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."
Meeting someone on a website promoting foriegn mail order brides is hardly 'just happening to find someone who happened to be a foreigner'. That is what the poster was talking about. He posted a list of them on his next post.
Some men just happened to be in Korea, Saudi, Japan, the Ukraine, etc etc, and happen to meet someone who they later married. That's all fine and dandy. However, let's be abosolutely clear: Those who went shopping for foriegn brides via the internet and mail order services are just a bunch of losers who weren't finding dates in the good ol' USA. Maybe with the occasional misogynist who wants a doormat for a wife tossed in for good measure.
Exactly what I was talking about. Sites that prey on the lonely. Life's losers who are unable to attract the girl next door are driven to those sites in the hopes that a little American cash, and a whole lot of foriegn poverty can do for them what their looks and personalities could never do for them at home.
As long as the free market solves the problem, I'm a happy chap.
Hey! You have to give Rush credit when you quote that. It's FRlaw.
I can't tell you how wrong you are. My wife was 30 when we married, and the last 15 years have simply rocked. Shelf life my ass.
That does happen. My wife's father was an American serviceman who met and married a German woman under exactly those circumstances. That's a far cry from searching Ukranian brides from your living room because you lack the ability to attract American women.
Hey, she's kinda cute!!
Yes she is. I'd do her.
(men are such pigs)
Yes we are!
;^)
I guess it depends on how you define "solves the problem". I happen to think they are chasing a dream. A dream that they can still have some imagined traditional marriage where men ruled the home and women were obedient concubines. And they find women on those sites who think they will be better off with these men in America than they would be with similar men in their own culture.
But make no mistake. Those women don't want what American men have. They want what American ~women~ have.
End of story.
That said, there are definitional issues that this particular author may be too young to recognize, specifically the difference between equal rights, "feminism," and "women's liberation." This is not an issue that ever was restricted to half the population - women got the vote through the cooperation of the men who had it, some of whom took a considerable political risk in doing so. It was a far less adversarial movement than latter-day feminists like to pretend.
What happened? It was deliberately soured by political activists who insisted on casting the issue in the Marxian modality of an oppressed class and a violent and adversarial liberation of that class in a zero-sum game in which rights are not granted to all but taken one from the other. Conflict is inherent in this model and necessary to it.
And like all Marxian movements it produced a privileged sub-class - a "cadre" - that is a minority of the overall population that has a vested interest in maintaining the conflict and embittering the opponents. These are agitators, professional "feminists" who populate the HR departments, the Women's Studies schools, the popular literary culture. They do not want peace between the sexes any more than a race hustler wants peace between black and white. It doesn't suit their interests.
It's an entirely artificial conflict but it's a bugger to stop now that it is proliferated by unjust law, unrealistic expectations of "gender"-blind performance, and a bitter, vengeful minority that is gleefully acting the oppressor because its members have convinced themselves that that is what was done to them and that retribution is in order. Peace will not be possible with those women - it's the last thing they want.
I think you misconceived what "shelf life" meant in that context.
What John O means by "shelf life" is that women have an age range during which their marriageability peaks; after that, their marriageability declines (cf. the proportion of first marriages of women over 35 - hardly any). Men don't have that peak; more like a shallow rise which plateaus in their early to mid 30s and declines in their, I don't know, say late 40s I guess, provided they are financially secure and generally non-repulsive.
I'm failing to see the significance of the grandparent thing. My parents were both in their 40's when I was born. The lack of grandparents in my life hasn't had much of an effect on me either way.
;^)
Oh come on. ~People~ lie. And there are people of both sexes that are both good, and bad. To paint one sex as having a 'lock' on decency or lack of it is the EXACT gripe men rightfully have over the modern feminist movement. You're attitude is exactly what men hate about Maureen Dowd, and no more right when you do it.
If this were particularly true, then you'd see foreign men marrying American women, doing the same thing - but we don't, the majority of American-foreign marriages have an American man and a foreign woman.
I just don't see any particularly compelling reason for your premise to be true, or any more true than for domestic women.
There is no compelling reason for American women to seek out 'foreign men' as a class. Beyond the sex appeal of certain foreign accents, there isn't anything foreign men have that can't be found here. It's a 'buyer' driven market.
I just don't see any particularly compelling reason for your premise to be true, or any more true than for domestic women.
Which premise?
Well... that's tantamount to saying that any American woman can find a good husband domestically, ergo, she doesn't need to look overseas. Free markets and all that.
That American men do look overseas for wives tells me what I need to know from a market perspective, and what it doesn't tell me is that American men who look for foreign brides are losers - there's no way of imputing that from market conditions. Rather, it's a commentary on the domestic situation.
Which premise?
The premise that foreign women predominantly marry American men, who incidentally happen to be losers, in order to get their hands on "what American women have". There is no empirical support for that premise, apart from a bunch of nasty stereotypes.
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.