Long musings on men, women, and hard work

This is going to be long.

No one in the blogosphere "fisks" (takes apart expertly) weak and embarrassing posts about gender and sexuality better than Amanda.  This morning, she goes after the fellows who wrote in to Salon to attack Rebecca Traister, author of an online article entitled Attack of the Listless Lads.

Traister began:

I'm bearing witness to a bona fide crisis in American masculinity, one that seems especially, but not exclusively, to afflict the young, urban and privileged. And with it, I have observed the birth of a new breed of man: a man of few interests and no passions; a man whose libido is reduced and whose sense of responsibility nonexistent. These men are commitment-phobic not just about love, but about life. They drink and take drugs, but even their hedonism lacks focus or joy. They exhibit no energy for anyone, any activity, profession or ideology. While they may have mildly defined areas of interest -- in, say, "Star Wars," or the work of Ron Jeremy -- they have trouble figuring out what kind of food they might want to eat on a given night. And, in an effort to cure what ails them, they have been medicated to the gills with potions designed to dull their feelings even further.

While a bit of a whopping generalization, Traister isn't far from the mark here.

The best of the letters to Traister  (in terms of encapsulating what I hear from many Men's Rights Advocates) is from a Paul Fenn.    He writes:

Don't forget, too, that from the standpoint of even smart, well-rounded bachelors, modern women are harder work than ever. Women always were an unfathomable puzzle. But now they're like men -- narcissistic, selfish, demanding, neurotic, image-obsessed, ego-driven, attention-needing, impatient -- AND an unfathomable puzzle, one with money, power, expectations and strong feelings of entitlement. That's a hell of a lot for a man to factor into everything he says and does and feels.

To me, a well-traveled North American recent ex-bachelor of 46, our culture's been over-designed, and weakened for it. In the older cultures, young men and women would paddle through the rapids of change and only get splashed, while over here the canoes have been overturned and the current has all the paddlers in its grasp. The irony or paradox is, most of the single, attractive, intelligent women I know -- and being in the beauty business, I know plenty -- would prefer the male of the pre-feminist, pre-p.c. era to the lifeless twits and insipid metrosexuals they have to make do with nowadays. Interesting too, how so many of the single, attractive, intelligent men I know avoid local women and instead pursue immigrant girls from more established cultures who are comfortable in their own less-complex skins and bring their own flourishes of exotica and mystery with them.

Well, Fenn is a far more articulate misogynist than most I run into.

Do read the Salon piece, the letters, and Amanda's response.

What I wanted to touch on briefly was on Fenn's notion (one that I've heard from many MRAs) that modern American women are simply "too much" for contemporary men:

Don't forget, too, that from the standpoint of even smart, well-rounded bachelors, modern women are harder work than ever. Women always were an unfathomable puzzle. But now they're like men -- narcissistic, selfish, demanding, neurotic, image-obsessed, ego-driven, attention-needing, impatient -- AND an unfathomable puzzle, one with money, power, expectations and strong feelings of entitlement.

Well, he doesn't argue for male superiority here, which I suppose is a plus.  Still, I'm deeply troubled by the complaint that women are "harder work than ever."  The underlying assumption -- and it isn't always unique to men -- behind a line like that is that hard work isn't part and parcel of any enduring romantic and sexual relationship.  It's true that in our pornographic age, men can find sexual release without doing much more than switching on the computer.  Our sense of what is "difficult" has become so distorted that a great many men seem to regard even basic pleasantries like actually going out on a date to be too much of an effort.   Our fantasy -- Fenn's fantasy -- is of simple, uncomplicated girls (not women) who will not ask us to do the hard work of really building a modern, loving, egalitarian relationship.

Committed monogamous relationships ought to be a hell of a lot of work.    As one of my old friends used to say to me, "Hugo, you're either transforming or you're stagnating.  Those are your only two options."  Stagnation is easy; growth is hard.  When men masturbate to porn rather than pursue relationships with real women, they're stagnating.  When they seek out the "less complex" and the "exotic", they are stagnating.   Though both men and women can grow professionally and intellectually in solitude, damned few of us of either sex really do our best emotional work alone.  And if we engage in what Traister calls "institutionalized promiscuity", then we absolutely guarantee ourselves stagnation.  Having what is essentially the same experience over and over again with different women gives the illusion of everlasting novelty, but in fact, there's no growth there.  Having a series of different and challenging experiences with the same woman is far more likely to produce beneficial results for one's soul.

If there's one unifying battle cry among most men's rights advocates, it's this:

"Men are okay as they are.  We don't need to change!  It's women who need to change, and they need to stop making unreasonable demands of us!"

I don't think any of us ever get to say "I don't need to change."   All of us, without exception, carry around our selfish desire to stagnate, to be comfortable, to focus more on ourselves than on others.  That's true in my case and in the case of everyone I've ever met.  Some folks are wise enough to recognize that dark side of their nature, and they spend their lives actively seeking to transform it by reaching out to others and by challenging themselves to grow.   Most simply shrug, say defensively "I can't help the way I am" and demand that others change to accommodate their own needs.

I became an active pro-feminist for both ideological and personal reasons.  Ideologically, I saw that the triumphs of earlier generations in securing things like the right to vote and the right to education had not really given women full and equal opportunity in society.  I saw the women I loved struggling with everything from the glass ceiling to eating disorders to sexual assault to the mom/career dilemma, and I became convinced that theirs was a struggle worth joining.  On a personal level, I liked that the pro-feminist men I knew were not willing to sit around and cheerfully affirm reckless and irresponsible male behavior.  They didn't believe that "boys will be boys"; they didn't believe that our hormones or our DNA excused infidelity, abuse, porn addiction, or self-centeredness. 

Where the men's rights movement says to men:  "You're okay, it's those feminists who are at fault for your pain", the pro-feminist movement says to men: "Look, women have their part.  But we don't grow -- not at all -- by pointing out the faults of others until we've first addressed our own failings.  As men, we need to hold each other accountable.  We need to see where we've been wrong -- personally and institutionally.  And we need to empower each other to break out of these painfully confining roles and actually start to live!"

On a "macro" level, pro-feminist men's work is hard work.  It's not easy challenging apathy; it's not easy challenging boorishness, it's not easy challenging the pervasive sense that women have become too demanding.  On a "micro" level, for those of us who fall in love with and build lives with women, relationships are a hell of a lot of work.    Monogamy magnifies our failings, and what a blessing that is!   There are some truths about us only a lover who has known us a long time can see.  The best partner will, with love and patience and caring, challenge and push his or her partner to transform himself or herself into becoming more loving, more giving, and more of a beacon of light to the world.

It's funny:  we live in a society that romanticizes one kind of male transformation.  The journey from scrawny recruit to buff Marine, from chubby sloth to sculpted athlete -- these cliches are on our television sets and movie screens every day.    But while men expect to be challenged and changed by a military boot camp, we don't have the same expectation about romantic relationships.  No, I don't think our girlfriends and wives are drill instructors!  But I do think we need to see that becoming "all we can be" (to borrow the old Army slogan) takes a colossal amount of work.  Just as no soldier or Marine can become his best without the support and encouragement to grow that his comrades give him, no man or woman can, I believe become his or her "best" without being supported, encouraged, and ultimately confronted and challenged by  a romantic partner.

When women are economically, politically, and sexually dis-empowered, they are dependent on men.  When they are dependent on men, they are less able to challenge them. Women's financial, educational, and corporeal autonomy allows them to speak truths more fearlessly; truths that we men are often stunned to hear.   Little wonder the MRAs rage against the feminism that has empowered women to finally, after eons, give voice to their frustrations and their wants!  But seen from a pro-feminist perspective, the movement has liberated men as well.  It has given us mothers and wives and sisters and girlfriends and daughters and coworkers who are increasingly unafraid to push us to transform ourselves and break out of old and stagnant patterns.

Do women have their work to do?  Of course.  But as I've said on many an occasion, it's not appropriate -- given the history of sexism in this country -- for a man to preach to women about what they ought to be doing differently.   Men need to focus on confronting one another in love, and encouraging our brothers to be willing to do the difficult and ultimately rewarding work our sisters are calling us to do.

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.