A book titled The Death of White Sociology, edited by Howard University professor Joyce Ladner, ostensibly focuses on the birth of “black” sociology and also the death of what is called “white” sociology. It describes a shift in worldview from the traditional Euro viewpoint to the black sociological point of view, written about African Americans by African Americans.
Ladner examines the ways that our culture, media, and academia fostered potent, misleading messages about blacks that were intended for ingestion by both white and black culture. It observes the period after slavery and convincingly maps out the different ways that “common sense lies” about blacks were spread and maintained. And it details the negative impact of these lies on cultural consciousness.
It is an unsettling story of the power of mainstream thought as expressed by “most” people, the power of the media to reflect, mold and perpetuate that thought through news and entertainment, and the power of our academic institutions, who captured the essence of the erroneous assumptions and fed them back to the public as “proven science,” starting the cycle anew.
Ladner has convincingly dissected and exposed the schemata for adding mortar and brick to the wall of social bigotry, in this case asserting white superiority over blacks.
She also, though I am sure it wasn’t her intent, provided a complete and compelling roadmap of cultural misandry and how the same techniques are currently being used toward the end of asserting women’s superiority over men.
So what are these artifacts of the previous generation, now used to further a similar path of hatred and the social marginalization of men? Take a look at them, which I have labeled as bricks, as they are summarized directly from the book. As you read, simply replace the word “blacks” with the word “men,” and the word “whites” with the word “women. “
Brick #1. Blacks are defined as the perpetrators and creators of social pathology and not as its victims.
By linking blacks as being perpetrators and creators of social pathology the culture was able to devalue blacks and paint them as inferior to whites.
When blacks were shown to be the victims of a hateful culture people turned a blind eye. The predominant meme was that blacks were the creators and perpetrators of social pathology and anything varying from that was ignored. Even in research when blacks were seen as victims this was all too often ignored.
Anyone even vaguely familiar with the issues of men in today’s world will immediately see the connection here.
The modern cultural zeitgeist has been methodically and intentionally founded on the assumption that men are the problem. We see this most brazenly furthered by ideological organizations like the National Organization of Men Against Sexism (NOMAS), the American Men’s Studies Association (AMSA) and the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity (SPSMM) aka Division 51 of the American Psychological Association. Even a cursory glance through any of their websites reveals a harshly anti-male stance, with repetitive characterizations of men as oppressively violent and women as powerless victims.
They claim to be scholars, supported by valid research, but commit themselves openly to agreement with feminist orthodoxy, not scientific empiricism.
Murray Straus, a leading authority on domestic violence, exposed the depth and scope of this kind of academic corruption in a paper he wrote, Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence.
The paper is recommended reading, but the seven techniques Straus identified to perpetuate falsehoods and conceal valid research, particularly in the area of domestic violence, are as follows:
- Suppress Evidence
- Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
- Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration
- Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not
- Create “Evidence” by Citation
- Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research That Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance Is the Cause of PV
- Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs
Again, for the detailed support for these talking points, I refer you to Straus (who actually knows how to support his assertions). His information is not a historical review; it is a well-documented exposé about intentional, current and ongoing corruption in the broader academic establishment. That points directly to organizations like NOMAS, AMSA and SPSMM, who are the primary beneficiaries of the fraud, but is far more widespread than just these easily identifiable radical ideologues.
You can see the results of the disinformation, even in lies furthered by the current presidential administration, and in legislation supported in bi-partisan fashion like VAWA, which assumes male violence and female perpetration as the default.
It has been enormously effective. What at one time was a mechanism to keep blacks in their place has now begun to falter as a tool of racial control. But the harness is now firmly around the necks of the men, including black men and other minorities, across western culture.
Brick #2. Blacks are better if they seek to emulate whites.
In the early to mid-20th century one of the tactics the researchers used in painting blacks as inferior was to do research on Blacks, Whites and Mulattos. The conclusions were almost always the same. The more White influence in your blood the better you were. If you were light skinned you were automatically seen as better. They took this a step further and would write about Blacks being more cultured when they had more time being around whites. It was as if, the “white is right” mentality rubbed off simply by contact. When Blacks did poorly it was often assumed that they simply didn’t have the good influence of white people. This meme disdained blacks and glorified whites as being the truly cultured ones.
It’s easy to see how this transposes in today’s culture. Now it is men who are deemed “better” if only they would act more like women. Men who are not around women are seen as suspect. Men who don’t emote like women are assumed to be emotionally deficient or stunted, and in need of feminine influence to measure up on a human scale. This meme now glorifies the female way as being the default and shames men for not living up to this.
You can see this idea repeated and reinforced throughout the entire culture, from feminist academe to the media to your living room, if you are cohabitating with the average western woman.
It has also become a monetized aspect of pop psychology, not just in the works of TV hucksters like Dr. Phil, but in the works of sexist ideologues like Michael Kimmel and Christopher Kilmartin. It moves a step further in demagoguery such as that offered up by the even more blatantly misandric and sexist “Conscious Men,” Gay Hendricks and Arjuna Ardaugh.
Consider the repetitive themes throughout the mainstay of “wisdom” offered by men beholden to feminist ideology. You will see many references to concepts like “new” or “enlightened” masculinity, all of it meant to embrace a feminized reinterpretation. And you will see the redundant vilification of manhood with concepts like “toxic” and “hegemonic” masculinity.
These men are the direct corollaries to the “good” blacks, who, through the emulation of “white traits and speech,” found patronizing acceptance from some parts of a white culture that was intentionally conditioned to see them as inferior. They are advocating for a more accepetable, “light-skinned” masculinity.
In short, the intent of their work is the social breeding of male house niggers for women of all colors.
Brick #3. Research showing ways that blacks were superior to whites was deep-sixed.
When the early researchers would do studies where blacks were seen to be better than whites in some respect the researchers would consistently deep six that aspect of their work. It simply wouldn’t see the light of day. In this way whites continued to be seen as always superior.
This is addressed in Straus’s paper, but the results from it can also been seen routinely in the culture around you.
In today’s climate when men do better than women it is seen not as the strength of men but as discrimination against women, or as an artifact of undue power granted men at birth by an oppressive patriarchy.
When men excelled over women in mathematics or hard science, it was because women were historically excluded from education. When women were fully included in education, indeed given enough special incentives that they ended up more educated than the average man, but still lagged behind in math and hard science, it was because women were socially discouraged from pursuing male dominated fields. When women were given special empowerment programs, special grants and scholarships and received far reaching encouragement to major in math and hard sciences, and they still lagged behind men, it was because hard sciences relied on phallocentric concepts of logic and empiricism that put women at another disadvantage at the hands of men.
When the obvious truth was finally spoken publicly by Larry Summers, president of Harvard, that women did not possess the same aptitude for math and sciences as men, he was fired.
Brick #4. Aversion of whites toward blacks proves their inferiority.
The aversion of the whites towards blacks was used as proof that blacks were inferior in the 20th century. Why else would whites look down on them?
Women’s aversion and disdain of men is now used as proof that men are inferior. Just think of some of the catch phrases we have heard in our culture. “Only men can prevent rape.” “Man hating is honorable.” “Men are Pigs.” “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.”
Furthermore, this is taken to even more extremes of aversion with political antics like “Take Back the Night,” rallies, geared to create the impression that men are creatures of the dark and that the aversion to them needs to be taken to the level of clearing them out of the night itself.
We have seen similar protests from other organizations. SlutWalks are now ongoing to establish rules that prevent men from speaking their mind with women.
What’s more, there appears to be a balancing effect being established in the pursuit of feminist governance, designed to allow women to push men out at will, wherever it serves them, but allows them to usurp male resources, again, whenever it serves them.
It’s called keeping your slave out of sight unless you need him for something.
While men are now routinely reviled as social pariah, and are being drummed out of the workforce and education, legislation in the form of family law and public assistance that strips men of resources and passes it on to women, moves on.
Brick #5. The psychological research of the day in the early to mid-20th century was not geared to help blacks but to blame them and chronicle how they need to change.
Articles that were written and placed their focus on blacks tended to feature issues that showed blacks to be at fault for problems and stayed intent on how they needed to change. This of course ignored the needs of blacks.
We see the same pattern in today’s research on men. We visit back to Division 51 of the American Psychological Association, whose stated allegiance to feminist approved outcome makes them some of the more skilled masons building this wall.
If you look at the offerings that Division 51 makes to the Good Men Project Magazine, you will see the recurring theme of inherent male defectiveness with the not so subtle inference of feminized ideals as an ameliorative answer.
Division 51 was the same organization that upon the shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech by an obviously psychotic madman, published an article on the event, tying the shooters actions to “toxic” masculinity.
Remember, Division 51 isn’t (assumedly) just another gang of sexist hacks like AMSA and NOMAS. They carry the prestigious name of the American Psychological Association with them, affording them the appearance of forward thinking and scholarly integrity.
That is very, very dangerous credibility in the hands of a bunch of bigots.
Their work is not geared to be of help to men, but rather to blame them for social problems. Men who are perpetrators of domestic violence, men who need to stop violence against women, men who commit sexual assault and harassment; the list goes on and on.
Now visit our page at the top labeled “The Facts,” and then go over to Division 51 of the American Psychological Association. Compare that list of the multitude of issues facing men in our culture and see what, if anything, Division 51 is doing to address the problems.
Hint: You won’t need to have pen and paper to make a list. They are not directly addressing a single issue faced by men or boys on that list.
Not a single one.
Brick #6. Blacks are just animals and criminals
Without the influence and control of whites it was assumed that blacks were simply animalistic/primitive and constantly focused on sex. The fear was of black men raping white women; Black men murdering and stealing, etc… The source of criminality was blackness itself. The two were perennially linked and in so doing blacks were saddled with being the core of the problem, not the victim of it.
Now this same projection is focused on men. Take a trip to The Good Men Project, an artifact of the new sexist sociology, and find out why violence is a “men’s issue.” Consider the implications of a Violence Against Women Act in a culture where adult women are the least frequent victims of domestic or any other kind of violence. Ask yourself why we now have the successful coining of the term “rape culture,” codespeak for male culture, and why it paints a broad stroke of sexist stereotyping on every man and boy in the western world.
It is safe to assume that the old memes about blacks were being propagated unconsciously, but foolish to think of that lack of consciousness as an excuse. Most people were not intentionally hateful and judging towards blacks, they were simply swept up in the tide of social consciousness that was prevalent at the time.
But the damage was done, just as it is being done now.
The “common sense” that is the cultural expression of all hateful meme’s is propagated as common knowledge, and it had the impact of not only condemning blacks as inferior, it was also integral to justifying poor treatment and poor conditions.
It is obvious that these sorts of memes were very damaging to blacks. It doesn’t take much imagination to conceive of the hurtful impact of being seen as inferior or criminal or generally a bane to “decent” society. The cumulative effects of this were devastating and a new consciousness was needed in order to begin the process of abandoning the old programming.
In the 1950′s men, generally speaking, were held in relatively high esteem, especially if they were providing for and protecting women and children. This esteem held true even in respectively segregated populations. In other words, white men were held in high regard in white society; the same for black men, as men, within their own culture.
Then from 1960 onward things started to change. Blacks began shedding their cultural burden while women, generally speaking, were expanding their sex roles and getting good press as model human beings and consummate victims. The culture began to see and portray women in a most positive light, establishing cultural taboo’s on speech, and even thought, to the contrary.
Today all men, regardless of ethnicity, are suffering because of this sort of cultural scheme. Like the early 20th century no one notices that they are carrying and expressing the bigotry, even most of the victims.
Brick #7. The group in power is always likely to use every means at its disposal to create the impression that it deserves to be where it is. And it is not above suggesting that those who have been excluded have only themselves to blame.
This is the rub, is it not? By furthering misinformation, through dubious social findings, fraudulent research and the unrestrained use of political power, feminist governance was established, and is being maintained, on the same exact model used to continue the oppression of blacks after slavery ended.
If you are an MRA, you are not unfamiliar with feminist ideologues suggesting that you are to blame for the lack of available of services for male victims of DV. “If men need shelters, why aren’t they building them?” they ask, in utter condescension. Of course they are oblivious to the fact that feminists didn’t build DV shelters, they only used the government to take over them after they were built; a government that is as complicit in the misandric zeitgeist as academe, and which steadfastly refuses to recognize male victims or female perpetrators.
But that is just a microcosm of the problem. It speaks to minutia; trivial detail.
Feminists have, with the complicity and cooperation of traditionalists, built a social model of female superiority that is building toward equivalence with that of the Godlike power of whites over blacks in the Antebellum South.
For white men it is a new experience. For black men it will be nothing less than a return to their early post-African roots. For black men, feminism is the end of their civil rights movement.
Feminist ideologues and their henchmen don’t care about the color of men. In the postmodern era we are all to blame. All men have been the oppressors who had held women back for centuries. All men have to pay for it. All wars are caused by men. All men are destructive, to the environment and to the economy. All men are rapists. All men are violent.
Your status in respect to color is only that of what color pig you were born as.
And all men are now getting the cultural shadow projections. It was after the advent of gender feminism in the 1960′s when young men started killing themselves nearly six times as often as similarly aged young girls. We now have men experiencing more academic struggle and failure than ever before. Boys are dropping out and failing to attend college at unprecedented rates. They are similarly falling from the ranks of the employed, and employable.
And they are being incarcerated at rates that far outpace the rest of the industrialized world.