"Again, the elaborate efforts to re-engineer the traditional male/female division of labour have not been successful. In the Kibbutz, work roles began by being completely interchangeable. Women drove tractors, men worked in the laundry. But slowly the women drifted back to the traditionally female pursuits, and their jobs in the fields or the engineering sheds were taken over by male refugees from the kitchen." She quotes Lionel Tiger again who wrote, "We found increasing with each generation a traditional distinction between women going into the management of morale, health, education and so on, and the business that in our own culture is traditionally associated with male person." She writes, "Today, the sexual polarization inside the kibbutz is even more acute than in the outside, unengineered, society of Israel. Intriguingly, this could not be accounted for in classic political terms -- that women were being pushed into the lower-paid jobs -- because income in the kibbutz is irrelevant."

"We really should not be so surprised that men and women gravitate to sex-specific jobs. We have always, as a species, divided labour." But the 20th century has experimented with the idiotic ideology of feminism that denies reality.

She criticizes feminists who deny biology. She quotes Kate Millet's Sexual Politics: "many of the generally understood distinctions between the sexes in the more significant area of role and temperament, not to mention status, have in fact essentially cultural rather than biological bases." To this Moir says "There is no longer any excuse, save mental indolence, to believe that." She denounces Betty Friedan as having "chaotic thinking" when Friedan writes, "Even if they are sorely handicapped by lack of testosterone, it is inescapably necessary for women at this stage in human evolution to move to equality in society." Moir says, "Betty Friedan fails to see that a lack of testosterone means that many women may not want to move anywhere in particular, and so do not perceive themselves as handicapped."

She says it is "absurdity" when "well-intentioned politicians and educationalists are still determined to engineer the demise of the sexual stereotype. In the progressive schoolroom, children read of princesses slaying dragons and rescuing princes, and picture books depict female fire-fighters and truck drivers." She is wrong to think that "The thinking corporation should ask itself why it is wasting, and how it should capitalize upon, the unique skills of 50 per cent of its workforce. It is failing to exploit a woman's underlying superiority in her knowledge and understanding of how the world of people works." This is muddled thinking. Women are not superior to men in the marketplace and men are not superior to women in homemaking. We don't need women in the military or factories. We don't need men changing diapers and cooking dinner.


I am glad she at least has the sense to see homemaking as valuable: "In the unwaged economy of the home, the value of domestic effort has to be appreciated by men, but more importantly by women themselves. Here, one is not talking in the fatuous terms of putting a cash value on bed-making, shopping, or breast-feeding, but in relation to a self-value which can only be expressed in the ultimate currency of happiness and satisfaction. Levin writes that 'one can read a whole corpus of feminist writing without learning that most women find motherhood their greatest satisfaction'. Most women not only enjoy parenthood more than most men, but are also rather better at it. They are certainly better suited to it than men. Feeding, clothing, and educating the successor generation is as noble a task as earning the money to pay for its food, clothing, and education. It is also, ultimately, as rewarding, but most men have to wait until they are grandparents to appreciate the fact."

Then she and her co-author write these dumb words: "Some will find what we have written a justification for conservatism and the sexual status quo, and they will be wrong. We do not consecrate the natural, just because it is biologically true." Why on earth would they say this? We are supposed to fight chemistry? This makes as much sense as saying that biology tells us not to eat junk food, but we can do it anyway. Then they go on to say this nonsense: "men, for instance, have a natural disposition to homicide and promiscuity, which is not a recipe for the happy survival of society." This is sloppy thinking and feminist male bashing. The truth is that men are not naturally killers and adulterers. More women kill their babies than men do. Do we then say that women "have a natural disposition to homicide" of babies? Aggressive competitiveness -- ambition -- is natural to men, not murder. In fact, many men become violent because of the disrespect they receive from women. I am not condoning men killing women for any reason, but the issue of domestic violence and men fighting wars is not as simple as the authors state. Studies show women initiate violence as much as men in the home. You would never know that because our feminist media focuses only on male violence. Let us thank God that millions of good men committed homicide against evil men in the many wars for freedom.

Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist who wrote the truth about domestic violence. She quotes from a study made that she says proves that women initiate violence in the home more than men. Like all things controversial there are two sides and Liberals would look at the same study and come up with an opposite view. I admit I am biased to want to believe the conservative side because I generally like conservatives.

But on the issue of domestic violence, it seems clear to me that the feminist media has focused only on male violence and ignored the research that show the violent side of women. It's just another angle to bash men and make everyone think that men are bad and women are sweet victims. The truth is more in what Kathleen Parker writes than those her opposition writes. Parker says:

LET'S BE CLEAR. It gives me immense pleasure to say, "I told you so."

For years, I've written that women initiate domestic violence as often as men -- countering the myth that women are beaten every fifth nanosecond or so by knuckle-dragging spouses -- and, as a result, have been used for target practice by DV activists.

My purpose wasn't to blame victims or excuse batterers but merely to invite truth to the discussion: Domestic violence isn't about gender; it's about violence. You can't solve a problem until you correctly define it. 

Nevertheless, the myth-making industry has continued to produce what amounts to propaganda -- churning out statistics, erecting billboards of bruised women, going for the aorta with images of tear-streaked children asking: "Why won't Daddy stop hitting Mommy?" 

Most of these activists, no doubt, are wonderful people trying to make the world a better place. But some have been so driven by their political agenda to advance women's causes, even at the cost of truth, that they can't permit a variant view.

Now, Mother Jones -- the left-leaning, pro-feminist magazine widely recognized for its journalistic integrity and careful reporting -- comes out with this:

"A surprising fact has turned up in the grimly familiar world of domestic violence: Women report using violence in their relationships more often than men."

This new information isn't "a crack by some anti-feminist cad," wrote reporter Nancy Updike, but is the result of an in-depth study of 860 men and women followed since birth.

The research was conducted by Terrie Moffitt, a University of Wisconsin psychology professor. Her findings, which aren't really "surprising" at all, support data from a 1980 study, which showed that wives hit their husbands at least as often as husbands hit wives. That report was so controversial, by the way, that it prompted death threats against the researchers. 

If women are striking men who then kill them, we might examine that scenario more closely. What Moffitt discovered is that women, contrary to the DV party line, do not strike out only in response to men's violence but often initiate the violence that leads to their injury or death.


It is easy for feminists to argue against the Biblical family structure because they say it is just a theory. But the scientific facts are that men and women are so different that they should complement themselves in the Biblical family instead of competing with each other in Friedan's feminist family. The idea of women being Presidents and Senators is "the sterile pursuit of artificial equality." Let's stop the feminist lies. Let's stop being in denial and enjoy our natural selves. Vive la Difference is to be expressed in the traditional roles, not in celebrating differences between men and women in the police force.

I like how they talk about differences: "we can hope that men and women will be more honest about how they actually feel, and happier to be themselves. They may be relieved that they no longer have to strive towards the inevitable disappointment of something which in their hearts they know to be vain and illusory. Liberated by honesty rather than imprisoned by self-deception, they will have the confidence to strike their own balance between love and ambition, tenderness and striving." We must be careful that when we "strike" "our own balance" we do it in a god-centered way. God wants true balance. Not the Satanic balance of 50% of all mayors in America be women. America is out of balance because so many women have left the home. The UM should be teaching women to return home and be good followers to their husbands.


Islam goes too far in making women wear veils. The true role model for orderly men and women are Christian writers on marriages like Aubrey and Helen Andelin or Tim and Beverly LaHaye.

Previous  Home  Next