Groping For Answers in Wyoming

by Mike Pyatt

The recent allegation against Wyoming’s Secretary of State Ed Murray, considering the onslaught from #Me Too campaign, surprised few. Murray vehemently denied the allegations from thirty-fives years ago. His accuser evidently has a renewed interest in making the details public, after discussing it with her seventeen year old daughter, who reportedly pressed mom to tell her story. Tatiana Maxwell insists her allegations aren’t politically motivated. The alleged sexual assault happened, she maintains, when she was an eighteen year old intern at a law firm in Cheyenne in the 1982. When she was reached by phone by the Denver Post, Maxwell said, “This supersedes politics, because it affects women across the spectrum,” she continued, “It’s about standing up for ourselves and younger women who followed us.” Though she insisted it wasn’t a comfortable thing to discuss, she used graphic details to outline that incident, that “horrified and disgusted” her. According to a CST article, Maxwell had donated nearly $73,000 dollars to Democratic organizations in Wyoming, Colorado and nationally since 1998. She claimed she was unaware Murray had considered a gubernatorial run. Murray said, “I struggle to understand what would motivate someone to make this kind of accusation.” If it’s true, did Maxwell have amnesia? If it’s untrue, how does Murray refute it? Was she swayed by the recent allegations against men across the nation? Is it assassination by accusation?

On September 20, 1973, Billy Jean King faced off against Bobby Riggs, in an exhibition tennis match dubbed the “Battle of the Sexes.” That match, many argue, and Title IX, is often credited with sparking a boom in women’s sports-and more. King won in three straight sets and pocketed the winner-take-all $100,000. Like Pearl Harbor, that day lives in infamy. Forty-four years later many are still groping for answers over the expanding divide between the sexes. Is it artificial? Politically contrived by feminist who’ve lost their voice? Men pursuing women is as old as history. By nature men are more aggressive. Are we now to believe, according to the #Me Too legions, that nearly all men are sleazy, not to be trusted, and the majority are serial rapists, and sexual predators, since they say so? Is it true, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?”

Last March twitter erupted when Vice President Pence revealed that he never eats alone with another woman or goes without his wife Karen to events where alcohol is served. The media immediately savaged such a notion as misogynistic. A Mother Jones writer concluded and tweeted, “If Pence won’t eat dinner with another woman but his wife, that means he won’t hire women in key spots.” Others demean his action as patriarchal-that women can’t be trusted without a chaperone, because women are the sole source of temptation. Feminist insist it’s dehumanizing to women. Molly Hemingway, writer for the Federalist, wrote, regarding Pence, “He sounds like he’s a smart man who understands that infidelity is something that threatens every marriage and must be guarded against.” Many men now see the wisdom in that choice. Pence must feel pretty smart about now. After twenty years in national and state politics, has anyone heard an allegation against him? His practice is not that uncommon among Evangelicals and discriminating men who fathom the growing hostility and potential risk betwixt men and women in the workplace-and everyplace.

A landmark, seminal book, was published in 1973, by Professor Steven Goldberg, titled The Inevitability of Patriarchy. It’s a scholarly pursuit regarding why the biological difference between men and women always produces male domination. One would be hard-pressed to get this work published today in the face of a feminist narrative, and political correctness gone awry. It isn’t light reading. Anyone serious about the subject of sex roles and cultural authority, can’t ignore such a work. Icily logical, it approaches a subject that few would purse today-that men and women are uniquely different biologically. Goldberg understood constructs like “Amazon women” and “prehistoric matriarchies” were myths, that served primarily as metaphorical purposes for writers like Homer, Herodotus, Plutarch, and Hollywood directors. He maintains that universally, men will ultimately be in leadership and headship. Unfortunately, he gave little credence to the Biblical model of Creation purposes, and the complimentary role of men and women, that has been with us since Genesis. Goldberg’s writings that boys historically have been encouraged to compete, and girls encouraged to develop their nurturant qualities have a biological and economic basis. He argues that these values are not arbitrary or social manifestations, but have biological imperatives. There’ve been few Queens rule nations historically. In those cases, most were the daughters or widows of a revered man. In Western societies, and our recent Republic, these principles are irrefutable, and have a strong basis for our Founding and propensity, as a nation hinged by strong Judeo-Christian under-pinnings.

Testosterone arguably generates male aggression, though not solely. Preadolescent boys and girls have roughly equal testosterone levels, until brain levels of testosterone ultimately has rendered boys more aggressive, from the hormonal factor, the boy’s socialization flows from our societal acknowledging this biological reality. At one time in our culture, females were reminded that beating males in competition was unfeminine, or inappropriate. Historically, we find if that socialization was different, girls would grow into adulthood with self-images based upon not succeeding in areas for which biology has left them better prepared than male counterparts, on competition that most females couldn’t win. When did that change? How have young women become “more aggressive” in nearly every discipline? Sitcoms and social media steadfastly promote this navigation.

What role has the feminization of the males species and the masculinization of the female contributed to this battle? One feminist writer wrote in 2012, “It’s time for the castration of the American male.” GI Jane was another myth. Wonder Woman isn’t real. Why would a nine year old girl sue a school district to play on an “all male football” team? Title IX empowered young women to pursue “careers in sports,” a departure from the historic role of women. Have female adolescent diets, workout regimens, and food supplements contributed to a rise in testosterone levels in recent years, fueling this hyper competitive nature?

December 25,1971, in the New Republic, these statistics were published, “In the U.S. there are no women senators, women constitute slightly more than one percent of mayors of cities with more than twenty-five thousand; three percent of the members of the House of Representatives; and five percent of the state legislatures.” Politically women have narrowed the gap in politics. They’ve cracked the corporate glass ceiling. Thankfully, Hillary isn’t president. What about the current battle of the sexes? What happened to the complimentary roles that served as the lynchpin for our culture? Chauvinism’s no longer a male-only dominion. Can anything stem this tide? Little girls can no longer sit on Santa’s lap without an attorney present. Are there no boundaries? What do you think?

Mike Pyatt’s a Natrona County resident. His email’s roderickstj@yahoo.com