Like
many who have family in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, we
sought every possible outlet for information. Today, four days after
the storm, there is still no power, no land-line communication,
and no food. The local newspaper updates its website regularly,
and a sister newspaper in Florida provided a web
forum where hundreds of people shared their knowledge and pleaded
for information about their loved ones. Each piece of news brought
something worse than the previous report: people trapped in houses,
the elderly unable to get medical supplies, looting, and, of course,
the damage. In my parent's subdivision, a fairly well-to-do area
of town, every other house has a tree on top of it. Food is running
low, and tempers are flaring.

Many
readers may already have heard of Hattiesburg and the storm. It
was there Monday night that two siblings quarreled over a bag of
ice. One went to jail, the other went to the morgue. We are all
struck by the collapse of civilization in New Orleans. When we see
starving and mistreated crowds break into stores to get food, I
am sure people have pity. But when you see law and order break down
in your hometown – when people you know are threatened or even
murdered
– pity turns to horror, and we are forced to come to terms
with just how fragile civilization can be.

So,
why is it that in the face of such destruction, my father would
utter such a libertarian statement? Perhaps it was my brother, who
lost his house in the storm, but who also got a check from State
Farm Insurance the next day. Perhaps it was the Southern Baptist
Association, which was in town within 48 hours handing out rations
of food. Or, perhaps it was the fact that on Thursday, he still
had not seen a single FEMA worker. To make matters worse, relief
supplies were
stranded in truck stops dozens of miles away, not because the
roads were covered with trees (which did make a difference during
the first 24 hours), but because government workers failed to tell
drivers where to deliver them. In one case, trucks of ice sat in
Meridian, Mississippi for three days because drivers could not find
officials who would tell them what to do. I bet the good folks at
State Farm could give them the right information. To make matters
worse, police in Mississippi, careful to avoid the human catastrophe
developing in New Orleans, continue to vigorously enforce a dusk-to-dawn
curfew. When generators finally arrive to power the pumps, gas stations
are shut down with the setting of the sun. In one case, motorists,
many of whom had lined up hours or even days before, were turned
away by aggressive
policemen wanting to get a head start on enforcing the curfew.

We
have no way of knowing what the political repercussions of Katrina
will be. But rest assured, South Mississippians will think long
and hard before the next election, that is, if they even bother
to vote. To paraphrase one of my favorite theologians, faith in
humanity can lead to disillusionment with humanity, which will assuredly
lead to hatred of humanity. I think the same applies to the federal
government.

September
3, 2005

Carey
Michael Roberts [send him
mail] teaches history at Arkansas Tech University.

But at USA Today, the presses were churning out a very different message.

On the front page, USA Today featured a story on "U.S. gymnasts look bound for glory." Despite its title, the article turned out to be only about female gymnasts. No mention of the men.

In the Sports section, the first page was graced by photos of swimmer Katie Hoff and volleyball players Kerri Walsh and Misty May. Again, the male athletes were nowhere to be seen.

Swimmer Michael Phelps, seeking to eclipse Mark Spitz’ record of seven gold medals, is arguably the most talented American athlete competing in this summer’s Olympics. But at USA Today, gender counted for more than talent, so his story was buried on page 4F.

And the miraculous Iraqi soccer win? That piece was neatly tucked away on page 2C, below the fold.

Overall, women’s sports ruled. And men’s athletics were practically an afterthought.

How did USA Today’s coverage of the Olympics become so biased? That question can be answered in two words: Christine Brennan.

Christine Brennan, the person who organized the articles, is the well-known sports reporter at USA Today. Brennan is a doctrinaire feminist.

Brennan does not hesitate to ridicule men’s athletics. She has referred to college wrestling as "malarkey" and football programs as "bloated." Once Brennan wrote a smark-alecky column on why men should swoon over women’s figure skating.

Of course, Brennan believes that female athletes should be paid the same as men, despite the fact that professional women’s sports is a proven money loser. Look at what happened to the now-defunct Women’s United Soccer Association. And the Women’s National Basketball Association is barely staying afloat.

But when women choose to not fill the stadiums and arenas, Brennan blames the sports editors who don’t create new beats to cover female athletics. "The sports world is changing, and we’re barely reflecting this. There is no excuse for this," the hyperventilating Brennan exclaimed.

But above all, Brennan is an unabashed supporter of Title IX. In a 2002 interview, Brennan described Title IX as mandating "proportionality and equality for men and women in terms of having opportunities to play sports."

If you’re looking for an example of loopy logic, it doesn’t get any better than that.

Because the 1972 law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools doesn’t say anything about "proportionality." Proportionality is feminist-speak for "quotas." Proportionality is the highly controversial term that the Clinton administration used to justify the elimination of hundreds of men’s swimming, golf, and wrestling teams.

According to the Independent Women’s Forum, males are twice as likely as females to participate in collegiate intramural and club sports. And at ESPN, male viewers outnumber females three to one. So how can anyone expect that women will want to participate in sports in numbers that are "proportional" to their college enrollments?

I’m an unabashed fan of women’s tennis and figure skating. I love the artistry and grace.

But many of the Olympic sports have little to do with artistry or grace.

Cycling, rowing, running, and swimming all come down to one thing: speed.

And events like shot-putting and weight-lifting are tests of brute strength. Despite Ms. Brennan’s good intentions, she would have to admit that in those departments, men outclass the women.

Radical feminists believe that women should achieve complete statistical uniformity with men. Experience proves that feminists are willing to resort to heavy-handed tactics such as propaganda-like media coverage and heavy-handed quotas to reach that goal.

But the truth is, if women don’t get involved in athletics in similar numbers as men, that has nothing to do with discrimination or patriarchal oppression. That’s about women exercising their right to free choice.

Carey Roberts [send him mail] is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.

It’s now 2004 and Americans are the guests on a remake of To Tell the Truth. The object of the game is to answer the question, What is the real face of feminism?

Many people think of feminism as a movement that promotes gender equality and opportunity. And for many years, I counted myself in that group. To deny women the opportunity to get a good education and pursue a career — that seemed abhorrent and contrary to the American Dream.

Then the voices of the skeptics demanded a hearing.

As early as 1972, Phyllis Schlafly posed this question: "The claim that American women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century…Why should we lower ourselves to u2018equal rights’ when we already have the status of special privilege?" That editorial launched the movement that eventually defeated the Equal Rights Amendment.

But I still counted myself a true believer.

In a 1992 article in the Washington Post, Sally Quinn compared the leaders of NOW to the apparatchiks of the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union. She concluded, "many women have come to see the feminist movement as anti-male, anti-child, anti-family, anti-feminine."

That broadside made me blink.

Two years later Christina Hoff Sommers released her stunning expose’, Who Stole Feminism? Ms. Sommers methodically dissected and debunked the feminist claims about domestic violence, rape, and women’s health.

That was more than I could ignore, so I began to do my own research. I went to my local library, combed through government reports, and surfed the internet. I soon learned that Schlafly, Quinn, and Sommers were right: the feminist claims were actually Ms.-Information.

Around that time, millions of women began to reach the same conclusion. In 1992, a Gallup poll found that 33% of American women considered themselves to be feminist. But seven years later, the Gallup poll reported that number had plummeted to 26%. And one CBS poll noted that 22% of women said that being called a feminist would be an "insult."

But substitute the word "women" for "feminist," and you come up with a very different story. A 1998 Pew survey found that 67% of females (and 66% of males) were favorable to the "women’s movement."

So a large majority of American women do not consider themselves to be feminists, but still support the women’s movement. An obvious and startling conclusion emerges: Women no longer believe that feminism represents their interests or needs.

A recent article in the National Review paints a similar picture of waning feminist influence. Feminist thinking holds that a bride taking her husband’s last name "signifies the loss of her very existence as a person under the law," as former NOW-head Patricia Ireland once put it. But alas, most women have a mind of their own. According to marriage records in Massachusetts, the percentage of surname keepers dropped from 23% in 1990 to 17% in 2000.

What’s more, a growing number of women’s organizations have set out to counter the feminist agenda, including the Concerned Women for America, Independent Women’s Forum, Women’s Freedom Network, and the Clare Booth Luce Foundation. And several women’s websites now feature anti-feminist commentary, such as ifeminists.net and ladiesagainstfeminism.com.

But there are still a substantial number of persons in our society who cling to the belief that feminism is about promoting equality, fairness, and gender enlightenment.

So guest celebrity, our time is up. Which face of feminism is real, and which is the impostor? Is feminism about promoting equality of rights and responsibilities? Or does it aim to foment gender discord and marital break-down?

The modern rendition of To Tell the Truth is no mere game show. It’s not about a few hundred dollars in funny money. It’s a real life drama that spells enormous consequences for our culture, our families, and our children.

Carey Roberts [send him mail] is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.

Stripped down to its bare essentials, marriage is an enduring social contract between a consenting man and woman. Before they agree to enter into this sacred union, both parties must have the expectation of benefit. But the disturbing fact is, millions of American men have come to believe that marriage is a losing proposition.

News of the Marriage Strike first began to settle into our national consciousness in 2002. That year Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe of Rutgers University interviewed 60 men to probe their attitudes about marriage. And to their surprise, they discovered that some of these men were flat-out opposed to tying the knot.

So this year, the Rutgers researchers decided to launch a full-scale national survey of single heterosexual men, ages 25—34. These men represent almost 10 million of the nation’s most eligible bachelors. The report was just released last month.

Among those men, 53% said they were not interested in getting married anytime soon — the marriage delayers. That figure alone is cause for concern.

But this is the statistic that every American who wants to strengthen and protect marriage should be worried about: 22% of the men said they had absolutely no interest in finding their Truly Beloved. The report described these guys as "hardcore marriage avoiders."

When almost one-quarter of single men in their prime courting years — that’s two million potential husbands — declare a Marriage Strike, we’re facing an unprecedented social crisis.

Why are these men refusing to marry? Some of their reasons are spelled out in the 2002 report:

• "Some men express resentment towards a legal system that grants women the unilateral right to decide to terminate a pregnancy…There is also a mistrust of women who may u2018trap’ men into fathering a child by claiming to be sterilized, infertile or on the pill."

• “Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce…They fear that an ex-wife will ‘take you for all you’ve got’ and that ‘men have more to lose financially than women’ from a divorce.”

Men’s fear of financial ruin following divorce is backed by research. In a soon-to-be-released book, Sanford Braver, PhD of Arizona State University notes that noncustodial fathers often spend considerable money when they are with their kids. But the child support guidelines don’t take this into account.

Plus, the custodial mother reaps a number of tax benefits, such as being able to list the kids as exemptions on her IRS return. Likewise, the mother does not pay any taxes on her child support income, while the father cannot list these payments as deductions. As a result, Braver suggests that the "guidelines have already become too generous" to the point that the father experiences a standard of living that is lower than his ex-wife.

Men have other reasons to resist the romantic urge. Domestic violence laws allow vindictive women to kick hubby out of the house based on the flimsiest of pretexts. And if divorce were to result, he would likely lose custody of his own flesh and blood.

Four decades ago, radical feminists, taking their cue from Marxist-Leninist theory, decreed that marriage was nothing more than gender slavery. Claiming to speak on behalf of American women, feminists set out to radically rework — or even do away with — the age-old social contract of marriage. And women, mesmerized by the ephemeral promise of liberation and empowerment, opted to go along for the ride.

Now, feminists are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. And women are left to wonder why their Prince Charming is nowhere to be found.

Carey Roberts [send him mail] is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.

Political Correctness has its roots in Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxists know that democratic capitalism cannot be overthrown by external force. So they seek to undermine Western society like a cancer attacking from within.

The politically-correct view all of history through the prism of power. For example, radical feminism teaches that in the past, men had all the power. That made men the unrelenting oppressors of women. So now men are obliged to make up for their past transgressions.

Experience proves that Political Correctness is difficult to counter because it is always justified by sentimental appeals to fairness and sensitivity.

The purveyors of PC began 20 years ago by discouraging the use of demeaning stereotypes and epithets directed against any racial, ethnic, or gender group. Who could argue with that?

An exception was made, however, for males, who were considered fair game for the crudest forms of denunciation.

Soon, campus speech codes began to sprout. In the workplace, speech codes became subsumed under the rubric of sexual harassment. If a boss called his secretary "honey" or a doctor referred to a patient as "dear," that could get him into trouble.

The next step in the unfolding PC campaign was the passage of hate speech legislation.

In 1999, the National Organization of Women and other groups unveiled the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which aimed to expand the scope of the existing hate crime laws to include gender and sexual orientation. When it floundered in committee, they changed the name of the bill to the benign-sounding Local Law Enforcement Act — the LLEA.

Just last week, five years of hard work paid off. The Senate approved the LLEA by a 65-33 vote. If the House of Representatives approves the bill and President Bush signs off, the LLEA soon will become the law of the land.

So what would happen if someone writes a book that portrays a protected group in a negative light? Could that be construed as a hate crime?

Actually, I didn’t make that example up.

On June 10, legendary actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted in France and fined $6,000. Her offense? Including passages in her best-selling book, A Cry in the Silence, about the growing Islamic influence in Europe. The sections in question allegedly incited racial hatred against Moslems. However, a review of the passages in question reveals them to be provocative, but certainly not hateful.

Or what would happen if a person did a critique of feminist ideology — not attacking feminists as a group, just analyzing their philosophy? Could that get a person into hot water?

Again, that is not a hypothetical question.

Because just last year, the Canadian government published a report entitled "School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculist Discourse." The report concluded, "We also recommend that consideration be given to whether legal action can be taken under section 319 of the Criminal Code."

And what is section 319 of the Criminal Code? Why, that’s the Canadian hate crimes law.

And what are the crimes of the accused? According to the indictment in the Executive Summary, "The results of our analysis of the masculist discourse reveal an ideology that aims to challenge the gains made by women and discredit feminism."

Exactly who are the perpetrators of this ideological crime? The report lists persons like Christina Hoff Sommers, author of the expos, Who Stole Feminism? Accusing a woman of being hateful to other women — apparently the irony of that was lost to authors of the report.

And if you’ve been following the story about the Affirmative Action Bake Sales on college campuses, you know that the move to ban certain forms of political expression has gained a solid foothold in the United States, as well.

First Cultural Marxism. Then Political Correctness. And now the LLEA. Take me to my grave, but I’m going to stoutly resist anybody telling me what I can say and what I can think.

Carey Roberts [send him mail] is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.

The
rise of father-absence can be traced back 50 years. In 1965, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, then working in the Johnson administration, looked
into the problems of under-class America. The Moynihan Report issued
this solemn warning:

“From
the wild Irish slums of the 19th century eastern seaboard, to the
riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson
in American history: A community that allows a large number of young
men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring
any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational
expectations about the future – that community asks for and gets
chaos.”

The
heralded Report offered Americans a unique opportunity to alter
the trajectory of history, to thwart the impending plunge into the
abyss.

But
rather than heed the prescient warning, warm-hearted liberals denounced
Moynihan's conclusion as "blaming the victim." And feminists
reviled the report as promoting the "hetero-patriarchal"
agenda.

But
it wasn't enough to just ignore Moynihan's analysis.

Architects
of the Great Society program went ahead and implemented eligibility
requirements that cut off welfare benefits if the father resided
with the mother — the so-called "man-in-the-house" rule.
Now, low-income fathers found themselves pitted against government
largesse to compete for the loyalty of poor mothers. A tragic mismatch,
indeed.

As
a result, the number of children who lived in fatherless homes mushroomed
from 5.1 million in 1960 to 16.5 million in 1995. These policies
were so devastating in their impact that involved, caring fathers
all but disappeared from low-income, Black neighborhoods.

So
while liberals comforted themselves with the knowledge that they
had avoided "blaming the victim," millions of little boys
and girls had to console themselves with the elusive hope that someday,
society would stop shoving daddy out the back door.

Once poor fathers
had been run out of their homes, the fem-liberals broadened their
focus. They
launched an attack on the whole notion of fatherhood itself.

Five
years ago this month the American Psychological Association used
the occasion of Father's Day to publish an article with the awful
title, "Deconstructing
the Essential Father." The partisan article triggered a
firestorm of protest, including
a rebuke from 18 members of Congress.

Despite
what the American Psychological Association might say, most persons
agree that dads are worth keeping around.

First,
a father's breadwinning instinct keeps the family out of the clutches
of poverty. Indeed, while father-present households saw an increase
in income from 1960 to 1990, father-absent families saw a financial
decline.

But
fathers are more than income producers. Fathers undergird the very
order and structure of the family.

Scores
of research studies have documented the positive effects of involved
fathers. Here's just a sampling of the benefits:

• The National
  Center for Educational Statistics reported that when fathers
  are involved in their children's education, the kids were more
  likely to get As, enjoy school, and participate in extracurricular
  activities.
• Kyle Pruett
  concluded that kids with engaged fathers demonstrate "a
  greater ability to take initiative and evidence self-control."
• When these
  boys grew up, they were more likely to be good dads themselves.

But
when fathers are disenfranchised by misguided government programs,
here's the result:

• Their
  children have a higher rate of asthma, headaches, anxiety, depression,
  and behavioral problems.
• Teenagers
  are at greater risk of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use,
  and suicide.
• Adolescent
  girls are 3 times more likely to engage in sexual relations
  by the time they turn 15, and 5 times more likely to become
  a teen mother.

Amazing,
isn't it?

Thank
you, dad, for being there. You were more than essential. You were
a beacon of truthfulness, common sense, kindness, and silent courage.

June
17, 2004

Carey
Roberts [send him mail]
is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream
media.

As
early as 1980, UNICEF director Jim Grant championed simple yet effective
programs to promote child welfare. These strategies included immunizations,
promotion of breastfeeding, and training birth attendants. Grant's
initiative has been credited with saving the lives of over 25 million
children.

But
in 1995, Grant tragically died, and radical feminist Carol Bellamy
took over. UNICEF was due for an ideological overhaul.

According
to a recent report
from the International Organizations Research Group, radical
feminists began to argue that female autonomy and empowerment is
what really matters. As Mary Racelis, former UNICEF senior policy
advisor put it, these activists believed that the organization needed
"to focus on a woman's own priorities…rather than decide
for her that her children must come first."

Note
the false dichotomy in that statement. Apparently, feminists believed
that parenthood was incompatible with personal fulfillment.

There
is no evidence that sending mom off to work in a factory is good
for junior. In fact, research shows the opposite, that
children who spend time in day care centers are more likely to be
aggressive and disobedient.

Some
UNICEF officials resisted this reconfiguration of family roles.
But feminists countered with a blitzkrieg of sexist allegations,
calling UNICEF a "male-dominated organization" that perpetuated
"male-defined stereotypes."

Even
breastfeeding came under fire. Feminists took issue with the UNICEF
breastfeeding campaign, denouncing the effort because it portrayed
women "as the human equivalent of milking cows."

Before
long, the name-calling and bovine hysteria-mongering took over.

Once
the new gender ideology became entrenched, Bellamy made Girls' Education
her number one priority. The 1998 UNICEF report Progress of Nations
gives this flimsy ideological justification: "Education can
also provide vocational skills, potentially increasing her economic
power, thus freeing her from dependence on her husband, father,
or brother."

Now,
UNICEF officials talk about the global "crisis" facing
girls' education. But throughout Latin America and the Caribbean,
boys lag behind girls in school enrollments. Apparently
this gender gap has escaped the attention of UNICEF officials.

While
boys are merely neglected by current UNICEF programs, girls are
being subjected to an aggressive campaign to inculcate them with
radical feminist ideology.

According
to the IORG report,
UNICEF has set out to convince girls that being the primary caregiver
for children represents gender discrimination.

And
under the cover of stopping AIDS, UNICEF provides financial support
to organizations that promote sexual experimentation by teenage
girls. For example, one
UNICEF-supported website asks this titillating question: "Hey,
you know that tingly feeling that makes you think of sex after you've
seen someone cute?"

Who
in their right mind believes that kind of message promotes abstinence
and sexual monogamy?

So
Carol Bellamy has not merely reshuffled UNICEF's priorities.

Rather,
Bellamy has put in place an anti-child agenda that:

1. Promotes
   a redefinition of the family that is no longer child-centered,
2. Advocates
   the neglect of the educational needs of boys, and
3. Indoctrinates
   girls into radical feminist ideology.

So
this Fall, when trick-or-treaters come knocking at your door, ask
yourself this question: Why is the United States government bankrolling
UNICEF's anti-child agenda to the tune of $216 million?

August
18, 2003

Carey
Roberts [send him mail]
is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream
media.

Despite
the absurdity of this scenario, this is exactly what is playing
out in the world of professional tennis.

At
Wimbledon, men must play up to 5 sets to win, while women only play
3 sets. Obviously, you can show a lot more commercials for Pimm's
beer during those 2 extra sets of tennis.

But
the female tennis players think they are entitled to equal prize
money.

This
is how the
CEO of the Women's Tennis Association explains it:
"It's not about the money, but the women feel very strongly
that as a matter of principle…they deserve equal prize money."

Note
the selective application of the word "equal." If the
WTA believes in true equality, then why not pay the runner-up the
same as the first place winner?

And
the comely Anna Kournikova garners $7–10 million from product
endorsements, far more than any male tennis players do. Why not
allow the men to benefit "equally" from parading around
in their underwear?

But
the intellectual dishonesty that underlies the Wimbledon controversy
is a mere skirmish in a much larger war.

Common
sense and anthropological research reveal these facts about women,
men, and work:

1. Women are
   the primary caregivers of infants and young children.

2. In order
   to support women in their caregiver role, men become the primary
   breadwinners.

3. Men predominate
   in occupations such as mining, construction, fishing, and lumbering.
   While these jobs may pay well, they are far more perilous.

But
these biological and social facts are ignored in a recent report
from the International Labor Organization. The recent ILO document,
"Time
for Equality at Work" makes the case that sex-based wage
discrimination is rampant around the world.

Here's
a glimpse into the ILO's logic: "Truck drivers, for instance,
are usually men." This lamentable fact is explained by what
the ILO calls "occupational segregation," which means
that women are unwittingly being shunted into the low-paying jobs.
Apparently, the ILO wants mothers to breastfeed their infants as
their 18-wheel rig careens down a two-lane highway.

The
ILO report makes the claim that "Occupational segregation by
sex has been more detrimental to women than to men." If this
is true, then why is it that men are often forced to spend long
periods away from home to support their families? And why are men,
not women, the victims in 9 out of 10 occupational deaths?

And
if there is any lingering doubt, this statement on page 51 of the
manifesto reveals the true intentions of the ILO: "The growing
prevalence of wage-setting systems based on workers' productivity
or performance instead of on the content of the job raises new challenges
for achieving pay equity."

In
other words, the "content" of the job (as determined by
some heavy-handed government agency) should count for more than
how much a worker produces. Clearly, ILO does not understand that
delinking salary from productivity undermines the entire economic
engine of society.

If
the ILO's insidious theories continue to spread, the Law of Supply
and Demand will become a quaint historical footnote. Instead, my
Comrade, we will be singing the praises of "From each according
to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

July
21, 2003

Carey
Roberts [send him mail]
is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream
media.

And
it isn't for lack of social commentary. I was walking out of my
local Borders bookstore the other day, and there were two books
by the check-out stand promising to help desperate women find that
someone special.

Women's
magazines are replete with advice columns to help readers find their
Prince Charming. But alas, these columns are generally clueless
when it comes to getting the male perspective on the issue, as if
the woman's point of view is all that matters.

Case
in point is Susan Reimer's recent diatribe, Young
Men are Running from Marriage. Her column, like most in the
genre, offers little in the way of compassion, wit, or wisdom.

This
is how she describes young men: "Other than a 29-inch waist
and a full head of hair, there isn't much to recommend the twentysomething
male…He is living an extended adolescence – an adult-olescence – and every immature, irresponsible, self-absorbed thing he does
is reinforced by the latest issue of his favorite men's magazine.

If
Ms. Reimer's commentary reflects the attitudes most single women,
it's no wonder that men aren't lining up to buy their marriage licenses.

So
let's shift our focus back a couple frames to gain a broader perspective.
What would we see?

First,
men are well-aware that half of all marriages end in divorce. And
men have heard too many horror stories about spiteful women who
have cleaned out their bank accounts and demanded lifelong alimony.
And as far as the kids, they fear ending up as a parental outcast,
permitted by the divorce decree to "visit" their own children
every other weekend.

Then,
there's the feminist-driven Violence Against Women Act. That's the
federal boondoggle which has spawned domestic violence laws around
the country that make a mockery of "innocent until proven guilty."
Research shows that
domestic violence is a 50-50 proposition. The wife wallops hubby
with a frying pan, so he retaliates with a jab. The police show
up, and the man spends the night in the slammer.

Or
the wife can obtain a restraining order simply on the basis of her
claim that she is "fearful" of harm. She does not have
to provide any proof that danger is imminent – just her word that
she is afraid will generally suffice.

And
then, to put it bluntly, too many women have accepted the Great
Lie that women have been eternally oppressed. As
columnist Wendy McElroy put it, the "most damaging effect
of the Great Lie is that many women invest their emotions and energy
in rage rather than remedy….Instead of attacking their problems,
they attack people who have caused them no harm – men as a class,
men they've never met."

As
a result, these women approach relationships trying to prove they
are as good as, or better than, their male partner. How many men
in their right mind are interested in that kind of adversarial relationship?

Radical
feminists have succeeded in tilting the balance of marital power
strongly in favor of women. And men, fearing that marriage may turn
out to be a raw deal, have simply made other plans.

So
by weakening the marriage prospects of millions of women, feminism
has ironically ended up hurting and victimizing the very persons
whose interests it claims to speak for.

July
7, 2003

Carey
Roberts [send him mail]
is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream
media.

That
was back in 1993, when feminist groups called a press conference
to claim that Super Bowl Sunday was "the biggest day of the
year for violence against women." NBC executives, cowed by
the hysteria, agreed to run a public service spot just before the
big game, reminding men to not beat up their wives after every touchdown.

Of
course, the whole thing turned out to be a farce.

But
there is another myth that many persons still accept at face value
that women were shortchanged by medical research.

It
all began in 1990, when Rep. Patricia Schroeder of Colorado made
the claim that "When you have a male-dominated group of researchers,
they are more worried about prostate cancer than breast cancer."

Apparently,
Rep. Schroeder was ignorant of the fact that spending
on breast cancer has long outstripped prostate research by a 3:1
ratio at the National Institutes of Health.

And
when Sen. Barbara Mikulski learned that 9.7% of the NIH budget was
allocated to women's health, newspaper headlines were filled with
her shrill allegation of "Blatant discrimination." Sen.
Mikulski was obviously unaware that only 4.5% of the NIH budget
was allocated to men's health. The remainder of the money went to
research that benefited both sexes.

The
mass media has contributed to the disinformation campaign, as well.
For example, the General
Accounting Office published a report in 2000 showing that men represented
only 37% of research participants.

Then
USA Today ran an editorial on May 5, 2000 summarizing the GAO report.
The column made this bizarre claim: "Moreover, the habit of
overlooking women in medical research is deeply ingrained and hard
to shake." Predictably, the editorial writer blamed it all
on men: "And the research hierarchy is still largely dominated
by the interests and concerns of white males."

Even
medical researchers succumbed to the hysteria surrounding the female
exclusion myth. In 1993, editor Marcia Angell wrote in the prestigious
New England Journal of Medicine, "There is little doubt that
women have been systematically excluded as subjects for study….it
is not surprising that most clinical trials have been heavily, if
not exclusively, weighted toward men".

But
according to the NIH Inventory of Clinical Trials, women were included
in 96% of clinical trials as early as 1979.

More
troubling is that government officials would also mislead. Dr. Vivian
Pinn, director of the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health (www4.od.nih.gov/orwh/),
alleged in a 1997 interview that "women were routinely excluded
from medical research supported by NIH."

Problem
is, the reverse is the truth. Women have been routinely included
in NIH research studies.

For
example, Curtis
Meinert of Johns Hopkins University did a head count of subjects
in all clinical trials published in five leading medical journals
in 1985, 1990, and 1995. Professor Meinert tallied over 906,000
participants in these trials, of whom 61% were female and 39% were
male.

So
where's the "routine exclusion" of women?

To
this day, officials from the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health
continue to spin the claim that women were shortchanged by medical
research.

And
every year, U.S. taxpayers cough up millions of dollars devoted
to the bogus proposition that women's health needs to play catch-up.

June
30, 2003

Carey
Roberts [send him mail]
is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream
media.

Titled
"School
Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculist Discourse,"
the report takes on the growing awareness of the problems of boys
in schools. Indeed, the report shows that boys are lagging behind
girls on the full gamut of educational indicators:

• Boys are
  more likely to be held back a year in elementary grades.
• The high
  school drop-out rate is 50% higher among boys than girls.
• While
  71% of Canadian girls matriculate in college, only 55% of boys
  move on to higher education.

But
nowhere does the report sound a clarion call for teachers to pay
more attention to the educational needs of boys. No, the disparities
that affect males should not concern us.

Instead,
the report makes the argument that the real problem lies with the
gender equality advocates who aim to "challenge the gains made
by women and discredit feminism." The report, issued by Status
of Women Canada, cost Canadian taxpayers an easy $75,000.

The
report notes that Canadian men are almost five times more likely
to commit suicide than women. The essay shrugs off this statistic
with the comment, "Socially, should attempting or committing
suicide create some hierarchy of concern?"

But
if women were knocking themselves off four times as often as men,
I'm willing to bet that Status of Women Canada would be singing
a different tune.

The
report admits that men die five years earlier than women, and notes
that female life expectancy has risen by 2.3 years from 1981 to
1997. Then the report reaches the illogical conclusion, "The
real question we should be asking is what has caused women's life
expectancy to stop rising over the past two decades."

Stop
rising? Since when does living 2.3 years longer equal no progress?

The
report's coup de grace is found in its chilling proposal that "consideration
be given to whether legal action can be taken under section 319
of the Criminal Code" against gender equality advocates and
organizations. Section 319 is Canada's hate crime law.

Appendix
II of the report fingers the prime suspects – over 90 gender equity
groups like Fathers for Justice and the Canadian Committee for Fairness
in Family Law.

Groups
with subversive-sounding names like Children for Justice and Kids
Need Both Parents also made the list. Apparently Status of Women
Canada worries that a growing cadre of children are becoming anti-feminist,
too.

More
disturbing is that the message of gender fairness has spilled across
the border into the United States, as well. The Mankind Project,
Dads Against Discrimination, and 31 others – the Canadian government
needs to keep tabs on them, as well.

Among
the American conspirators is Christina Hoff Sommers, author of the
highly-acclaimed exposé, The War on Boys.

But
I am upset that the report does not blacklist me. I believe in equal
rights and responsibilities of the sexes. I advocate that men and
women should equally enjoy the benefits of medical care. I believe
in equal pay for equal work. And I think that boys should have the
same educational opportunities as girls.

And
I haven't exactly kept my beliefs a secret. A variety of newspapers
and Internet sites have run my articles over recent years.

So
I want to ask Status of Women Canada a question: Why are you discriminating
against gender equity advocates like me? Please put me on your blacklist.

June
16, 2003

Carey
Roberts [send him mail]
is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream
media.

In
fact, the truth is quite the opposite. The typical “deadbeat dad”
is a blue-collar guy, sometimes without a job, whose wife initiated
the divorce because she didn’t feel “fulfilled” in the relationship.

In
its frenzy to make sure divorced fathers pay, the US Congress has
granted the Office of Child Support Enforcement a broad range of
police powers. These strong-arm tactics include garnishing a man’s
paycheck, revoking his driver’s license, and sending him to the
modern-day equivalent of a debtor’s prison.

According to a chilling exposé in the June issue of Men’s
Health Magazine, on any given day about 15,000 American men are
in the slammer for falling behind on child support payments. How
they are supposed to earn money while they are in jail, no one seems
to know.

Take
Bobby Sherrill, for example. He was working on contract to the Kuwaiti
military in 1990. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August, they took
Sherrill hostage. Four months later, he was released. When he came
home to Fayetteville, NC, he expected a hero’s welcome. Instead,
the child support goons arrested him for failure to pay child support
during his captivity.

Or
consider Derek Harvey, a landscaper in Baltimore. Three months after
he broke up with his girlfriend, his 3 children showed up on his
doorstep in the middle of the night. Now Harvey takes care of his
kids. But the child support bills keep coming. And he keeps paying,
knowing the likely result of being tagged with the “deadbeat” epithet.

Some
fathers crack under the pressure. According to a 2000 study published
in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, divorced men
were more than twice as likely to commit suicide as married men,
and almost 10 times more likely to kill themselves as divorced women.

Much
of the problem can be traced to the arithmetic used to calculate
the payments. Back in the 1980s, Robert Williams was hired by the
federal government to come up with a formula to figure how much
fathers in various income brackets would have to pay. Then Williams
created his own company, Policy Studies, Inc., to track down the
deadbeats and receive a cut of the take.

But
there’s a basic conflict of interest at work here – the higher
the guidelines that Williams sets, the bigger the profits that flow
to his company. That’s like telling the IRS that they can increase
their agency’s budget by jimmying the tax rate charts.

So
Jim Taylor of Richmond, Virginia, who earns a respectable $5,000
a month, is saddled with payments of $2,000. Even though his 3 sons
spend half their time with him, Taylor’s child support burden remains
the same. As a result, he does not have the money to buy clothes
for his kids or take them on a vacation.

So
Taylor faced the essential dilemma of divorced dads: Should he put
in more hours at work – and devote less time with his kids – in
order to make ends meet? Or should he spend more time, and thus
more expenses, with his kids, thus risking the poorhouse and even
the jailhouse?

Taylor
opted for the second choice. He eventually had to file for bankruptcy
and moved in with his grandmother.

When
the Office of Child Support Enforcement was first established in
1975, its advocates justified this intrusive experiment of centralized
government with the promise that dads would now stay involved with
their children.

But
in reality, it is forcing fathers to choose between the workhouse
and the jailhouse. That is a choice that no parent should have to
make.

June
10, 2003

Carey
Roberts [send him mail]
is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream
media.

I
have news for you. If truth defines the litmus test for good journalism,
the New York Times has failed. Exhibit A is the Times' coverage
of gender health stories.

The
fact is, American men die 5.5 years sooner than their female counterparts.
The truth is, men lag on almost every indicator of health status.
The reality is, the
government spends three times more money on breast cancer research
than for prostate cancer.

Yet
this side of the truth is seldom heard in the pages of the New
York Times.

Indeed,
the New York Times has evidenced a clear-cut bias against
men's health. A search of all articles published in the Times
during the period 1996–2002 reveals the following:

• Men's
  Health: 468 articles
• Women's
  Health: 787 articles
• Prostate
  Cancer: 1,572 articles
• Breast
  Cancer: 2,714 articles

Worse, the New
York Times has featured stories that have uncritically touted
the feminist claim that women are mistreated by the medical care establishment.

For
example, it has long been known that women
stand at far greater risk than men of developing complications
during risky cardiac procedures. For this reason, physicians are
cautious in referring women for these invasive tests.

Despite
this fact, the Times ran a front-page story on July 25, 1991
that claimed, "Studies Say Women Fail to Receive Equal Treatment
for Heart Disease." But when later studies began to cast doubt
on the feminist discrimination claim, the Times buried that
article on page C6 ("Studies Split on Sex Gap in Treating Heart
Patients." April 14, 1992).

Another
example – the NYT published its first Women's Health
section in 1997, but did not run a special section on Men's Health
until two years later.

The
articles in the 1999 Men's Health Section were replete with sexist
put-downs. One article opened with this patronizing headline: "As
Patients, Men are Impatient, or Uneasy, or Both. They Need to Get
a Grip, Like Women." Another headline used a derogatory tone
to explain men's shorter lifespan: "Why Men Don't Last: Self-Destruction
as a Way of Life."

One
can only wonder how the NYT editors could approve articles
that were downright insulting to men.

Following
the May 11 revelations, the brass at the Times has tried
to portray the Blair scandal as an isolated, one-time incident.
Publisher Sulzberger, ever sensitive to the feelings of others,
opined, "Let's not begin to demonize our executives –
either the desk editors or the executive editor."

Mr.
Sulzberger, the problems at your newspaper run much deeper than
Jayson Blair.

May
26, 2003

Carey
Roberts [send him mail]
is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream
media.