Monday, February 22, 1999
Getting more than they asked for
MEN: Total equality with women would reap unseen benefits for
men
By Marc Angelucci
Stephanie Pfeffer ("Female Leaders Ready to Change World,"
Viewpoint, Feb. 2) has inspired us all by painting the future world
led by women, with a "50/50 equity rule from sea to shining sea."
We men should be especially happy.
For example, as Pfeffer explains, men will share 50 percent of
housework. We can’t wait. With more women accepting us as
homemakers, the homeless population will even out to 50 percent
male instead of 85 percent (Richard Ropers’ "The Rise of the New
Urban Homeless" Public Affairs Report). And women will finally buy
us more diamond rings, that we, as homemakers, will have trouble
affording.
"Women will make an astounding 100 cents to every man’s dollar."
Outstanding. Without the pressure to be primary breadwinners, we
will feel more secure as secretaries and store clerks, and we will
see far more women climbing in sewers, collecting garbage, exposed
to chemicals, etc. This will finally equalize occupational deaths,
which are currently 95 percent male (not to mention injuries,
overtime hours and commuting distances) (Labor Statistics Bureau,
National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services).
Pfeffer’s world will leave no stone unturned. "A woman’s haircut
will cost 10 bucks, about as much as a man’s." Perfect. Then maybe
auto insurance companies, night clubs, etc. will also charge
equally, and the government will finally spend an equal amount on
prostate cancer research as breast cancer research, instead of a
six-fold disparity favoring the latter (National Cancer Institute,
American Foundation for Urologic Disease, Department of Defense,
Harry Jaffe’s "Dying for Dollars," Men’s Health Magazine Sept.
1997).
"Every thigh-toning device will be confiscated and destroyed,
along with … back-breaking high heels, girdles and pantyhose."
What a breakthrough. Then, we men can come to work with facial
hair, long hair, earrings and dresses. No more neck-choking ties,
hair transplants, gut-busters, muscle supplements, steroids, razor
burn or circumcision. Whew! Thank you leading ladies!
As Pfeffer explains, "wife-beater" tank tops will be replaced by
"hubbie-hitters." Well, that may do for a while. But as we become
more progressive, we will replace them both with "partner-puncher"
tanks, because there is an equal percentage of violence in lesbian,
gay male and heterosexual relationships – all of which tend to
follow the same patterns (Denise Bricker’s "Fatal Defense: An
analysis of Battered Woman’s Syndrome, Expert Testimony for Gays
and Lesbians Who Kill Abusive Partners").
As a member of Stop Prisoner Rape, I will beg the leading women
to force California’s rape-shield laws to include prison-rape
victims (California Evidence Code 1103, Stephen Donaldson’s "The
Rape Crisis Behind Bars").
These victims, mostly male, are expressly excluded from
rape-shield protection, left out of rape statistics, and are far
under-reported because the same victims are repeatedly raped, and
reporting them can be fatal. I know the leading women will listen.
Only cruel males with "phallic pride" would ignore the cries of
prison-rape victims.
I am honestly thankful that Pfeffer plans to re-instate former
Surgeon General Jocylen Elders. Elders is an icon of sexual freedom
and a personal hero to me. However, to maintain peace, I would
advise Pfeffer to keep feminists like Catharine MacKinnon out of
the leadership. MacKinnon-types will never tolerate Elders’ active
membership in COYOTE ("Call Off Your Tired Old Ethics"), a group
that fights to legalize prostitution and allow prostitutes to
unionize and work in safe conditions.
For our part as citizens, we promise to treat Ms. President as
we would all others. If she has multiple female lovers, we will
accuse her of "womanizing" – if she has multiple male lovers, we
will accuse her of "manizing." When the first man hurls furniture
at her, as Hillary reportedly did, we will just assume she deserved
it. And, just for fun, we will always choose the taller of
competing female candidates.
Incidentally, if a draft is needed, I trust the leading women
will draft both males and females. Of course, that won’t be
necessary, because as Pfeffer indicates, women will have never
heard of war.
That is impressive, because only a few years ago, 76 percent of
women in polls favored sending troops to the males-per-gallon Gulf
War (Ronald Brownstein’s "Americans Back Bush Decision
Overwhelmingly," Los Angeles Times). I will applaud this remarkable
change. But unfortunately, the women will find out soon what war
is, since Pfeffer has them being lectured weekly by Margaret
Thatcher. On the other hand, I don’t blame Pfeffer … who better
to lecture on "pig-headed testosterone"?
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]