The Lace Curtain

There is something called “the Lace Curtain.” What I quote below, excerpts from Farrel’s book: “Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say” will show the ‘Lace Curtain’ to be a wall of censorship, “the Lace Curtain” is a programmed mindset. Those who live in the Anglosphere have ‘The Lace Curtain’ mindset. It is very different from a mentality of nationalism or religion. The closest I can think would be Communism.

Everyone asks, “Since Communism and dictatorships have been shown to be a huge failure everywhere they are tried, why are politicians of free nations in still awe of these systems? Why do they want to revive socialism and its later evolutions of Communism and dictatorships?”

While it is true that Communism and dictatorships fail, and it is true that almost everyone suffers, the key is that one person does WIN BIG in Communism and dictatorships. Who you ask? Why, it’s the politicians of course! Politicians lose all the time in a free country as they will become hated and no one will build them statues. But in a dictatorship, why, there will be many statues and the politician gets all the power.

The same is true of Feminism. It does no good to write long essays on why Feminism fails, why the Matriarchy hurts men, or so on. What does matter is that it enthrones women. Women have no reason to question Feminism, naturally. Men question the Matriarchy when they begin to notice the long pattern of pains and injustices against them.

I have mentioned much about “The Way.” Go to school. Get a girl friend. Marry the girl. Get a career. Get a house. Get two dogs. Get several kids. Get two cars. Success is seen as how far along you are on this ‘track.’ Hence, a guy who has a girlfriend is seen as ‘more progressed in life’ than one who doesn’t. One who went to school is seen as more progressed ‘in life’ than one who didn’t (even if the guy who didn’t has more money like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs). If you deviate from this series of events, doing such unworthy stuff like following your passion, pursuing your dream, making yourself financially free, living for pleasure, etc. then you become condemned as “loser.” At first, they will think this “loser” mentality is temporary. Soon, you will be on “The Way” again to the wife, the house, the wage slave career, and so on. One must actually disguise himself as following “The Way” while doing what you really want. If you do not, you risk termination from your job, social condemnation, among other stigmas.

The Lace Curtain is the veil in front of your eyes that hides the truth of the world. Men only begin to tear at the Lace Curtain because of the frequent manipulation and pain that leaves them no other choice, but women will unconsciously keep that Lace Curtain in front of their eyes as long as possible. This is why you can never talk to women about the Lace Curtain. It is as fruitless as telling Stalin why Communism is bad. It is GOOD to him so what does he care?

What if your mind became your enemy? What if you couldn’t trust your mind anymore? And what if your mind kept throwing you into the jaws of the beast, towards certain and utter financial and legal destruction? This is how men are under the spell of the Lace Curtain. We feel we must marry, we must have a house at this age, we must have a girl friend at that age, and on and on. Look at the prices of engagement rings, fancy weddings, let alone taking care of a stay-at-home mom. Look at the absurd family laws, divorce laws, and how the law treats females with a velvet glove while slapping men with a spiked fist.

To my friends who are outside the Lace Curtain, you will read and hear strange, mysterious, and horrifying tales; these, the stuff of nightmares, are imprinted INSIDE the minds of men behind the Lace Curtain for there is no escape. Sex and love are very powerful. Rousseau attempted to make them the foundation of his Brave New Society. The Lace Curtain is that society. But politicians and crusaders want power.

What if marriage, instead of being a vessel for peace, love, and stability, became an instrument of plunder? Politics is the cancer of society; political crusades are the passion of talent-less mediocrities. What if Love became poisoned by politics? Then Love would be the State’s means of power.

What! You look surprised? Do not be. Nationalism is the ‘love of country’ used to get men to go to war and work extra hard. Politicians are not above exploiting Love into an instrument of manipulation and plunder. Natural emotions of romance and love have become the weapons of every kind of greed.

The phenomenon of Men’s Rights blogs springing up from the Lace Curtain induced nations (mostly the Anglosphere) is actually a transition of the user. Consider one’s transition from Nice Guy to Don Juan. As a Nice Guy, the realization of Don Juan gave you a crisis which took you quite a while to accept.

Our minds are programmed in the Lace Curtain. The program was designed in such a vicious way that when an error is seen that threatens the Lace Curtain mindset, the mind will create new reasons and explanations to solidify the Lace Curtain. For example, when presented with the high divorce rates, a young man will say, “Ahh, they were not in love with their wives like I am. I will strive to make her happy. It won’t happen to me.” As you can imagine, defeating such a self-replicating mindset takes serious reprogramming that is extremely painful. Such pain is the Lace Curtain’s second best defense since most people prefer pleasure than pain, and the pain to reprogram the program is hell-worthy. Women won’t even try. Most men won’t either. The men who do are brave.

When the reprogramming of the Lace Curtain program begins, the man must compensate with what, on the surface, sounds like woman bashing. The ‘woman bashing’ is not actually woman bashing, but his only release of the pain as his mind sinks through the terrible hell of being reprogrammed. The phenomenon of Men’s Rights websites has most of them in this process. You will find lengthy essays and some harsh tones. Women will view it and simply dismiss it as, “Angry males,” but they are attempting to remove their programming. They are not blogging to talk to the world. They are blogging to talk to their mind. They are not posting messages on boards to talk to others. They are posting messages to themselves to save themselves. The reason why men’s’ rights boards has so much of a “Yes Man!” quality to them is because it is not so much a discussion forum as it is a tonic, a salve, for the bleeding mind as it is being cut up, diced, and re-arranged where the Lace Curtain program cannot get to it.

The reprogramming takes two to three years. This is why most Men’s Rights blogs mysteriously vanish after two to three years. There is no more reason to talk to themselves. The Lace Curtain program has been removed.

There are two types of men in the Anglosphere: those who live under the Lace Curtain and those who are free of it. Obviously, the former outnumber the latter. However, I have noticed the latter grow in number according to age. More men in their 80s will be free of the Lace Curtain than men in their 20s.

Below, you will hear about the censorship. It not so much censorship as it is a mindset of reality. Disagreeing with feminism is not tolerated not because of ‘active’ censorship but because feminism is BELIEVED to be the reality. So when someone says something against feminism, they are, to those people, saying something outside their reality.

Anywhere, here are the excerpts:

The power of feminists to allow only a feminist perspective to be aired (in every field that dealt with gender issues) came to be labeled the “Lace Curtain.”

The Iron Curtain shut out opinions considered a threat to Communism. The Lace Curtain shuts out opinions considered a threat to feminism.

In an Iron Curtain country, capitalist-bashing was the norm. In a Lace Curtain country, man- bashing is the norm. The chapter on man bashing hopefully makes clear the degree to which man bashing is the norm; this chapter on the lace curtain shows us how each institution, from the government to the school system, from the helping professions to the media, produces that outcome, each in its own unique way.

In an Iron Curtain country, being too critical of core Communist tenets could cost you your job, especially if your job was in the government, media, or education system. In a Lace Curtain country, being too critical of core feminist attitudes (sexual harassment, affirmative action) can cost you your job, especially if your job is in the government, media, or education system.

The Communist Party achieved this power to censor formally, by revolution and becoming the one-party system of Soviet politics. Feminism achieved this power informally, by becoming the one-party system of gender politics: creating a new area of study, defining the terms, generating the data and becoming the only acceptable source of interpretation. This chapter explains how this occurs, and why.

Communists came into power by selling the belief that workers were exploited by capitalists. Feminists came into power by selling the belief that women were exploited by men. Both communists and feminists defined an enemy and then sold itself as the champion of the oppressed.

Once Communism and feminism successfully defined themselves as progressive and morally superior, censoring criticism could be rationalized as progressive and morally necessary.

How do you know if you’re part of the Lace Curtain? If you feel more comfortable telling a man- bashing joke than a joke bashing all women. How do you know if you’re in an organization that’s part of the Lace Curtain? When you tell a man-bashing joke and everyone laughs, then tell a woman-bashing joke and no one laughs. In some organizations, the censorship is more complete… you don’t even think of telling the woman-bashing joke!

The Lace Curtain is less a “woman thing” than a feminist thing. But feminism has made women-as-victim so credible we would sooner think of saving whales than saving males. In this respect, almost all of us contribute to the Lace Curtain.

Which institutions create the lace curtain? Universities, in all the liberal arts, especially at the top-ranked schools; the school system, especially public high schools; government, especially at the national and United Nations level; the media, especially print media and television; the helping professions, especially social work; advertising, especially on television; book publishing, especially self-help and text books; funding institutions, especially those funding health, arts, and university research. Each institution censors and distorts in its own unique way. Each reinforces the other like academics citing each other’s research.

If your son or daughter is about to enter a top university in the liberal arts, he or she will be behind the lace curtain. You’ll notice it next Christmas. It is leaving many of our daughters with a love-hate relationship toward their dads and husbands; when they become mothers of sons, their feelings about men are transmitted to their sons, leaving their sons with mixed feelings about themselves. The Lace Curtain, like the Iron Curtain, ultimately hurts even those it was intended to benefit: leaving many employers fearful of hiring women; making many of our children fearful of marriage.

Is the Lace Curtain a conspiracy? No and yes. “No” by the current meaning of the word (a covert manipulation), but “yes” by the original Latin, meaning “to breathe together” (“spire” means to breathe; “con” means together). If we think of a conspiracy as people of a similar consciousness, in essence “breathing together,” then the Lace Curtain is a conspiracy. For reasons I discuss in the chapter on man-bashing, it is a “conspiracy” common to industrialized nations.

Below are personal examples of the author (a woman) of how she noticed the Lace Curtain. Read up, foreign readers, for this is exactly how it is in the Anglosphere:

As I listen to the stories of authors who have tried to articulate men’s issues, I hear one experience of censorship after another. Some I will share, but many authors who are published or still have hopes of being published, are afraid to be mentioned – “I’m afraid people will assume the real reason is that my work is inferior;” “I’m afraid it will be seen as sour grapes;” “I’m afraid people will say my book didn’t sell well and that’s why I’m so angry;” “I’m afraid. ”

I acknowledge all of these fears myself. But I also know that if I don’t practice what I preach – that women can’t hear what men don’t say – then I have no right to ask other men to take risks I am myself unwilling to take. I know this will leave me vulnerable, and I know some people will never read this book because they will first read some news account of some distorted version of these personal stories that will make them turn off to me before they get started. I can’t say, “so be it” because I do care – I write to be read. But every man has exactly these type of fears when he first begins to share his life experience – that his career, his reputation (his readership) will be hurt. And sometimes, when he shares, that is a price he actually pays.

I will ask you to assume that if you have a teenage son, or husband, that he has these same fears, fears that keep a part of him silent even as another part speaks. If you are able to hear him in the way of Part I above, you will give him your greatest gift. Enough of that, though. Here goes….

When I was first elected to the Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in New York City, I was 26. I had never written for a national publication. The New York Times sought me out, did a major story on me and the men’s groups I was running, and asked me to write an op. ed. piece. I did. They published it, with hardly a word changed. They asked me to do a second. Again they published it with hardly a word changed. And a third….

As long as I was writing from a feminist perspective, The New York Times published everything I wrote. Once I began questioning the feminist perspective, The New York Times published nothing I wrote – not a single one of the more than twenty articles I have since submitted to them in the following two decades.

Back to the story…

The New York Times coverage led to the Today Show. During my years speaking from the feminist perspective, I was three times a guest on the Today Show. Once I began articulating men’s perspectives, I was never invited back. I was beginning to notice a pattern!

Phil Donahue had apparently seen me on the Today Show and in The New York Times and extended an invitation. We hit it off when we met. He immediately invited his first wife (Marjorie) to meet me and dine together. When he and Marjorie ran into conflicts, he would call me for advice. He took me to the airport himself after each show. On the seventh show, though, something happened. I began to add men’s perspectives. Suddenly, I was not invited back for years.

When Why Men Are The Way They Are was published, I was eventually invited for an eighth show. But articulating men’s perspectives, even in balance with women’s, led to another six year hiatus. When The Myth of Male Power came out, although it was from the male perspective, it was so much up Donahue’s line of relationships and politics that three producers were vying to be the one to produce the show. I was scheduled, with a firm date. The producers convinced my agent to book me as an exclusive on Donahue. As a result, queries to all other American talk shows were dropped. Then something happened….

The taping kept getting “postponed.” Eventually neither I nor my agents, Hilsinger and Mendelson, the most powerful in the book publicity business, could reach them. As I was trying to unravel the stonewalling, a Canadian show called. They were filled with enthusiasm. But suddenly it, too, kept getting “postponed.” This producer, though, had previously booked me; I could feel the remorse in his voice; so I pressed him for an explanation. Finally he caved.

“If you promise to never use my name I’ll tell you,” he said. I promised. Hesitatingly, he started, “We wanted to have a balanced show, so we called a couple of feminists – big names – to be on with you. Instead of just refusing, they said in effect, ‘If you have this guy on, don’t expect us to bring our next book to you, or supply you with real-life examples to use on your show – we’ll do that just for Oprah.’ Another one used the moral appeal – something like, ‘Feminism is opposed to rape and the battering of women; so, if you have him on, you’d better take responsibility for making women even more vulnerable.’ Once the word got out that we were considering you, we got other calls, even one from a guy, sort of repeating the same mantra.

“Warren, most of us saw all this for the attempt at censorship it was, and as for me, I was excited by the controversy, but, well, it just took one of our producers who’s never met you and hasn’t read the book to freak out and, before we knew it, we were all afraid to stir up her indignation.”

Well, there you have it. Or…there I had it!

Then there was the day I first questioned in public the statement that men earned a dollar for each 70 cents earned by women. I did that on Hour Magazine, a show that was nationally televised at the time. The other guest was Gloria Steinem. I said, “Never-married women often earn more than never-married men, because ” Gloria, who had to that point (1986) viewed me as an ally, looked to host Gary Collins as if to signal “cut!” Gary Collins, who had always treated me with great respect, told me I must have gotten the sexes mixed up, and signaled for the producer to interrupt the taping.

Off air, I explained that I had meant what I said. I could see in Gary’s and Gloria’s faces that I had “turned the screw.” I could feel the segment was being redone merely so they could avoid saying directly that it would never be aired. And yes, it was never aired. My status changed from regular guest to never being invited back. …As for Gloria Steinem? Well, she went from being a friend, to never returning my calls. Thinking a little humor might break the ice, I sent her a phone from Toys-R-Us with a dime taped to it. Maybe she doesn’t like Toys-R-Us.

I had naively believed that leaders as pioneering as I thought Gloria was would be delighted to hear of ways in which women were succeeding. Now I had to face a deeper fear: that some of my feminist colleagues might have an emotional investment in women’s victimhood that went so deep as to prevent any discussion that might dilute women’s victim status. Since my income came from feminist referrals, and since feminist power was solidifying the Lace Curtain, I felt, well, scared.

I was eventually to discover that fear was well founded. My speaking engagements on college campuses were soon reduced to less than 5% – not 50%, but 5% – of what they were.

It isn’t that many women and even individual feminists were not open enough to hearing a different perspective. When I wrote The Myth of Male Power, an editor at Modern Maturity, the publication with the largest monthly circulation in the United States, had read it, loved it, felt it would be perfect for the male readers, and asked me to write two articles for Modern Maturity. I did. Both articles were loved, edited, approved, paid in full, and scheduled for publication.

I had just turned fifty, so I was to receive my own copy. I saw it in the mailbox, and quickly scanned the front cover to see if they gave it special coverage. No. Then I looked at the table of contents. …Nothing. I called the editor. She apologized and said they had “changed focus” at the last minute. But something in her voice said “cover up.” I asked the editor to be honest. She was. She explained that one feminist researcher, who admittedly could find nothing wrong with the research, nevertheless protested, and loudly. The management became afraid. The editor felt as awful as I did.

The Twentieth Century had to deal with the Depression, the last gasps of Nationalistic Wars, Nazism, and Communism. The Twenty First Century will have to deal with Feminism. Our ancestors succeeded. So will we.