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."

[JasonC]

Why would you say I recognize no moral authority outside myself? My moral principle is simply the Golden Rule. I certainly do not pretend I invented it.

I asked where I claimed any marriage counsler role. You can't find any, because I didn't. Now you say "like" as though it were just a metaphor. Please acknowledge that I never claimed to be one, nor acted as one anywhere on this thread. The closest you might come would be my opposition to divorce, except in cases of outright criminal conduct. Which is a public policy statement, not advice to individuals.

Also, if you or anyone is under the impression that one must be married to have a family, it is not the case. Families are larger things than that. Or if anyone is under the impression that you have to be married to be affected by our society's mores in the matter, I can assure you it is not at all necessary.

[TAdams8591]

Jason C, I have, NEVER, EVER in all my life been mistaken for a feminist, LOL! My Opinion on the issue is almost identical to that of my own father. He hated feminism as do I. But thank God he was a FAIR man who deeply loved women. YOU do not. YOU HATE them. You are concerned ONLY for male rights. He warned me about men like you a long time ago.

Thankfully, your opinions do not represent those of most of the men on this forum. Nor do they represent most of the opinions of women like Phyllis Shlafley, Kate O' Beirne, and Elaine Donnelly who lead the fight against feminism.

You and your comments are very destructive to the cause of anti-feminism and conservatism. I've been involved in the movement since my freshman year of college and I know full well what it is all about.

You are most confused about what feminism is and what it isn't. Women are not objects whose sole use is for making babies and having sex. It is a wonderful part of being women, but it is not all we are. We are human beings with feelings and emotions, and thoughts, and dreams and hopes. We need to love and be loved just as you do. (That my dear is part of the teachings of the CAtholic church.) And unfortunately, sometimes, some men on this forum need to be reminded of it.

WE who have been so involved for so long well know the difference between feministic opinions and respect for women. You do NOT. We do not need you in this fight. Go fight for men's rights, but stay away from us.

[JasonC]

I am not the least concerned for male rights. I am barely interested in rights of any kind, finding duties and virtues much more interesting. Ordinary morality and what I wish would happen were I unjustly smeared, dictate that I support anyone recklessly smeared by stalinist ideologues. Your continued attempt to form classes of separate beings with mutually antagonistic rights and politically acceptable or unacceptable opinions about them, is the disease I am fighting. You can't tell the difference, and by sheer impudence paint your preferred swear words on me instead, without the slightest justification. Then you swear you are for flowers and puppy dogs, and that therefore anyone who calls you on your unjust smear campaigns must be against them.

Read my previous again, and listen to yourself and those you are defending. Listen to the piled on shrill. And the only motivation for it is that you are convince you are oppressed by some class of conservative neanderthals who aren't feminist enough for your taste. There is no such class. There is no injustice in anything any of those so smeared have done to you or any of the others attacking them on this thread.

I claim every single poster so assailed is objectively innocent of the slightest fault. And that you and those you are defending simply *pretended* they were guilty of *entirely imaginary* faults that you simply *projected* onto them, like spit. And that you did this purely to enforce some standard of feminist acceptability. Moreover, this is an organized and conscious project on your part and theirs. It is a coordinated political act. You can't deny it, back in the pulled quotes you will find the maxims directly stated and the little pats on the back award to each other for slinging mud at the imaginary neanderthals.

But, but, they are neanderthals. And I'm a neanderthal too. Unless we all bow and scrape to your standards, we are beyond the pale, unacceptable to women everywhere. Who you pretend to speak for. That's feminism. That is stalinist group-think. That is politicizing opinions about personal lives and mores, and trying to enforce an orthodoxy within them, by baseless smear. You may not recognize that as precisely the ruinous feminism that has destroyed modern American society as far as it is lies, but it is. Precisely that self annoited, self righteous lecturing of others who have not done anything wrong, for imaginary faults, trying to label them and make them hated. For the crime of having refused to agree with your opinions.

Well, it isn't a crime to disagree with your opinions. You are not the guardian of any orthodoxy that anyone else on earth recognizes, or needs to recognize. Those you label unfair and haters and chauvinists etc, are simply nothing of the kind, there is nothing wrong with any of them. Nobody needs your approval. Nobody needs you lecturing them that women are not objects - the only purpose of which, is to pretend that those so lectured are unjust monsters, when they aren't. You are simply making it up, pretending they have obnoxious opinions so you can sling mud at them.

And we have all seen it far too often for far too long, and we all know exactly how it works. And because of that, it simply does not work anymore. You can rant and you can label until you turn blue, it does not make anyone a monster - except you.

[John O]

I asked where I claimed any marriage counsler role.

The term was used to deacribe someone who talks about something they know nothing about yet tries to sound like an expert about it. Bluntly, YOU haven't a clue what marriage is for or about.

Also, if you or anyone is under the impression that one must be married to have a family, it is not the case.

If it's not a husband and wife and their children (and perhaps grandchildren etc) then it's not a family. (with the sole exception of the single parent and their children, and in every one of those cases it started with a father and a mother. If the parents were not married then the mother and the children form the family.)

[John O]

Have you noticed that the more he replies the less he says? So far he's refused to admit that anyone else may have an opinion that is of merit. If it doesn't agree totally with him it's wrong. I think we've reached the "casting pearls before swine" point of the conversation

Until the next thread, May God bless you and yours

[JasonC]

And here I thought you were saying I was giving people advice about how to conduct themselves in their marriages, the better to see those marriages prosper. Which is what marriage counselors do. But is not what I do, nor can you find the slightest indication of it anywhere in this thread.

I'm being called an opinionated monster and oppressor because I disagree with feminist opinions, defend others doing what they please, and reiterate obvious facts that nobody seriously disputes (and several of which in fact originated with your own comments).

I have given no one the slightest word of advice on how they must conduct themselves in their marriages. I have given some advice as to how people ought to conduct politics and discussions, but not their personal lives. In fact, my primary recommendation on that score, has been for people to shut up and let other people decide such things for themselves.

On families, the children are included then? People who have brothers and sisters have families. I'm not married, but I have a family. I've seen 3 divorces, as well as intact marriages, in my family. I've seen 9 adults of my generation have all of 5 children, with 1 more possible but not likely at this stage. The ravages of disfunctional modern mores are not an abstraction to me. I've seen the best and the bad, though thankfully not the worst. And you are in no position to lecture me on any of it.

[luckystarmom]

That was about the funniest thing I've read in a long time!!!!

Take care!

[John O]

Thanks mom!

I think he's pretty funny too it's hard to go wrong when people give you sucj good material to work with. But alas I don't have the time to toy with him endlessly. Someone else will ahve to edcuate him beyond this.

Have a great one!

[John O]

Thanks mom!

I think he's pretty funny too. It's hard to go wrong when people give you such good material to work with. But alas I don't have the time to toy with him endlessly. Someone else will have to educate him beyond this.

Have a great one!

[John O]

rats! I hate it when the rough draft gets posted by mistake!

[Syncro]

...when it comes to 45 year old men, one being, 25 year old women don't want them.

Well that's true and should be so.

On the other hand, 45-50 yr old women seem to be more and more these days interested in the 30 year old men.

[TAdams8591]

You should know me well enough to know I wouldn't think that was right either. It is wrong to steal someone's youth.

[Syncro]

Of course I knew you wouldn't think that was right, I guess I worded it wrong.

My point was that unfortunately (some) younger men are interested in women 15 or so years older than them. Especially those that have lost their moral compass and seek relationships with younger men to validate their attractiveness. It always backfires for both parties.

Fortunately it is a very small percentage of people that are politically conservative but morally liberal.