by Marc H. Rudov
October 30, 2009
Hollow and Nonexistent
Did you ever imagine that men — who created, fought and died for, and built America — would one day comprise a special-interest group (SIG)? Stop imagining. That day is today.
Judging by how they view themselves, and, consequently, how women view them, men are neither special nor of much interest to America. Accordingly, this so-called “group” is, in reality, hollow and nonexistent and, therefore, trivial.
Typically, SIGs organize, raise money, and fight to coerce spineless politicians to subvert the US Constitution to create unilateral rights and privileges. Result? Unconstitutional laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the newly enacted Hate Crimes Prevention Act — which, some argue, could have allowed the feds to nullify North Carolina’s decision to forgive three innocent men in the Duke Lacrosse Case.
Obama’s Macho Window Dressing
Women keep playing oppressed victims when, clearly, they aren’t: Maria Shriver declared America a Woman’s Nation. Yet, they endlessly seek unilateral legal dominance when the Constitution, as written and amended, gives them everything they need. Why? Simple: because they can. They know that, whenever women cry foul, men buckle.
In the past week, feminists accused Barack Obama of running a boys’ club within the White House — because he frequently shoots hoops and plays golf only with male colleagues and friends. Big freaking deal. His “boys’ club,” a mere retreat from self-imposed subordination to women, is macho window dressing.
Nothing demonstrates Obama’s real agenda like his female-centric rhetoric and behavior. For example, Obama told NBC News that “men are obtuse about women … and need to be knocked across the head.” As I indicated in “Obama’s Misandry Cineplex,” the president is operating anything but a boys’ club:
In 2008 and 2009, Obama castigated men on Fathers’ Day for leaving their pregnant unmarried girlfriends. Did he make a similar speech on Mothers’ Day to vilify unmarried pregnant women? He did not. Roe v. Wade, which Obama supports, says: it’s her body, her baby, her choice. Yet, Obama blames men for women’s choices.
Unconstitutional women-only section at Whitehouse.gov.
Fatherhood.gov to teach men parenting, while Motherhood.gov is nonexistent (by giving birth, women are fully equipped to be great mothers, right?).
Republicans Have No Brand
If men want to end government-sponsored misandry, where do they turn? The Democrats? Forget it. Democrats believe in central government, entitlements, and redistribution of wealth. They view the Constitution as a document of suggestions, recommendations, and hidden rights and entitlements for special groups.
How about the Republican Party? Republicans portray themselves as upholders of the law, believers in states’ rights and small government, the people’s party, and advocates of equal protection under the law. Really?
If that’s the case, why are men exempt from equal protection? Are they hollow, nonexistent, and trivial? Why doesn’t Michael Steele, chairman of the RNC, stand up for men and fathers? Why indeed.
Instead, every time a new misandrist law comes along, like the Hate-Crimes Act mentioned above, Republicans vote for it. Never an argument, filibuster, or fight. Never an appearance on Fox News to rail against it. Equal protection, my ass.
Since 1874, the elephant has symbolized the Republican Party. Its origins were, coincidentally, based in fear and weakness. I see no difference today. A better symbol would be the hippopotamus, because Republicans are hypocrites.
Republicans have no brand, no discernible purpose — other than to oppose Democrats — and, therefore, no unique drawing power. A brand is perception, not proclamation.
Here’s how the GOP can brand itself as unique and appealing: man-up. Attract men. Fight political correctness to restore equal rights to men. Give men a reason to join, a place to turn.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
There are too many men who obsequiously believe that women deserve “special” rights and privileges — violating the Constitution — because they didn’t have suffrage until 1920 (89 years ago). That’s as absurd as calling anorexia a cure for obesity. One can’t fix an injustice by creating another injustice.
In “Rebranding Manhood,” I wrote that masculinity is not deference to women — it’s standing up to them. Either we as a nation believe in equality or we don’t. If we do, let’s enforce it. If we don’t, let’s rip up the Constitution and devolve into gynocratic fascism.
It’s time for the GOP to man-up. Does this connote patriarchy? Not at all. It means not tolerating matriarchy. It means equality, as the Fourteenth Amendment dictates. A country of male doormats is no country.
The GOP, like any group, reflects the wishes and demands of its members. If it continues to ignore equality for men, we will know why: the members want it that way. Alas, neither the GOP nor America will have much future.