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."
Are you white, Jason? Do you think it's fair to make you decry racism and beg for mercy each and every time you meet a minority? Or do you just want to treat people fairly and stop being blamed for the actions of others?
I don't apologize for the existance of liberals. I'm not one.
I think there have been some shrill liberal attitudes, some radical ideas I don't condone have come to pass. That's why I'm on a conservative forum. Life's politics. Politics is about convincing other people that you're right.
All I know about you is that you're really angry at women. You're convincing no one that conservatism is a better way.
What paralyzes us is not convincing a few marginal people who've never given it any serious thought, and just go by what sounds enlightened when some pollster asks them a question. It is instead our own (as conservatives) lack of comprehension of the full impact, the full scale of the thing, and its monstrosity. Faced with a gulag, one's responsibility is not to debate the finer points of social democratic theory as applied in Sweden with a marginally open-minded liberal. It is to grasp the moral enormity of it, face its human reality, and start to actually think about what can be done.
I see zero sign this has yet happened with modern feminism. People are at the stage where they were barely willing to admit that maybe higher government spending didn't instantly end the great depression, when the pit of the Ukraine is right in front of them.
Can no one stand to face what we've done to our children in the past 45 years?
Jason, with all due respect (and I don't have cuase to give you a lot) you're rambling and I'm no longer interested.
Feminism helped destroy the family. The destruction of the family has resulted in untold human misery over the last 45 years. It attacked the family for allegedly interfering with women's self fufillment, and taught women to selfishly put themselves before their duties to others - any kind of duties to others. It taught a monstrous ingraditude to the most pampered people in human history. It deliberately inserted Stalinist brainwashing between individuals who otherwised loved each other, prefering political polarization to human happiness. It wrecked homes, it impoverished women, it deliberately sought to deprive innocent children of fathers it ideologically hated, without any say in the matter themselves. It was wildly successful at all of the above, as deferential men got out of the way of strident political activists overflowing with hatred. It wrecked half of the academy, perverting real standards and replacing them with identity politics agitprop.
If you don't know what feminism has done to modern civilization, some of us do. And do not consider it a light and breezy subject. I'm rambling because you are simply in denial about what it was, where it came from, and what it did.
I think most of us agree that feminism has wrecked families and done a lot of damage to our society.
However, you have lumped all women into that group. Some of us do not belong, and we still deserve respect. You have not given us any.
(on rspect being positional)
Read the bible. God's pretty clear on respecting your father.
The rest of your post came across pretty meaningless. What are you trying to say. (But then it's late for me. I'll try it again in the morning)
I'm in complete agreement with you and I am female.
Modern (I'm not talking Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, et al., here) Feminism has done enormous, persistent harm to this country. No question.
Sadly, when men on this forum suggest that modern Feminist dogma has harmed this country in any way they are pounced upon by a particularly garrulous narcissist with way too much free time and her little claque of like-minded cronies. You will never win an argument with these women. They will never concede a significant point by virtue of your sex. You are male, ergo you are wrong, evil, hate women and must be silenced. But first, of course, you must be ridiculed.
I suggest you abandon the threads on which they and their neurotic diatribes appear on the (yes, iffy) theory that if you ignore them, they'll scurry elsewhere.
One of the difficulties that my wife and I had was in this exact area. As I told her, I am a man and an engineer (and yes the engineering training does change you) I don't do subtlety well at all. If you need to tell me something be blatantly obvious or I'll usually miss the real point.
This can be most infuriating for both sides. She'd say something like "I don't want to go out tonight" meaning "I don't want to go to the place you were talking about going to tonight" So we'd stay in. And she'd get upset. "But you told me you didn't want to go out!" We had a few fights over this before we learned each other well enough for her to be blatant and for me to keep digging for the truth
see 513. You're behind the discussion.
She brought it up. She has already decided that she will be the flower girl and is so excited about being a big sister. One of the characteristics that I have on my request to God is that she loves Autumn as her own child. I couldn't marry her if she didn't
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 will address this part in a later post. Please read to the end in case I miss pinging you
Yes but the office of the presidency was still worthy of respect even if the occupant was not.
Please read HairoftheDogs post. She has had personal experience with this, and so she has a lot more knowledge than I do.
It seems she had a very great experience with her step-dad, and if you do get remarried I wish the same with your daughter.
I'll take personal experience in the matter over anyones opinion, so disregard what I said.
Consider it stolen and filed. Awesome idea. (Andie help me remember please)
A very good friend of Michele and I lost his wife about two (maybe three) years ago. He ended up remarrying a widow. The first part of the service was a rememberance of the first marriages. The candles normally lit by the parents were lit by the children in place of the deceased spouses. It was phenomenally beautiful.
The unity candle would be a nice subtle way to include them also.
Oh - and good night... my husband and I are trying to pull ourselves away from these screens and have some good couch time.
Enjoyed talking to you :~D
OK JasonC. How do we roll back feminism. Throughthis whol ethread you've been bitching and moaning about the "pieties of feminism" (which BTW you should define once in a while as I haven't a clue what you are addressing) but have said scant about fixing things. So here's your chance. Fix it. (and stop beating up on people. At least in my discussion I was discussion and not just calling names. For crying out loud man you read like a monty python sketch)
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.