COMING ATTRACTION,
A FOLLOW-UP TO "WHISTLE BLOWERS ON ENRON"

This is a follow on to my piece responding to Maureen Dowd's commentary, "Women the whistleblowers on Enron."

In case you missed that: "Whistleblowers On Enron"

Perhaps being a man was my cause for discomfort. Perhaps a movie I had seen about the same time made my nerves raw. Why was I bothered so much? Granted, too many things now bother me.

I thought of one of the arguments for not allowing women in combat units. The reasoning goes that they shouldn't be there because the men will risk everything including (especially) the mission in order to protect the females. Is this true?

Before spending a lot of effort on the military context, what about the civilian sphere? What has happened on your block, your neighborhood, your city, etc.?

Have you visited your local courthouse lately? My courthouse is full of females. We have a prison chock-full of males and a courthouse overflowing with females. Liberals are trying to figure ways to employ more of them, mostly through scare tactics. Protect the females by giving them high paying jobs so they don't have to stay home and build families as their grandmothers did.

What about the mission? What is/was the mission?

It is not just government. Have you been to a bank lately?

Are there any of you who recall Seattle First Nationl Bank, "SeaFirst?" It went "bye-bye" about 20 years ago. I remember before that. I remember when most of the branch managers were men, and a business in need of a loan dealt with the local branch manager. At the local branch near where many of my clients operated, a female was put in as manager. That didn't last long before a different female took over. That was only temporary before another replaced her and then another. It wasn't long before a "Business Center" was established at the main Bellevue branch. All loans were now supposed to go through the loan officers there, whom I observed to be males. Yup, males who preferred conducting business at the Bellevue Athletic Club. That did not please many of our clients.

SeaFirst really wasn't very interested in making loans back then. Those were the days of the double-digit interest rates. I should say, rather, that SeaFirst wasn't very interested in making loans to local businesses. They were very interested in making loans in Mexico. The interest rates were even higher there. That was their undoing. SeaFirst violated the banking rules and was acquired/"saved" by Bank of America. There were no female whistleblowers then. Did SeaFirst forget its "mission?" Did SeaFirst take risks trying to stay profitable while bringing females onboard?

Open your telephone book. Look through the front section. Look at all the agencies there to deal with "our problems." How many are employers almost exclusively of females? There is a group of these agencies locally that promises us "A Night Out," one night a year when we can feel safe from violence and abuse, etc..

Am I the only one who understands that before they arrived on the spot with their false scenarios and false promises, we had 365 or 366 nights a year in which to not only feel safe and secure but free too! Are you willing to allow them to dictate how society should work in exchange for one night a year? Are you stupid? Or, are you just afraid to oppose the females? Can't bring yourself to not put yourself in harm's way or to not abandon the mission just to protect the female? You've got to have more guts than that. If you allow them to take your freedom in exchange for the security of "A Night Out," how long do you think it will be before they take that away too?

What is the mission? Is it to corrupt our society so we have a rationale for employing females? (Yes, only they can fix it - - - Ha, they helped break it!).

Until recently, my community hadn't had a parade in ten years. The females and non-men have been in control. Certainly wouldn't do for our youth to see real men marching with real guns in a parade and acting responsibly. Finally, Fourth of July 2001, we had a re-birth and a small parade. (Some fool on the street corner shamed the town, which locals call P.A., by pointing out the P.A. in PAthos and PArade and how we had embraced PAthos while eschewing PArades and gotten what we deserved - - - deputy murdered, doctor killing his wife, father killing his kids, young men killing themselves, etc.). The do-good meddlers, who have been telling us how to live, have managed to turn our community, like so many others, into a combat zone. (And, "Give Us This Day Our Daily Drug Bust")!

I am hoping for bigger and better things and bigger and better parades. Not just "A Night Out."

That brings me back to the movie I mentioned. Have you seen "Chocolat?" Supposedly, it is one of those 'highly acclaimed' movies. To me, it was propaganda. Feminist propaganda. No community ever had any fun until the feminists arrived on the scene. No parades, no dances, no fun sex, etc., etc., etc.. It is a lie. Things have only got worse, not better. That's why such movies are necessary. Propaganda is born of necessity. The need to confound and intimidate the populace. Keep repeating the lie and people don't really believe it (or do they?), but they are afraid to not pretend as if they do. Is that it?

As much as the Maureen Dowds of the world would like you to believe that it is, the battle isn't between men and women. The battle is between good and evil. Always has been and always will be. "World without end, Amen."

Anything else is fraud.

Now, there is your clue. The battle is between good and evil. And, this is what actually happened when females were told they should have careers - - - the pool of available evil approximately doubled if you assume that there are as many evil females as there are males. What do I mean? Remember the mission? (What's that)?

Sorry, but good females don't want careers, they want family. Good men don't want careers either. They want a job that will provide for their family. You (or too many of your compadres) have been snockered (by evil, horrors!). "Careers" is a fraud. Sorry. And, "careers" has promoted fraud.

The balance between good males and evil males is precarious. The good ones are more powerful when they can rely upon a good female covering their flank at home. On the other hand, the scale is tipped in favor of the evil males when females are so desirous of a career, because there is virtually nothing they wouldn't do to beat out a male for a job. (I assert that it is easier for a female to beat a good male than it is for her to beat an evil one). Even if they didn't beat a male out of a position, the balanced tipped because the number of principle-less bodies in the workplace increased relatively. How do I know? Females with principles stay at home whenever possible. Sorry.

The good males are weakened when their spouse wants a career. Just too much additional "extra" duties to perform. They have less time to engage in activities that promote "goodness" and enhance society. I would also assert that the competition can become so kean that some are forced to engage in practices that they wouldn't otherwise consider - - - ie., they need a scam. They won't knock the females down, as they really should, so do they turn against the mission? Tell me what you see? Be honest before it is too late.

Just two thoughts before ending this:

God bless the female who has to work to provide for her family. Necessity is different from blind ambition, different from coveting the role of the male.

Females are not going to save us by blowing whistles or taking over the workplace. They will save us by being women and building homes for men. Maureen has got it all wrong. Unfortunately, so have many others.

Copyright © 2002, Donald L. Beeman. All rights reserved.

Other Essays On Fraud
Other Essays
Table of Contents (up, more)
HOME (up, most)