Raising the volume on what men think about feminism

'FEMINISM has turned women into selfish, spoiled, spiteful, powerless victims," shrieked the email. "Men are talking, can't you hear it? Marriage rates are down, birthrates are down, men are using women for their pleasure and then leaving them."

If it was only one of a handful of emails I received, I might not have given it much thought. But there were many more. "I do not think it's men or boys that need reforming. I think women are the main instigators of hate against one half of the population," wrote another man.

Then there was this: "I have healthy relationships with women and always have protected sex to avoid entrapment … why should I risk losing everything I own and having my children taken away from me?"

And this: "The modern guy is not looking for the 'services' past generations did, they often just want a nice person to share their life with, rather than someone who is going to be climbing corporate ladders, getting pregnant when she chooses and then assuming complete control of a child's life. That is not to say they are not supportive of women's careers and goals."

The emails were a response to a challenge I posed to men on this page a couple of weeks ago. Specifically, I asked them to engage in debates relating to "feminist issues" and show they understood that equality, women's rights, the work/life imbalance, the declining birthrate, sexual politics and relationships generally are important to everybody, not just women.

I received, a tsunami of emails. Many were considered arguments. A significant number were the bitter outpourings of men hurt by women. Some elucidated the frustrations of men who couldn't find Ms Right. Sadly, many were simply vitriolic or abusive.

In the hundreds of emails, anger appeared to be the underlying emotion because the writers believed the pendulum had swung too far in favour of women. There were some common threads: men were angry that women's needs took priority over theirs; they felt men constituted the majority of the unemployed, the homeless, the victims of industrial accidents and suicides, that men's health received less funding than women's, and that boys' education was poor. In relationships, they felt some women were "not very nice to men" and were often too selfish to consider their needs. These concerns are real,

Essentially, men raised three broad concerns over why they did not engage in the debate on feminist issues. First, they were scared of being howled down by aggressive feminists who dismissed their views. Second, they felt they were victims too, but women didn't listen to them. Third, they were confused about what women really wanted and what constituted appropriate behaviour.

On the first issue, I agree, some women are dismissive of men's views simply because they are men. Men who speak out, wrote one man, are "smashed upon the rocks of indignation" and this made it "a very, very scary debate to engage with". Another said: "Opting out of an argument in which we cannot hope to be allowed an equal voice let alone a fair outcome is a perfectly rational response."

My response? Get over it. If you're a man and you have an opinion, speak out. Put your case. It will stand or fall on its merit. Stop being scared. There are plenty of women willing to listen. And if you get howled down, get up and say it again. That's how women got their voices heard in the 1970s.

On the issue of men as victims, some argued women too are violent, that men have few rights on abortion, that female teachers get off more lightly when they sexually abuse male students, that men are vilified as pedophiles, that affirmative action is discriminatory, that women frequently win the custody battle. Clearly these concerns require attention. Perhaps it is governments that are not listening to men, rather than women.

Finally, some men were unsure of their role in society. This is complex, and women must recognise this. But men should also let common decency be their guide to appropriate behaviour. Being a decent human being shouldn't be that hard.

Equality is a prerequisite for development. When the shouting from our respective corners is over, perhaps resentment from both sides will melt.

Many emails I received were a cry from the heart from men. But it's not just about women listening to their words, it's about men taking action to improve their own lives. This means speaking out, whatever the consequences — engaging in the debate on equality or feminism or whatever it is called these days.

With that in mind, I'll leave the last words to a man: "Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We need to speak though. We do not want our daughters growing up stunted by arguments or situations that could have been campaigned away. Equally, our sons require education. But how do we do this with integrity? That's the challenge for all involved."

but how many [concerns] can really be blamed on feminism?

(Sorry this reply is so long… I got on a roll.)

The problems with “feminism” all fall into only two categories: societal and personal. Let’s cursorily examine some of these “problems.” Please bear in mind that comments below are “generalizations,” meaning that singularities and exceptions have always existed, and will always continue to do so. Nonetheless, on the basis of overwhelming percentages, I think the generalizations stand.

The first responsibility of any human society is to maintain a self-perpetuating order, otherwise it ceases to exist. Exactly what that order is/was and how rigidly it is/was maintained varies from one society to another. Nonetheless, until the industrial revolution, and in particular, about 40-60 years ago, certain consistencies generally existed in order from one society to another. Because the industrial revolution has occurred rather late in the human journey on this planet, a persuasive argument (whether true, or not) could be made that the societal “sex” roles (one of the general consistencies) in any human society have been genetically predisposed or, even, encoded, by evolution.

In nearly all, human, societal orders, certain consistencies existed in the general relationship between the sexes and the maintenance/protection of the family unit. These societal order tenants on the relationship between the sexes rested, in no small part, on the physiological differences between the sexes and, perhaps, to a lesser degree, on generalized psychological differences. For similar rationale but different distinct reasons, the societal order tenants concerning the human family unit also rested on the physiological and psychological differences between the sexes as well as the requirements for child rearing.

It is an undeniable fact that men, on average, are taller, stronger and have more physical endurance than women. Consequently, the societal duties that demanded, or benefited more from, these physical characteristics were generally assigned to men. As an example, the duties of community defense and hunting large animals for both food and defense fell to men because physiology better suited them for the tasks. Again, a persuasive argument (whether true, or not) could be made that these societal “sex” roles for men have been genetically encoded, or at least, enhanced, by evolution.

It is also an undeniable fact that only women become pregnant or have the capacity to suckle infants. Because the production of infants, their maturation and successful incorporation into society is essential to the perpetuation of a society, any society must give deference to restricting women from societal duties which interfere with the successful production of new members of the society. Consequently, women generally are/were assigned societal duties that allow for extended duty absences for child bearing and rearing. Additionally, women, generally, were restricted from societal duties that required extended physical absences from the family unit. Further, societies, in general, restricted women from societal duties which potentially created psychological conflicts between their roles as mothers and dispassionately dispensing/controlling societal order. Among these duty restrictions, generally, was a restriction from physical enforcement of societal edicts on its members (benefited by physical strength as well as relative indifference to emotional imperatives). Yet again, a persuasive argument (whether true, or not) could be made that these societal “sex” roles for women have been genetically encoded, or at least, enhanced, by evolution.

Some might say all of the previous comments on societal “sex” roles are rather self-evident and, thus, sophomoric. Perhaps this criticism is valid except when a conflict develops between a society’s tenants of order and these roles. Such is the case with the Western societal tenant of “individual freedom” and the restrictions on women for the general benefit of society.

The genesis of “feminism,” in a philosophical sense, is rooted in this conflict. Regardless of philosophy, until the advent of the industrial revolution, the physical demands of food production, defense, child rearing, etc., generally kept this philosophical conflict from rising to the fore on purely practical grounds. Additionally, prior to the industrial revolution, the conflict was philosophically resolved by assigning women a different citizenship status in society, one that was simultaneously restricted in some senses and privileged in others. However, the industrial revolution coupled with a development that occurred about 4 decades ago, changed the ground rules.

The industrial revolution lessened the requirements for physical strength, size and endurance in providing for, and, to some degree, defending, Western societies, particularly within the last half century. Additionally, the development of reliable contraception, forty years, or so, ago released women (at least partially) from the biological consequences of the imperative for reproduction. These two factors (among others, perhaps, to lesser degrees) drove the initial rise of the feminist movement.

The original grievance that drove the modern feminism of the last half century was “equal pay for equal work.” On its face, in an impartial justice sense, this grievance is impossible to deny. However, a situation where men and women had engaged in the same work before, and, even, during, the industrial revolution on a large scale basis had seldom been the case prior to World War II. Prior to the Second World War, the privileged/restricted status of women had either prevented or restricted women from working in the same career areas as men. In many cases, pregnancy and child rearing (which inevitably occurred) were imperiled or threatened by these career areas. Alternately, pregnancy and/or child rearing required a woman’s extended absence from the job, thus hampering the work accomplishment especially where success was skill development and experience dependent. Consequently, there was little “societal uproar” over compensating women, in general, less for the same work as a measure of “institutionalized” discouragement against assuming non-traditional societal “sex” roles regardless of the individual “justice” of the situation. However, the industrial output demands of World War Two changed the situation dramatically.

Another factor mitigating for the “rise of feminism” from a societal perspective was the population size of Western societies in the last century. Seemingly, the population had reached a level where society’s continuation through internal “production” of new citizens appeared assured. This situation seemed certain even if a significant portion of its “capital assets” (women) were diverted from child production and rearing duties. Couple this apparent situation with contraception’s ability to give a woman an almost absolute control over pregnancy occurrence/timing and it would appear that barriers to women in the work place were not only unjust from an individual perspective, but also from a societal perspective, as well. Q.E.D. the feminist movement justified its existence and accelerated.

The feminist movement has successfully (dependent upon whose starting premises and statistics are used) eliminated pay differentials between the sexes for “equal work.” Additionally, the movement has opened a number of career areas previously closed to women on the basis of old, societal order restrictions. On the surface, where the career area was/is dependent primarily upon mental efforts and skill, there can hardly be an argument that such a development was not “just” or was harmful to society. In deed, the argument can be made that such a development is a triumph for the “societal” value of “individual freedom.” Militant feminist, emboldened by these successes have pressed for more career areas to be “gender neutral.” However, militant feminists have pushed beyond the situation where occupation limits to female entry were seemingly arbitrary. These militant feminists are currently attempting to get society to accept decreased effectiveness or increased risk in certain career areas purely to admit or retain women. Additionally, still haunting the issue is the question of whether a continuation of such developments is “good” for society, or is truly “just.”

Among the arguments that can be made for feminist trends not being “good” for society is that society-sustaining, population growth has become negative. In Western European countries, the population growth rates among native-born citizens are already below “replacement” rate, i.e., not enough new, native-born citizens are being generated to perpetuate Western European societies. Western European countries are “generating” enough new citizens only through immigration. The detriment of this method is that these immigrants are failing, in a great many cases, to adopt the societal values of their new home countries, i.e., those societies are not being “perpetuated.” In the US, population statistics show that the “replacement rate” of internally-generated, new citizens is barely being maintained (some statistics show a decline). Additionally, in both the US and Western Europe, there appears to be an acceleration of societal order disruption compared to the first half of the last century, e.g., increased prison populations, increased (high) illegitimacy rates, increased (high) divorce rates, increased rioting, less civil/polite public behavior, increased demands that long-standing, societal norms (unrelated to feminism) be dropped or modified, etc.

Additionally there are arguments that can be made that current feminist trends are not “just” for individuals. The fact that “affirmative action programs” have no defined or apparent end is logical proof of such injustice to an individual not a beneficiary of such a program. On its face, “affirmative action” cannot be logically justified for a period beyond a single generation, if that long. Furthermore, the fact that militant feminists demand that requirement-justified and objectively verifiable, physical standards for some jobs be lowered or eliminated is another indication that their goal is no longer “individual equality of opportunity.” Rather, their goal seems to be something else, altogether an anathema to “individual freedom” and merit based achievement.

These facts are, perhaps, a basis for the reason a number of women are grossly “unhappy’ feminists and a number of men are “jerks” in Western societies. Militant feminists and their willing accomplices in the media, legal profession and government have created a situation in Western society where traditional societal “sex” roles are under assault and, if given their way, demolition. Unfortunately, such a diminution or destruction of these traditional, societal “sex” roles ignores thousands of years of development in human society, as well as, perhaps, even, evolution-driven, human genetic coding.

In summary, the line from an old margarine commercial comes to mind when considering these issues: “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” In deed, the consequences appear as though “fooling with Mother Nature” in altering traditional, societal “sex” roles too far may be catastrophic for Western society.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.