« Friday notes | Main | Pain and the misprescribed cure »

December 10, 2004



I am afraid when guys like this get strident and say:

"What we want from women is that they are nurturing, supporting and responsible.
That women have other qualities is not interesting to men because we don't need them!"

, my first thought is, "well, we don't need you lazy pompous blowhards either". My second thought is that these guys are the kind that need to resort to foriegn mail order brides because they are too inadequate to attract American citizen women.

La Lubu

It seems like they just want to play into a caricature of what masculinity is, rather than the mature version.

and please, NancyP, let's not foist these blowhards off onto foreign women! The mail-order bride issue is a whole 'nother ball game. Anyway, some of these guys can easily "put on a happy face" long enough to fool United States women. Then, surprise! The real jerk comes out---for any woman, U.S. or otherwise.

Reading this stuff, I can't help but think some of it is a put-on...I mean, it would be like adult women clamoring for a return to Barbie-doll days! Dig the "men going their own way logo"; can't make stuff like that up, LOL!


I wasn't suggesting that I thought it was a good thing these men's domination types got foriegn mail order brides, just that was a likely option for these men. The mail-order brides can't escape as easily, because they will be deported. No other type of woman is as easy to dominate as a woman in need of a visa. Of course, similar men do get US citizen wives, who leave, and then the men hunt them down and some kill the ex-wives.


You know, that first guy was making sense with the self-reliant bit and then he popped out the nurturing crap.

Um, if you're self-reliant, why would you need someone to nurture you?


Another great post Hugo! I didn't even know a pro-feminist men's movement existed.


You nuture by doing everything for him AND praising him lavishly for being smarter, more comptent, more self-reliant, etc. As the Republicans have taught us with corporate welfare and other hand-outs, self-reliant is more a matter of saying it than being it.

When I debate these guys, that is the hardest part for them--finding a way to be hateful to women and still attract them. Mostly they just lie to the women they date, I guess. And then they hate themselves for lying and pretending to respect an inferior female to get her attention and that makes them even more hateful.

The most amusing thing about them is they think feminists cause EVERY single problem they have. The wife wants to be a good, stay-at-home mom and he can't afford it? Must be the feminists! Women didn't stay at home dependent on men before feminists told them they could, you know.


For "nurture," read "do all the day-to-day shitwork and provide sex on demand."


"If women don't like these terms then it's just too bad."

Same old thing. Does he live in Saudia Arabia by any chance? Until very recently, women have always had to live by mens' terms. Far too many still do. I'm frankly surprised that anyone would feel the need to make such a statement. Well, I'd be surprised if it were any man I knew. Of course there are the type that NancyP describes....

Badger now known as a Rapist

Thanks for the free advertising.
It reminds me of the uproar by the church on Mel Gibsons latest film. You just can't buy it. Keep it up. Thanks again. We appreciate it.


Only unlike Mel you won't earn money from people coming to point and laugh at your "work"


Attention is its own currency, to the desparate.

Hugo, just wanted to add that it's so refreshing to see you continue to talk about a male-affirming feminism that doesn't see valuing men as a zero-sum game requiring denigrating women.


It is interesting to see Hugo make this statement, "Pro-feminist men don't ask women to do for us what we can do for ourselves (such as tell us how to feel, or motivate us to transform) [..]".

I find it interesting because Hugo apparently doesn't realize that feminist women (and men) are often the first to tell men to do what they (women) can do themselves, and that includes how we should feel, and what parts of our masculinity we should 'change'. Seems that just like the feminists, Hugo is a bit of a hypocrite.

The fact of the matter is that there is a holocaust of fatherless families in the west, and this is contributing to increasing social decay. Fatherless children are more likely to be delinquents, are more likely to commit suicide, and are more likely to suffer drug and alcohol addictions. The fact of the matter is that lobby organizations like NOW work to cement this decay by ensuring that fathers do not get a fair shake in family courts. Feminist theology has also contributed to the situation by encouraging single motherhood. The fact is that children have a right to their biological fathers, and without them society suffers.

I am a member of Manpower, and I am working to ensure fathers get equal representation and diligence from the courts, as well as recognition from society for the value they bring. I am also working to highlight the many, many, feminist lies (such as 1 in 4 college aged women are victims of rape or attempted rape), and their continued vilification and demonization of the male gender as being comprised solely of incompetents, rapists and abusers.

Hugo, while I can support some of your sentiments (namely equality of opportunity, and a desire to forge better relationships with men), I cannot help but laugh at your ridiculous posturing regarding feminism. Feminism has become an ideology of gender supremacy, and an ideology of equality of 'outcome'.

If believing this makes me 'not a real man', then I suggest you re-examine your typification of 'gender roles'.


Just because you don't think women should backtalk you personally doesn't mean we're conspiring against you.


Jessy, as soon as you start talking about a "holocaust of fatherless families," you lost whatever shred of credibility you *might* have had. Ditto the gender-supremacy crap--talk about projection!


Here are some statistics for the less erudite:

Children who grew up fatherless are:

Eight times more likely to go to prison.
Five times more likely to commit suicide.
20 times more likely to have behavioural problems.
20 times more likely to become rapists.
32 times more likely to become runaways.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
Nine times more likely to drop out of high school.
One-tenth as likely to get A's in school.

The Institute for the Study of Civil Society ( Civitas ) U.K.
Stunning statistics on the problems of fatherless homes

Fatherlessness is the greatest social problem in Canada


-- fathers commit a tiny minority of child abuse and about half the domestic violence.

-- The vast majority of child physical and sexual abuse is committed in single-parent homes, home usually where the father is not present. "Contrary to public perception, research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child’s mother, not a male in the household." [Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks, The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community (Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation "Backgrounder," 3 June 1997), p. 16.]

-- The father is the parent most likely to be the protector of children. "The presence of the father . . . placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse," according to David L. Rowland, Laurie S. Zabin, and Mark Emerson, in a study of low-income families. "The protective effect from the father's presence in most households was sufficiently strong to offset the risk incurred by the few paternal perpetrators." ["Household Risk and Child Sexual Abuse in a Low Income, Urban Sample of Women," Adolescent and Family Health, vol. 1, no. 1 (Winter 2000), pp. 29-39.]

-- A British study found children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused when a live-in boyfriend or stepfather is present than in an intact family. [Robert Whelan, Broken Homes and Battered Children: A Study of the Relationship between Child Abuse and Family Type (London: Family Education Trust, 1993), p. 29.]


Amanda -- I never said women were conspiring against men. What I pointedly said is that a political ideology (feminism) is working to abrogate men of their rights to be involved in their children's lives.


mmm i smell conspiracy theorists!

as for this;

"such as 1 in 4 college aged women are victims of rape or attempted rape"

there's a great post on it here at Alas, A Blog


Gee, Jesse, wonder where all those fathers took off to? My son's didn't think he was worth the bother. Seemed to think I should have had an abortion or something, ya know? I didn't, and I had a fatherless child for four years, until I remarried. Perhaps abortion would have been a better choice in your worldview? I had no control over his behavior and ultimate complete lack of responsibility. I hope that you hold men accountable for their child-leaving ways. There wouldn't be so many fatherless children if more men stuck around for the part that's not as fun.


What I pointedly said is that a political ideology (feminism) is working to abrogate men of their rights to be involved in their children's lives.

Okay, so you're not from the wing complaining about child support, just the wing insisting that feminists want to raise children in lesbian communes.


I am in agreement that fatherlessness is a serious issue -- I just am convinced that the lion's share of the blame lies with reckless and irresponsible men, not with single moms. But if you want to argue that children deserve love and support from both (all) of their parents, you'll get no disagreement from me.

La Lubu

Perhaps we need a definition of the word "father" here. Is "father" equivalent to "sperm provider"? Or do we want that word to mean more than that?

It matters.


What I mean, La Lubu, is this:

Those who are biological fathers are emotionally and financially responsible for the child they conceive. Though some women might choose to parent on their own, or with another woman, most women do seem to very much want a male partner with whom to raise a family. In a great many of those instances, that male partner will be the biological father of her children. I think children benefit from growing up with more than one adult who embraces the role of parent and care-giver.

I want to encourage men to take responsibility for those children they biologically father. I also recognize that that responsibility can take many forms, and may not always include marriage to the child's mother.

I also believe with all of my heart that children need BOTH strong men and women in their lives as role models. They need to know that both men and women can be loving, patient, brave, and above all, emotionally and physically present.


This girl -- It is a fact that some men are irresponsible, as are some women. It's not fair to children to say that all of these fatherless men don't desire them, but let's be honest - women can and do make the choice for many men to have children. They make the final choice, to have an abortion or to have the child. The man often has no choice and is put into a situation where HER desires and wishes are acted on without his input. I think many of these men are not consulted about their desire to become fathers in the first place. However, some are just irresponsible (as is the woman for choosing an irresponsible man).

Responsibility goes two ways.

Also, some men are trapped in abusive relationships with their wives. No support system exists for them to take their children to any kind of abuse center, they likey won't get custody due to female centric bias in the courts, and they are faced with leaving the child in an abusive situation, or continuing to live in that situation themselves. Sadly, some of them do not choose to remain and fight the custody battle.


Jesse said, " I think many of these men are not consulted about their desire to become fathers in the first place."

Keeping it in their pants would be a good option for these men. Either that, or accepting responsiblity for reliable birth control. Isn't that pretty much what women are told? The same standard certainly should hold true for men.

What does Jesse say to his non-child supporting fellows who brag about how many children they have by different women?

It is clear that Jesse holds women accountable for many of society's ills. I would like to know if he holds his fellow men equally accountable for their part in the neglect of children in this country.

La Lubu

Hugo, I don't think you and I are too far apart, if at all, in our views concerning fatherhood. However, how those views get re-worked and retranslated down in our sexist society becomes another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for women. I mean, as a single woman, I'm certainly open to a relationship with a wonderful man (translation: one who is emotionally mature, financially responsible, non-substance-abuser, that sort-of-thing), but I don't think "finding a man" should be my main or even a major focus. If it happens, it happens--great. In the meantime, I already have a responsibility as a mother; that comes foremost.

And it never fails to escape my attention that the typical advice given to single mothers and that given to single fathers is so different. Single mothers are still expected to drop everything in a headlong search for a man. Single fathers are strongly advised to exercise restraint, especially concerning their children. Single mothers are advised to introduce their children to a potential mate very soon, to "test drive" him for fatherhood. Single fathers are told to keep their love lives separate from their home life until it is clearly a very serious relationship. Single mothers are baldly advised of the potential financial benefits of snagging a man (like the Bush marriage initiatives, although I've got some strong opinions on how that works, too). Single fathers, on the other hand, are warned of the dangers of gold-diggers, and are advised to carefully screen potential mates, both emotionally and financially. Single fathers are advised to consider prenups before marriage or re-marriage, as the case may be. A single mother who offers her potential marriage partner a prenup would be considered either crazy or selfish.

Point being, I think the caution that men with children are urged to exercise is equally important for their female counterparts...but when we do so, we are vilified for it. If we don't exercise that caution, then we're being stupid or desperate. Damned if you do, damned if ya don't. There's a big push to demonize single mothers as the root of all evil, yet we didn't get this way by ourselves. And there isn't a damn thing we can do, any of us, male or female, to make an irresponsible adult into a responsible adult. Not one thing. All we can do is pick up the pieces and move on.

And Jessy? Yes, there are men who are abused. However, although the abuse itself can be the same, the dynamics surrounding that abuse tend to differ. I've not yet heard of the abused man who is not allowed by his wife to hold down a job, or who is kept isolated and housebound by his wife..have you? Not every abused woman needs a women's shelter; that's prime real estate for those women who have no access to a job...those who've been out of the workforce and thus need plenty of time and assistance to be self-supporting. This is not the case for abused men; they need enforcement of the law, the same way abused women do. And yes, there are fewer (physically) abused men than abused women.


It has nothing to do with denigrating woman.
In fact quite the opposite.

Posted by: thisgirl | December 11, 2004 10:11 AM

Attention is its own currency, to the desparate.

Hugo, just wanted to add that it's so refreshing to see you continue to talk about a male-affirming feminism that doesn't see valuing men as a zero-sum game requiring denigrating women.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004