« Follow-up on forgiveness, and anti-Semitism, and sharing one's life narrative | Main | Thursday Short Poem: Spacks' "Pedagogical Guest" »

September 21, 2005

Comments

bmmg39

kate: "It's funny the way it becomes a zero-sum game: women have the power, or men do. To these guys, women gaining a little bit of a say in things is just the first loose rock in some sort of imminent avalanche of girl-domination. When all we really want is some respect and autonomy too.'"

jaketk: "and in doing such, feminists, rather ironically, create the very zero-sum game that they (supposedly) wish to avoid. it would appear that to demonstrate even the slightest amount of respect towards men would roll back the last thirty years, and feminists would have to start all over again."

Leaving out the word "feminists," I agree with Jake's response. Respect and taking one's grievances seriously are NOT zero-sum games, and yet I find it is often women suggesting that respect for a man is equal to submissiveness. Such is the outrage whenever a man clears his throat and dares to suggest that men suffer from at least some of the same problems that women do.

boy genteel
End violence against women AND men.
www.vawa4all.org

Anne

"AND you're wrong with the casual sex business as well. Men did NOT go in for much casual sex before, unless it was with paid prostitutes. Generally when I was growing up if you were having sex with someone, a woman expected a marriage proposal. Most of the time if you were having sex before marriage, that was expected and both of you knew it...AND it was expected SOONER rather then LATER. Not this stuff where you live together for ten years and three kids before you finalize decide to propose to a woman.

Since if you got pregnant, the man married you as well before delivery, not whenever he got around to it. This was the way it was BEFORE THE PLAYBOY CULTURE and Feminism."

A proposal might have been expected, but it wasn't always forthcoming and there wasn't much to make it so. I think all those unwed mother/adoption placement homes flourished during those times for a reason.

My own mother, who grew up during the '50's, describes the sexual climate of that time very differently. Back then, apparently, having premarital sex was not considered the prelude to a proposal but rather an excellent way to lose the chance for that proposal because it deprived a girl of her bargaining power. Guys were as open to free sex as ever, and faced even fewer consequences than today if he did not actually wish to marry the girl (or if his parents opposed it). An immature, teenagery scenario all around, but then again people tended to marry when they were barely more than teenagers.

"Another "alternative view" is that the dolorous bell of warning women that they will end up lonely spinsters gets tolled fairly predictably."

True, Mythago, and having once been one of that "over-30-professional-unmarried-supposedly-intimidating-to-men-and-and-over-the-hill" set, and having had a wide circle of friends who also were, I'm inclined to call BS on that whole thing.

bmmg39

mythago: "When I was younger and single, a drunk 'friend' cornered me and demanded to know why I had more guys interested in dating me (some of whom she had, herself, unsuccessfully tried to interest) when she was so much better looking than me."

How humble and tactful of her.

"I was obliged to tell her that I just tried to be myself, instead of acting 'like a girl', and that I treated men as fellow human beings, not as mysterious other-beings who needed to be manipulated and only dealt with through hints and mental games."

How right your approach is/was, Mythago. And it's frustratingly amazing how utterly simple it is: be yourself, treat other human beings like human beings, don't manipulate and play games. Imagine if everyone used common sense, rather than reading THE RULES.

boy genteel

BritGirlSF

Of course Gonzman missed my point completely in his urge to restate how feminists are just awful, awful people. Most of us don't care whether or not he gets married. That's not an agressive stance, it's just not relevant to us. We don't care much about the women in their thirties who are supposedly panicking about getting married either, because these women are not us. We're not convinced that these women really exist, to be honest - the media has been beating that particular drum for years, and I've yet to see any sign of it in my own life. Most of us aren't very interested in the whole marriage, house with picket fence and 1.6 children thing at all, as NYMOM keeps reminding us, so why would we be interested in evangelising about the benefits of marriage to people who don't want to get married? If anyone wants to stay single, fine, it's no skin off my nose.
You seem to be missing the fact that most of us don't see marriage as particularly important, and a significant percentage actively dislike the institution. There are exceptions like Hugo, but he's pretty much in the minority on this issue.
And again I repeat, I've seen no sign of men going on a "marriage strike'. In fact, many people still seem to be alarmingly eager to jump into marriages without really thinking it through much beforehand. The whole "marriage strike" idea looks like a lot of media hot air, combined with MRA wishful thinking. In fact, it would probably be a good idea if people of both genders would pause to think a bit more often before jumping into marriage rather than just assuming that it's the natural thing to do, but sadly I don't see much sign of that happening.
Also, those are some pretty lame excuses for why it's OK for a practising Catholic to be sleeping around. The Bible is fairly unequivocal on the whole sex outside marriage issue. I don't agree with it, but as a Catholic you're pretty much obliged to do so. It's a little odd how quick you are to excuse yourself for what your church clearly considers a sin. And if you don't see any difference between the sex you have with a prostitute and the sex you have with someone who you are having a relationship with? That's pretty damned creepy. People are not objects, regardless of their gender.
Myth pretty much summed up my feelings about dating. Why can't everyone just be honest, and treat others the way they would like to be treated? Why the need for all the games on both sides of the gender line? Frankly, I think the dishonest, manipulative, bratty people of both genders deserve each other. I'm not feeling a lot of sympathy for either side in that particular debacle.
bmmg, unfortunately common sense seems in reality to be quite uncommon. Why this is I'm not sure, but it does seem that the basic rules of the playground (don't lie, don't steal, play nice with the other kids) tend to go out the window once people start dating. Of course, the existance of an entire subsection of the publishing industry that subsists on telling people how to manipulate others into having a relationship with them doesn't help much.

mythago

How women are portrayed when they make decisions about their careers and family compared to how men are portrayed.

Do you mean women being portrayed as selfish bitches for returning to paid work full-time? Or are you talking about parenting articles, aimed at women, that urge them to flatter and cajole their husbands into taking a teeny portion of responsibility for childcare? See, we can play the 'selective media' thing all day long.

NYMOM

"My own mother, who grew up during the '50's, describes the sexual climate of that time very differently. Back then, apparently, having premarital sex was not considered the prelude to a proposal but rather an excellent way to lose the chance for that proposal because it deprived a girl of her bargaining power. Guys were as open to free sex as ever, and faced even fewer consequences than today if he did not actually wish to marry the girl (or if his parents opposed it). An immature, teenagery scenario all around, but then again people tended to marry when they were barely more than teenagers."

NYMOM said: Well I guess the women in my family were either loose women or liars...but all eventually married and many did engage in premarital sex. I mean those jokes about cars having large back seats in the 50/60s had some measure of truth to them as mothers stayed home then, so you couldn't go home to have sex with your b/f afterschool the way teens do today.

I think it was similar to what some here claimed about the Puritans, some number engaged in sex before actually marrying; but only once they believed both parties were committed to a marriage...

However what you said about "having premarital sex was not considered the prelude to a proposal but rather an excellent way to lose the chance for that proposal because it deprived a girl of her bargaining power." was probably also true, in the 50/60s as well as the time of the Puritans.

AND this is the historic legacy both men and women dead with even TODAY regarding 'game playing' in relationships. A young girl had to constantly be judging how long she could hold out versus submitting and whether or not one way or the other she would lose her partner, reputation, chance of marriage, illegitimate child, etc.,...

So I don't have too much sympathy for the men who complain.

As that is one of their many 'unearned privileges' that they rarely mention; but which they enjoyed for generations and still do as this legacy continues in many communities today...it's actually having a revival in Christian communities all over the country...


jaketk

Do you mean women being portrayed as selfish bitches for returning to paid work full-time? Or are you talking about parenting articles, aimed at women, that urge them to flatter and cajole their husbands into taking a teeny portion of responsibility for childcare? See, we can play the 'selective media' thing all day long.

very well. show me an article in media that portrays men working 50+ hours a week positively, or one parenting that does not imply fathers are not spending enough time with their children, or being loving or caring. yes, we can play the "selective media" game all day long, if you choose to ignore what's in the mainstream media...

mythago

show me an article in media that portrays men working 50+ hours a week positively,

Why do I have to show you articles, while you only need to tell me they exist and that's proof?

It wouldn't matter anyway, because if I showed you one article, you'd tell me it was just one. If I showed you a hundred, you'd tell me there were a thousand on the other side.

Joseph

As that is one of their many 'unearned privileges' that they rarely mention; but which they enjoyed for generations and still do as this legacy continues in many communities today...

It may be true there was a minority of men who could regularly "get laid" back in the 1950s (and prior) but there's a counter-reality here. For every guy "getting laid," there were several others who are lonely and miserable. I have single male friends who have not had sex in a decade, for example. Please tell me what "privelege" they exercise?

Meanwhile, single female friends...well, when they want to have sex, they put on a short skirt, go to a bar, lean over, wait for the guys to stop lining up, then pick out a likely candidate.

A young girl had to constantly be judging how long she could hold out versus submitting and whether or not one way or the other she would lose her partner, reputation, chance of marriage, illegitimate child, etc.,...

Then please explain why so many women choose to become christians (or other sexually repressive religionists). Why don't women join in goddess worship en masse and show us how to sexually liberate the world?

Joseph

As that is one of their many 'unearned privileges' that they rarely mention; but which they enjoyed for generations and still do as this legacy continues in many communities today...

It may be true there was a minority of men who could regularly "get laid" back in the 1950s (and prior) but there's a counter-reality here. For every guy "getting laid," there were several others who are lonely and miserable. I have single male friends who have not had sex in a decade, for example. Please tell me what "privelege" they exercise?

Meanwhile, single female friends...well, when they want to have sex, they put on a short skirt, go to a bar, lean over, wait for the guys to stop lining up, then pick out a likely candidate.

A young girl had to constantly be judging how long she could hold out versus submitting and whether or not one way or the other she would lose her partner, reputation, chance of marriage, illegitimate child, etc.,...

Then please explain why so many women choose to become christians (or other sexually repressive religionists). Why don't women join in goddess worship en masse and show us how to sexually liberate the world?

Joseph

And if you don't see any difference between the sex you have with a prostitute and the sex you have with someone who you are having a relationship with? That's pretty damned creepy.

Supposing one were to say: "And if you don't see any difference between the sex you have with a homosexual and the sex you have with someone who you are having a relationship with? That's pretty damned creepy."

Would we not interpret such a line as homophobic? It strikes me to call sex you do not approve of "creepy" in this otherwise liberated age is, well, creepy!

People are not objects, regardless of their gender.

Of course not, but then neither are sex workers or other sexual "deviants."

Joseph

And if you don't see any difference between the sex you have with a prostitute and the sex you have with someone who you are having a relationship with? That's pretty damned creepy.

Supposing one were to say: "And if you don't see any difference between the sex you have with a homosexual and the sex you have with someone who you are having a relationship with? That's pretty damned creepy."

Would we not interpret such a line as homophobic? It strikes me to call sex you do not approve of "creepy" in this otherwise liberated age is, well, creepy!

People are not objects, regardless of their gender.

Of course not, but then neither are sex workers or other sexual "deviants."

Joseph

OK, for some reason HTML is screwing up and interpreting everything as italics.

>>Why can't everyone just be honest, and treat others the way they would like to be treated? Why the need for all the games on both sides of the gender line?

Let me give you one example, as reported in Ms magazine a few years ago. A man tells a woman at work he wants to date that he would like to see her naked. She sues him for sexual harassment. Now, he was "honest" amd what happened? The boom was lowered on him. How can we be honest when we can be censored at any time?

Of course, women will have their own horror stories on this front, also. But that's the point. Most people do not want honesty. And today, there are ever widening legal sanctions against honesty.

Mr. Bad

Italics off.

Now, Joseph wrote "Of course, women will have their own horror stories on this front, also. But that's the point. Most people do not want honesty. And today, there are ever widening legal sanctions against honesty."

Not quite Joseph - the legal sanctions you speak of are almost never applied to women, only men. Women can get away with way more than men vis-a-vis raunchy and provocative speech. The comparison isn't even close.

I guess this is more of that "male privilege" we keep hearing about, eh? ;)

jaketk

Why do I have to show you articles, while you only need to tell me they exist and that's proof?

i don't recall stating that, but if you would like an example, check out the article linked at the top of the page for starters.

It wouldn't matter anyway, because if I showed you one article, you'd tell me it was just one. If I showed you a hundred, you'd tell me there were a thousand on the other side.

is this not exactly the same argument to making to me?

Peter O'Neill

As a long-time proud misogynist, I am surprised to find myself siding with Rebecca Traister.

I live in Southern California where it seems most young men are emasculated, emaciated and lacking in any pride or spirit. My admittedly limited anecdotal experience also bears out Traister's observations that many younger men seem to lack any sense of purpose. I would only add that some also seem to lack the will to live.

Like most women, though, Traister cannot countenance the possibility that anything wrong in today's society could be a byproduct of women's behavior in general, or of feminism in particular. How ironic that, after thirty years of teaching boys that all traits traditionally associated with masculinity are inherently evil, women now lament the lack of good men.

It is particularly rich seeing the coverage of this societal meltdown on the website of a gender traitor who makes a living from putting men down.

Ladies I have some news. Men are what you make them. That is your real power. Always was. Always will be. Continue to eamsculate your sons, brothers, boyfriends and husbands and, amazingly enough, there will be less and less real men to go around. You can't have it both ways.

Parva Ancilla

The reason men have been made effeminate is due to the fact that women have bought into the "sexual revolution". The idea of sexual morality favoring abstinence outside of marriage is now concerned taboo and old-fashioned. Why do men need to marry and aspire and work towards being marriage material when their intrinsic sexual urges (which were given to us by God for the end of procreation) can be fulfilled outside the duties of marriage by so-called "independent" women? Women have become less feminine in this pro-feminist culture. Femininity itself has become nothing more than a taboo equivalent with suppression of a woman's dignity. This is a grave misconception that was introduced by the Communists, NOT by American pro-feminists, as many pro-feminists have been misled to believe. Lenin was one of the biggest proponents of the Sexual Revolution (a term actually coined by William Reich). It was Lenin who propagated the fundamental social error, which since spread rampant throughout Western culture, that the career of the housewife was a type of suppression, and lowering a woman's dignity. He argued that children should be raised by communities, left for even the government to mind to a larger degree, and not the primary responsibility of families with mothers oriented towards the success of their own children. This is a intrinsic social disorder on both a macro-view and the micro-level, that is, it says that the very role of a mother is degrading to a woman's intrinsic worth, as being concerned with such menial responsibilities, she can not rise to her worth, which is (according to this societal myth) determined by the amount of professional success. Is it no wonder that birth control and abortion go hand and hand with the pro-feminist view? As a society, we have become gravely desensitized to how the fundamental errors of Communist Russia have impacted our culture's view of the role of the family. Phrases by certain women politicians in America use phrases such as, "it takes a village to raise a child" which come straight from the Communist point of view (Lenin originally popularized that phrase).

Lenin had said, "The success of a revolution depends upon the cooperation of the women." It was widely accepted that the women who were hardest to corrupt and turn towards accepting the Communistic idea were those who held onto objective morality, based on a sense of tradition, usually promulgated and held by Christian roots (and most heartily held by Catholics and Jews, the two biggest enemies to Communists). *(By the way, I myself am a Catholic of Jewish heritage.)

Nowadays, this same moral desensitivity begun by the "Sexual Revolution" has led to the destruction of infants. Yes, you read that right... not even embryos, now infants. Some of us saw this coming, and some of you didn't because you were (as was I for a long time) becoming blinded by the impact of the socially-accepted abortion, along with contraception and the glamorized (just look at any woman's magazine) view of sex outside of marriage. (Note: It's ironic that a woman's magazine that touts of a woman's rights and dignity would promote sexual degradation of the woman on veritably every page of advertising and almost every article.) Check this out:
"INFANTICIDE IN NETHERLANDS: On 13 September ’97, the Lancet published comments on the topic of infanticide in the Netherlands (Pages 816-817). "While all neonatologists and general pediatricians felt that approval of parents was important in the decision to administer a drug with the explicit intention of ending an infant’s life, 23% of general pediatricians felt that it ‘was conceivable to administer such a drug without the approval of parents.’"

OK. So you thought the "Sexual Revolution" was part and parcel with the idea of being "Free to be You and Me"... well, guess what? Hold onto your hormones, you were sold a bag of (poisoned) goods. This whole idea and the pro-feminist ideas behind it, on further inspection, are not making us freer, but rather, it is enslaving us not only to our lesser passions, but it is indoctrinating us person by person into a self-centered mindset, that disapproves of true freedoms. Isn't it ironic, that freedom which many of us profess to promote is actually working against it? The concept of "Freedom" today has been grossly perverted by big business (which looks to sell to us by inciting our baser inclinations, especially towards sex). "Freedom" is no longer what our four Father saw as freedom; it is not what the early Americans lived, fought and died for, rather, today it is confused with merely LICENSE.


http://www.lifeissues.org/international/v9n4.html

IJ

Ok...some men do masturbate to porn and some do not...those who do, does that really mean that they are stagnating. Those women who do not use vibrators to get off and who can't seem to find a man..are they stagnating ??????
This sounds like just concentrate on men all the time and let the women off the hook...

Karl Weiss

It's very easy to acquire the label mysogenist now, isn't it? All you have to do is suggest that women are less than utterly perfect in any way.

In the face of this can of mental blockage, any further discussion is futile, because it basically asserts that any problem between men and women must always be the fault of the men.

Karl Weiss

re: above ... mysogenist --> misogynist

Anyhow, I suspect a good part of young men's lack of drive can be laid at the doormat of the elementary school system and what is has become.

Boys are now expected to act like girls in class, with no leeway for anything more than sitting still and doing what they are told. The most recalcitrant cases are either whacked up with Ritalin or ejected altogether.

They've been beaten down while they were vulnerable (young).

Karl Weiss

" it's not appropriate (...) for a man to preach to women about what they ought to be doing differently"

Again, you're trying to shut down any sort of discourse here, just like with the misogynist label before.

I for one do not accept your brand of sexism and will not simply do whatever the feminists tell me to do.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004