Too much estrogen

Once upon a time, women’s rights groups cried foul about cultural and institutional sexism. In other words, society had too much testosterone and not enough estrogen for balance. True enough.
However, one truth I’ve learned about politics is that it tends to swing on a perpetual pendulum. Instead of simply trying to stop the pendulum from swinging, we just change its direction so that it swings the other way.
This has been as true in gender politics as it has with any other form of inequality. We just don’t seem to be able to find that balance. Our solution to inequality repeatedly seems to be reverse inequality.
Consequently, we no longer live in a man’s world. Popular culture, along with the current sociopolitical climate, increasingly awards the power to women.
One of the alphabet networks recently aired a nightly news story about the growing trend of single women choosing motherhood. The underlying message being sent to all of us men, of course, is that we aren’t necessary anymore. Women don’t need or even want us to be part of a family unit. They can do it all themselves without our help or our influence.
While the story did stress the importance of “male influences”—neighbors, teachers, coaches and relatives—the role of a full-time father figure was notably absent.
One message I received from the story is that a man is needed only as a sperm donor, a checkbook (child support and/or alimony) and an occasional “influence,” but not as a parent. Fatherhood is reduced to a specimen in a Petrie dish.
Needless to say, as a man, I found the story disturbing.
My gender is also the butt of jokes around a female-dominant office in which I work. A few of my co-workers take jabs at the male gender by disparagingly referring to us as the “Y Chromosome.”
Fundamentally, this could be considered sexual harassment; but I could never get away with alleging it because I’m a man. Besides, I try to consider the sources of these comments. Every woman in the office who jokes about the “Y Chromosome” has a history of failed relationships; so I figure that the disparaging gender comments are born out of resentment and their own poor choices in life. It isn’t worth making a big stink over, especially since I would have to continue working with these ladies and deal with the interpersonal repercussions of filing a formal complaint.
But that’s really neither here nor there. It isn’t germaine to the issue, so I digress.
The negative messages against men are everywhere these days: At work, around the community, and diffusely in the media, the last of which permeates the very sanctity of a man’s home.
There are no more destructive messages against masculinity than that which exists in the media—be it news, entertainment, popular culture, or advertising.
The next time you guys sit down to watch a football game on television, take note of the number of ads that show men in a disparaging way or in a negative light. Whenever an advertisement includes competing gender roles, the man is overwhelmingly shown as either the weaker of the two, the least intelligent, the most impulsive, and the least civilized. Beer, soda and car commercials are among the worst offenders when it comes to making men look bad, especially in the presence of women.
What these messages do is reinforce some modern idea that women aren’t merely on equal footing with men these days, but are, in fact, superior to them.
Worse yet, a lot of men seem to have bought into the notion that women are superior to them, because that’s what the media tells them on a daily basis; or it’s the message they hear at the office or even at home each and every day.
The idea of female superiority is evident in the language used by some of society’s notable female leaders.
Nancy Lieberman, current coach of a men’s NBA D-League professional developmental basketball team, the Texas Legends, and a former player who broke a gender barrier by playing on a men’s basketball team herself, has been quoted as saying that men are used to having women tell them what to do.
“We’ve told men what to do since the beginning of time,” she has said. “They’re used to getting information from us.”
Lieberman has also been paraphrased as saying that every man in a locker room has taken instruction from a woman since they were a baby: whether it’s from a mom, a wife or a girlfriend. “They need women in every aspect—why not as coach?” she said.
I don’t mean to knock Lieberman specifically for her comments, but what she said is indicative of the notion of gender superiority that exists among a lot of American women today. Political and cultural feminism has done much to push propaganda that men need women, but women don’t need men.
Well, I take exception to this notion. I don’t need my wife; I want her. I don’t need my mother anymore, either, but I want her to remain a part of my life.
I certainly don’t need anybody to tell me what to do or show me how to do things, either. I may want or seek advice from women, but that doesn’t mean I need them to tell or show me what or how to do something. I don’t need direction from either gender, thank you very much. I’m perfectly capable of being directed on my own. I am my own motivator.
Having said that, I concede that women are superior to men in some ways: They are generally better at multi-tasking and parenting than men are. They tend to have a higher pain tolerance than men. They seem better coordinated, which is probably linked to multi-tasking. They tend to possess a natural, innate ability to bond with children, and they are better at nurturing than men are.
Other than that, I fail to see where they are generally superior to men. In fact, I don’t see where either gender has an advantage over the other when it comes to using the gray matter between the ears.
But this isn’t the message that men are hearing these days. They hear the exact opposite. Comments from women like Nancy Lieberman aren’t helping to change this climate, but rather to perpetuate and exacerbate it. Would it not be more constructive and beneficial to tell men that they don’t need women, but they do need to “man up” and take responsibility for themselves and those who depend upon them—their families, most notably? To say that men need women to direct them is akin to saying that women need men to lead them and make decisions for them. We all know how much feminists appreciate male chauvinism, don’t we?
Well, most men don’t appreciate reverse female chauvinism, either.
The whole "battle of the sexes" mantra is old and cliched.
Sure, there are differences between the two. Always have been, and always will be.
But let's stop the antagonism, shall we?
The one-upmanship (or, in this case, one-upwomanship) of the so-called "battle of the sexes" is really a farce that helps no one get over or beyond discrimination and inequality.
Today's culture is overly feminized, overcharged with an overdose of estrogen. The messages being sent to men today rubs their noses in discrimination and inequality. Nothing constructive is said or done to overcome these pitfalls of a free society.
As such, I am growing more skeptical and have become more suspicious that, to militant feminists who control the national women's rights agenda, the cause isn't really about equality at all, but rather revenge.
Retribution is perhaps the strongest, most pungent motivator for people who feel slighted, cheated, used and patronized. Unfortunately, the pendulum of equality suffers most, because it can never achieve true balance in the center when those forces changing its course are intent on using it as a weapon instead of a tool for justice.
Consequently, I can only expect our society and our culture to navigate in a circle of perpetual inequality that masquerades, ironically, as equality.
The burning question remaining in my mind: Will men just lay down and let all of the estrogen suffocate them? Or, will we put our feet down and start demanding some balance? Can there be room left for comparative levels of testosterone?
I'm afraid only you ladies can answer that question.

Analysis: Cheese versus Steel

Steel is naturally stronger than cheese...except, perhaps, on the gridiron.
Super Bowl XLV will put this theory to the test on February 5, 2011 when the AFC Champion Pittsburgh Steelers square off against the NFC Champion Green Bay Packers.
The Steelers may have their hands full with the Packers, who are poised to give the current "Steel Curtain" D all it can handle.
The Steelers, don't forget, blew a 24-0 lead to the NY Jets last weekend, having given up 19 unanswered points. Poor play calling in the Red Zone at the end of the game doomed the Jets; not the Steelers' D.
Pittsburgh was also in the hole 21-7 at halftime to the Baltimore Ravens two weeks ago before coming back and then holding on to win. The Steelers made some costly, glaring mistakes against the Ravens' defense early in the game. Had it not been for a complete 180 by the team in the second half, it could have turned into a blow-out in favor of Baltimore. Pittsburgh is inconsistent so far in the playoffs. It plays well at times, and at other times it doesn't.
Sure, the same could be said about Green Bay or any other team for that matter. But the Packers right now are gelling together. There's a hunger with this young team that I saw in the 1997 Broncos, 1999 Ravens, the 2000 Rams, 2001 Patriots, the 2002 Buccaneers, the 2005 Steelers, the 2007 Giants, and the 2009 Saints.
I don't get the same sense of hunger from the Steelers, many of whom have been to the Big Show before, and this is just another day at the office for them. Remember the 2007 Patriots, the team that was undefeated going into the SB against the Giants? The game was supposed to be just another day at the office for New England, just another notch in the win column. But that team completely underestimated the NYG-men, dismissing them as the last speed bump in the road to perfection.
Granted, Pittsburgh doesn't appear to be as arrogant as the 2007 Patriots were; but it can easily overlook Green Bay as just another lucky 10-6 No. 6 seed...which Pittsburgh was in 2005 when it won it all. The teams that get hot at the end of the regular season and/or win when it matters most are the most dangerous teams entering the playoffs. Ergo, The Pack.
Having said all of that, Green Bay will certainly have its hands full with the Steelers. On offense, Pitt offers a dual RB threat, as well as lethal weapons on the flank and under center. Pitt has a well-balanced offense quite comparable, if not superior, to Green Bay's O. If the Steelers start eating up chunks of yardage running the football, then they can dominate time of possession and field position, even if the game turns out to be highly defensive with little scoring. Green Bay Linebackers Coach Kevin Greene and his D, led by Matthews and Raji et al, had better bring their A game against Pitt's RBs and Roethlisberger.
On defense, the Steelers are just plain frightening the way they aggressively attack the pocket. Rodgers' one "Achilles Heel" is that he is a much less effective pocket passer than he is an out-of-pocket passer. The Bears flustered him a little in the second half by attacking the pocket and forcing throws from Rodgers. The key for GB will be its O line. It has done a pretty good job so far giving Rodgers time to throw or time to move out of the pocket to find an open receiver. But it has made its share of mistakes, and Rodgers has taken his share of beatings this season, too. The Pack may be well advised to utilize Driver, Kuhn and even Starks as extra blockers on longer routes, which require more time for Rodgers to set up and throw. If anything, blockers should do everything they can to give Rodgers an opening so that he can escape the pocket, because I think the Packers' O line may have a difficult time keeping the Steelers' pass rush at bay for too long. If Pitt ends up flushing Rodgers out of the pocket more often than not, rather than containing him in there and collapsing it, then it risks getting picked apart by a guy who throws better and makes better passing decisions on the run.
My greatest concern about Green Bay's offense is the inconsistency of its receiving corps. I've seen these guys complete some difficult pass plays, but then drop some gimmies. Against Pittsburgh, the Packers will need to be sure to earn their money by catching the gimmie passes.
With an aggressive D line like Pitt's, I wonder if the Packers might do well to draw in a lot of short 5-10 yard pass plays to guys like Kuhn and Driver? As quickly as Pitt gets off the line, the shorter and quicker the passes, probably the better. Screens should work well against a D that zeroes in on the pocket. That's not to say that McCarthy shouldn't keep a few "aces" up his sleeve in the event that the run game finds some success early on. A couple of play action fakes on second and short; maybe a naked boot leg toward the sideline on third and two; and some quick slant routes over the middle to Jordy Nelson when Pitt is looking for a screen pass to Kuhn or a short out to Driver.
And, of course, always keep them guessing on special teams. You never know when GB will try an on-side kick at kick-off.
Most important of all...HOLD ON TO THE FOOTBALL. At all costs. In a defensive ball game, as I suspect this one to be, turnovers are killers. It has long been said that defenses win championships. I don't see this game being any different. Coach Greene's D Machine should attack the football as often as it does the ball carriers. Go after the strip whenever practical. Be aggressive, but not so much so that you show your hand before it’s called.
A level head will go a long way toward defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers. Too much adrenaline, too much emotion could spell trouble for the youthful and largely inexperienced Pack.
I have a gut feeling about Green Bay...not just because I'm a Packer Backer, either. History is often on the side of the hungriest team...And the Packers are starving for a championship right now.