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 have denounced feminism as an ideology, and I have decried how far modern American women have gone falling for it, as a rule. Those deliberately taking offense over it were self identifying with what I was attacking.
I'm glad you agree that feminism has done damage.
How do we roll it back? First and foremost by my wish list above, about acknowledge its past effects and our part in them. Making our amends and facing the damage. Then by deciding our duties to others come first, self fufillment dreams last. Then there are a whole mess of institutions we have to change. First of all, Roe needs to be overturned and the issue returned to the states and democratic control where it belongs.
Feminist crapola has to be rooted out of the academy. PC nonsense in companies and the media, with their whole apparatus of re-education seminars and lawsuits, need to be abolished. People raising their children need to be applauded, and those avoiding doing so looked down upon. The institutionalization of American kids needs to be rolled back weekly hour by weekly hour. The medical control of male behavior in children needs to be reversed. Kids need to be freed from an indoctrinated and indoctrinating public school teaching establishment. Etc, etc.
When you are serious about facing the damage and trying to undo it, lots of the steps are obvious. The ideologues of feminism have to be faced directly, confronted with their fallout, called on the carpet over it, and run out of town. It won't be any easier than rolling back environmental wackos, or any other once popular but destructive movement sponsored by the left.
Thank you...
As I said in 513 (or a later post to Najida) I know it hurts but don't understand why. I just spent 2 hours on the phone with Andie74 discussion this discussion among other things.
Here is what I think I understand in sweeping generalities:
A woman's self image/self worth is intricately and in many cases inextricably bound up in her ability to bear children. So much so that even menopause causes a mourning (in some women) that their life is over, or at least that that very central part of their life is over. When I used the term SL (told HOTD I wouldn't use it) It brought out a painful reminder that these years are fleeting (or past) which was a direct hit to your self image/self worth or to that of women in general. Coupled of course with najida's kitchen related explanation that somethng past it's sl has no value and is trashed, it came across as a callous discarding of everyone who was not able to bear children
If I have this right I didn't understand this previously at all. To a guy it's just a fact that has no life changing significance. It just is. But to a woman it's bound into the very core of her being. Even a woman who has already had all the children she wants, or who never really wanted children is just as affected as those who couldn't have children at all. Which would kind of explain the biological clock in those women who've chosen career over family.
Is this somewhat close?
Now onto my side. I took a lot of heat on this and prior threads for wanting children. So I explained it to Andie. She was flabbergasted, she never looked at it this way.
Again, in sweeping generalities and exceptions (I am sure) do exist:
Having an heir is the sum total of life success for some men (a majority in my experience). After we are gone nothing will be left except that our name lives on in our sons. As the last of my line if I were to quit now my life would be an almost total failure. I would have failed to do my duty to preserve my name on the earth. While I have a wonderful daughter who is precious to me, she will not preserve my name. She will end up preserving someone else's heritage not mine.
Thousands of years of living in a partriarchy has almost genetically programmed me to seek to preserve my name. Especially as I am the last of my line.
So I have the incredible desire for an heir. And I will not be able to see myself as successful in life until I get one or at least try my best.
Note that should God give me five girls instead of 4 girls and a son or more sons then I'll just have to say it's God's will that I have daughters and be happy that I tried (after a suitable mourning period for the son that never was that is). God makes the final determination anyway. But to stop now before even trying while I am still capable would be a huge derelection of duty. I could never look at myself with respect again. Just as the ability to bear children seems to be bound into the definition of being a woman having a son is bound into the definition of being a man.
I can't speak for those who are unable to father children But I would guess that part of the mourning is for the son that never would be.
It's late and this is very sloppily written but does it make sense to you all now?
best post you've made on the thread. Thank you. I agree with all your points. See that wasn't so hard :^)
John, it makes sense. I understand, and I wish you the best :~D
This will lead us far afield from the topic of the thread. But aside from the bible there is no morality. If there is no God then there is no one to say what is, or is not moral. If there is a God then the bible is the only text authoritative enough to show us who God is.
John, you are mistaken if you think this is a discussion.
That seems totally reasonable.
You can't reason a person out of a belief he didn't reason himself into.
The second line was a reference to evil teachings in the Koran. A Muslim had better not do something just because his holy book tells him to, when the principle of the action being urged on him may be evil - and often is, in his case.
The broader point I was making is that morality stands in judgment over theological traditions, and tells us which of them is worthy of respect. Not the other way around. We know morality first. With it we can tell some traditions are worth our respect, and reject others. Those traditions might inform our moral sense. They are not it origin, and our original moral sense is superior to them.
(I can defend this doctrine theologically on New Testament grounds if you are interested, but it a relatively obscure point. And I think the above suffices to make my meaning plain.)
The remainder of 562 made the argument that fathers are respected when they act like fathers, caring for and protecting their offspring. Not merely for being fathers, but for honorably fufilling the duties of that station. That fathers who abandon or attack their offspring forfeit that respect, from their children and from everyone else, besides. This was meant to show that respect to fathers is conditional on their virtue or merit or conduct, not simply due to their station or office or position.
I hope that helps clarify my opinion in the matter. I understand yours is different, and heard your statement about the source of your opinion. It leaves me unmoved, and I continue to prefer my own opinion in the matter - that respect is earned.
BTW, for my part, I was tossing and turning just now, and wanted to apologize for any lack of respect I showed early on in our posting history last couple of threads. I'm afraid that sometimes we get into debate and forget for a moment that you're trying to recover from the loss of your dear wife and find happiness again, and happiness is all any of us want. I hope you found the conversation useful and somewhat interesting in the long run and we didn't cause you more hurt. I do wish you good luck, and for heaven's sake, keep us posted. :~D
Youve been repeating yourself over and over, and Im not convinced you know what you are talking about. You need to provide examples and specifics.
Thus, it is an explicit premise that even the wicked know what is naturally good. The question is whether they will also give it to others.
Next the golden rule leaves it to each of us to determine what we would for ourselves. And raises that to morality by exteriorizing it.
Nowhere does the bible teach that morality is obscure. The notion itself does not appear until the 19th century and modern skepticism and relativism attack natural morality. Instead it is treated as known to every sinner, but not acted upon.
The type of the Christian is the malefactor on Calvary. He has received no teaching, but knows injustice when he sees it, even when all the world permits and enacts it. And even when the same justice condemns him. The moral truth is everywhere and always immediately accessible to all men.
That, and not any obscurity-authoritarian origin of morality ("do x because you are told to do x"), is what the bible actually teaches. It makes us co-legislators of the moral law (the golden rule in particular).
The idea that only theistic authoritarianism can ground morality was popularized by CS Lewis. Before him, it can be found in Kierkegaard. Before that, it is not a mainstream Christian doctrine, but is maintained by some "ultramontanes", who reacted to the rationalism of the philosophes of the French revolution, with a studied irrationalism, attacking mere reason as insufficient to ground morality.
None of the Church fathers would have understood it. To Augustine, for instance, morality first is the principle that allows him to prefer Christianity to the doctrines of the Manicheans. Later fathers identify the tendency to put authority first, over morality, with gnosticism (e.g. Hippolytus).
The original understanding was that the morality of Christian doctrine was one of the proofs of its soundness, not that morality itself did not exist outside Christian doctrine. Augustine makes the point that pagan Romans are morally better than pagan gods, and that this is a proof that pagan gods are not gods. Clement of Alexandria likewise employs the natural accessibility of morality to argue pagans out of their religion to acceptance of Christianity.
On both biblical and church-historical grounds, then, there is no support for the doctrine that biblical authority is superior to morality, and again on both grounds there is direct support for the opposite doctrine. That morality is knowable to all men, directly, everywhere and always.
Later Christian doctrine adds that grace is needed to actually achieve moral action consistently - but being able to live up to the ideal is distinct from the existence and man's knowledge of that ideal, neither of which depends on religion, according to Christianity itself.
I said it was a relatively obscure point, and I do not expect any of the above to get immediate agreement. I simply offer it to your consideration, and as an explanation of my own position.
I don't have much time at the moment so I will just respond to the above.
What the heck are talking about? I have been opposed to and fought against modern day feminism all my life. So have many of the women on this forum. If you too oppose it, then you are on the same side we are.
No one suggested you be on the side of feminists on FR.
And what, pray tell, are "feminist pieties?"
Your posts are SEETHING with anger, but lacking in logic and make little sense.
One poster carcicatured previous opinions in the thread as telling her "she had a shelf life" and that "her chief purpose in life was to have babies", and said there wasn't enough aspirin for her to put up with reading such things, and they they made her just want to go and have fun. I called this an attempt to impose some PC code on the opinions others were expressing. I thought the remark uncharitable, narrow minded, and an attempt to shut others up through ridicule. I told her to go have fun but to stay away from me, and explained later that my meaning is, nobody has to bow to feminist PC editing of their speech about these subjects, that nobody needs the approval of feminists, and nobody needs the feminists themselves, either.
One poster objected to the practice of American men finding foreign brides, in an effort to locate women less overrun with feminism. She (I presume) said if women did the same there would be outcry. I sincerely doubted it, saying nobody would miss 'em, in effect. This was treated as something akin to butchering puppies. I elaborated at great length on the uselessness of modern feminist women and how much the rest of us wish they'd just go away.
So, it is a feminist piety that feminists are wonderful, moral upstanding women. It is a feminist piety that no opinion about matters between the sexes may be uttered in public without their approval. It is a feminist piety that it is the height of virtue to ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. It is a feminist piety that feminism women are indispensible. It is a feminist piety that what they speak for women. It is a feminist piety that feminism is good, even common sensical, and to oppose it is monstrous, rather than having been immensely destructive to millions of innocent people. It is a feminist piety that everyone else hangs on their approval and seeks it. It is a feminist piety that no one can live without them. It is a feminist piety that any man who denounces them is personally adn emotionally motivated, not a rational opponent.
And I don't put up with any of it. Any more than I put up with commies pretending anyone who supports George Bush must eat babies. It is all a pack of lies from start to finish, and merely covers their destruction of the family and the utter ruin they have spread, everywhere their ideology has been suffered to pass.
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.