[vannrox]

Very nice article.

[ErnBatavia]

Feminism, as a "movement" took the big swan dive with it's unabashed continued support of Bill Clinton, and it's disdain for the likes of Paula Jones, to name just one.

[Bigg Red]

Mona hits yet another home run.

[LiteKeeper]

mega-dittoes

[TheBigB]

"by the presence of a new crop of 20-somethings providing free sex."

WHERE???????????????????????????

[archy]

Very nice article.

Feminists. Aren't they cute!

[Red Jones]

sex education means that you teach teenagers how the promiscuous morals have so much damaged our people.

[goodieD]

another excellent post and a topic dear to my heart.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

I tell it to the students in my class this way:

Imagine meeting an old boyfriend of your wife, who then proceeds to tell you how "great" she was. "Hey, tonight when you get home, get her to do that 'thing' she does! She'll know what you are talking about."

Then imagine how you would feel after 6 or 7 people had told you the same thing about her. Are you going to value her more because of her freedom and liberation? And the same thing is true for men.

You should see the little seventeen-year-olds squirm when I tell them this. They are too young to realize what the costs are going to be later. Or, as I have also said, if you don't value yourself enough to be careful who you are intimate with, why should I value you? You know yourself better than anyone else, so if you have no self-respect, no one else will dare argue with you about it...

[Blue Screen of Death]

After turning the corner of 30 or 35, when beauty and fertility are declining...

I am married to a beautiful 50 something woman. I do enjoy going to the beach and seeing pretty 20 something women, but would hate to, like, you know, be forced to carry on, like, a conversation, you know, with one.

Sophia Lauren is still one of the most beautiful women on this planet. Given a choice and a desert island, I would pick Sophia over Brittney.

[IronJack]

Feminism -- at least the NOW disorder so lableled -- was shown to be utter hypocrisy when its harridan "leaders" refused to condemn Bill Clinton's misogyny. This was -- and IS -- the team who blasts "lookism" and sexual stereotyping, yet assails Katherine Harris for her makeup and spits on Linda Tripp for being plain. These are women who demand to be respected for their talents, but who set up as their idols empty-headed mattress testers like Gloria Steinem, whose only contribution to their cause is a failed magazine and an empty quote. All the while, the crones ignore Phylis Schlafly, who was the first woman ever invited to attend Harvard Law School, and is one of the most knowledgeable authorities on missile defense in this country.

These are all cases cited by Ann Coulter -- herself a frequent target of the "tolerant" feminist Left -- in her book Slander. The Right has women of substance and character; the Left is still looking for women with human DNA.

[pray4liberty]

What I find so ironic about feminism and their rabid support of abortion, etc. is that most of them are lesbos and don't sleep with men. Notice this is never, ever brought up? They don't have to make that "choice." When will they ever get pregnant? So much for their regard for straight women and our rights. It's obvious they hate us and want to kill our kids.

[Lorianne]

Shalit sees through the cant and pretension of this arrangement. She notes that a man does not sit by the phone pining for a call from a woman just because he has been sexually intimate with her. Men are not vulnerable in this way.

But one example of gross over generailizations in this piece. She simply has no authority to make such a sweeping claim. In fact I know men who agonize over being casually dumped. She is just wrong. Furthermore, women were not sold short by "feminism". They and men were (and are) sold short by commercialism ... and in more areas than just sex. There are always people who follow the herd. In today's media saturated world, is it any wonder that we see more and more people relying on media to set their standards of conduct, sexual and otherwise?

First of all, it is more than dishonest to suggest the sum total of "feminism" was the so-called "sexual revolution". Also, both authors exerpted comments assume women aren't smart enough to set their own course, are too gullible to be able to weigh the pros and cons of what they are being fed by the culture (and media). Well guess what? Many aren't, but neither are men. Women are not unique in being led along.

A certain percentage of the population (men and women) are always gullible enough to be led along by the whims of fashion and whatever the socio/political proponents of the day promote. For good and ill, this is a marketers dream come true, whether peddling products or ideas.

[Lorianne]

The feminist prescription for happiness is precisely wrong at every stage of life, Crittenden contends. The modern combination of sexual libertinism and late marriage conspires, she argues, to deny women what they most want and need -- a stable marriage to a faithful husband who will not abandon them or their children. If young women withheld sex, young men would be far more inclined to marry in their 20s, Crittenden observes, an age at which women are at the peak of their allure and their fertility. These days, millions of women waste their 20s in a series of fruitless "relationships" with men who decline to "commit." After turning the corner of 30 or 35, when beauty and fertility are declining, desperation often sets in. Panic is only exacerbated, Crittenden reminds us, by the presence of a new crop of 20-somethings providing free sex.

Skipping over that what she proposes is the "feminist prescription for happiness" is a flat out lie ....... this is SO INSULTING. This women's worth as only her "allure and fertility" and her ability to parcel out sex at height of them both to "buy" what she "really wants" (which Crittendon claims to know). Furthermore the "women as prostitutes" approach to describing women as using sex to get something else is insulting to the Nth degree. Plus it negates the fact that some women enjoy sex for its own sake, not for its "purchasing power". (Damn she's insulting).

And again, she is working from the premise that women are so stupid they don't really know what they want nor how to get it .... so SHE has to tell them. Bah! Every bit as insulting as what she claims feminists did ... make prescriptions for happiness! You know what? Most people figure out for themselves how to be happy and live their own lives. We don't need no stinking nanny (of any stripe) telling us what to do and when to do it.

[Z in Oregon]

Interesting article. Yet, I'm always intrigued by the concept that the main way to oppose feminism is to put women back into the home.

I would say that the main way to oppose feminism is to put men back in the home.