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."
Please, tell me what feminist opinions on this thread have been defended. If you have the time, I would appreciate if you could list a few.
Im not sure if you are wanting to rant at those of us on FR for the sake of ranting, or if you might not want to focus your ire a little bit more closely. The word "shelf life" is not a considerate thing to say of ANYONE. I hope you were around on FR when we were all hurting over Terry Schiavo. All too many were summing up HER situation as a fait accompli i.e. 'shelf life.' The utter inhumanity contained in those words is offensive period. I think that woman was right to protest it being used against a woman who no longer fit the ideal woman. What is a woman supposed to do if she no longer fits the criteria? Fall down and die?
As for the foreign brides, whatever floats your boat, but I tend to think you are making assumptions about that situation that will bring you just as much sorrow as the most seething of feminazis you can find in the US. I hope you took note of my anecdote about my grandparents. God bless them and keep them both - they are now returned to Him - but I remember distinctly feeling very uncomfortable around my grandfather because he brooked no closer interaction between himself and the nearest female than was absolutely necessary. I think there is enough memory of this in many an American woman's mind to think that we here in America are beyond that. These are just observations, Im making....
I dont think anyone should put up with the feminazis either. For personal reasons of my own, I would LOVE to be able to silence them on their hypocrisy, especially after having watched what went on in the 90s. I also think that the most effective way of shutting them up is pointing and laughing at them every time they try to bully the rest of us into their pogram/agitprop (as you so aptly pointed out). It INVALIDATES them because their very arguments are invalid, and it flings it right back in their faces in a way they dont know how to deal with. Four words for the Feminazis : Bill Clinton Juanita Broderick. And then point and laugh. Because that's what they are : buffoons and small and not a threat.
best regards, Alkhin
That any man looking for such a bride is a domineering control freak.
That it is outrageous to suggest women who do not marry before a certain age are unlikely to, ever.
That any man who suggests the previous is true is a sexist only interest in appearance.
That it is outrageous to suggest the primary goal society seeks in its marital institutions is having and raising children.
That any many who suggest as much treats women as objects.
That it is outrageous to tell feminist women nobody needs them, and we'd all prefer they just went away and left us alone.
That any man who says so must be acting from personal and emotional motives, not rational dislike of their ideology.
That any critic of feminists is both adequately answered and damned simply by being labeled a misogynist.
That everyone waits breathless on the opinion and approval of feminist ideologues, and the world turns only for them.
Clear enough yet? You in the same thread?
I was gone for hours and you guys are still at it. What beautiful things you had to say to one another. I particular appreciate the patience, graciousness, and kind sentiments in HOTD and John O's posts as well as your humility John O and efforts to understand what we were trying to tell you. HOTD you have some unique perspectives that I enjoyed reading. And I love your upbeat humor Najida.
Thank you ALL for what surprisingly turned out to be quite a nice thread. You too Jason C.
Now, after no further ado, feminst liberals that we all are, (/sarcasm) let's all sing a few rounds of kumbaya for fellow freeper Jason C (wink) : )
As for foreign brides, my boat has nothing to do with it, I'm not interested either way. But American men who find loving wives that way are to be congratulated on finding someone, and wished the best. And that is helps undermine feminism here at home is to be warmly applauded - as indeed it was warmly applauded by several posters. Feminists are offended by it both because it shows them up as undesireable and unwanted, and because the desire clearly stems from the "feminism differential" between typical US women and typical women from more traditional societies. And they can just go jump in the ocean. Nobody needs their approval, or wants it. American men can do as they jolly well please in the matter, they are not the property of feminist ideologues.
As for the idea that they are not a threat, I disagree. I repeat my mantra and I will repeat until I am blue or every conservative on FR knows it, and understands in human terms what it means. 1/4 don't see the light, 1/3 don't have a father, 1/2 watch him leave.
That means, for every conception in American, a quarter of them end in deliberate abortion before being brought to term. Of all children born in America, a third are illegitimate. Of all those children born to two married parent, half see their parents split in divorce before reaching their 18th birthday. This is a human tragedy of epic proportions. In 1950, none of it was true. This is not a small matter to just be laughed off.
That any man looking for such a bride is a domineering control freak.
I concur with the above opinions. When there are plenty of conservative women in the USA, who very much want to marry, have children, be stay-at-home moms who have it as their number one priority to make a beautiful home for their husband and raise good children, it is outrageous that men would seek wives abroad and take advantage of the desperate situation of those women in their home countries.
And yes, from what I've seen many of those men don't want partners or women who are submissive in the sense John O explained. They want to dominate and control. Women to them are not people, they are commodities. And one is not a feminist to point that out.
"That it is outrageous to suggest women who do not marry before a certain age are unlikely to, ever."
The above sentiment is OUTRAGEOUS. It is saying that once women are physically beyond their prime, they are worthless to men and are things to be discarded. Plus, it isn't true. People of both sexes are getting married at later and later ages. And why is mature age only significant regarding women?
"That any man who suggests the previous is true is a sexist only interest in appearance."
I don't know what name to label men who think like that. But it is a grossly unfair, cruel and callous way to think.
"That it is outrageous to suggest the primary goal society seeks in its marital institutions is having and raising children."
We don't force couples to have children, but I would agree with you that for society the primary goal of marriage is the having and raising of children, but there are also some secondary goals.
"That any many who suggest as much treats women as objects."
What people objected to was the idea that children are the "only" reason people should marry. That if a woman couldn't have children there is no other reason whatsoever to marry her. And yes, any man who sees it that way is treating women like objects.
"That it is outrageous to tell feminist women nobody needs them, and we'd all prefer they just went away and left us alone."
Well now, many of us might agree with you on that one.
"That any man who says so must be acting from personal and emotional motives, not rational dislike of their ideology."
I must have missed that comment on this thread.
"That any critic of feminists is both adequately answered and damned simply by being labeled a misogynist."
I must have missed those comments too. There WERE plenty of hateful comments made about WOMEN THEMSELVES on this thread. Those comments were not a critique of feminist ideology, but a critique of women in general, particularly American women.
"That everyone waits breathless on the opinion and approval of feminist ideologues, and the world turns only for them."
Where the heck did you see the above? It appears you do a lot of reading between the lines.
There is a vast difference between espousing feminist ideology and promoting respect for women as people. You do not seem to know the difference.
I am pro-life, pro-family, pro-children, pro-stay-at-home moms, pro-treating your husband with deference, love and respect, anti-feminazi, anti-NOW, anti-divorce with some exceptions, pro-traditional roles of men and women and on and on. I love men who pay for dates, hold the door open for me, pull out my chair, compliment my appearance, and treat me with respect and consideration. And I love to cook, clean, support, converse with and help the men in my life. I'm sure the same is true of most of the conservative women on this forum. If that isn't anti-feminism, I don't know what is.
BTW, anti-chauvinism is NOT pro-feminism. Most of us were opposing the chauvinistic comments on this thread, some of which you included in your post.
That is not at all what has been happening on this thread. YOU don't know what you are talking about.
YOU ARE ONE CREEPY GUY JOHN...SCARY AS HELL
You are stupid to object to an entirely factual statement as outrageous, when it is simply the truth. Do older people sometimes get married? Sure, but the normal time for marriage is young adulthood, just as the normal result of marriage is a family with children. And society most emphatically does need to care about this.
Why does old age at first marriage matter more for women? Because no children are likely to result from such marriages. The world is not a nursery school where everything must be fair and wonderful and we are all to be damned if we refuse to pretend it is. Marriage after 40 is a shadow of the real thing, and no society can accept it as a substitute for the real thing. As better for those doing it than nothing, perhaps, but that is utterly irrelevant to the public policy issue involved.
Moreover, it is in fact empirically rare for precisely the reason the original poster gave. That is reality and human nature, and trying to pretend otherwise out of misplaced moralism is as absurd as Aristophanes' play, in which equality demanded that wizened hags be slept with first before young brides. Those who can't face reality have no business censuring those who can for doing so.
No, a man who seeks marriage in order to have children is not treating women as an object. A man who seeks marriage in order to have children is merely obeying nature instead of feminist ideology. That's what the bleeding thing's for. If it also generates fruitful companionship, great and gravy. Without the real purpose, humanity ceases. Without the fake added on romantic PC purpose, a romantic somewhere sheds a wee tear. Who cares?
As for "respect for women as people", respect is earned for specific virtuous conduct or merit. Cheap demands for unearned respect, out of mere shrillness, deserve to be treated as pure impudence. Tell me what you've done for other people, and you establish yourself as entitled to respect. Tell me what identity group you belong to or what opinions you hold, and you get indifference.
So far, I've seen you insult frustrated men minding their own business and in no way bothering you, for looking for love in places you disapprove of, on blind prejudice. I've seen you denounce as outrageous the mere recitation of unexceptional facts, and at the unwillingness of some to sugar coat reality to your moon-eyed specifications. Both are impudent and uncalled for and those targeted by them do not deserve your censure. You call people cruel and callous who are nothing of the kind, and in so doing show cruelty to spare yourself.
But you don't think so, because you don't even stop to think. You are too busy emoting your approval or disapproval to the world at large, thinking the world waits breathless upon it. Why? Because you've been trained to by feminist ideologues. So you slander broad classes of men for unoffending opinions and practices, impudently. Which deserves not respect, but repayment in kind.
"No, a man who seeks marriage in order to have children is not treating women as an object."
That is NOT what I said. I said men who believe the SOLE (meaning one and only) purpose for marriage is to have children, are objectifying women.
Say goodnight Jason. You are an UNFAIR, UNREASONABLE man and I will not converse with you again.
Well we don't and it is rude. It is an impudent invasion of other people's business. I am deliberately being rude to you in return (a gentlemen is never rude unintentionally, and I have been very intentionally rude in this thread), because you need to know exactly how it feels and exactly how impudent it is. And then you need to stop doing it, forever. If you have an opinion about, say, mail order brides, here is what you do with it. You shut up. You occasionally discuss it with people in your own family. And you leave everybody else alone.
Because not a particle of it is the slightest business of yours. Not one iota.
This is from the American Heritage dictionary: Feminism:
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.
Again, don't yell at me, but I can't believe anyone could be in disagreement with equality for all. That's just un- American.
I think the extreme passion you show must relate to the "movement" and what it's become. I was active in the "feminist" movement in college because I wanted to be paid equally for my work when I graduated. Who could be opposed to that? The "movement" devolved into lesbian propaganda, abortion on demand, etc., and lost most of the rational members like me. I just wanted a fair shot at life.
But if you asked me if I was a feminist based on the first definition of feminism above, I would have to say yes, because I want equality for my daughters and their daughters. Why wouldn't I? I love my girls as much as I love my boys. I want my boys to be equal to everyone else on earth, too. My sons and duaghters believe in equality for all, and most of them are more passionate about conservatism than I am. I think I raised them well. Each of us also would denounce most of what feminism has come to mean, like the slaughter of innocents.
I understand that the nuances in the first definition have provided the evil that is the sanctioned "movement" today. Evil philosophies always twist the truth to advance evil, like abortion.
So do we just need a new word for conservatives who believe the sexes should be treated fairly in life? I love men, except the jerks.
Here's my definition of a jerk, male or female: a selfish person. That simple. All jerky behavior is derived from that simple definition. One who is thinking of others wouldn't be mean, rude, thoughtless, hateful, greedy, unfaithful, egotistic, power-hungry, drunk, lazy, dangerous to others, etc. Jerks are just selfish; in the end they want what they want without regard for anyone else.
We're all here because we are conservatives, and support conservative goals. The gender wars that rage on threads like this are divisive and hurt the cause. I really think that most freepers think that all people are created equal, and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, etc. If they don't, then they've already flushed themselves out as un-American.
Again, in all sincerety--what's a feminist?
Let me be the first.
Since all are not equal, a government dedicated to equality for all must, ipso facto, suppress all liberty and all justice.
As far as I know, liberty and justice for all are core American values. We used to say something along those lines every day in school.
Equality for all is not only not un-American, it's anti-American.
JMO.
I talk, they listen and try to understand. Then they talk, I listen and try to understand. Seems like a textbook definition of discussion to me.
I think this has been our best discussion of the series as we finally got past the words and into the meanings. There's an old genie joke involving men understanding women and a bridge to hawaii. Most of these discussions still leave me wondering "two lanes or four"
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.