the beginning of this article really shows the bizarre, freaky appearance of these trannies. Most are creepy types that make your skin crawl. If a person has a gender identification issue and they cross-dress in their private lives then so be it. However, all these weirdos try to be at the head of a parade with the spotlight on them. They’re forcing their weirdness on everyone else. Then there’s all these enablers who also try to force all this on us. A guy thinks he’s Napoleon, do we call him Napoleon? Usually not. But if he thinks he’s another gender we all have to go along with it. Judges are dictating laws and they are all political; that’s how they became judges to begin with.

  3. Rosie says:

    I’m so glad to see someone has taken this up. Organized Feminism, as usual, is silent on this outrage, because they don’t represent women. They represent their donors.

  4. I say GO TRANNIES. Mess up feminism.

    Btw, as ridiculous as the tranny stuff is, it’s not a civilization-destroyer.
    The notion that men can use women’s washroom or run in races with women is moronic, even outrageous, but washrooms and race tracks aren’t what civilization is about.

    But ‘gay marriage’ is a bunker-buster against civilization. Marriage is the most important institution there is, and Jewish Power and Homos decided to blow up with the idiot notion of ‘marriage equality’ that says real sexuality between father and mother that produces life is no better or higher than homos bung-donging each other or trannies cutting their dicks off. That is truly sick.

    That said, one aspect of tranny-ism that is EVIL and utterly destructive is encouraging CHILDREN to undergo radical surgery and the like to become Trankenstein creatures. That is utterly sick.

    If a full-grown man wants to play ‘woman’, fine, but if we encourage little children to do likewise, it it utterly demented.

    • Replies: @MarkU
    , @Rosie
  5. Andraya Yearwood …

    Terry Miller …

    Yearwood and Miller have won 15 state championships between them, when previously the same number of awards were shared by nine different girls.

    🤡 🌏

    • LOL: John Regan
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  6. Our side should be 100% behind transgender athletes at all level of sports. Let the left live up to their own rules and suffer the consequences. And let the corporations who’ve supported the gay thing bleed money on weird transgender Olympics that no one wants to watch.

    • Agree: El Dato
  7. New Lawsuit Claims

    Seems hard to deny the growing body of evidence, growing as if it is on testosterone; you could have left this bit out.

  8. I like my coffee like I like my women. Without a penis.

  9. Lucy says:

    There is now no such thing as women’s sports. Why have parts of the West become so perverted?

  10. Realist says:

    This country has gotten so goddamn stupid…it’s ruination is assured.

  11. MarkU says:
    @Priss Factor

    I am inclined to agree with you in most respects, sometimes the only way to expose the flawed nature of some ideas is to take them all the way to their logical conclusions. If gender is nothing but a social construct (as some claim) then women’s sports events should not exist at all as they are clearly unwarranted discrimination. In many other areas of the PC culture there are clear opportunities to grab the ball and run with it. Take ‘diversity’ for example, why not insist on strict proportional racial/ethnic representation in all things? Lets see how Jews (say) like to be limited to 1.7% representation in banking and in Hollywood or blacks being limited to 12.7% of representation in sports events.

    On the subject of transgenderism I am perplexed by what I am not hearing. We know that our drinking water is contaminated by hormone disrupting pollutants. We know that fish and amphibians are having their genders bent by those pollutants. We know that male sperm count is declining, year in year out and has been for decades. Yet when increasing numbers of people are experiencing confusion about what sex they are, it seems that hardly anyone is capable of putting 1 and 1 together. In my opinion those people are victims and should be suing the asses off of the polluters and the government agencies that have so spectacularly failed to protect their interests. Perhaps pretending that gender transphoria is ‘normal’ is cheaper than protecting the public.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
  12. @MarkU

    Lets see how Jews like to be limited to 1.7% representation in banking and in Hollywood…

    Jews makeup 7 percent of congress.

    There are only three Jewish players in the NBA, and no Jewish head coaches. Yet nearly half the owners of NBA teams are Jewish, as are the league’s current commissioner and its immediate past commissioner.

    No other major pro league in the United States has such a high proportion of Jewish owners. The NFL comes closest: Roughly a third of that league’s owners are Jewish.

    Jews are over-represented as “owners” in the NBA and NFL because Jews are more practiced at owning people.

    https://forward.com/news/israel/197643/why-are-so-many-pro-basketball-owners-jewish-like/

    https://atlantajewishtimes.timesofisrael.com/whos-in-the-owners-box-jews/

    https://forward.com/fast-forward/417047/congress-is-now-3-times-more-jewish-than-united-states-as-a-whole/

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-jews-make-forbes-list-of-top-10-wealthiest-americans/

    hardly anyone is capable of putting 1 and 1 together

    1+1=2

    These gender confused children really are victims.

    Perhaps pretending that gender dysphoria is ‘normal’ is part of a larger agenda.

  13. Truth says:

    Do you clowns really belive that these two “people” are in these girls races under their own volition? That this whole thing, which has grown international was a organic event?

    …Having a triple-digit IQ is severly overrated.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
  14. I have absolutely no sympathy for the women in this situation. The biggest promoters of transgenderism have been women, so I say let them get a taste of their own medicine.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
  15. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Michael Tomac

    What do you mean by “the women”?

    It sounds like you’ve been manipulated by divide & conquer politics if you’re without sympathy for the plaintiff girls. Why should they be getting “a taste of their own medicine” when they and their families have courageously challenged this madness?*

    *That this apparently must be fought in a court is idiotic, too. The country seems about 10% loony, 89.9% gutless.

    • Replies: @216
  16. OrangeFox says:
    @Michael Tomac

    @MichaelTomac…exactly. To quote the movie Airplane…”they bought their tickets…they knew what they was getting into…I say, let ’em crash.”

    • Replies: @anonymous
  17. Alfa158 says:
    @Truth

    No, actually we don’t believe these two guys are in the girls’ races of their own volition.

    We believe they are in the girls’ races because they were forced to run in them against their will.

    These boys’ families have probably been kidnapped and they were told they had to dress like girls and run, or they will never see their families again.

    I guess a room temperature IQ is severely underrated.

    • Replies: @Truth
  18. 216 says: • Website
    @anonymous

    It’s not as if they intentionally went after a group of conservative women at a religious school.

    In most cases, this is a “you go girl” feminism that we got dreched with during the “Womens National Soccer Team” drama.

    On another point, supporting university athletics is probably a bad idea for the Right, as it has been the vehicle to admit unqualified applicants that demeans the academic process.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  19. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @OrangeFox

    Hmmm. A one-and-done commenter endorsed by another.

    Keep sprinting, boy(s).

    • Replies: @OrangeFox
  20. Truth says:
    @Alfa158

    These boys’ families have probably been kidnapped and they were told they had to dress like girls and run, or they will never see their families again.

    It just so happens, that you are wrong, but only 90 or so percent, so you are improving. This is (sort of) along the lines of the way your slavemasters operate.

  21. OrangeFox says:
    @anonymous

    @anonymous[245]

    And?

    Is kissing your feet customary before posting a first comment? I didn’t get that memo.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  22. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @OrangeFox

    That you and “Michael Tomac” arrived here “exactly” in agreement broad-brushing and blaming women seemed remarkable. There’s an observable pattern at this website of knuckle dragging, one off comments that seem designed to discredit the place.

    But exceptions occur. So, if you’re sticking around, what do you say in response to my reply to Michael?

  23. George says:

    Good. I say enforce title 9 and all civil rights laws as strictly as possible.

  24. Hibernian says:
    @Michael Tomac

    Women who are at most 18 or in some cases 19 years of age. Did they promote the LGBTQ cause in essays in sophomore English?

    • LOL: Truth
    • Replies: @anonymous
  25. Hibernian says:
    @216

    It’s not as if they intentionally went after a group of conservative women at a religious school.

    No, just normal girls whose parents may be political moderates or maybe even somewhat conservative.

    • Thanks: Rosie
  26. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hibernian

    The commenter(s) Michael Tomac / OrangeFox has apparently run along.

  27. Rosie says:
    @Priss Factor

    I say GO TRANNIES. Mess up feminism.

    Thanks a lot for your support. We really appreciate it.

    I note for the record that men who complain about fat chicks are not to be found here defending the integrity of women’s sports.

    The ugly, but totally unsurprising, schadenfreude on display here fails to take account of the fact that the girls adversely affected by this are not to blame for radical feminism, not that anyone cares. If they agreed with the idea that thre is no difference between the sexes, they would be demanding access to men’s sports, which they obviously are not. With rare exceptions, even women chess players aren’t interested in mixed competition.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r

    Unfortunately, it takes cojones to show solidarity with women in the dissident right, and Mr. Striker is greatly appreciated.

    • Replies: @Sako
  28. Sako says:
    @Rosie

    With rare exceptions, even women chess players aren’t interested in mixed competition.

    That’s because they know they’d lose. It’s not because they’re “not interested,” as you misleadingly imply, but because they don’t have a hope in hell of competing with the men. The difference between Polgar and all the other female chess players is that Polgar was that rare woman who was talented enough to be able to beat male players on a regular basis.

    The ugly, but totally unsurprising, schadenfreude on display here fails to take account of the fact that the girls adversely affected by this are not to blame for radical feminism, not that anyone cares.

    Well unfortunately, most women for decades never lifted a finger against radical feminism. Radfems dominance of all our lives won’t end until women start seriously suffering from its effects. As is always the case, insane ideologies imposed on the people don’t limit the scope of their damage to one group, but spread out until they affect everyone.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  29. Rosie says:
    @Sako

    That’s because they know they’d lose. It’s not because they’re “not interested,” as you misleadingly imply, but because they don’t have a hope in hell of competing with the men.

    You’re not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you? My point is that they they know they can’t compete and aren’t interested in pretending otherwise.

    Well unfortunately, most women for decades never lifted a finger against radical feminism.

    This is ridiculous. The vast majority of people aren’t political activists.

    Phyllis Schlaffly defeated the ERA. Since then, abortion has sucked up most of the energy and and resources of conservative activist women.

    Jewish billionaires aren’t lining up to fund conservative shiksa political movements. Where are the White male billionaires?

    Radfems dominance of all our lives won’t end until women start seriously suffering from its effects.

    Women, let alone teenage girls, have no power whatsoever to undo radical feminism. It was imposed from above and will persist as long as the plutocracy desires.

    • Replies: @Sako
  30. Sako says:
    @Rosie

    You’re not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you? My point is that they they know they can’t compete and aren’t interested in pretending otherwise.

    You phrased your point in typically feminist fashion, that is to say, vaguely, ambiguously, and misleadingly – as if women in chess were contentedly choosing not to compete with men rather than the truth that they can’t compete with them. The sole reason Polgar is interested in playing men and all the other women aren’t is because she’s light years better a player than any other woman who has ever lived.

    Women, let alone teenage girls, have no power whatsoever to undo radical feminism. It was imposed from above and will persist as long as the plutocracy desires.

    Women were not powerless to avoid taking women’s studies courses in college. Women signed up in high enough numbers to keep these fraudulent academics in business. Women were not powerless to speak up against the # MeToo sham. Some did, but most did not. Many women took advantage of changes to the legal system that enabled them to fuck over their husbands in the event of a divorce. They may not identify as a feminist, but they’re not doing much of anything to fight back against feminism (even though they must know it’s a pack of lies) because they’ve enjoyed too many perks from it. Women will only start resisting radical feminism in earnest once it starts hurting them as badly as its hurt men. And that day is coming. But in the meantime, I’m not going to cry bitter tears for the suffering of women because I’ve come to see that it’s unavoidable. There’s nothing that can be done now to avert it. Neither women nor men will be able to escape the collapse of civilization that modern feminism will have played a major part in bringing about.

    • Thanks: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Rosie
  31. Unzman says:

    I had to put up with the feminist skanks in college so I am unsympathetic to any problems female jocks have . Female sports are ridiculous and only serve to encourage mannish behavior in women who need to develop feminine behavior. Tough luck libbers I am enjoying your suffering take a home economics class you need it!

  32. Rosie says:
    @Sako

    as if women in chess were contentedly choosing not to compete with men

    They are.

    You overestimate the extent to which women GAF about beating you at things.

    Women were not powerless to avoid taking women’s studies courses in college. Women signed up in high enough numbers to keep these fraudulent academics in business.

    And what percentage of women is that? Less than 10% ? Less than 5%? Should women judge all men by the actions of the minority? Didn’t think so.

    Women were not powerless to speak up against the # MeToo sham. Some did, but most did not

    .

    What #MeToo sham? Do you deny that quid pro quo sexual harassment goes on in Hollywood?

    Many women took advantage of changes to the legal system that enabled them to fuck over their husbands in the event of a divorce.

    Aw the poor dears don’t get to dump their aging wives and walk away Scot free. Does anyone have a tissue?

    They may not identify as a feminist, but they’re not doing much of anything to fight back against feminism

    You don’t think refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton was “fighting back”?

    Go ahead and tell me what else it is you would like women to do.

    • Replies: @Sako
    , @Sako
    , @RadicalCenter
  33. Rosie says:
    @Unzman

    Female sports are ridiculous and only serve to encourage mannish behavior in women who need to develop feminine behavior.

    You’re not going to dictate to us what sorts of recreational activities are and are not appropriate for us.

    Tough luck libbers I am enjoying your suffering

    Translation:

    Nanna nanna booboo, wash your face in doodoo.

    • LOL: Truth
    • Replies: @Dannyboy
  34. @Unzman

    “Female sports are ridiculous and only serve to encourage mannish behavior in women who need to develop feminine behavior.”

    Rugby, soccer, weightlifting, contact and strength sports, agreed. Most of track, field and winter sports, disagreed.

    High-jump and pole vault seem to feature the most attractive athletes of both sexes.

  35. @Unzman

    Healthy recreational sports for women are certainly not a problem, as I see it. On the contrary, moderate physical activity is a necessity for human wellbeing, physical and mental. In our sedentary society, sports are an important part of this. As long as one polices the organizations against lesbians and other destructive elements, the idea itself is a positive one. Just as, for boys, the Boy Scouts used to be, before it fell victim to the dark powers.

    Although naturally, in order to fill a positive function, sports should be recreational amateur sports. Professional women’s sports as they exist today are indeed cancerous, but only marginally less so than those for men.

  36. They should be kicked out of school and blacklisted for saying men are physically stronger than women and not completely equal. Women are firefighters and in combat units. Could they do this if they weren’t as physically capable as men?

  37. Sako says:
    @Rosie

    Aw the poor dears don’t get to dump their aging wives and walk away Scot free. Does anyone have a tissue?

    It’s women who initiate around three quarters of divorces, usually for frivolous reasons. Men are certainly not blameless, but women file for divorce most often and it’s precisely because the system is enormously biased in their favor, and they know it. Likewise, I don’t see women protesting too much the blatant double standards that are enshrined in every aspect of the legal system that favor women. The pussy pass is real, and the evidence has been around for literally decades that if you have a vagina, you are less likely to be convicted and if you are convicted, you will probably do much less time in jail.

    Go ahead and tell me what else it is you would like women to do.

    Stop lying about their so called victimization, for one. (But this is not directed at all women, just women with your own obnoxious attitude.) And stop pretending they’re owed some sort of apology for a historical “oppression” that isn’t even real.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  38. Sako says:
    @Rosie

    What #MeToo sham? Do you deny that quid pro quo sexual harassment goes on in Hollywood?

    No. But Ian McKellen said something that I agree with, which was that there have always been loads of women (actresses or aspiring actresses) throwing themselves at powerful men in the industry in exchange for roles. For every pig like Weinstein demanding sex in exchange for parts, you can find dozens of women who happily make the first move in prostituting themselves. It’s a two way street.

    I saw no acknowledgement in the media, anywhere, of the fact that Hollywood is not an industry just like any other. It’s industry where the people who become famous are generally those who crave fame and fortune to the point they’ll do absolutely anything to get it – or they’re nepotists with connections. Talent has little to do with it most of the time. Weinstein has no morals, but neither do most of his so called victims. Women like Asia Argento and Rose McGowan claim to have been raped by him, yet have no convincing explanation for why they kept sleeping with him for years after their alleged rapes. Evidently they were willing to do literally anything – even at the cost of their own self respect – just to keep getting film roles.

    It’s ridiculous to claim what goes on in sleazy, corrupt Hollywood – in which success is largely determined by who you know or who you blow far more than it is by actual talent – is the same as what goes on in every other industry or walk of life. #me too is a sham because it doesn’t tell the truth about how Hollywood operates – and what kind of shameless fame whore and narcissist your typical aspiring young actress – or actor – is to begin with.

  39. Rosie says:
    @Sako

    usually for frivolous reasons.

    So you say.

    precisely because the system is enormously biased in their favor,

    Yes, I’m sure muh biased courts are just railroading totally innocent men who dindu nuffin for no reason whatsoever.

    And stop pretending they’re owed some sort of apology for a historical “oppression” that isn’t even real.

    When did I ever say anything about being owed an apology?

    • Replies: @Sako
  40. Dannyboy says:
    @Rosie

    Hey Rosie, what’s the best thing about dating homeless girls?

    You can drop them off anywhere.

    🙂

  41. @Adam Smith

    The only apparent upside of these young men’s mental illness is the increased probability that these boons won’t reproduce.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  42. @Rosie

    Well, for one thing, Rosie, admit that on balance, “Islam is right about women.” 😉

    An English comedian’s vulgar but somewhat amusing take on the incident:

    And this concise & thoughtful column by a Libyan guy (well, “British-Libyan”, but put aside that absurdity and just enjoy the column):
    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/26/the-genius-of-the-islam-is-right-about-women-stunt/

    • Replies: @Rosie
  43. Rosie says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Well, for one thing, Rosie, admit that on balance, “Islam is right about women.”

    What does Islam say about women? I don’t really know, but I will tell you this. Sharia Law doesn’t prevent women from:

    Getting an education.
    Divorcing a useless and/or abusive husband.
    Running a business.
    Inheriting and disposing of property.
    Playing soccer.

    Shall we talk about whether Islam is right about men? Can you really not refrain from raping a woman showing a bit of ankle?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  44. @Rosie

    Can I not refrain from doing that? Yes, and I’d never do that no matter a woman wears.

    Anyway, I’m not a Muslim.

    But surely you’re aware that women (and GIRLS) are showing more than “a bit of ankle” in public in our fair land these days?

    I actually respect women, Rosie. But many men don’t, in the sense that you and I both mean it. And equally troubling, many women show through their dress, language, and conduct that they don’t respect themselves.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  45. Sako says:
    @Rosie

    Yes, I’m sure muh biased courts are just railroading totally innocent men who dindu nuffin for no reason whatsoever.

    Try opening your eyes and paying attention for once. See here:

    https://equalitycanada.com/misandry-law-public-policy/

    The website is Canadian but the findings apply everywhere.

    Another in depth study finding major gender disparity in criminal cases:

    https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

    The only people who can’t see the pussy pass in action in the legal system – virtually everywhere – are strident, perpetually aggrieved feminists like Rosie.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @James Forrestal
    , @Rosie
  46. Sako says:

    Hopefully Rosie will note that many of those studies demonstrating the gender bias against men in the courts were conducted by female academics and researchers. Obviously there are plenty of thoughtful and honest women there. The problem isn’t women. It’s all the de facto (regardless of what label they use) feminists like Rosie with an ax to grind against men, who can never shut up for ten seconds about their female victim complex. They have to drag their strident feminist ideology into every single discussion of anything under the sun. And unfortunately, such women are everywhere in academia, politics, and journalism.

  47. Rosie says:
    @RadicalCenter

    . And equally troubling, many women show through their dress, language, and conduct that they don’t respect themselves.

    The problem I see in the dissident right regarding this issue is that men don’t agree on how women should dress. All they agree on (present company excluded) is that women are doing something wrong.

    If women dress like sluts and aging matrons like me say nothing, we are derelict in our duty of instruction. If we do say something, we’re just spoiling young women’s fun, because we’re jealous old hags past our prime. It’s basically a no-win for us.

    For the record, I really don’t care how women dress. I have reported in the past that I have only really been bent out of shape about female attire IRL once that I can remember. I was at a water park with husband and kids when I saw a young woman with a bikini that went up into the crack of her nether region. Why anyone would want to wear something like that is beyond me, let alone to a place that is essentially a wet playground for children.

  48. Rosie says:
    @Sako

    I really don’t feel like reading your links, but I am willing to do so.

    First, to avoid wasting my time, I’m going to ask you an honest question.

    Do your cites provide evidence of unequal treatment, or merely unequal outcomes?

    Boys do better than girls on the math portion of the SAT, because they’re better at math, not because someone or something is “biased” against them. A fair-minded and intellectually honest person, I am willing to admit this.

    Men are also better at committing crimes than women. They are also better at getting involved in noncriminal but antisocial conduct that ruins marriages, such as compulsive gambling and drug addiction.

    Punishment is not determined merely by the counts on which a defendant is found guilt, but also any aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case. Since men are more violent, I would assume their crimes are, generally speaking, more aggravated than women’s crimes, all else being equal.

    Now, having said all if that, do you still want me to read whatever is in these links?

    • Replies: @Dannyboy
  49. @Sako

    Try opening your eyes and paying attention for once. See here:

    The only people who can’t see the pussy pass in action in the legal system – virtually everywhere – are strident, perpetually aggrieved feminists like Rosie.

    Who rely on blatantly-false naked assertions — then, when confronted with their lies, whine:

    I really don’t feel like reading your links

    lol.

    Returning to the actual topic of the thread, I’d have to agree with those whose reaction to this apparent spat between trannies and lesbian feminists is to shrug. No dog in this fight.

    But it is important to recognize that the poz flows from the top down. It’s not the “establishment” caving in to “protesters” and “activists” — it’s the establishment using those activists as cover to advance their own agenda.

    Just look at what happened when North Carolina tried to prevent male perverts from using women’s bathrooms:

    More than 80 major corporations joined in a conspiracy in restraint of trade targeting NC.

    Including the NBA:

    NBA Commissioner Adam Silver

    the NCAA, and the NFL. Even the NAACP joined in — clearly in response to “grassroots” pressure from ordinary Negroes, right?

    They were sued by the “Justice” Department.

    Etc.

    Projected losses from the oligarchy’s financial war on NC ran into the billions

    So the NC government caved, and decided to allow male perverts use the women’s room, after all.

    But it was all just a response to a few stunning and brave “protestors” and “activists,” tho.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  50. @RadicalCenter

    I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

  51. Dannyboy says:
    @Rosie

    I really hate to break the news to you, Rosie, but if a majority of men desired, we could use and breed you just like cattle.

    I’m pretty sure there are places in the world where that’s still the case.

    Christian Civilization elevated the status of women.

    Your kind certainly prove that should be reviewed.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  52. Rosie says:
    @Dannyboy

    I really hate to break the news to you, Rosie, but if a majority of men desired, we could use and breed you just like cattle.

    I’m pretty sure there are places in the world where that’s still the case.

    Rural India. The result: female infanticide and no wives.

    So no, you really can’t do that without shooting yourselves in the foot.

    That said, I’m well aware of the fact that the manosphere creeps who have infiltrated White nationalism do not represent normal men.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  53. Rosie says:
    @James Forrestal

    Who rely on blatantly-false naked assertions —

    Such as?

    then, when confronted with their lies, whine:

    I really don’t feel like reading your links

    I have been going rounds with dissident right chauvinists for many years.

    I don’t have time to read every link they post here, especially when they can’t even be bothered to answer a simple question.

  54. Rosie says:
    @Sako

    I went ahead and took a look at your links despite your failure to answer my question. As I suspected, there is nothing in either of them that proves unequal treatment.

    From the second link:

    The problem with this, Starr explains, is that “the key control variable is itself the result of a host of discretionary decisions made earlier in the justice process”—including prosecutors’ charging and plea-bargaining decisions. Starr’s research incorporates disparities found at those earlier stages, and finds that “more disparity is introduced at each phase of the justice process.”

    Indeed. The question is whether we should assume that these discretionary decisions are rational and made in good faith. Prosecutors have the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to be determined by a jury made up of men and women. If they don’t think they can get a conviction, either for lack of evidence or sympathy for the defendant, they’re not going to prosecute the case.

    The author continues:

    If men and women are being treated differently by prosecutors and judges, what should be done about it? Prof. Starr leaves that question to policymakers, but she does note that the solution “is not necessarily to lock up a lot more women, but perhaps to reconsider the decision-making criteria that are applied to men. About one in every fifty American men is currently behind bars, and we could think about gender disparity as perhaps being a key dimension of that problem.”

    But locking up more women is precisely what will happen, and it will help noone. Perceived injustices like this always trigger demands for more rigid standards and less discretion for those decision-makers who are most intimately familiar with the facts of each individual case, a cure that is far worse than the disease. On the other hand, I have no problem with efforts to find alternatives to incarceration for men.

    • Replies: @Sako
  55. Sako says:
    @Rosie

    Predictably, Rosie, in typical feminist fashion, willfully ignores the substance of the linked articles and falsely claims they bolster her POV. They do not.

    But locking up more women is precisely what will happen, and it will help noone. Perceived injustices like this always trigger demands for more rigid standards and less discretion for those decision-makers who are most intimately familiar with the facts of each individual case, a cure that is far worse than the disease. On the other hand, I have no problem with efforts to find alternatives to incarceration for men

    The question of whether we should punish women more harshly or men more leniently is a separate and distinct question from whether a blatant double standard exists in the first place. It does, and it strongly favors women.

    The reason you resist drawing this obvious conclusion is not that the evidence is not there. It is there, in spades. But feminists – being religious zealots, not rational thinkers – cannot allow themselves to admit that women are, in many respects, the privileged sex, not the oppressed sex. Since they take the “oppression of women” to be a self-evident truth, any evidence to the contrary will always be rationalized away as you have done.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  56. Rosie says:
    @Sako

    Predictably, Rosie, in typical feminist fashion, willfully ignores the substance of the linked articles and falsely claims they bolster her POV. They do not.

    Groans. Because you pigeonhole me, you are incapable of understanding me.

    I never said the linked articles bolster my POV. I said they fail to prove your POV. Indeed, one of the linked articles admits as much in so many words!

    Prof. Starr emphasized that it is not possible to “prove” gender discrimination with data like hers, because it is always possible that two seemingly similar cases could differ in ways not captured by the data. Given the size of the apparent gender gap and the richness of the dataset (which allowed many alternative explanations to be explored), however, Starr believes that there is “pretty good reason to suspect that disparate treatment may be one of the causes of this gap.”

    So there you have it. We have, at most, “pretty good reason to suspect that disparate treatment may be one of the causes of this gap.” That’s pretty weak sauce, but as I said, if you want to advocate for more extensive use of alternatives to incarceration for men, I certainly won’t quarrel with that.

    The question of whether we should punish women more harshly or men more leniently is a separate and distinct question from whether a blatant double standard exists in the first place. It does, and it strongly favors women.

    If you believe that mere inequality of outcomes favoring women is proof of a double standard, do you also believe that inequality of outcomes favoring men is proof of a double standard? If not, perhaps you ought to look in the mirror.

    Since they take the “oppression of women” to be a self-evident truth, any evidence to the contrary will always be rationalized away as you have done.

    Oh lookie here. I guess I’m not a feminist by your very own definition. I have never, ever said women are oppressed. We once were, and many Unz cretins would very much like to see us oppressed again in the future. (I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not among them.) I am here to rein them in, because they are repugnant not only to women but also the overwhelming majority of decent White men in the world who care about our wellbeing.

    • Replies: @Sako
  57. Sako says:
    @Rosie

    So there you have it. We have, at most, “pretty good reason to suspect that disparate treatment may be one of the causes of this gap.” That’s pretty weak sauce, but as I said, if you want to advocate for more extensive use of alternatives to incarceration for men, I certainly won’t quarrel with that.

    How the hell is her assertion that we have “pretty good reason” to suspect a double standard “weak sauce”? Have you ever listened to how academics talk? By your logic, unless she had come out and pompously said “I have proven irrefutably that the legal system discriminates against men” we cannot draw any such inference of bias. Of course, radfems and SJW types always speak in such absolutist terms, without qualification or caution, but more serious, sober researchers rarely do.

    You zeroed in on one statement while simultaneously ignoring the cumulative impression developed by the various studies that point in only one direction – discrimination advantaging women and disadvantaging men. Of course, in reality, it’s not “weak sauce” at all. What matters are the findings of the studies, not the one remark you quoted. Keep in mind that feminists have actually waged vindictive hate campaigns against researchers that went against the feminist narrative, trying to get them fired. Anyone upsetting the feminist apple cart has had to proceed with caution.

    If you believe that mere inequality of outcomes favoring women is proof of a double standard, do you also believe that inequality of outcomes favoring men is proof of a double standard? If not, perhaps you ought to look in the mirror.

    Learn to read more carefully. The issue is not mere inequality of outcomes. What points to a double standard in the legal system is not the mere fact of unequal outcomes. It’s that after several decades of research, these academics have still not been able to locate any clear variable that could account for the discrepancy other than some defendants having a vagina and others having a penis. They specifically went looking for other possible causes of the discrepancy and were unable to find any. That’s what makes their research authentically scientific and not mere guesswork.

    The problem with most feminist researchers, on the other hand, is that they don’t look for these possibly disconfirming factors. They go looking only for confirmation, never disconfirmation. For a theory to be legitimate a researcher must look hard for evidence against, not merely evidence for. But most feminists never do that (except of course for dissident feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, who is hated by most mainstream feminists, many of whom refuse to consider her a feminist at all). They are looking only for evidence to confirm their assumptions and willfully ignore anything that appears to undermine them.

    I have never, ever said women are oppressed. We once were, and many Unz cretins would very much like to see us oppressed again in the future.

    Actually, it’s far from clear that women were ever oppressed in the past. For every disadvantage women experienced, they also experienced significant advantages. In some ways, life was better for men, but in other ways – just as significant – it was better for women, on average. Martin Van Creveld’s well-researched book The Privileged Sex goes a long way to refuting the dubious feminist narrative of perpetual female oppression.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  58. Rosie says:
    @Sako

    Learn to read more carefully. The issue is not mere inequality of outcomes. What points to a double standard in the legal system is not the mere fact of unequal outcomes. It’s that after several decades of research, these academics have still not been able to locate any clear variable that could account for the discrepancy other than some defendants having a vagina and others having a penis. They specifically went looking for other possible causes of the discrepancy and were unable to find any. That’s what makes their research authentically scientific and not mere guesswork.

    Except that the author herself admits that “two seemingly similar cases could differ in ways not captured by the data.” Hence, we are right back where we started. We have two choices: We can assume that discretionary decision-makers are acting rationally and in good faith (without bias) or not. For all we know, a very simple variable, such as the demeanor and apparent remorse of the defendant explains the whole disparity, by definition only something that people who are actually there can properly evaluate.

    If you take discretion away fro. decision-makers who are in a position to know the most about the matter at hand, you’re not going to get better decisions, and you’re very probably going to get worse decisions.

    We’ve been down this road before, and it hasn’t worked out very well.

    Actually, it’s far from clear that women were ever oppressed in the past.

    Lol!

  59. Sako says:

    For all we know, a very simple variable, such as the demeanor and apparent remorse of the defendant explains the whole disparity, by definition only something that people who are actually there can properly evaluate

    Except that there is no evidence whatsoever that that is the case. She mentioned that as a conceivable possibility, since she didn’t want to rule anything out, but there’s no evidence of this, whereas there is Centuries worth of evidence of the existence of male chivalry throughout the western world.

    Essentially what you are resorting to is cherry picking. You went sifting through the mountains of evidence indicating significant judicial bias against men and wilfully zeroed in on the one and only thing that you could find to shore up your refusal to consider that men have grievances at least as legitimate as women’s. While also ignoring,

    the study shows that in the adult court system, women had their cases stayed or withdrawn more frequently than their male counterparts and were less frequently found guilty. In 2003/2004, 51% of all cases against women ended in a finding of guilt, compared to 59% for men. A further 44% were stayed or withdrawn while the same was true for 34% of cases against men. Women found guilty in adult criminal court are less likely than men to receive a prison sentence and are more likely to receive probation. Females found guilty of crimes against the person in 2003/2004 were half as likely as their male counterparts to receive a prison sentence (19% versus 38%). The same was true for crimes against property with 24% of women and 45% of men being sentenced to custody.

    In comparison to men, the lower proportion of women sentenced to prison time held true regardless of the severity of the crime. For instance, in cases of major assault (assault with a weapon or assault causing bodily harm), prison sentences were handed down to one-quarter of women and nearly half of men who were found guilty (48%). Differences in sentencing were found with most other serious crimes such as robbery (62% versus 76%), break and enter (41% versus 61%) and fraud (20% versus 40%).

    The bias applies to victims as well as the accused. Edward Glaeser of Harvard University and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth College examined 2,800 homicide cases randomly drawn from 33 urban counties by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. They found that the victim characteristics are quite significant. Offenders who kill male victims receive much shorter sentences. Killing a female instead of a male increased sentences by 40.6 per cent. Glaeser and Sacerdote write that one interpretation of these results is that male victims are more likely to have initiated the conflict. To address this interpretation, they examined only murders where the offender was the aggressor, and in those cases the victim’s gender is still a key variable.

    Despite the fact that killing a woman tends to result in longer sentences than killing a man (thus we already have a secondary evidential reinforcement, from another angle, for the primary thesis) Rosie clings to the notion that it’s all about “judicial discretion” due to women showing more remorse. Even though no such evidence exists.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  60. Sako says:

    An in depth review of Van Creveld’s book someone posted on Amazon, amply demonstrating the many real and major advantages over men women as a class have always enjoyed:

    [MORE]

    If any tenet of feminism receives even more widespread assent than that which maintains that women today are oppressed, it is that which asserts that women were even more oppressed in the past before modern feminism liberated them.

    Van Creveld’s book turns the conventional wisdom on its head. Far from being oppressed, women are privileged and have been throughout recorded history – “Judged by almost any criterion, women are, and always have been, the privileged sex” (p238).

    The bulk of his book is therefore concerned, not with contemporary conditions, but with history. However, surveying the entire course of human history is such a vast project that errors are unavoidable.

    For example, Van Creveld asserts, “a famous 18th century law ordained that a husband beating his wife should use a rod or switch no thicker than the base of his right thumb” (p162). Actually, the “famous law” is a feminist fabrication (see Who Stole Feminism?: p203-7). Wife-beating has been illegal in the UK since at least Anglo-Saxon times (George 2007).

    It is curious that Van Creveld, although sceptical of other feminist claims, accepts this particular feminist fabrication at face-value.

    “Three Legends”
    In addition to making errors unavoidable, surveying the relative status of the sexes in every society that ever existed is obviously impossible. Van Creveld is therefore obliged to be selective. This is particularly evident in Chapter One, which focusses on ‘Three Legends’.

    The first of these, women’s alleged seclusion in ancient Greece is a controversy restricted to classicists. Moreover, seclusion can be interpreted as evidence of protection, rather than oppression. Thus, in later chapters, Van Creveld acknowledges, “concern for women’s health, and not oppression, explains why they usually stayed at home more often, and for longer than men” (p215) and why their work “did not take those engaged in it far from their homes” (p73), since “housing provides comfort as well as shelter against hear cold wind, rain, hail and snow” (p211).

    Certainly, Greek women were better-off than their menfolk. In Sparta, boys were subject to an austere regime of military training (and institutionalized sexual abuse) from early childhood. Yet, according to Aristotle, Spartan women lived lives of “every intemperance and luxury” and socially and politically dominated the city-state.

    Likewise, the third ‘legend’ Van Creveld debunks, namely that the Nazis persecuted women as they did Jews and other groups is not widely believed. Actually, Van Creveld shows, the Nazis were the first government to extend child benefits to unmarried mothers (p19). Even non-Aryan females fared better than their untermenchen male equivalents, with only a fifth as many foreign females used as slave labour as men (p25) and only one woman killed in the regime’s early days (p18).

    Witch-Hunts
    In contrast, the second ‘legend’ identified by Van Creveld – namely, the persecution of women in medieval witch-hunts – remains a feminist cause célèbre some three centuries after the practice ended.

    The scale of the phenomenon is exaggerated. American suffragist Matilda Joslyn Gage is credited with popularising the figure of nine million women executed (The History of Witchcraft: p123). Recent estimates put the number at less than a hundredth of this.

    There are two reasons medieval witch-hunts cannot be viewed as evidence for the oppression of women. First, the accusers were not all male – “women participated in witch-hunts at least as much as men did” and “most maleficia were directed by women at women” (p11).

    Second, victims were not all women. In Switzerland and Britain, most victims were male (p14); while “before 1350, nearly three times as many men as women were tried for witchcraft” and “for Europe as a whole, between 1300 and 1499 the number of accused men is said to have nearly equalled that of… women” (p13).

    Yet even these figures are misleading because, Van Creveld explains, witchcraft “formed part of a much larger complex of ‘spiritual’ offences that included heresy, apostasy and blasphemy, among others” and “comprised only a small fraction of the cases brought before the Inquisition” – yet “most of those charged with other spiritual offences were men” and “women accounted for only 10 percent of all those executed during the period in question” (p13).

    As Van Creveld demonstrates in a later chapter, female defendants have long enjoyed preferential treatment before the courts. This explains the feminist fixation on medieval witch-hunts – “perhaps the only time in history when more women than men were charged with a serious crime and executed for it” (p152).

    Explaining Female Privilege
    Whereas other chapters seek to document female privilege, Van Creveld’s second chapter seeks to explain it.

    Female privilege, for Van Creveld, begins with biology. Even in the womb, “biologically speaking becoming female is taking the path of least resistance” (p31) whereas “simply becoming male is a risky enterprise” (p37).

    Whereas a girl, on reaching a certain age, automatically becomes a woman; a boy must prove himself a man – “like an erection, manhood cannot be taken for granted” (p47).

    Van Creveld is an historian not a biologist, so, unsurprisingly, he fails to identify any ultimate explanation for female privilege. The closest he comes is in suggesting that “the lesser efforts demanded of women may have something to do with the psychology of mating” and the fact that “to gain access to women [a man] has to perform and pay” (p62) – i.e. what biologists call ‘sexual selection’.

    Similarly, Van Creveld, in the book’s final paragraph, concludes, “nature having made us [men], as Nietsche put it, the ‘unfruitful animal’, and forced us to compete for women, has turned us into the superfluous sex” (p287). This echoes both Warren Farrell’s description of men as “The Disposable Sex” and Robert Trivers’ theory of differential parental investment (Trivers 1972).

    Education
    Much is made of the lack of education afforded girls in pre-modern societies. Actually, this reflects the pragmatic consideration that women, being provided for by husbands, had no need of vocational training. Far from evidencing female oppression, it is an indirect reflection of female privilege.

    In other respects, girls had greater educational opportunities. “Unless they came from well-to-do families, and often even then,” Van Creveld reports, “most boys were pushed to take up paid work while in their early to mid-teens” (p56). Whereas “secondary education for girls was sometimes free… boys’ parents had to pay fees” (p56) and “as late as 1987, women received more financial support for attending college than… men” (p58-9).

    Thus, “by 1900, girls in American high schools outnumbered boys three to two” (p56).

    Meanwhile, “only the most Spartan schools… did not have a female equivalent” (p61), such as military and monastic institutions that “often resemble[d] prisons or concentration camps” (p50).

    Workshy Women?
    Men function, Van Creveld explains, as “humanity’s beasts of burden” (p41); while “women represent the leisure class” (p105).

    Whereas “most women settle into a life in which they are provided for and protected… most men step into one in which they provide and protect” (p64). “In the whole of nature,” he declares, “there is no arrangement that is more demanding and more altruistic” (p43).

    As a result, “men’s lot in life is endless hard work whose fruits will be enjoyed largely by others” (p46). Should they fail in this endeavour, “only too often the first to desert them are their wives” (p64), such that they “lose both what they made and those to whom they gave it” (p46).

    Throughout history and across the world, the hardest and most dangerous work remains the exclusive preserve of men (p96).

    Thus, women were “all but absent from miners’ and loggers’ camps, construction sites and garbage dumps” as well as “offshore oil rigs [and] arctic weather stations” today (p208). Similarly, “the tradition… that women at sea [even slaves] should be given the most secluded and comfortable quarters available has continued for thousands of years” (p212).

    Indeed, “throughout history, wherever immigrants are numerous or conditions are hard and life difficult [e.g. the American frontier], women tend to be few and far between” (p211).

    Moreover, “the smaller the relative number of women, the more precious and exalted they became in the eyes of the men” (p209). Thus, “in California mining camps during the middle of the 19th century men would pay large sums just to watch a (fully dressed) woman walk around” (p208).

    Men also do more work. A 1995 “United Nations survey in 13 different countries found that men spent almost twice as much of their total time working than women, 66 percent to 34 percent” (p98).

    In the West, whereas “men normally stay in the labour force throughout their adult lives… two-thirds of [women] are constantly drifting in and out of employment” such that “over a lifetime career women… work 40 percent fewer hours” (p102-3).

    Double-standards apply – “a man who does not work for a living will probably be called a playboy or a parasite, while such a woman will be called a socialite or a housewife” (p66).

    Thus, “the biblical term eved, ‘slave’ has only a male form” (p70) and “when God drove the first human couple out of Eden, it was Adam and not Eve whom he punished by decreeing that ‘by the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread’” (p69).

    Is Work Wonderful?
    “During most of history,” Van Creveld reports, “work tended to be seen as something unpleasant, hard and even dangerous” (p66) – as indeed it often was. Work was “a burden imposed on man as a punishment–one which, monks and protestants apart, most people tried to avoid” (p88-9).

    The privileged were those exempt from work – the ‘idle rich’ and ‘leisure class’. The oppressed those who worked – slaves, serfs and the ‘working-classes’. Yet women’s increased labour-force participation over the last half-century is strangely celebrated as ‘liberation’.

    Work is, almost by definition, something one does, not because one enjoys the activity of itself, but rather because of the recompense offered in compensation.

    Most people work because they are forced to do so – whether literally (slaves) or by circumstance (‘wage-slaves’). Mark Twain famously concluded: “Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and… Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do”.

    Only with the rise of Protestantism did the curious notion emerge that work was somehow liberating. Yet, Van Creveld explains, what is forgotten is that originally “Protestantism glorified work precisely because it was unpleasant and therefore well suited to doing penance” (p69).

    The ‘Protestant Work Ethic’ is therefore analogous to religious practices such as fasting and self-flagellation.

    Van Creveld deals with the notion that work is liberating with caustic cynicism – “The same claims were made by the ‘Arbeit macht frei’ [‘Work Sets You Free’] signs that stand at the entrance to Auschwitz” (p69).

    ‘Too Weak to Work’?
    Yet, Van Creveld insists, expecting women to work is hopelessly utopian. Women are unsuited to work as a matter of basic biology.

    Thus, “in China during the Great Leap Forward, the attempt to make women do agricultural work… led to mass starvation” (p77); in the USSR, making women work “led literally to the country’s collapse” (p104); and “over the seventy years communism lasted, its attempt to emancipate women by making them work on equal terms with men caused their very will to live and give life to be extinguished” (p93).

    The link between increased female labour-force participation and declining fertility is plausible. However, Van Creveld exaggerates.

    The claim that women are unsuited to work may have been tenable when work usually involved hard physical labour. However, in the post-industrial West, where most men work in offices not coal-mines, it is obsolete.

    Van Creveld’s claims do, however, prove that feminists got one thing right: Men like Van Creveld do use an ideology of ‘Biological Determinism’ and ‘Male Supremacy’ to justify the Status Quo. However, Male Supremacism is used to justify, not women’s oppression, but rather imposing greater burdens on men, who, being superior, are perceived as able to bear them, while women, being weak, are, like children, protected and provided for.

    On this view, being biologically inferior seems like quite a good deal!

    The Redistribution of Wealth
    If women cannot work, how do they survive? The answer, Van Creveld explains, “is because they were fed, clothed, housed and looked after by men” and “a society in which this was not the case has yet to be discovered” (p106).

    He identifies three institutions that facilitate this:
    1) Marriage;
    2) Charity;
    3) Welfare.

    Marriage
    “The family is,” for Van Creveld, “an economic institution” whose primary “purpose is to guarantee that… women will be provided for” (p107).

    Thus, “the duty of husbands to provide for their wives according to their means is universal” (p110), and evidenced as far back as ancient Egypt (p109) and Greece (p111).

    Thus, “a French royal decree of 1214 gave a wife the rights to half her husbands’ property” (p108); while “the husband’s duty to support his wife was… written into… Roman wedding charters” (p110). Accordingly, “before a man can marry he must work and pay and after joining hands in matrimony he must continue to work and pay” (p107).

    Even if the marriage dissolves, the husband’s burden continues – “in ancient Egypt, divorce entailed heavy financial penalties for the husband, but none for the wife”; while “both Hindu and Muslim law oblige husbands to support their divorced wives” (p118).
    ____________

    Van Creveld rationalizes these arrangements thus: “Compensating women for their lesser earning capacity has always been among the most important purposes of marriage” (p121).

    However, in the post-industrial West, where heavy labour is rare, women can earn as much as men. Indeed, once potential earnings in the sex industry are considered, women’s ‘earning capacity’ probably exceeds men’s.

    Van Creveld has his causation backwards. Instead of divorce law compensating women for their lesser earnings, it is probable that women’s reduced earnings are themselves a rational response to current divorce law.

    In short, why bother earning money when you have the easier option of marrying it?
    ____________

    As a result, although men earn more than women, women spend more. Van Creveld reports that, as early as the Victorian era, advertisers had already begun to target “Consuming Angels” (p116).

    Traditionally in France and Britain, “most of the earnings of working-class married men ended up in the hands of their wives [and] many surrendered their pay packet without even opening it, receiving back only what they needed to buy their daily ration of wine and tobacco” (p116).

    Likewise, “Today… women buy 80 percent of everything” (p116-7: see Marketing to Women: How to Increase Your Share of the World’s Largest Market:p6).

    Charity
    Charity also functions to redistribute wealth to women. Often, “the mere fact that a person is female may entitle her to benefits which, had she been male, she could have only gotten if she were sick or incapacitated” (p123).

    Beneficiaries included widows, ex-prostitutes, orphans in need of dowries, spinsters, unmarried girls – in short, any female lacking a husband.

    Conversely, men were eligible only if they were married and hence obliged to support a wife, such that the latter was an indirect beneficiary. Thus, “a poor man received assistance if he had a woman, while a poor woman received assistance if she did not have a man” (p128).

    In New York in 1820, many relief organizations “specifically designed to assist women… [yet] no similar organizations for men”, while “even the largest ‘co-ed’ charitable organization… aided 27 percent more women than men” (p129). Sixty years later, “the Charitable Organization Society… the largest of its kind in New York… assisted four times as many women as men” (Ibid.).

    Similarly, today, many charities (e.g. shelters for so-called ‘battered women’) serve only females (p130). Yet “whereas women are always entitled to share in any… charity provided to men, men are not permitted to share in many forms of charity provided to women… even if they are … divorced, deserted, widowed, and… have a brood of young children” (Ibid.)

    Welfare
    Increasingly, the function of both charity and marriage is usurped by the state.

    Thus, in the first attempt to create a ‘welfare state’ after the French Revolution, “women, particularly single mothers occupied an important place… on a par with wounded or disabled war veterans” (p126-7).

    The first social benefits in the USA were “mothers’ pensions”, which, unlike other pensions, “neither required an investment of capital nor… contributions” – and “by 1935, all but two states had them” (p131).

    Like modern child benefits, the “Aid to Dependent Children program” involved payments to mothers, not children – and, in all states but one, single fathers got nothing (p132).

    Social Security also favoured women. Whereas “men only got benefits if they worked and contributed… married women received benefits irrespective of work”; and “a widow past retirement age would be entitled to receive benefits” whereas a widower past retirement age received nothing (p133).

    On the death of their husbands, wives continued to receive the benefits their husbands had earnt – “having supported their wives during their entire lives, [men] were now expected to continue doing so after their deaths” (p134).

    In other jurisdictions – Norway, Italy, France – “in all cases women started receiving benefits years, often decades before men did” (p134).

    In the US, these inequalities were only remedied in 1975. Then the benefits in question were scaled back under Reagan. Thus, “as soon as women’s benefits were extended to men, those benefits came to be regarded as unnecessary” (p134).

    This appears to be a universal pattern. Thus, to take an example not discussed by Van Creveld, in the UK for fifty years, women were eligible for a state pension at 60, whereas men had to be 65. This inequality is scheduled to be phased out only in 2020. By this time, neither sex will be eligible until they are 68.
    ____________

    Van Creveld concludes:
    “On the face of it, a husband, a charitable institution and a modern welfare state are entirely different. In fact, though the details differ, the principle is the same. All are designed partly – and some would say primarily – to transfer resources from men… to women” (p137).

    One thing has remained constant – namely, the burden imposed on men. Thus, in Sweden men paid 61.5% of tax revenue – although women had 50% greater taxable wealth, received more allowances and received a greater proportion of their income as state welfare (p135).

    Yet, whereas charitable donations and marriage are voluntary, taxes are mandatory.

    Thus, we have gone from the traditional family to what Warren Farrell calls “a new nuclear family: woman, government and child” or “Government as a Substitute Husband” (see The Myth of Male Power).

    Unequal Before the Law
    Countless studies demonstrate that, in the criminal courts, female defendants are dealt with more leniently than men (e.g. Starr 2012). Likewise, the pro-female bias of the family courts is well-documented.

    Van Creveld shows that this favouritism is no new thing. Under ancient Salic Law, a person could be fined thrice as much for assaulting or killing a woman as they would be for the equivalent offence directed against a man (p141). Meanwhile, “in Yemen the blood money demanded for the death of a woman was 11 times that demanded for a man” (p141) – just as today criminals who victimize females are sentenced more severely (Curry et al 2004; Curry 2010)

    Meanwhile, “medieval German even had a special term, frauenfrevel, or ‘women’s trifle’ for reducing the penalty levied against women [which] amounted to 50 percent of the fines imposed on men” and “there existed a whole class of sanctions which, regarded as light, were known as ‘women’s punishments’” (p148).

    Similarly, to take an example not discussed by Van Creveld, in Britain, the whipping of women was abolished in 1820, but remained legal for males, even boys as young as seven for offences as minor as theft, until well into the twentieth century (see ‘corporal punishment’ entry, 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica).

    In common law jurisdictions (e.g. England, America), under the doctrine of coverture, husbands were punished for their wives’ transgressions (p142). In one case, “the jury was asked to consider whether a crippled and bedridden husband should be held responsible for a murder his wife committed in his presence” (p155).

    Feminists protest ‘sexual double-standards’. However, where adultery and premarital sex were unlawful, although the offence was defined by reference to the female partner’s marital status, the male partner was more severely punished. Thus, “in republican Rome, the law permitted a husband to kill his wife’s lover but not the woman herself” (p144).

    Ditto for other sexual offences. Leviticus 20:17 prescribes that only the male party be punished for brother-sister incest, (p145), while, from the Bible onward, male homosexuality was severely punished, yet lesbianism ignored. The Nazis sent only gay men to concentration camps and, as recently as 1993, 22 US states prohibited gay male sex, but not one criminalized lesbianism (p146-7).

    War
    The next chapter deals with warfare. This replicates much of the material in Van Creveld’s earlier work, Men, Women & War, which I have already reviewed. I will therefore say little about this chapter save to conclude that Van Creveld convincingly shows that, in wars throughout history, it is men who are conscripted and who represent the overwhelming majority of casualties, including civilian casualties. Meanwhile, women are, as Van Creveld puts it, “The Protected Sex”.

    Lifespan
    Chapter Seven is titled “The Quality of Life”. However, the whole book has dealt with this topic. Much of Chapter 7 is concerned, not so much with quality of life, as its duration.

    Biological factors have been invoked to explain women’s greater average longevity. However, Van Creveld disproves these theories. He demonstrates, in a deluge of data, that, throughout most of history, men actually outlived women. Only in the last few centuries has this pattern reversed.

    This occurred first in northwest Europe. By 1990, only seven countries remained where men still outlived women and, by 2011, women outlived men “in every single one of the 194 countries surveyed” (p219).

    Rejecting the counter-intuitive yet fashionable notion that women are somehow ‘stronger’ than men, Van Creveld attributes men’s greater longevity under pre-modern conditions to “men’s greater robustness” and “the fact they did not have to bear children” (p205).

    Women’s greater longevity today is attributed to technological advance. Yet “from the forceps to the condom to the pill, practically all these discoveries and inventions were made by men” (p207). Likewise, “the most important amenity men have provided for women is housing” since construction workers are overwhelmingly male (p211).

    Additionally, “women’s longevity… reflected their privileged economic position – the fact that they were supported by men” (p217).

    Today, if men still outlive women in a few of the poorest countries (e.g. Afghanistan), this is taken as incontrovertible proof of oppression.

    However, “what is usually regarded as the ‘normal’ sex ratio… is not really normal at all” but results from “men providing women with all the amenities of civilized life” (p211). To do so, “they had to engage in backbreaking labor and often they paid the price by dying a lonely death… [without even] a sign to mark their grave” (p211).

    Mental Health
    Van Creveld’s penultimate chapter, discusses the treatment of mental illness.

    Until recently, the treatment of the insane was draconian and the vast majority of inmates at mental institutions male. Today this pattern is reversed – women are more likely to be diagnosed with psychiatric conditions and their treatment is sympathetic.

    Van Creveld is sceptical regarding the scientific status of psychiatry – “mental diseases are simply labels invented to fit patients’ complaints into whatever intellectual framework exists at a given time and place” (p251; see also The Myth of Mental Illness).

    He traces to history of psychiatric diagnoses, from the nineteenth century epidemic of ‘hysteria’, to the twenty-first century fashion for ‘chronic fatigue syndrome’. He contrasts the sympathetic treatment accorded the ostensible victims (overwhelmingly female) of these dubious diagnoses of unknown aetiology with that accorded men suffering from ‘shell shock’ (‘post-traumatic shock disorder’) during WWI.

    Why Women Whinge?
    This chapter also seeks to explain why, despite female privilege, women still complain. He concludes women are simply “The Complaining Sex” and proposes “feminism itself may be just a manifestation, writ large, of this particular predisposition” (p237).

    As to why women whinge, he purports to paraphrase Nietzsche – “everything about women… is a complaint, and the complaint has one cause: namely the plain fact that a woman stands a much better chance of getting her way by complaining” (p274).

    Whereas “the sole way men can attract attention is by succeeding… women can attract attention almost equally well by failure or by complaining” (p276). In contrast, “if they complain, [men] are much more likely to be met with indifference or contempt” (p278).

    This then explains why women are more likely to attempt suicide as a ‘cry for help’, whereas men are more likely to actually kill themselves without seeking treatment (Ibid.).

    In short, the reason women whinge is because, on hearing them, male ‘white knights’ are all too ready to ride heroically to their rescue.

    Conclusion
    Van Creveld concludes the best cure for feminism is war – “war is an unfavourable breeding ground for feminism because, as long as it lasts, women desperately need men to defend them… [and] because… while men are away on campaign women do exactly as they please” (p281). Thus, “if the price of peace is… feminism… then perhaps it is a price worth paying” (p281).

    This is intuitively plausible. When men are forced to fight, surely no woman could envy the male role.

    However, the historical record does not support this theory. It was after WWI, when unprecedented numbers of men were conscripted and killed, that women were first enfranchised in both Britain and America. Meanwhile, in Britain, those men whose contribution to the war effort was comparable to that of women (i.e. conscientious objectors) were actually disenfranchised for a decade as punishment (A Question of Conscience: p70).

    In the absence of war, Van Creveld proposes that feminists will increasingly eschew integration in favour of segregation and special privileges (p282-3). The alternative is that “feminism will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions” since “today, as in the past, men and women want each other and cannot live without each other” and women still seek demand a man act as breadwinner (p283).

    Indeed, Van Creveld proposes, “much of feminism should be understood as an attempt by women who have failed to attract and keep a man to avenge themselves on their more fortunate sisters” (p284).

    However, one thing is certain, women’s privileges will continue – “so it has always been, and so – unless the nature of people of both sexes changes suddenly and fundamentally – it will always be” (p279).

    Neither, he suggests, “in our heart of hearts, would we like the situation to change” (p287).

    In this, he is right. As he has amply demonstrated in preceding chapters, men are naturally chivalrous and protective of women.

    As for why men feel this way, he ventures, “after all, it was women who gave us life. In a way, all we are doing is returning a debt” (p287).

    This is unconvincing. If men do owe a debt, it is not to womankind as a whole, but rather to a specific woman, namely their mother. Moreover, fathers also play a vital role in the conception of offspring. Finally, the alleged pain of childbirth is hardly equal to the hardship men endure throughout entire lifetimes to protect and provide for their womenfolk.

    In short, if, on balance, any debt exists, then, on the evidence of Van Creveld’s previous chapters, it is clear in what direction it is owing.

    Van Creveld admits as much later in the same paragraph, when, in his final sentence, he suggests that all men really require in return for their sacrifices is an occasional ‘thank you’.

  61. Rosie says:
    @Sako

    refusal to consider that men have grievances at least as legitimate as women’s. While also ignoring,

    You’re confused. I definitely think men have legitimate grievances, to wit:

    1. The outsourcing of our industrial base to China.
    2. Forever wars that have nothing to do with our national interest, but which nonetheless result in the death and dismemberment of young White men.
    3. Schooling that favors girls by pushing early academic achievement and damages young boys’ self-esteem.
    4. The fact that the underrepresentation of men is never considered a problem, however pronounced e.g. veterinary school), but over representation of men is considered a problem.

    I could go on, but you get the idea. This sentencing disparity (assuming it exists) is really the least of your problems.

    In any event, perhaps you’d like to explain to me why you think black men get longer sentences than White men, controlling for all the known and quantifiable variables.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/16/black-men-sentenced-to-more-time-for-committing-the-exact-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/

    • Replies: @Rosie
  62. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Lol this is ridiculous. Things this idiot attempts to spin as “privilege”

    Not getting to leave your house.
    Not getting at equal education.
    Having to leave the workforce for unpaid childcare responsibilities.

    Van Creveld admits as much later in the same paragraph, when, in his final sentence, he suggests that all men really require in return for their sacrifices is an occasional ‘thank you’.

    Same chauvinist sh!t different day. Men’s work is more important than women’s work, which doesn’t really even exist. We disagree, and we don’t owe you anything. True to form, the manosphere creep complains about “double standards,” and then says this:

    This is unconvincing. If men do owe a debt, it is not to womankind as a whole, but rather to a specific woman, namely their mother. Moreover, fathers also play a vital role in the conception of offspring. Finally, the alleged pain of childbirth is hardly equal to the hardship men endure throughout entire lifetimes to protect and provide for their womenfolk.

    In short, if, on balance, any debt exists, then, on the evidence of Van Creveld’s previous chapters, it is clear in what direction it is owing.

    Van Creveld admits as much later in the same paragraph, when, in his final sentence, he suggests that all men really require in return for their sacrifices is an occasional ‘thank you’.

    Women owe all men for what some have done, but men only owe their mothers. Get it? Me neither.

    And BTW, go make your own damned sandwich. Come to think of it. Since the majority of you sit on your backsides all day while the wife takes care of the kids and cleans house, you can go ahead and make her a sandwich while you’re at it.

  63. Sako says:

    You have completely misconstrued Van Creveld’s point. He is saying Greek women were not prisoners of their own homes. Being more secluded and working more inside the home than out doesn’t mean they were oppressed the way feminists spin it. His point is that the feminists have misread the data, just as they continue to misunderstand the medieval witch hunts as a “gender-cide” and “war against women,” when in reality most of their accusers were also women, many men were accused of witchcraft or wizardry as well, and witchcraft was only one form of heresy you could be accused of (a big majority of heretics put to death, counting up all the different types of heresy) were male.

    Did you miss this part?

    Certainly, Greek women were better-off than their menfolk. In Sparta, boys were subject to an austere regime of military training (and institutionalized sexual abuse) from early childhood. Yet, according to Aristotle, Spartan women lived lives of “every intemperance and luxury” and socially and politically dominated the city-state.

    As for black men getting longer sentences than white men, yes, race is a factor in sentencing. There is discrimination and racism against blacks, even if the issue is more complicated than the Left would like to think. (The MSM actually covers up and refuses to acknowledge the extent of black crime, hence you need to read a Colin Flaherty or Paul Kersey to find out the truth.). But that reinforces the point: where blacks really have been discriminated against under the law, the law actually advantages women. It’s possible to be a member of a racial outgroup, for blacks to have been a pure outgroup, lower on the totem pole historically, but sexism is more ambiguous – Van Creveld shows that women’s evident historical disadvantages were invariably attended and intertwined with advantages and privileges. Not the same thing as racism at all.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  64. Rosie says:
    @Sako

    . He is saying Greek women were not prisoners of their own homes.

    I am not a historian, but I’m not going to rely on someone like this for such information. He clearly has an axe to grind.

    Certainly, Greek women were better-off than their menfolk. In Sparta, boys were subject to an austere regime of military training (and institutionalized sexual abuse) from early childhood. Yet, according to Aristotle, Spartan women lived lives of “every intemperance and luxury” and socially and politically dominated the city-state.

    Yes, I’m aware of the Spartan exception.

    As for black men getting longer sentences than white men, yes, race is a factor in sentencing.

    I couldn’t disagree more. I suspect that the actual black-white disparity would be much larger but for judges bending over backwards to give black men every benefit of the doubt.

    Van Creveld shows that women’s evident historical disadvantages were invariably attended and intertwined with advantages and privileges.

    Irrelevant even if true (which I doubt). You can say the same thing about black slaves, who got free health care, retirement, maternity leave, etc, and were better off than poor whites. That doesn’t make slavery any less egregious and dehumanizing.

    FWIW, I really don’t care much one way or the other whether you think women were or were not “oppressed.” I care about the future.

  65. Sako says:

    Irrelevant even if true (which I doubt). You can say the same thing about black slaves, who got free health care, retirement, maternity leave, etc, and were better off than poor whites. That doesn’t make slavery any less egregious and dehumanizing.

    You accuse Van Creveld of having an ax to grind, then make up your own sloppy, misleading version of history.

    But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that you are correct that black slaves were generally much better off than poor whites. That would, in a crucial sense, make the condition of black slaves more enviable than that of poor whites and it would suggest that their status was not one of “victimization” in comparison with poor whites. And that they emphatically should not be considered greater victims of oppression than poor whites at the time. After all, if as you say black slaves were generally better off than poor whites, then it necessarily follows that they were not greater victims of society we have to feel sorry for.

    Likewise, if we push your analogy to its logical conclusion, women were never more oppressed than men of same social class as them were. For even if the women’s situation was not ideal, neither was the men’s. And men in their own distinctive way usually had it just as bad as women, if not worse — if we compare like with like, if we compare men and women of the same social class in the same society.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  66. Sako says:

    I am not a historian, but I’m not going to rely on someone like this for such information. He clearly has an axe to grind.

    His position is perfectly consonant with what members of earlier generations of historians believed. I read a book years ago from the early 20th century where the author, whose name escapes me, dismissed the assumption of some of his colleagues that the Greeks were these raving misogynists and that they oppressed their womenfolk. According to him, that was a misreading of the available evidence, and I agree.

    Of course, in today’s climate of ubiquitous feminism, the “Greek men hated women” school is taken as undoubtedly true, while the school of thought that particular author represented is ignored. But I agree with him, and so does Van Creveld. It’s important to realize that that way of thinking about the Greeks was never disproven, simply shoved aside by the radfem and politically correct zealots who now dominate academia. They didn’t win on the strength of their arguments, they simply completed their Long March through the institutions.

  67. Anonymous[221] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Rural India. The result: female infanticide and no wives.

    So no, you really can’t do that without shooting yourselves in the foot.

    You could breed more women in that case.

    Incidentally, when there are many more women for every man, women have much less bargaining power and are more liable to be used and pumped and dumped by men. Women have to be more accommodating and better behaved to get a man.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  68. Rosie says:
    @Sako

    After all, if as you say black slaves were generally better off than poor whites, then it necessarily follows that they were not greater victims of society we have to feel sorry for.

    The fundamental problem with your analysis (or better yet, your attitude) is your failure to take account of harm to human dignity. You reduce humans to animals, with no needs higher than creature comforts.

    I don’t particularly care whether you think women were especially victimized or not. Again, what matters is the future, and whether women will be deprived of our legal rights as we have been in the past. Whether you think such deprivations were or were not oppressive, offset by other privileges, etc. is irrelevant and of no concern to me.

    • Replies: @Sako
  69. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    You could breed more women in that case.

    It’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder whether you’re a psychopath than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

    Incidentally, when there are many more women for every man, women have much less bargaining power and are more liable to be used and pumped and dumped by men.

    A rare admission of all-too-common male sexual depravity and manipulative, predatory conduct towards women.

    Women have to be more accommodating and better behaved to get a man.

    Virtue in a woman is totally independent of the marriage market. As in all things, virtue lies in a mean, here between selfishness and servility. Servility won’t help a woman get a man; and if it does, it won’t help her keep him; and if it does, it won’t help her get her needs met, including being treated with respect. If anything, it’s the other way around.

    A shortage of women provides no benefits to women. Indeed, it creates a demand for prostitutes so fierce that girls and women can scarcely leave their houses without risking abduction and and sale to a brothel.

  70. Sako says:
    @Rosie

    A typical irrelevant response from the strident feminist in egalitarian’s clothing, Rosie.

    First you claim that blacks had more protection and security, and better living standards, and were thus “better off” than poor whites. Then you suggest a parallel here with the conditions of women as compared with men.

    But obviously, what this analogy actually shows, despite Rosie’s rather desperate attempts to preserve her imaginary female victim status, is that “oppression” is not something so easily quantified. If black slaves were “better off” than poor whites, then they cannot be considered more oppressed, regardless of whether they attained some hypothetical ideal state of living. Likewise, women cannot be considered oppressed in comparison with men, since they were generally better off than men in almost every way that mattered – certainly far more effort was made to ensure their physical security and comfort than was ever made for men.

    Maslow’s claims have zero relevance to any point you seem to think you are making. What his pyramid actually argues is that esteem and self actualization only come to the fore once physIllogical, safety and love and belonging needs are already met. And since it is women who were mainly protected when it comes to those latter three named categories (the primary categories, the first requiring fulfillment according to Maslow, before we can go on to the higher realms) that again is evidence of the reality of female privilege.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Striker Comments via RSS