Sushi Das is a columnist and feature writer for The Age, where she has been for 10 years in various roles including Victorian news editor, transport editor, letters editor and state politics reporter.
Sushi Das is a columnist and feature writer for The Age, where she has been for 10 years in various roles including Victorian news editor, transport editor, letters editor and state politics reporter.
My response? I like my job, my house, and my car. I don't need a harassment suit. I think I'll keep my opions to myself.
Just because I know at about 10x as many decent women who were or are married to jerks as decent men who were or are married to jerks, does that make it so? Personally, I only know one sweet, decent man who is divorced because his wife is a jerk, but I'm sure they are many out there. The 3 remaining divorced men I know or work with are jerks, but that's just my experience. Conversely, I know at least 2 dozen women who have divorced their jerks--selfish men who cheated, lied, drank and many also stiffed their kids financially.
I wouldn't dream of painting all divorced men with the same brush. That would be stupid. I love men, but I don't love jerks.
As always, and will forever be, some men are jerks, some women are jerks. Jerks are mean and selfish, and that's why we call them jerks. If their spouses can afford to, they divorce the jerks. No one should have to live with a jerk.
And that's my theory on jerks.
Funny she says that, because that's the way she describes the responses she received are exact mirrors of how the majority of individuals (men who haven't been turned into eunuchs by PC-ism and women who enjoy being women) see feminists' rantings.
The Phantom FReeper's definition of a feminist: a woman who's bitter about not having her "needs" met, even though her poor attitude is generally the cause of the problem (and I'm female, so no one better call me a chauvinist).
America has the most unhappy women on earth while they are the most affluent and spoiled.
The common sense advice is "don't talk to them."
a rat is a dog is a pig is a feminist (with profound apologies to rats, dogs and pigs)...
In a perfect world, being a decent human being would not only not be that hard, it would be enough. Unfortunately, there are enough women out there that simply are not decent that steps must be taken to protect oneself, same as with men of the same general odor.
As the situation stands now, in a case of 'he said, she said', the woman is more likely to prevail than the man. And women will lie.
When the shouting from our respective corners is over, perhaps resentment from both sides will melt.
Neither one is realistic. And women are left feeling overwhelming pressure to create a martha stewart home in scenario #1 and left feeling guilty for admitting they want a stable and loving relationship with a man in scenario #2.
Feminism wants to overwrite a very basic fact: women and men are NOT the same. That's just how it is and learning how to navigate the differences is going to get you a lot further in life than pretending (or demanding) that the differences don't exist.
End of story.
That said, there are definitional issues that this particular author may be too young to recognize, specifically the difference between equal rights, "feminism," and "women's liberation." This is not an issue that ever was restricted to half the population - women got the vote through the cooperation of the men who had it, some of whom took a considerable political risk in doing so. It was a far less adversarial movement than latter-day feminists like to pretend.
What happened? It was deliberately soured by political activists who insisted on casting the issue in the Marxian modality of an oppressed class and a violent and adversarial liberation of that class in a zero-sum game in which rights are not granted to all but taken one from the other. Conflict is inherent in this model and necessary to it.
And like all Marxian movements it produced a privileged sub-class - a "cadre" - that is a minority of the overall population that has a vested interest in maintaining the conflict and embittering the opponents. These are agitators, professional "feminists" who populate the HR departments, the Women's Studies schools, the popular literary culture. They do not want peace between the sexes any more than a race hustler wants peace between black and white. It doesn't suit their interests.
It's an entirely artificial conflict but it's a bugger to stop now that it is proliferated by unjust law, unrealistic expectations of "gender"-blind performance, and a bitter, vengeful minority that is gleefully acting the oppressor because its members have convinced themselves that that is what was done to them and that retribution is in order. Peace will not be possible with those women - it's the last thing they want.
Globalization is going to be the downfall of extreme feminism. More and more American men will choose to marry women from traditional values countries. Darwin will win again as shrill feminists will not propagate their caustic genes.
Oh, great. Everybody's a victim.
Perhaps it is governments that are not listening to men, rather than women.
Perhaps it is women obsessing about womyn.
My response? Get over it. If you're a man and you have an opinion, speak out.
Ok. You are a brainless gynocratic twit that thinks entirely too much of your gender. How's that?
Aw, poor little fellers. If they had any self-respect whatsoever they'd dump the broads in question, quit complaining, and move on. Metrowimp victimologists.
Ich liebe Das Sushi!
Why in the world should men respect women if they are so willing to give it away for free?
I recently read an article where a fellow talked about going out with Oriental women. He loved the fact that they took time to actually dress up and at least try to look good. He also commented on their femininity, and how they rarely swore or made a scene in public.
And I agree. If I want to hear the F word tossed around all over the place, I'll head for a greasy spoon on the Interstate and listen to the truckers.