Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Fox News Distorts Feminism in Order to Blame Women for Men’s Retreat from Marriage
Fox News is at it again. Yesterday, Dana Perino warned that women should “make better decisions” to avoid being beaten or killed by their abusers and today, Suzanne Venker at Fox News is warning us all that men are retreating from marriage because “men said women are no longer women.” She suggests we all get in touch with our feminine side to remedy this matter post haste. This piece is a follow up to her “war on men” post.
The premise of men retreating from marriage is unproven to me; she doesn’t offer statistics on it and I haven’t seen it in my personal life, so I’ve got nothing but her imagination to go on here. But I’ll take a ride on the Venker express. Let’s say men are retreating from marriage. How can you keep that man from retreating from marriage (assuming you are not running away yourself)?
You begin by accepting that men and women are different. Equal, but different. This means you’ll have to reject feminist dogma since feminism has taught you that equality means sameness.
Bashing “feminism” by moving the goal post is the standard, lazy cop-out of the Right. Feminism is not about a woman being the same as a man; it’s about egalitarian values that acknowledge the equal value and rights of all, including men. How this value gets translated into movement is another story and an ever-changing one at that. Feminism does not require a rejection of femininity; quite the contrary. It offers a choice for the individual and values the feminine, per its name. Without such easy distortions, the Right has no argument against real feminism.
Cognitive studies suggest that all humans share both feminine and masculine traits. It’s my contention that when we value both of those traits equally, the human species will be better served. This would set both women and men free from the gender based expectations that are becoming harder and harder to fulfill.
We won’t ever get to the truth when we pretend things haven’t changed, which is what Venker is trying to do. Hey, ladies, all will get better if you just “let” your man be a man (I had no idea that “real” men as imagined by the Right were stopped from being men by mere ladies, but okay):
Just because you make your own money doesn’t mean your guy can’t pay the bill. Just because you value independence doesn’t mean you can’t take your husband’s last name. Just because you can do the same a job a man can do doesn’t mean you need to let him know it.
Surrendering to your femininity means many things. It means letting your man be the man despite the fact that you’ve proved you’re his equal. It means recognizing the fact that you may very well want to stay home with your babies – and that that’s normal. It means if you do work outside the home, you don’t use your work to play tit-for-tat in your marriage. It means tapping into that part of yourself that’s genuinely vulnerable and really does need a man – even though the culture says you don’t.
The feminist movement she degrades so shallowly never suggested that some women would not be happier at home – quite the opposite- they suggest that choice is the goal. That women should be free to make choices about their lives, based on what suits their individual character, and this is predicated on having the option to make those choices, which is predicated on having the option of being self-sufficient. If she were to replace the word “need” with “want”, we might be able to have a meaningful dialogue on the subject – but when she assumes that women “need” a man, she removes the underpinnings of freedom, without which real equality can’t exist. And that fact is hardly the fault of women, who have been trying throughout history to make marriage work without freedom and finding it lacking.
It means women shouldn’t let their success in the workplace become the biggest thing in their lives. If the ultimate goal is lasting love, women are going to have to become comfortable with sacrifice and capitulation. Because those are the underpinnings of a long-term marriage – for both sexes. If you don’t believe me, ask your grandparents. Or anyone else who’s been married for decades.
Venker wants to cause a ruckus with her 1950′s propaganda. It’s obviously a siren call to beat-me-up daddyism, glorifying dependency on the benevolent patriarch. It’s amusing that Venker never sees the hypocrisy of her Palin tirade – a woman getting paid to tell other women to follow daddy or else they won’t get the man.
The premise is a fail because the bad news is that some of us don’t want or need to get the man – not that man, anyway. Not the man Venker is selling – the one who can’t feel like a man unless his woman is dependent upon him. She over-simplifies the entire matter, until she’s selling nothing but the stale Republican cheese of the rape deniers so infamous within her Party. In order for these men to have things their way, women must accept the blame and renounce their freedoms. Things were so great back in the day!
Expecting men to be “traditional” in the modern world is part of the problem – men are no longer the sole bread-winners. They have their own roles to wrestle with, including pressing societal expectations that can’t realistically be met as easily they were in the 1950′s. Feminism acknowledges these struggles as part of the problem.
The fallacy of the man who will take care of everything and treat you with respect is sold to us from birth; the Princess is saved from the castle, but they never tell you that the Prince might use those same powers to dominate and control and even hurt the Princess after he “saves” her. What to do if the Prince finds another Princess who needs to be rescued, abandoning his former Princess and their children? What to do if the Princess finds that sacrificing herself is not as easy as she had hoped? Venker leaves no room for the growth of the human spirit, she doesn’t acknowledge the history of women abused by traditional marriage throughout history – treated as animals instead of humans, not allowed to own property or vote.
The collective conscience remembers these things and fights against them. It is real. The problems are not solved. There are still laws on the books that allow men to beat their wives in this country. You can’t expect to have a loving relationship built on the fundamental premise of inequity, nor do statistics back up her idea that if you simply give in to the benevolent patriarch, all will be well.
Domestic violence is a killer in America. Three women die every day as a result of domestic violence. (War on men?) Marriage is lethal for too many women. Her argument has been used to justify violence against women throughout history – if you are a good girl, he won’t kill you. Of course, this is a dangerous fallacy not supported by any evidence and as such, it’s exceptionally harmful to all, not just women. If men are the caretakers she claims they are, then they would be holding their kind to those values and making it socially unacceptable to abuse women (rape/molest/kill/beat/etc). Fox News’ Party (GOP) isn’t working too hard on those issues – in fact, they are still refusing to pass the Violence Against Women Act. Thus we are left with the blame the woman foundation of her argument.
It’s a fairy tale she’s selling – that if you give in all of the way, you’ll get your lucky Prince. I note that she has not given in all of the way, or she wouldn’t be writing at all. The history of the female writer is something she would do well to look into.
So we see that the women who sell us these stories are often not the women they are telling us to be. In her mind, I would be the evil feminist ruining marriage, whereas she – because her words are different – is the graceful feminine receiver of male approval. The truth is that she is empowering herself with her words – speaking her “truth” just as I am.
The only difference is that I know enough to be glad that she has never had to face the sort of challenges that many of my female friends have had to face resulting from the inequities inherent in modern day marriage, child-rearing and pay.
Venker’s belief is rooted in patriarchal fundamentalism that has been undeniably abusive to women throughout history, and yet is completely at odds with “There but for the grace of God go I.” Empathy and truth are ignored in service of a cheap argument that is as archaic as the behavior it seeks to justify.
Venker would serve herself well by looking deeper than blaming women for men’s “retreat”. If a woman being self-sufficient and independent means a marriage won’t work, then there’s a problem with the tenets of modern day marriage, not with women. So, too, the relationship between slave-owner and slave was not to be once slaves were granted freedoms. Huh. Perhaps the problem lay in the offering, and not the unwillingness of one party to sacrifice all. She notes that sacrifice is required of both sides, but spends all of her time telling women that it’s their job to do it.
Love today has become a power struggle, largely because women have been conditioned to keep their guard up – as though men and marriage will swallow them whole.
No, Ms. Venker, “love” (I note she uses “love” interchangeably for marriage and relationships with men) has always been a “power struggle”, and it’s not because modern day women have been taught to keep their guard up. Throughout history, women have been warned against men’s passions. For example, women have been blamed for getting pregnant outside of marriage and thus warned to have their guard up against men, and as things change, they stay the same. Now it’s okay to get pregnant outside of marriage, but there are other things to keep your guard up against lest your reputation as a “valued” (by men) woman be tarnished. The very people creating those societal expectations are ironically the only ones telling us all to stop fighting them.
Were it not for the feminists she decries, Venker would not be able to publish her writing, even in its cloying justification of women’s subordination. She may wish to ponder that, as by exploring the factual history of women’s suppression at the hands of patriarchy, she would have to face the inevitable silliness of her argument that she is only free to make because of the fights of the feminists before her, whom she so blithely targets as responsible for men’s alleged retreat from marriage.
Of course, the truth is that for those who distort feminism to automatically infer a rejection of feminitity, there is only one opinion, and that is the “right” opinion, which just so happens to coincide with the patriarchs’ opinion, and thus the ride is much less bumpy for those women. It’s always easier to sell the plantation owner’s point of view in the name of “freedom”.
There are issues with modern day marriage, but the answer isn’t to go back to what was not working before or imagine that if women will only live in service of the alleged male ego all will be well. A more enlightened view might treat both men and women as equally responsible for their behavior toward their “loved” one and would not be so afraid to hear the voices of women from the trenches.
Were the Right serious about their old-fashioned ideals of masculinity, they would show it with a dedication to cherishing and protecting women and children. We have yet to see that in action. Instead, all we get is more blaming women for not being feminine enough, and thus righteously incurring the wrath or rejection of the all important marriage material. And the Right wonders why they aren’t appealing to more women.
Related Posts :
Poor Rush Limbaugh, he doesn't know where men fit anymore since feminism ruined everything for men. He's ...
"If women be educated for dependence; that is, to act according to the will of another fallible being, and s ...
Rush started off by announcing that half of his brain was behind his back (yikes), and then he began moc ...
Small government, conservative Maria Ciano kicked some serious Republican bottom tonight at the Democrat ...
Today, in response to a caller asking about the "slippery slope of gay marriage," Glenn Beck claimed that ga ...
54 Responses to Fox News Distorts Feminism in Order to Blame Women for Men’s Retreat from Marriage
Johnee
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
You had me agreeing with everything until “if men are the caretakers she claims they are, then they would be holding their kind to those values and making it socially unacceptable to abuse women”. Whoa! Whoa! Back up. WTF? If that was directed at the GOP then I agree. But to most men? Hell no! For most men, It IS socially unacceptable to abuse women.
Plus, I don’t know what “my kind” means. I hold HUMANS to certain values…not because of what’s between their legs. And this, as we all know is a true egalitarian feminist value.
Reynardine
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
In general, I agree with you, Johnee: most men don’t approve of it. But it’s possible to get quite another impression from the Limbaughs, Becks, Hannitys, Republican reactionaries, and MRA’s, and these make more noise than the ordinary, decent men we work, play, and live with, and their noisemaking sometimes makes too much of an impression on the impressionable. So to guys like you, I say: make noise back.
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 10:36 am
Thanks for the kind words Rey.
Extremists always scream the loudest. One of the best ways to “make noise back” is by actions, like being a good father to my children and a good husband to my wife; setting an example so to speak.
Sarah Jones
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Yes, by “their kind to those values ” I was referring to their kind/ values, the Republican party, not all men. I followed it up with “Fox News’ Party (GOP) isn’t working too hard on those issues – in fact, they are still refusing to pass the Violence Against Women Act.”
I may have lost you in embracing their idea of masculinity in order to make my point — they say men are the caretakers and yet they do not advance this notion in any way other than supporting financial dependence upon men. My point is that a real caretaker – as presented by them – would not abuse women or starve children, yet their policies do not embrace the safety and security of women and children. So this promise of theirs (that women will be taken care of if they just give in) is a failure as proven by their own policies.
Fox News alone denigrates women and the men denigrate their own wives and families often enough to prove that they don’t cherish women they way they claim to when they try to sell subjugation as salvation.
Johnee
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
No worries. As you see, that’s why I tried to put a disclaimer in. Sometimes my Syrian scrappiness gets the better of me. Plus I juuust luvs me a debate sometimes. Lol Cheers.
RMuse
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Regardless of party, there is a mindset that contributes to “abuse” of women. It may be hard to accept, but there are more men than not who still DO NOT see, think of, or treat women as equals, that is abusive, and the product of the whole “women are the lesser vessel” ideology.
If women were treated as equals, half the Senate and House would be women, and women would not be paid less than men, or pay more for healthcare than a man. You don’t have to be a feminist to see the abuse, just observant. Carry on Sarah, and don’t qualify your contention; it’s spot on.
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Your last paragraph is an over simplification and a broad leap. Most of us want to see women doing just as well as men professionally. Sorry, but it IS a very vocal and ignorant minority like the GOP.
There are a lot of factors involved in this. Numbers in professions don’t just immediately come out as equal regardless of what most people may want to see. The fact that there is a consistent and growing number of women in all these ventures is a far better indicator of growth.
There is far more complexity in all this. For example, there are equal if not slightly greater numbers of women in medical school; women doctors are gaining a rep as some of the best and most sought after physicians out there. How can this be true if your scenario is that simple?
Also, a lot of this depends on women’s career choices. Men far out number women in high risk public and private jobs even though many of these positions are now open to women. Women are not applying for these jobs in large numbers, therefore one cannot claim there is a systematic shut out of women on these jobs.
Plus, I’m willing to bet that Hilary would be the first woman president if nominated, and get as high numbers among men as any male before her.
All this does not in any way diminish women’s issues or anything Sarah talked about above.
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Oh BTW, to add another factor, if I didn’t make it clear enough in my other posts there still is a systematic form of patriarchy that is still hanging on; one that contributes to a lot of this crap as well.
Reynardine
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Actually, you have addressed the issue of this Judith Iscariot with far more equanimity than I could ever muster.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
In other words men are afraid their wee wee’s wont make the ladies happy. Therefor you women must fake it.
Instead of telling women to surrender, she should be telling men to man up.
Basically this women is saying that men have the right to be predators and its all womens fault. Screw that.
Dan
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
LOL at the wee-wee thing. I’ve noticed that while men accuse women of penis envy, I’ve never actually encountered a woman who had it — but LOTS and LOTS of men suffer from it. In fact, I’d say based on personal anecdotal evidence that most men suffer from it to some degree, and some men are obsessed by it. That whole virginity thang (want to marry a girl who is “pure”) is, IMHO, largely based on the fear that a bigger man may have been there before, and hubby’s wee-wee won’t be as impressive by comparison.
“The premise is a fail because the bad news is that some of us don’t want or need to get the man – not that man, anyway. Not the man Venker is selling – the one who can’t feel like a man unless his woman is dependent upon him.”
BRAVO! Well said, Sarah. The man who cannot feel like a man unless his woman is dependent upon him is an insecure man, and bullies are insecure, too, so it should not surprise that insecure husbands are also bullies.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
I can give you another one.
Men and women are not genetically disposed to being one person relationships forever. Humanity did not burst forth based on one sexual partner. It was based on proclivity. The divorce rate shows that.
Why do men and women get upset when they find out their partner is cheating? Besides the feeling of betrayal the greater feeling is that the partner has found someone better than yourself. Either mentally, physically or sexually
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Well said. Love – as far as an action – in the long run becomes a matter of choice (i.e. I am going to make a choice to be faithful to this person).
Too many adults live in a fairy tale dream land that consists of “love at first sight”. The so-called “thunderbolt” that one experiences ( heart pounding, can’t sleep or eat ) is a normal process that does not last forever….yet they EXPECT IT TO!
These folks live in denial that they ARE going to eventually meet other people that they are attracted to. Maybe if they accepted this, more relationships would last.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Uh… I’ve talked with men who married a woman, who told them they weren’t “good enough” (so to speak) after the nuptial night. Three or four since my wife and I’ve been married (29 years).
It happens.
(A couple of those marriages ended up in divorce.)
It was a very painful thing for them to experience and to relate.
As for me, if something happened to my wife (Heaven forbid), I would want to meet a woman who would explore sexuality TOGETHER, and I don’t want to be compared to anyone else. If I’m deficient (so to speak), I don’t want to have my nose rubbed in it.
Dan
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
First, there is such a thing as tact. The way you relate the anecdote, or perhaps from the point of view of the men who told you their stories, it sounds like they were untactfully criticized. In other words, they were treated rudely and disrespectfully. If that was the case, they were probably better off getting divorced from a person who would do that.
On the other hand, and human nature being the self-serving thing it is, consider the possibility that what your male buddy communicated to you may not have been the whole truth, or accurate. Perhaps he is (to put it bluntly) a bad lover. No skill. No interest in pleasing his partner. The poor woman may have tried very diligently to find kind words to express this, but all in vain, because her overly-sensitive penis-envy-obsessed husband totally freaked out at the mere mention of the possibility that maybe — just MAYBE — there were things he could do so that more than just one of them achieved an orgasm.
Just saying. It might be the case.
Unfortunately for women, there is not enough diplomacy in the world to communicate such a message to certain types of men.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Maybe just one might have fit your description. The other two or three… remembering them, I believe them.
The two marriages that ended in divorce – in one case I remember meeting the ex (it was before I’d met my wife and was still in the Assemblies of God), and she openly made fun of her ex-husband and his sexuality/sensuality. They’d been divorced for only a short while (I don’t remember how long but it wasn’t that long) and she was already “Looking”. Her attitude and words put a chill on the single men in her vicinity, although she was so picky that I think she didn’t care. (A non-rich single guy like me at the time, especially as ugly as I am, well, she only showed contempt towards me if she even acknowledged my existence.)
That would explain why some men want a virgin for a bride. (Yeah, some forget the corollary, that maybe they shouldn’t expect of others what they can’t expect of themselves.)
Oh, yeah… I should add that the one couple were in an Assemblies of God singles group I belonged to when I was in that cult. I think the ex-wife scared and troubled a lot of single men. There were other women in that group very much like her… it caused some of the men to claim that they were “off” marriage for the rest of their lives. What was interesting was that the group was really open to divorcees, but the church preached against divorce and I’ve already shared the sorts of expectations and rules they put on people about it. I never thought about the rabid hypocrisy until now – but then, some of that period is still hazy in my mind.
Thinking back, some of the other men were like you described, but they never really talked… they were too intent on trying to catch their next girlfriend. Their worldview and mine even then were too radically different.
Johnee
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
She advocates reinforcing rigid gender roles… and yes, this does hurt both men and women on many different levels.
Hell! Pick up the tab if you want to…please!
Reynardine
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
I’ve done it, but never on an equal paycheck.
Wuzzi
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Actually, as someone who spent too long in an abusive marriage, if you are in a conservative enough religion you are told you cannot divorce for abuse (you may leave and never remarry until you are willing to reconcile with your abusive spouse), but you MAY divorce someone who is cheating on you if he refuses to repent when confronted and leaves you of his own volition. If at any time he insists on marriage counseling you must take him back, counsel and remain in the marriage.
You are also told just what this woman is preaching – that men NEED subservience in the woman to be moved to be the loving protector that he is supposed to be. If you are not empowering your man to be that person, it is your fault by your own behavior. Adjust your behavior until your man is the man you want him to be.
It is a very lonely, destructive and difficult existence. It was also a lot more commonly endured a few generations ago – maybe that’s why she’s telling them to ask their grandmothers…
A Walkaway
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
The dominionist (Pentecostal) churches I attended decades ago were far to the right of that.
Once married, you didn’t have a choice – you were stuck in the marriage. Anything else was a sin. Your spouse (if they were an unbeliever) could leave, but you couldn’t.
Adultery was supposedly the only way out, but you had to have proof and if the person resisted, you had to take them back.
You couldn’t even leave if you were in an abusive relationship. That didn’t matter. Even if you were put in the hospital.
It really f*cked up some people’s heads – and the horror stories I’ve heard from women who’d walked (often because of abuse) could make the most scary of horror book writers look like a piker.
Plus, if a single woman was raped and got pregnant, she had to marry the rapist if he wanted it. The preacher-students are taught that a young family is the ideal image to get their first job preaching – and a lot of “marriages” started in rape.
I learned that from some of the walkaways I’ve listened to.
No wonder that many of the dominionist (conservative) churches now have teachings against men and women becoming friends. Can’t have them learning that they aren’t that different once you get past the surface – and that you CAN understand each other when you dump the excess (religious/cultural) baggage!
Johnee
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
You bet it F**** with people’s heads. I honestly don’t know how you came out of it with your sanity and rationality intact.
Wuzzi
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Not sure if you mean me – in my case I marvel that I didn’t become an atheist. My version of Christianity, though, is pretty unrecognizable vs. what my old church taught.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:41 am
I’m not too sure that I’m altogether sane, but at least I’m functional. For a while I really wasn’t.
It’s been about three years now since I regained many of the memories of the *other* three years I spent in the Assemblies of God. Most of them were repressed until a friend related how they caught him (missionary dating/”flirty fishing”) – the same thing they did to me. I walked from those churches over 30 years ago (met my wife 6 months later). She’s been a huge help in trying to recover from the damage, but we aren’t sure that I ever will really fully recover – I’ll probably just have to live with it and try to cope the best I can.
Needless to say, I will never be friendly with those churches again or tolerate their presence.
We’ve spent a LOT of hours listening to people and trying to help them, after they’ve walked and are trying to recover their selves. (Helping others with this battle has helped me – and my wife.) Many are women – and their treatment of women (second class citizen at best) is reprehensible. In fact – a little tidbit: if a walkaway ever says that she was labeled a “Jezebel” by her church, you can almost safely bet that the preacher (or some other leader) raped her as a girl and she tried to get help from within the church – a HUGE mistake. It’s a common story (along with using rape to force young women into an unwanted marriage – by pastor wannabes).
Wuzzi
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 11:12 pm
Actually, my church taught the same. Only if you were left by an unbeliever FOR THEIR adultery were you absolved of “sinning.” Anything else made you a adulteress. If the unbeliever had a change of heart for any reason and asked for marriage counseling after the adultery (regardless of the divorce) and you hadn’t taken advantage of your freedom, you were also required to take them back.
My church went so far as to say that polygamy was not against Biblical law, but that since the US passed laws against polygamy and bigamy men could only have one wife. If that law didn’t exist, the church had no problem with polygyny (polyandry, though, was of course also prohibited, since there was no Biblical statute which discussed it and it was never modeled within the Bible).
Crystal
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
American Taliban
AC
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 12:10 am
I’m a feminist. I love the expressions on some of my bro’s faces when I claim it – even now in 2012. How long lordy how long? It’s well that Sarah uses slavery as examples; they doubtless wailed words to that effect. This has gone on far longer than slavery and I’m African American.
I school the brothers that real men that love real women (wives, daughters, sisters, mothers, friends) have to be feminist now. It’s among the manliest things we can do. My love for my wife says to me that I want her to be the best person she can possibly be, to reach her full potential in this short life. I lose thinking this how?
It’s so sad that in this age an article like this still needs to be written. Think Frederick Douglas.
I won’t even comment on the Refuselicans.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
(Laugh!) We were just reading this last week about archaeological research being done where Frederick Douglass lived in slavery (Wye House). Fascinating topic, especially how they’re trying to balance the interests and views of all of the stakeholders.
I consider myself a rather militant feminist in that I get rather vocal when I hear patronizing language towards women (and strongly oppose patriarchal thinking). I admit that sometimes I slip up – habits ingrained for my entire childhood (i.e. “mankind” instead of humankind – that cost me points on a final exam one time), even though I’d learned I was the descendant of a matriarchal culture. It’s inadvertent, but embarrassing.
Even so, I absolutely reject any “male superiority” or any crap like that.
We’re all people, after all!
BeeEss
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 2:18 am
A woman who can support herself is a happier and pickier woman.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Which isn’t always the best news in the world for those of us through no fault of our own are ugly.
Men are human beings too, with emotions and hopes and dreams.
Sometimes I think both sexes sometimes forget that the other is human.
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Wow! Well said. Even though I’m a handsome devil (Ha. Ha.) I think the one of the last bastions of discrimination are against people because of their physical genetic make up. It is unbelievable how far good looks can get one in life.
This is why it is difficult to oversimplify things simply based on gender ( i.e. 50% of the population is privileged, the other is not). While I agree with you about your solid stand on feminist principles, there are so many factors like race, class, gender, physical disabilities, and yes appearance that work into it.
For example, a poor and physically unattractive male minority perhaps living an a cheap apartment or trailer park does not have a helluva lot of “privilege”.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Add to that having physical limitations, and it multiplies.
Disadvantaged is a bit mild, in fact.
Reynardine
Dec. 9th, 2012 at 9:38 am
Physical attractiveness is not quite the cookie-cutter thing people make it out to be, and I think less so in the case of men than of women, who are more stereotyped by the media. Once you are past the age of wanting what your peers think is cool, the appearance that “attracts” you (if you have any brains at all) is the one that expresses some quality you admire. I am really too old to act on this stuff, but for my part find vitality, intelligence, and kindliness to be attractive.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 9th, 2012 at 9:46 am
The saying your only as old as you feel is BS isnt it lol
Thinking Person
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 4:06 am
Fruitcake Lady!
We did ask our grandparents!
Know what they told us? The men cheated, treated them poorly, expected to do everything for nothing and smile – kinda like you – and they WARNED US, make your own money, become your own woman and don’t NEED a man. Want one.
So, lady, march right back into your mens’ office and tell them, nay, SHOUT at them, ‘you dumb men, what did you do???’
Also, while you’re at it – and while they are at their usual tricks of taking NO responsibility while demanding everyone else does – hey, bright geniuses, in therapy people learn to stop saying YOU do/make/etc but to start with I. ‘I, a man, had total responsibility for how I treated women, how my father, grandfather and those before them, all treated our women, while we stand by and watched or participated or encouraged women being treated like second class citizens and to this day without equal pay try with all my might to promote a system that will ensure I am the breadwinner so she HAS to stay, – so, its no wonder Women don’t feel like being Feminine to such Pigs over thousands of years who never once just did something nice for women – like pay them equal – but instead, men used every trick in the book to appear a victim and now women find men to be a d-cks and don’t want one! I’m so confused!??!.’
Start there with that self-responsibility.
(Please don’t get me wrong, I love men and they love this mind :)
And, really, given how much men whine and blame women for everything, thank you very much, we’ll be taking over governing. I mean, considering that men are poor little victims of such ‘awful’ women, we’ll take over now, get things faired up, and then, talk about how we move forward.
As far as I can tell, all men have to do is have common decency for any woman as they demand for themselves. And, in return, years and years of happy marital bliss with a woman who trusts you bc you’re not a pig or of the pig class.
Compromise.
Crazy…
SinghX
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 7:16 am
Yeah, ask grandma about the “good old days” when grandpa had all the money and gave the house less than it needed so he could have the toys/lifestyle he wanted–oh yes, very prevalent, acceptable “program” in those days. There was no “second car” for grandma…she sat in the passenger seat, pocka’book in lap, hat on head, begging for more grocery money, things for the children…yeah, ask grandma why she pulled her daughters and grand daughters aside, gave them a little money and told them to always have a secret stash for yourself that no one can “discover” (ie the husband) and get an good education because (here it comes again, girls) “No one can take and education away from you”
…if I had a dollar for every time this was said!
I really enjoy how these women on Fox tell other woman to stay home while they work in Manhattan, get picked up in limos for glam-hair/make-up/wardrobe everyday and get a large paycheck which they “earn”. Reminds me of Phyllis Schafly, who used to leave the kids in Podunk, Ill with the maid while she jetted to her law office in San Fran…that takes some balls.
There has to be a special place in hell for women of “their kind”.
SinghX
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 9:17 am
“Women shouldn’t let their success in the workplace become the biggest thing in their lives. If the ultimate goal is lasting love – and let’s face it: for most people it is – women are going to have to become comfortable with sacrifice and capitulation.”
This was said by Carin Tarvin on Fox; she’s Phyllis Schafly’s niece!! I knew this smelled like Schafly dung!
She’s a clone of her aunt. How quaint…
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Thanks! Now I understand a woman I know who although she is in an equal relationship (married to a tribal member), insisted on having her “own money” even though it’s strained the relationship at times (when their bills -joint- were due and no other money was available).
Her husband once complained “My wages are our money, but her wages are HER money!”
She, like my wife, claims to have grown up in a “Beaver Cleaver household”.
It finally makes sense to me!
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 11:31 am
Thinking Person, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if I used broad brushing language on women, the way you did on men (men do this, men do that, men are this) I would be labeled a misogynist…and I wouldn’t be able to back pedal by saying: “Please don’t get me wrong, I love women and they love this mind”.
Here is my point: Your scenarios are just not the same experiences as many of us had that came from hard working (and in many cases non-white) immigrant families. I grew up in a household where both of my parents were FDR, JFK liberal Democrats. My parents were very much in love; as a matter of fact my sister and I would suffer the typical kid embarrassment of mom and dad not keeping their hands off each other…y’know “mooom, daaad, get a room” type stuff. Dad worked his fingers to the bone to support his family and he always respected my mom. Mom was an artist, which is where I get my talent from, and she guided and mentored me. Before you say this is my male perspective, keep in mind my feminist sister says exactly the same thing about her experiences with our family.
My father served his country in 3 wars. He was literally one of the young men that were largely responsible for saving the flippin’ world.
My dad and grandfather were from a time that had a systematic patriarchy that hurt both men and women. As Sarah eluded to, dad had societal pressures of responsibilities and obligations that were foisted on him, which caused a tremendous amount of stress in his life…stress which I am convinced caused his heart attack and eventual death. Mom, while educated and talented, was shut out from a great deal of access to public life and many jobs, because she was a woman. My parents sought to rectify a lot of these injustices in the world by marching and being involved in civil rights.
So before you say that most men like my father were enablers from this time period because they had it on easy street; please think again.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Imagine how all of that looks to someone from a matriarchal culture.
I admit that from what I’ve been told, there were some real problems when the patriarchal whites married men/women from our culture, especially when it was a patriarchal man and a matriarchal woman. Sometimes the marriages worked, sometimes they didn’t. It took a lot of adjustment, and since the whites quickly got the upper hand (through gun control and laws stripping us of rights), usually the adjustment was largely one-sided.
The whites used to make fun of us because often our leaders were women (about 2/3 – and archaeology has backed this up). I’ve observed the recent battles “between the sexes” and attitudes of people like Perino and Venker, and compared that to the attitudes such as I’ve found here. It’s obvious that American culture is evolving.
Now who is laughing?
Chris Anthony
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 8:41 am
Men are retreating from marriage. Not all men, but the numbers are dwindling quite rapidly. Look at some polls. Ask around. Read the internet (I know it’s not sucha good source to some people).
Why it’s happening…well I doubt that’s going to be a pleasant conversation for those concerned.
Some will still do it. Lot’s are saying …no thanks.
Reynardine
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Gee, I suspect they just gave up on finding anyone who’d marry them.
Chris Anthony
Dec. 9th, 2012 at 1:50 am
That could apply to some. A larger percentage never gave up on anything about it, because they never set it out as a goal or a want and rather have always seen it a a legal and financial liability. Also some see it as improbable for the type of sexual lifestyle (read: freedom) they would like to enjoy.
Anne
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 9:42 am
Women on the far right like Dana Perino, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Phyllis Schlafly are too dense to appreciate the irony of advocating a subservient role for women when they have been financially successful in the public arena. Their vision appeals to some people who were children in the 1950′s whose families were actually or apparently stable in that era. There are also people not born at that time who buy into the myths about the Rockwellian domestic lives, or folks who were adults at the time and truly want to turn the clock back. What’s worse is that the 1950′s roles of women were predicated on a truly repressive, rigid view of women that punished those who deviated in any way. Women were valued in terms of their relations to men, not for their own potentials as well-rounded human beings. What these women also fail to appreciate is that the women’s movement was and is a direct response to the repressiveness of society’s views on women. The same movement is responsible for where they find themselves today, whether they admit it or not.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 10:09 am
The more I think about this the more I realize we are being fed a bushel of garbage. Men AND women have been backing away from marriage for a long time. Marriage by numbers has been going down and the reason is the fact that today you can meet people from all over the world in minutes. No longer are people relegated to marrying the girl you porked in the back seat in high school.
People look at the divorce rate from the 60′s to the 90s and decide they dont want that. So they live together. And that is marriage today.
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
LMAO!! “Porked” I never thought I would see that word again. Tell me why the heck is it so damn funny compared to other words that have to do with sex?
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
ROFLMAO!
You ever see an aroused male pig?
It puts a whole new meaning to the word “screwed”.
(My tribe used to raise pigs on the reservation, and we’d barbecue one or two as part of our ceremonial feasts. I’ve helped butcher a few of them.)
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Ooooh yeah. The cork screw. My dad told me about the hilarity that would ensue among the kids in his village in Syria, when the hog would get turned on.
Yeah! Funny visual.
Dan
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Consider the statistics:
1) Life expectancy of single women is LONGER than that of married women.
2) Life expectancy of single men is SHORTER than that of married men.
Clearly, men get the better part of the marriage deal.
Pardon the generalization, but based in statistics, it appears that women can take care of themselves, and they are also good at taking care of others. Men suck at taking care themselves, hence they really do NEED women.
Repeat: Men NEED women. Vice-versa? Not so much.
Quite frankly, without a patriarchal system designed to indoctrinate them from birth in the belief that they “need” a man, would women ever seek marriage (with the male of the species)?
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Dan, I am so glad that you can speak for all of us and say that we “suck” at taking care of ourselves. I would never draw a negative stereotyped conclusion about women based on some isolated stat.
Men also have far higher suicide rates, far higher incarceration, homelessness, and shorter life spans in general compared to women.
Anyone can draw selected conclusions from isolated stats.
We are all human and in this together.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
I could – and did – cook my own meals, run a laundromat (and of course wash, dry, and fold clothes), and everything else long before I was 18 – I was cooking meals by age 10 and ran the family laundromat by myself when my grandma and her husband took vacations by age 15. About the only things I wasn’t good at were making more than simple repairs to clothing, negotiating prices, and keeping a checkbook – and the last I learned rather fast after loosing money to my own stupidity and lack of knowledge.
I could have lived on my own probably by 15, as far as skills. Emotionally – another story altogether.
It’s funny that people assume that men and women aren’t equally good (or bad) at these sorts of things. They’re all skills anyone can learn.
The reduced lifespans – it seems to me that has been changing over the last few decades. I think the more rigid social strictures regarding gender (men never show emotion, etc. etc. etc.) have a lot to do with that. We are, after all, human and just as emotional (and/or logical) as women! You can’t show your emotions – they will come out in other ways. They are, after all, that powerful.
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Exactly right. I get so sick of people missing the point of what we’re supposed to be doing here. It’s all about equality and equal opportunity; not stereotyping ( or bashing) one gender over another.
Simply put, we are as you say, human, and we share the same emotions and can master the same basic skills.
BTW I recall you mentioning how strong some women are. Well let me tell you, my wife is a climber and former gymnast; she also has the genetics of a broad back and shoulders. I was laughing, because we were helping her cousin move a couple weeks ago and all the guys were shaking their heads because my wife was doing the work of two men, hefting furniture and tv sets around. Not that it would ever happen, but I’m being totally serious when I say that I don’t know would come out on top if we ever got into a scrap!
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Uh… there ARE matriarchal cultures in this world, and marriage is as much a cultural constant with them as it is with other cultures.
All cultures have marriage, including those where homosexuality is the norm and marriage only exists for procreation (and I might add in which the hostility between the sexes is very strong).
Sandy Cunningham
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
These wonderful comments by men in defense of women — where are you? I’m still looking at
74. SHCCCC
Inez
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Wow, what a hot subject. I was married to an abusive alcoholic and had 2 beautiful children. I was physicaly abused while carrying my second child. After five years of denigration,lower living standards, and abuse I walked out taking my children with me.When he tried reconciliation I told him NO. That the best thing he gave me was independence. Who needed him? Not me. We made out just fine. His alcohol killed him at 42.