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."
but as a father of a mere four year old
She's five now. And if she were here she would let you know in a most indignant manner. (Kids are just so cute!)
That was a BEAUTIFUL post!!! Thank you!! I needed that!!
Youre hiding from something in yourself. Thats becoming patently clear with each and every post you make. It isnt about the women who don't act the way you want them to. Its about your inability to face your own humanity. You are denying something in yourself that you have apparently spent LOTS of time rationalizing and creating a pseudo-philosophy for. I swear, sometimes the things you post sound like they come straight out of a college textbook.
You need therapy, hun.
When you first started posting, you lumped all American women into the feminist group.
Go back and reread some of your posts:
471, 475, 480, 488, 511, 527, 530
You come off as hating all American women. Later on, you change it to feminist, but I think you lump all American women into this group.
I think feminism went to far, but there were good things to come out of it. There were also very bad things that came out of it.
The good things is that women started going to college and had a choice to work or not work, have kids/not have kids, and it was all okay. Also, women started getting more equivalent pay when they did work.
The bad things that have come out of feminism are the men bashing and all men are evil. The thought that it is okay for a single mom to raise a child without the dad involved. Even to the extent that hey if you're not married just go to a sperm bank and get pregnant.
The other bad thing about modern feminism is that it bashes stay at home moms.
Most of the negative remarks about men were only about men who mail order their brides from third world countries. Most of the women in this discussion think that is an awful practice and degrades women. It reduces women to a piece of meat to be bought and sold.
Pssst, that would be 2nd hand. You didn't experience your parents marriage first hand.
When somebody dies, we bury their empty body with due ceremony. Everybody is mortal. If being told you are mortal gives you the willies, why not take up knitting?
The comment about "shelf life" had nothing to do with the comatose. Nor had it anything to do with those already married and parents. It was about people and especially women who reach 40 without having married. They are quite unlikely to do so. The reason is nature, which cannot be expelled with PC pickforks but always comes back.
And what am I doing? Pointing out biblical truth. As I said earlier, you don't have to agree, but the truth is the truth.
And you are here lambasting someone for maintaining that children as the core reason for marriage, and calling that a cheapening of it.
First of all I did not lambaste anyone. I expressed my points, you disagreed. I noted that you have that right.
Secondly. While children are an important reason for marriage they are not the first one that God brings up. I'll go with His word over yours (or anyone else's anyday)
Um, if regarding children as a core of marriage cheapens it, what about regarding the core of marriage as sodomy?
You are the only one talking about sodomy. Obviosuly marriage is between a man and a woman. as it has been for all time and for the length of this discussion.
Feminists want to destroy marriage because at its heart are duties to something larger than self, and they aren't interested in any of those. By first pretending that secondary aspects of marriage are its essence, they deliberately make it fluid and optional.
If romantic love, not children, is the purpose of marriage, then as soon as it fades if only for a moment, divorce is perfectly rational. If children are not central to marriage but self realization is, then murdering one's children for the sake of one's career is perfectly normal. If marriage exists to civilize bestial men, then the instant a marriage is dissolved the father becomes a beast and may be treated as one. If pleasure is the purpose of marriage, then anybody can marry anything, and divorce again over a hangnail.
What is used to justify this ruinous assault, which as a fact kills a quarter of our children, renders a third of those left fatherless, and half of those left in broken homes later on? Pure impudence, that's what. Allegations of horridness directed at entirely decent people with the least color of evidence or fact. They simply say anyone who disagrees with them is a slavedriver, a criminal, a monster, flat making it up out of nothing. As a fact, no one here has been wronged in the slightest by the imaginary crimes they impute to their foes. But plenty of people here have been very materially harmed by their ideology.
It is the Stalinist playbook, all over. Free producers of wealth who haven't harmed a soul are simply smeared as ogres in order to despoil them. Is anyone participating in this thread able to cite a single injury I have ever done them? That I have ever done anyone else, whom they pretend to speak for? No. But they are still entirely free with their allegations of monsterhood. Over what? Having the gall to call them what they are.
Well that must be quite comforting at night.
As I said before, the words "shelf life" are offensive in ANY context. It says more about the person saying them than it does about the object it is directed at.
I think you are the one in fear of mortality. Life is about giving up oneself in teh service of another. A man gives up his life for his beloved, and vice versa. Its in the Bible. If that isnt proof that a marriage is more than the product of its parts, then I dont know what is. And your assertion that marriage is nothing but a materialist expression of purpose is as much a lie as any Stalinist.
Ive concluded, you're a raving lunatic. I wont call you a misogynist, because I dont even think you can step outside your little bubble of pseudo-philosophy to allow that kind of emotion in. You're an echo chamber whose words have no meaning to the rest of humanity. Call us Stalinist? Call us communist? I call you a waste of time.
Not much, both happen to all of us at one time or the other. My dog wouldn't love me sincerely if I didn't feed him!
Very few traditional international women are bothered by false romanticism and its puling needs.
They got the real thing!
Please Jason, you damned well what I mean, and Clintonesque evasions aren't becoming on you. Children do not experience marriage first hand. I know this damned well having been a child, a parent and a spouse. Only married people get to experience marriage first hand. All other are looking in from the outside. Your rants about feminism aside, any feminist who's been married has a more thorough understanding of the institution than you do.
And of course service to something larger than oneself is the point of all striving. That is why children - who are more important than their parents - and duties toward them - which is service to something larger than oneself - is the point of marriage. Instead of the selfish desires of the parents.
And one does not need to be married to serve others. Nor does the family cease to exist horizontally. Nor is it restricted to one line in time.
As for the statement that the words "shelf life" are offensive in any context, how about on a milk carton? It is pure bilge, making up offense to take in order to paint perfectly reasonable people expressing perfectly obvious facts as immoral monsters. Uncharitably.
Trying to find monsters where there are none in order to spread unreasoning hatred of perfectly decent human beings, is stalinist style agitprop, whatever the motive or movement involved. And you are doing it, and you should be ashamed of yourself, and apologize for it. But you won't. You are too busy congratulating yourself on your transcendent service to others, to notice you are wronging innocents to no purpose.
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.