He writes how the dominant feminist thinkers who rule the universities and media do not look at what he found in the Kibbutz. Helen Fisher does not mention Tiger's book about the failed experiment of feminism in the Kibbutz. Feminists don't want to see the truth. They live in a dreamland of feminism that has no reality. He says he found in his research many years ago that the Kibbutz was an attempt of "economic and political parity" that "produced differences between men and women greater than in the rest of Israeli society. Anthropologist Melford Spiro of the University of California at San Diego has indicated that his updated study in the kibbutz (Gender and Culture: Kibbutz Women Revisited) as well as mine (Women in the Kibbutz) have the 'dubious distinction of having virtually never been cited or referenced in the veritable library ... dealing with the comparative study of women and gender.' The fact that men and women who have the freedom to do so may decide to act differently from each other appears to cause ideological commentators on this matter to avert their eyes almost completely. If they were medical practitioners, they would be charged with malpractice for burying evidence centrally relevant to their assertions." Tiger and Spiro do not know about Satan who is a master at making people avert their eyes from the truth.

Robert Bork wrote in Slouching Toward Gomorrah, "The early kibbutz movement in Israel had the same ideology as today's radical feminists: sexual equality meant sexual identity, and sexual differentiation was inequality. For a brief period, the ideologues attempted to raise children apart from their families and to raise boys and girls in ways that would destroy sex roles. The program was as extreme as the most radical feminist could want. But it collapsed within a very few years. Boys and girls returned to different sex roles. The American sociologist Melford Spiro, who studied the kibbutz, wrote that he had wanted to 'observe the influence of culture on human nature or, more accurately, to discover how a new culture produces a new human nature.' He 'found (against my own intentions) that I was observing the influence of human nature on culture.'"


Tiger says "While countless women take drugs, illegal drug users are overwhelmingly male. The fantasies of omnipotence and invulnerability, and the reality of escape, that men purchase when they buy drugs have generated industries which have enriched and corrupted whole countries and caused radical convulsions in the flows of cash and wealth in the world." Many men are not confident anymore. The number one problem in the world is the fatherless family -- literally fatherless for millions of children and in millions of more homes the man is incapable of being a good father. God wants greatness, not mediocrity. Tragically, American men are sinking into deeper despair and confusion. Women are initiating divorce by the millions. And it gets worse everyday. The only way for mankind to become an ideal world is for men and women to know and live by God's rules. Very few know what those rules are.


Tiger tries to make sense of the decline of males and says, "Another explanation rests on claims of lapsed morality. Traditional values based on Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism have been eroded by the crass mass media and assisted by secularist ideologues and courts of law. Ethically lazy families and schools don't bother to or can't counter the godless rules of the day. The result is a widespread morass of worsening sinfulness. Classical verities of sexual conduct and social propriety have dramatically lost their grip. It will take a major religious or messianic renovation to recapture what was best and is lost, and a good deal of contemporary religious energy is expended to this end."

The "messianic renovation" should come from Unificationists but sadly they are not as clear as the Southern Baptists and Mormons who take the passages of the Bible literally when it comes to men and women's roles. The UM should not take the approach of the Divine Principle's emphasis on seeing so much of the Bible as symbolic and therefore being rational and then seeing that the passages about men leading and protecting and providing as not common sense and logical. The UM should be standing with the Baptists and Mormons on traditional family values. They do so partially but not in an absolute way like their competition does. And this is why there is growth in those churches and not the UC. Sun Myung Moon is on the side of the conservatives, not the liberals, in the cultural war that is raging. The UC is not strong and clear enough. They have been duped in some ways by the Left.

He says that women voted in the 1996 election very differently from men. They went for big government: "they voted for candidates who promised to protect what they needed in a perilous environment. Particularly in white groups, they voted in sharp contrast to their husbands, fathers, brothers, coworkers, and sons, who in turn deserted the the traditional political leader working-class males, the Democratic candidate. This was new."

Those in the UM who think women should be involved in politics should understand that women are more on the side of the opposition that does not like the Washington Times.


Harvard professor and author Edward O. Wilson said in a review: "Lionel Tiger delivers a very well-researched and well-written brief for masculinism, which if successful, may gain parity with feminism and eventually transform women's studies within academia into what they should have been, namely, gender studies."


Tiger's title, The Decline of Males, is correct. His solution to the problem is not. He is weak. Helen Fisher is confident and pronounces "tomorrow belongs to women." Tiger hunches over and agrees. He is no tiger; he's a pussycat. Fisher is the tiger. Tocqueville predicted that if feminism came to America, men would be become "weak" and women "disorderly." Tiger is weak and Fisher is disorderly like most men and women today.

Previous  Home  Next