Raising the volume on what men think about feminism

The Age ^ | Sushi Das

[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."

[John O]

Accept my apology also.

Of course. Though none was needed.

I have buttons that get pushed also.

I hadn't noticed. :^)

I hope you find what you want in life :)

Thank You

[najida]

A very sweet poster, many months ago, made the comment that one of the purposes of an 'older' woman (ie, gray haired crone) was to pass on her wisdom to the younger generation.

OK, due to Redkin, I have no idea just how greenish I really am ;)....However, I've pondered long and hard and here are a few of the things I've learned on my way---
(PS, lots of this is in metaphor and analogy for you literal minded kinda folks ;) )

Don't throw a brick throw a window to climb out when God has opened a door on the other side of the room.

The greatest thing anyone can do is create and raise a decent, good human being. Those of us who aren't called to this purpose are here for support, encouragement and comic relief.

Never live with the attitude of "My life would be perfect only if....." Right now is your life. It's a gift. And it's perfect as it is. Believe me, you'll look back on all the perfect 'right nows' that went by unnoticed because you were so focused on that perfect future.

Your Mom was right. If you frown to long, your face will freeze in that expression. OK, metaphorically, if you let bitterness and anger rule you for too long, you are devoured by the dragon and it controls you, not the other way around.

Understand that you are put where you are supposed to be. You may dream of living in Hawaii, only to find yourself in Alaska. Sometimes, it will take decades for you to see that you had to nearly freeze to death to truly love the warmth of everywhere else.

Loss in one area creates strengths in others. Some are more damaged than others, but that damage can be made into a strength. A sixth sense, an awareness or a window into a place that other's can't see....so you become the translator between the two worlds......

God wrote in dust, not snow. The perfect were seldom used. It was the broken, damaged, twisted and discarded that he called upon the most.

[John O]

You can become so focused on one purpose for something that you fail to see all the myriad other purposes.

Marriage, regardless of children, is the great stabilizing influence on men. Without it we would sink into anarchy in a short span of time. While it is true that if every marriage produced no children our society would cease to exist it is not true that children are the only reason for marriage.

Face it, we could produce children just through rape or hired surrogates if we so desired. But these things do not stabilize man. Only a family and the desire to provide for his own wife (and perhaps children) lends the stability required for society to exist. This I believe is the real primary purpose for marriage

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The first biblical mention of marriage doesn't say anything about children. We need to be married because we are incomplete without each other.

Looking at marriage as being solely for the production of children greatly cheapens it.

[HairOfTheDog]

Excellent post :~D

[John O]

great post. Thanks

[najida]

ARgh!

Spell check stinks!

Greenish= Grayish
Second Throw= Through

~~sigh~~

[HairOfTheDog]

I was just thinking the greenish thing might be something personal - I wasn't gonna press it :~D

[JasonC]

You are making up and projecting nonsense uncharitably. The primary purpose of marriage is children. If it civilizes men - and women - it is because it dedicates both to something more important than themselves. And no, men left alone do not become beasts. Hermit saints are not beasts, monks are not beasts. It is quite completely up to the individual involved. I don't recognize the "we" of your digusting hypothetical. There are people in the modern world, right now, who will do anything and say anything rather than recognize children as the primary purpose of marriage. That's because they hate marriage and are seeking to destroy it. Sliding its normal meaning away from its core to a romantically idealized periphery, is just a preliminary to supplanting that core with a decidedly unromantic and non-ideal periphery. Which is a mere mockery of marriage.

[linda_22003]

You seem to know a great deal about marriage. Have you been married, and how many children have you had? :)

[luckystarmom]

That was nicely said!

[Freebird Forever]

it's wrong to just use people with no remorse or responsibility.

That rules out politics as a career choice for you.

: )

You act like all conservative marriageable women were born on the same day and are all gone, despite the constant births of new daughters every day.

The pickin's are mighty slim. The 1988 models to the present are certainly off limits. And the models prior to 1975 have waaay too many miles on them. With that as a limiting window, it's in my best interest to be open to checking out the foreign makes as well.

; )

It's not all about fists clenched.

This is the first thread of this type in which I've actively participated. But I've read quite a few. And some Freeperettes do attempt to stir the pot and pick fights. Whereas the guys tend to rant and then are forced to take up a defensive posture.

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.

Ranting is an ingrained part of the forum. You've been here long enough to see it occur on most topics, as have I.

Bullying (until the moderator makes a call) is more a matter of opinion. Some may consider the calling in of a gaggle of like minded individuals to gang up on an unpopular idea as bullying. And that happens all the time, not just on this thread.

For some, this may be the only safe place for them to get something off their chest. Cut 'em a little slack.

As an analogy, if you had an agitated animal in your barn, wouldn't it be more prudent to just let the animal relax and calm down, rather than poking it with a bunch of sharp pointy darts?

After all, females are supposed to be a civilizing influence on us Neanderthals. If Conservative women don't play that part, we're all in sorry shape.

[John O]

You of course have the right to believe whatever you like.

[TAdams8591]

John O what Jason has said is that he doesn't think women over a certain age SHOULD marry, because they can't have children.

Sorry John O the statistics for men over 40 aren't good either.

Oh, and btw, I know at least ten women (not on this board) who got married well into their 40's, several into their fifties and one in her seventies.

You do a good job John O of spouting the truth when it comes to women. I suggest you learn to deal with the truth when it comes to 45 year old men, one being, 25 year old women don't want them.

[HairOfTheDog]

We're civilizing best we can, FF.

Maybe you should read the thread. I think there's only one or two guys that actually got poked with pointy darts.

[HairOfTheDog]

...and one of them, I have apologized to and made peace with already....

[Melas]

You know as much about marriage as I know about being a life-long bachelor. Absolutely nothing. You are in essence spewing endlessly about something you have absolutely no first hand experience with.

[Melas]

Some good points, but as a father of a mere four year old, you're missing something: Children don't stay children for long. Most couples will spend a lot more time in their empty nest than they did with children. With two grown, and the youngest two now in those teen and tween years where they need parents less and less, I'm accutely aware of the transition. Even the grandchild that's so prominant in my profile will be grown and out of her parents house before I'm even of retirement age.

So, you are absolutely right, and JasonC is absolutely wrong. You're going to need a whole lot more than a desire to have children to have a sucessful marriage, because children are just one facet of a marriage, and in truth, not even a necessary facet. There have been plenty of good, but infertile marriages.

[Alkhin]

There is nothing insensitive about it. It is pungent enough to get the point across, direct, to the point, and calls a spade a spade.

So do you think a woman like Terry Schiavo had a "shelf life"? Do you think a woman who has devoted most of her productive years to husband and child and suddenly finds herself on her own again to have outlived her "shelf life"?

I think you talk because you like to hear your own voice, not because you've given this any real spirit to your thought. Nor do I think you have much life experience to back your assertions up. If you are upset because you do not have a significant other that fits your excessively high standards, I dont wonder why considering this last post. No one wants to spend much time with an 'all or nothing' approach to life. God has belly laughs over people like you. Loud, long belly laughs.

Your strategy for dealing with the feminazis SUCKS, to put it simply, and others on this thread have been trying to tell you that. The negative loop you have created for yourself in your pseudo-philosophical rants has done nothing to solve the problem, and especially has done nothing to gain you allies.

[John O]

Sorry John O the statistics for men over 40 aren't good either.

I never said they were.

I suggest you learn to deal with the truth when it comes to 45 year old men, one being, 25 year old women don't want them.

Now that wasn't at all nice TA. (and I thought we were doing so well too) I have stated previously that I know it will be hard to find the right woman. In fat IIRC I said it would be a miracle. But I also trust God to provide. He gave me a miracle in my first wife I don't see why He wouldn't give me another (since He took the first one early).

Further up the thread I seem to remember two posts by guys in their forties who married girls in their twenties (so it does happen) and a discussion dealing with second wives (showing again that it does happen).

BTW 25 is the lower limit. The ideal range I think is 28-32 and the church ladies have already identified several women interested in at least exploring the concept when my time of mourning ends. I have no doubts that God will provide me a mate for the rest of my life.

[Alkhin]

I think what has been ultimately excised from the national lexicon by the Left is the rest of that phrase "equality UNDER THE LAW" - the concept that all who are citizens of America will recieve the same DUE PROCESS and legal treatment - that a CEO of a major corporation will go through the same legal process as a janitor because IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, they are not separated or segregated into class or groups. I think the fact that this tiny bit of the language was excised by the Left a long time ago because it explains with reason and justification the Original Intent of the Constitution - and the Left seeks to separate and segregate. Divide and conquer. As long as they can keep one group against another, the idea that those differences fall under a concept of legal equality will never gain foothold.

I have never wanted to be considered the same as a man. I just want to know that if my property or person has been harmed or taken away, the criminals who took it away will recieve the justice, and that my life will not be classified as being "less than a man's". It is why rapists and pedophiles should be put away along with the murderers. It recognizes that putting a woman's life under the law in danger is just as detrimental to society as putting a man's life in danger.