Posted on 01/10/2006 1:49:22 AM PST by nickcarraway
SUSHI DAS discovers 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,
but how many can really be blamed on feminism?
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."
I understand your puzzlement. If I said "I only want to marry a guy between 25 to 38, with at least 5 million in his bank account, erm, a nice bod, fast car and a full housekeeping staff" I'd be called six kinds of shallow and creepy too.
First off, the sister thing is a metaphor (could be just someone she knew). Oh yeah, and while I don't believe in love at first sight, I do know that you 'know' pretty quickly who is for you. You do know if someone is right or just passing fair.
You see yourself as looking for goals. Women see you as looking for a uterus. It isn't just I, but those who've called you out on it. That is what I've meant before when I say men shop for refrigerators...they see a thing that needs replacing.
The common goals, while nice, aren't the reason for a marriage for a woman. I have sincerely NEVER heard a woman say to me "I'm marrying Bob because we have common goals". Hun, I don't even think I've heard a woman use the word outside of a football game.
Yet I hear men using this as a basis for marriage over and over...Yet they wonder why Suzie runs off with Bill the Plumber....maybe because he loved her in SPITE of all his goals. "Choosing" to love someone again, I hear mostly from men. Women either love or they don't. It isn't a choice, it's just there.
If I was thirty, fertile and wanting children, I still wouldn't date you. I would probably run in the opposite direction....because you're only looking for a mother for your kids. I would only date a man who as looking for 'me'. I want to be more than any goal a man has. I want him to be more than any goal I have.
We have to have more value than any goal. Because life's a bitch and most goals are lost in the winds of change. All you've got is one another.
That is the question and the answer. Subtle as it is....you aren't looking for 'her' but what she can give you....like you said, you haven't replaced 'you' (while Michelle replaced 'her' by having your daughter).
In your world, it's OK. But in mine, and others it seems...it is simply creepy. The goal outshines and overcomes and makes the woman secondary to your goal. I know you're for the most part a nice guy. But that is why many find some of your statements disturbing.
No one was attacking women who want to get married and have children. what I was attacking was the little gems written by you in an earlier post, along with that comment by you that women have a shelf life.
Men have shelf lives too. Most 25 to 35 year old women, won't be interested in 45 year old you. And many men in their 40's have fertility problems. Women are hurt by men every bit as much as men are hurt by women. These are all "truths" you seem to enjoy ignoring. You are most selective about the truth, John O. And you deserved to be challenged for those comments you wrote above.
The good men I know and have known, would never have made the comments you made, and thank God are and were FAIR men. YOU are not.
No, he was stating that a woman who stays at home is the v.w.v. There were no disclaimers made.
As one Christian to another, no, no you're not. You're not relying on God at all. You have a laundry list and you expect God to fill it, and quite frankly that's not how God works. God might have a 50 year old woman in the wings for you and no future children, that's up to him. From what I've read, you're not open to God's plans, you're open to God making John's plans come to fruition. Something to think about.
Oh yeah,
The remark about women having a shelf life was,
well,
thoughtlessly cruel.
No one likes being told their only value is in their looks and their 'body'...especially by someone pulling out the God card.
John, feminists aren't interested in what you want or need. They're more interested in telling you what you want or need.
I'll say. John O in earlier posts revealed exactly what he is and has been attempting to backtrack. Nice try but NO cigar, John.
Thank God the traditional people (including my father) who raised this traditional woman taught me to be FAIR to both sexes and not to objective the opposite sex.
Thank you! That's who I meant by Sterile Stella!
Because I do think at the root of all this you're a good guy, I think if anything, what I'd advise you at least consider, because of the flack you've gotten here, is that there is something about the way you describe your plan that rubs a lot of perfectly reasonable women the wrong way. And I do think we are, for the most part, reasonable women.
Can I offer some unsolicited advice, from woman to man trying to find woman?
You don't want to turn off your prospective mate with the same language that's gotten you in trouble here.
First of all, there is nothing wrong with wanting a wife and mother and children. Most people get married to have a family. But something about the way you talk about it makes me (and others too) think of someone selecting a brood mare.
For one... erase the term 'shelf life' from your vocabulary. Never say it again :~D Let her talk about her own desires to have kids, talk over with her the life you hope to lead with her and those kids, see if she treats your own daughter with love and affection, and decide if she is right for you without overstating the importance of her fertile womb, as perhaps you've done here. She will not know if she is fertile unless she's tried it, and you've made it clear on other threads, you don't want anyone who's tried it. You'll have to leave that in God's hands.
Remember that, at the other end of your plan is a woman with a her own hopes and fears.
Actually we'd be pitying those poor fools ma'am.
Well, it seems that many women on FR are doing the same in reverse, sir.
I wouldn't wish American men like you on dogs, either.
But he was only stating the truth......
The common goals, while nice, aren't the reason for a marriage for a woman. I have sincerely NEVER heard a woman say to me "I'm marrying Bob because we have common goals".
So why did she fall in love with Bob? Because they had common interests, common goals, common attractions etc. They wanted the same things oput of life. They were a good fit and there was that spark there to draw them together long enough to find they wanted the same things. Woman may not use 'goals' in their language but they use it in their selection of a mate. Semantics.
Yet they wonder why Suzie runs off with Bill the Plumber....maybe because he loved her in SPITE of all his goals.
or maybe because his goals aligned with her unspoken ones and thus they were able to love each other.
"Choosing" to love someone again, I hear mostly from men. Women either love or they don't. It isn't a choice, it's just there.
Here we'll have to disagree. Infatuation is not a choice, attraction is not a choice, love is a choice. BTW if you can fall into love you can just as easily fall out of love. I want something permanent
Now why do you all grab on her wanting kids being one characteristic of my future wife as me looking only for that? I stated before she has to be Christian, intelligent, attractive to me, attracted to me, etc but you all seem to cling to our joint desire for children as if that's something bad. I'm looking for someone to love and spend the rest of my life with, someone who wants the same things in life that I do, and one of those things is children. Is it wrong to want children?
Can I forward your post to a few folks who swear that FR men don't hate women?
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.