Amber Pawlik is an alum of Penn State University and a writer on issues such as sexuality, masculinity, and libertarian politics. She is also the author of a number of articles attacking feminism, such as: How feminism is destroying young women, Feminine or feminist and Pit bull trainers and feminists. Amber is a devotee of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of such books as Atlas shrugged, The fountainhead, and The virtue of selfishness.
I interviewed Amber about masculinity, work and sexuality.
DB: Ok, lets cut right to the heart of the matter: women today
seem to hate men. Can you give us some insight to what young women
are saying on this topic when they get together?
AP: Well, I think I'm a little biased. My friends are usually
very pro-man.
I do notice a lack of sympathy for men among many young girls.
They go to college. They are interested in getting their careers
- men are there, mostly, for fun and dating. A lot of girls
are willing to treat men like dirt, and not even really think twice
about it. They just think men don't have any feelings.
As far as girls my age, I don't see "hatred." I mostly
see insensitivity and self-centeredness.
DB: Can you briefly explain objectivism and how this relates to
sex issues?
AP: Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It holds that
every individual is an end in himself; that reason is the only means
by which man can understand and negotiate reality; that rational self-interest
is moral; and that capitalism is the only proper political-economic
system.
Not much has been written in Objectivism on sex issues, so I'll just
tell you some things that have been. Objectivists believe that
men should be masculine and women should be feminine. They believe
women can and should pursue a
career. All of Ayn Rand's female characters were strong women,
but still feminine. Objectivism definitely endorses heterosexuality,
and the idea of man as the aggressor and woman as the pursued, as
an example of this, see the "rape
scene" in The Fountainhead.
No Objectivist has written much on feminism (except perhaps what feminism
means politically, i.e. affirmative action for women), but most of
them would be hostile to the tenets of feminism. Hardly any
Objectivist, if they have half a
brain, would call themselves "feminist."
DB: But can one genuinely write objective opinion articles and
books on sexuality when there is the ever present possibility that
of generalising your own preferences and feelings onto others?
AP: Yes, I do believe objective analyses can be brought to the field
of sexuality. Keep in mind, in the past 30 years, the ivory tower,
especially feminists, have been driving a wedge between sexuality
and reality. Their conclusions are based in subjectivity not
objectivity, i.e. they prefer to make conclusions first then find
the evidence second. Just as communism was an ideology underived
from man's nature; so feminism is an ideology underived from women
or
men's nature as sexual beings. In fact, if you flip through
feminist work, they tell you that objectivity is "patriarchal."
They openly admit that they do not use facts, logic, or reality to
determine their conclusions. They don't even try to be objective.
Feminism was built upon the foundation of bias. That needs challenged
first and foremost.
Many academic areas divide ideology from reality, not just sexuality.
It all goes back to the age-old debate of Plato versus Aristotle.
Plato believed truth was in another, unknowable world while what we
see here on earth is a mere shadow of that world. Aristotle
believed truth was here and now and that ideas, evaluation, conclusions
should be in correspondence to reality. A student of Aristotle
believes the world is understandable and as such that his ideas can
and will work in the real world. A student of Plato, like all
of academia today, basically believes intellectualism is mere play.
Objectivists take pride in being "Practical intellectuals."
But, back to the issue, it is in everyone's best interest to keep
an eye for the truth, regardless personal bias. The proof is
in the pudding. If you believe a flaming hot fire is actually
a bathtub, and you jump in, reality delivers the consequence.
Similarly, toying with male and female sexuality with your own personal,
false bias, will deliver the consequences.
And we are seeing now that the biased, untruthful ideologies of feminism
are ruining male-female relationships everywhere. By trying
to make up the conclusions first and seek the evidence second, and
super-imposing ideologies unto people that aren't workable or natural,
we are paying the consequences. On college campuses men and
women no longer date each other, instead they hook up. Girls no longer
know how to be women. Young men no longer know how to be men.
Men and women no longer know how to be good husbands and wives.
The biased ideas of feminists might be intellectually captivating,
but we are currently paying the consequence for not respecting truth,
objectivity, and reality.
DB: You say that you used to be a feminist. Can you pinpoint your
turning away from feminism to any particular moment?
AP: Yes. I realized men and women were different. It was
sometime in December of 2000.
Also, I realized fully that no feminist movement, anywhere, cared
about women at all. Whatever struggles I had up until that point,
when I was about 20, was not addressed by feminists. I complained
about the hook up scene on campus. I
complained about the public school system, in which girls succeed
in school, but not the real world. No feminist anywhere, be
she a "libertarian feminist" or a radical feminist, cared.
I came to the realization all "feminist" movements are just
some political agenda under the guise of "feminism," be
it libertarian or socialist agenda. That's fine to be political.
But to put in under the guise of "feminism" is ludicrous,
fraudulent, and immoral. None of these organizations care about
*women*. You could say I reject feminism because I was a feminist
at heart, i.e. genuinely cared about women.
Actually, it was a non-feminist group that finally spoke to me.
I found The Independent
Women's Forum. They are the only women's group, anywhere,
that understands real women. And they are not "feminist."
In fact, you could argue that things I perceived as problems to me
as a woman, i.e. the hook up culture and the poor education, were
a result of *feminism*.
DB: There’s a lot of talk about "studies" showing women
to be better managers, how the skills of today's workforce are more
suited to women, and how men are increasingly redundant in the world
of work. Indeed, many see tomorrow’s workplace as totally female-dominated.
What do you make of all this?
AP: That certainly is the propaganda isn't it? I usually read
this article and right next to this kind of article, or within the
same article, is an article about how boys are nothing but delinquents;
that they only succeed in such areas as low grades and discipline
problems etc. Women are bastions of virtue, while men need to
be shipped off to a desert island as to not allow them to unleash
their violent, criminal behavior unto society.
The fact of the matter is this is hogwash. People who work in
the media outlets are all liberal and that's the kind of thing they
want to believe; it is not necessarily true. On some deep level, they
are sympathetic to ideas such as cooperation - "feminine"
virtues - because masculine virtues such as competition frighten the
hell out of them. They dislike the rational, thinking, competitive
world of capitalism, that is all there is to it.
If you were to investigate this issue of what businesses need, I recommend
turning to the New York Times best-selling business books list, not
some media outlet with an agenda. And, in fact, when you look
at the 2002 top selling business books, in the top ten you'll find
at #1 "Who Moved My Cheese," a book about dealing with change
in the business world; "Good to Great"; "Leadership"
by Rudy Giulani; "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People";
and "Jack Welch: Straight from the Gut." You'd be
hard-pressed to assert that Giulani or Jack Welch are advocating "cooperation."
No, the advice is centered on making yourself better, faster, more
pliable, and masculine traits are everywhere. I did not see
a single book on the top 100 list which advocated the vital need for
more feminine, "cooperative" traits in the work world.
Of course, it is being jammed down especially students throats that
they need to be more cooperative, work in "teams," ad nauseum.
This, of course, is the brainchild of academia, not businesses.
In fact, companies are being weighed down because of all these women,
who are filling up middle management jobs, do a lot of paper pushing,
and don't really add that much value to the company.
Creativity, ingenuity, risk-taking etc. are all necessary elements
in any free market. These are the kinds of things that men dominate
in. If the U.S. wants to compete in the global market, it had
better re-start cultivating its males, and not put to the world a
whole army of complacent females, who act more like secretaries than
leaders.
DB: Journalists have claimed that since 9/11, American women have
had a change of heart, and now they are more appreciative of masculine
men, but having spoken to men about this, there doesn't seem to be
much of a real change on the ground. Surely any new-found appreciation
that exists for masculine men is a temporary by-product of women's
fears of terrorism, and as soon as this is over (or less threatening)
then our value as security or cannon-fodder/Human shields will once
again disappear?
AP: I agree there hasn't been much change regarding appreciating masculinity.
Keep in mind, everyone from academia to the media are fundamentally
hostile to the idea of masculine men, the war itself, and the Bush
administration. They won't let the whole issue be romanticized
too much. Americans weren't allowed to get swept up in patriotic
fervor, and love for our soldiers, our firemen etc. Whenever we would
get fired up, there were the anti-cheerleaders of the left yelling
at us that America was evil; that we deserved this war; that Bush
only cares about oil etc.
This is the problem with equating masculinity to only soldiers, police
men, and firemen. Masculinity can only be appreciated when there
are wars, criminals, and fires. Indeed, in America, masculinity
has been on shaky ground ever since the early 1900s. The only
reason why it was brought back in the 1940s was because of WWII.
That is a fundamental problem. Masculinity is something that
is universal and applies to a variety of different men - from businessmen
to blue collar workers to sports figures - to any guy who is strong,
capable, confident etc. Masculinity is not just limited to men
who protect us from bad things, and should be celebrated all the time,
not just in some times as should femininity.
DB: One of your, in my eyes, most controversial ideas (Click
HERE)
is that bisexuality is the norm for women, while bisexuality doesn't
really exist in men; that women do not find men naturally physically
attractive and must learn to be attracted to them through an appreciation
of the spiritual qualities of masculinity.
AP: I don’t believe all women are bisexual. I believe bisexuality
occurs more frequently in women than in men. This is not just
my personal bias; this is something that is well documented, i.e.
the fact that bisexuality is more common in women and men are usually
strictly one or the other.
I don't think it exists in men hardly at all. Most "bisexual"
men are men trying to maintain an image. Once it gets out that
they sleep with men, and no longer need an image, they usually stop
dating women.
DB: Okay, so lets take the first point: women are more frequently
bisexual than men are. There is certainly the appearance of women
taking up same-sex relationships more and more in America, and without
any particular qualms about it (I'm thinking of the ‘Lesbian Until
Graduation’ (LUG) phenomena). What do you think most young American
women think about this?
AP: I don't think all women are naturally bisexual. I certainly
am not. It's a very small percentage of women, even if there
are more women than men who are bisexual. But, it is easier
to confuse and manipulate a female's sexuality. That is why, yes,
so many LUGs exist.
Actually, that is why it was a 'feminist' movement and not a 'masculine'
movement. I don't think feminist's goal was to raise women up.
I believe the purpose of feminism was to toy with sexuality, as to
finally break down the family. They couldn't go after men.
Men will never give up women. They had to go after women.
That was the only way they could successfully divide the sexes.
DB: Okay, that’s interesting. So, do you think there was a purposeful
agenda right from the start for feminism? To destabilise society?
If so, what groups or individuals might be responsible for this?
AP: Yes, I do. If you look at the mother of feminism, Betty
Friedan, you see that she was a member of the Communist Party of the
United States. She portrayed herself, however, as just a typical
housewife who wants more in life.
She had been involved in the Communist Party for several years before
writing Feminine Mystique. Do you really think Betty Friedan's
main interest in life was seeing women get out and have more fulfilling
lives?
No, the fact of the matter is a staple of the communist party is breaking
down the two-parent family. Mothers and fathers cannot raise
their own children. The Party will. Friedan's main interest
was not in raising women up, it was to toy with the role of women
as wives and mothers.
Look at most feminist activism. For instance, think about how
they destroyed the terms "Miss" and "Mrs.," which
used to refer to single or married women, instead adopting the generic
"Ms." What in the world does changing the reference
of a woman have to do with female liberation??? Nothing.
What it does it chip away at female sexuality. "Ms."
is utterly sexless. Men no longer know if a female is a "Miss,"
therefore pursuable, or a "Mrs.," alerting
them to respect the institution of marriage.
Ayn Rand called feminists on their bullshit from the very start.
Rand was writing about strong, heroic women in her books - in the
1940s and 1950s! Women were not as oppressed as feminists make it
out to be before the 1970s. Rand pretty much called them unattractive
brutes that couldn't get everything they wanted naturally hence resorted
to feminism. I'm sure the feminist movement of the 1970s reminded
Rand of what she saw as she grew up in Communist Russia.
Yes, I think it was a very conscious effort to destroy sexuality,
family, and marriage. Indeed, I believe if the feminist movement
had never occurred - if all the whackjobs from Friedan to Steinem
never opened their mouths – that women would have continued to succeed
and make more strides. And we would have done it without destroying
dating, marriage, and family along the way.
DB: Okay, so back to the second point from above: women don't find
men naturally attractive. Surely the popularity of male strippers
and the pressures from women for men to look a certain way (be it
slim, six-pack, big biceps etc) is evidence that women are attracted
to the male body?
AP: First of all, male strippers are not all that popular. When
women hire a male stripper, it is entertainment. They are mostly
there to laugh and have fun, not to become sexually aroused.
The male body is attractive to a woman, but not in the same way the
female body is attractive to a man. A woman likes a strong man,
and the strong, lean body of a man is part of her desire for him.
But, more importantly, a woman is attracted to a heroic character,
not body parts.
Women appreciate masculinity, not just men. If she cannot appreciate
masculinity, for whatever reason, she is not going to find men attractive.
She won't understand what is so special about them. Now, think
about what feminists have said about masculine men. I'm not
suggesting women don't like men; I'm suggesting what it is about men
that women like, and how feminists have served to destroy that natural
lust in women.
Perhaps, women's desire for a masculine man is indeed something biological,
but with the feminist influence in the past 30 years, a woman's desire
for a masculine man was fragile enough that it got suffocated under
feminist pressure. It's not that a woman has to 'learn' to like
men, but rather ... it is open to environmental factors enough that
it can be easily 'unlearned.'
DB: Is the problem that women want strong, masculine men,
but men aren't allowed to be like that any more because women THINK
they don't want this in a man and make it nigh on impossible for him
to be masculine?
AP: Yes, I think what you said is true. Men certainly aren't
allowed to be masculine anymore. Most young men are afraid to,
or don't know how to. It's innate in men to be strong.
Whenever a young guy reads one of my articles or meets me, he is blown
away by what I have to say, but laps it up at the same time.
Most of them know being passive does not get the girls. They
like what I have to say; they want to be masculine; and they are willing
to take the risks necessary to become masculine.
Women will always like masculine men. It's universal.
Even when I was young, and still a feminist, I wanted men to take
charge.
DB: If you were a man of your age today, what would you do?
AP: To just do it. Just become men. Don't talk about it;
just do it.
Like you said girls "think" they don't like masculine men,
even though they really do. Consciously, girls have been trained
to not like strong, masculine men. On an intellectual level,
she'll reject the *idea* because she believes the flip side to strong
men is docile women, which offends her. She's also been told
the lie that strong men are necessarily violent and abusive, which
isn't true.
So, on an intellectual level, it upsets her. If you talk about,
she'll get defensive. But if you just do it ... ah, her inner
woman comes out. When it comes to real men and her real life,
she'll respond to it. Unless she is a total dyke radical feminist
who has had enough "consciousness raising" to identify your
behavior as masculine, therefore, evil.
DB: Given that today's generation of young women are so hostile
towards masculinity, does the only hope reside in future generations,
or can these same women have a change of heart and mind?
AP: Tough question. One thing I notice is young girls who are
starting to defend their right to be feminine. Intellectually,
they are trying to find what it is that is missing, currently, in
their life. When the topic comes up, they'll start to grope
around, and start to say things like they like being pretty, or they
like having male attention. They can't really defend it yet,
nor do they even know why the culture is so hostile to that kind of
thing; they just know the culture is hostile to it. I hope this
new crop of young women who are starting to take pride in their femininity
tells feminists to go jump in a
lake.
But, with femininity naturally comes masculinity. They are not
there yet, but it would take an influential leader, or even just a
great movie, to find it again.
Women have been so denied genuine, raw erotica from men that they
pretty much don't know what they are missing. In the 1990s,
the most popular movie was American Beauty, which was about a straight
man whose wife dominated him and homosexual themes were everywhere
in the movie. In the 1980s, the top movie was Top Gun.
Imagine what this does.
But, as soon as women realize the virtue of the masculine, they'll
relish in it. And, simultaneously, they'll become bitter with feminism.
Nothing could shatter feminism as easily as a culture in which the
women loved men and the men loved women. And, when that happens,
which it will, old feminist hags will finally be put to their grave.
