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."
Okay, man-haters are jerks. And woman-haters are jerks. All jerks should be avoided. That was easy.
Then you need to pay a little visit to dictionary.com, or to ANY dictionary:
"mi·sog·y·nist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-sj-nst)
n.
One who hates women.
adj.
Of or characterized by a hatred of women. "
Nothing about feminists, denuciation, or feminism.
For better or worse the "big tent" contains many people who don't subscribe to the planks of the Republican platform championed by the religious right.
And the majority of women who do uphold "conservative family values" are already off the market. Most of the marriageable (and I use that term loosely) women in the US tend to lean left, with all the incumbent baggage. Their own behavior in the singles scene is what brings out the negative attitude seen in some posters. They wouldn't be "disposable" if they didn't put out at the drop of a hat.
...ranting and raging and acting out ~exactly~ the kind of attitude about women he claims to hate about women.But no men here will say 'hey bully - that's not right to talk to her that way!'
I'm responding to comments directed to me. I've not yet read the posts by the Freeper you mentioned. But as I stated several hundred posts ago, just let these guys have a place to vent without adding fuel to the fire. Provoking and taunting just leads to more of the same, as well as more deeply entrenched animosities.
One would think that the "higher angels" of conservative women would direct them away from threads like this instead of y'all wading into the fray with both fists clenched.
But to rage and bully women here because some woman somewhere did them wrong is wrong. And it should be called wrong.
As long as you, with equal vigor, condemn the MSM and daytime / primetime television for unjustly bashing American men, I'll back you on that comment.
But I still don't think any of this is grounds to vilify men seeking foreign brides.
>>"You can't have a conversation with a woman who can
>> never be wrong about anything."
My father, a wise man, told me "You cannot change the mind with logic, that was made up without the use thereof."
A wonderful quote, I tell it to those who are shrill, go on doing what I was doing while they try to figure out what it means :-).
The backlash toward feminism has created men as mean and bitter as the feminists they dispise. And such men cause a lot of hurt and damage to TRADITIONAL women, who don't deserve it. This has been raging for a long time. With those tactics, you'll only create more feminists. And the cycle continues. That is NOT good.
Those who damn themselves don't really need my help to side with everything awful. Anyone with the sense of proportion that stacks a little fire on an internet board against tens of millions of dead innocents and thinks the first outweighs the second, or outweighs tens of millions of broken families and all the accompanying human misery, and not only thinks that but feels all warm and righteous inside for so feeling - I really don't want on my side.
Actually, I know this. I'm not the religious right, although I still uphold values that say it's wrong to just use people with no remorse or responsibility. Maybe that's just me, but I don't think so.
And the majority of women who do uphold "conservative family values" are already off the market. Most of the marriageable (and I use that term loosely) women in the US tend to lean left, with all the incumbent baggage. Their own behavior in the singles scene is what brings out the negative attitude seen in some posters. They wouldn't be "disposable" if they didn't put out at the drop of a hat.
You act like all conservative marriagable women were born on the same day and are all gone, despite the constant births of new daughters every day.
But as I stated several hundred posts ago, just let these guys have a place to vent without adding fuel to the fire. Provoking and taunting just leads to more of the same, as well as more deeply entrenched animosities.
One would think that the "higher angels" of conservative women would direct them away from threads like this instead of y'all wading into the fray with both fists clenched.
Discussions of women, politics and relationships is of particular interest to conservative women, I'd think. And we've had ~good~ discussion about feminism, marriage, and relationships on this thread. It's not all about fists clenched. Those seeking a place to rant and bully are the ones who should be deemed out of place here, not those who are actually interested in discussing these issues with other conservatives.
You're NOT calling a spade a spade. You are falsely painting women on your team as the enemy. Learn to tell the difference.
" Anyone with the sense of proportion that stacks a little fire on an internet board against tens of millions of dead innocents and thinks the first outweighs the second, or outweighs tens of millions of broken families and all the accompanying human misery, and not only thinks that but feels all warm and righteous inside for so feeling - I really don't want on my side."
WHO does that???? Personally, I have been pro-life ALL my life, have at times been active in the movement, and have sacrificed much for the conservative cause. There are MANY PRO-LIFE WOMEN on this forum, many of whom have been ACTIVE in the movement all their lives and who have made many sacrifices for the pro-life cause.
Also, are you defending the proposition that US men are blameworthy for looking to less feminist-ridden cultures, or do you sympathesize with some of them doing so? Because that was one of the positions I actually criticized. Are you defending the statement that this thread gives you a headache and makes you want to just go have some fun, or do you regard that as an attempt to impose feminist PC pieties on conservatives giving their honest opinions?
Why, in other words, do you think those I criticized as so all fired conservative, and that you are somehow advancing the cause of destroying feminism by defending those I've criticized? What solidarity or piety is it that makes the positions I criticize, more laudable than my own, which clearly bothers you for some reason?
John,
One thing that concerns me in all of your posts is that you are considering remarriage when this may not be in the best interest of your daughter. I understand that you want more kids, but why would you do that to your daughter. She would then live in a household with a woman who would treat her own children better than your daughter. Also, your daughter would lose part of you to another woman and these new children.
I personally think you should devote your non-work time to your daughter and not worry about getting remarried until she is grown. Your daughter has already lost her mom, she doesn't need to lose part of you.
I actually started out making more money than my engineer husband. I didn't know this until probably 6 months to a year of our dating. The thing is he went broke taking me on dates and paying for it. I'm real happy I married him. He's a good guy.
Well, a President can and has lost my respect, Clinton.
That was beautiful. You are a real man!
You think this is necessarily true? I don't. I can't imagine showing preferences of one child over another, it's not part of my character, nor that of a loving person. A stepmom can be a vital nurturing parent, particularly in the absence of her real mom. (it's easier than a divorce situation where there is a live, 'real mom' to conflict with)
You know what I saw once on a remarriage that I really thought was a powerfully good idea? Vows, as part of the ceremony, from both bride and groom to the existing children. To love, respect and raise them as their own, indivisible. It was perhaps the most inclusive, committed way I've ever seen of including and acknowledging the children such marriages will affect. It made them feel a part of it. And it brought tears to my eyes it was so touching. So much better than the child sitting in the pews like a mere spectator.
My mother remarried when my brother and I were nearly grown, but her husband, my stepdad, bought a ring for her that had three diamonds on it. One for her, and one for each of her children. It was his wasy of acknowledging that he was marrying us all.
There are ways to make the kids feel a part of things, and acknowledged and cherished when all these big changes happen.
Anyway, JohnO... I bring these up as ideas to file away somewhere, hoping you'll have a wedding to plan someday... they're good ideas.
Well, if stereotypes came out of individual minds, there would be no stereotypes, since everyone would have different opinions. ... And stereotypes can be changed, as circumstances change.
Good comment. I'll give you that. As long as we don't keep our stereotypes beyond their useful life and allow them to harden into bigotry or lazy thinking.
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.