Who are these men who are refusing to get married because "women aren't women anymore"? They sound like misogynistic jerks. And I don't know why anyone, especially any woman, would think that these men become more "marriageable" if women only stopped going to school and pursuing careers.
Thankfully, we have Suzanne Venker to try and convince us that we should think that way because, well, because of SCIENCE. You see, according to Venker:
"The so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to be self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families - it's in their DNA. But modern women won't let them."
So, women, we are undermining men's ability to do things in life because we are also doing things with our lives. This makes the men - and apparently their DNA - sad. And yet, even though the men are apparently the ones who are sad and we're the ones running around pursuing silly things like an education and career, we lose. Because the men we would be marrying are such entitled jerks that they would rather be a "slacker" than compete with women.
We are really missing out on all these would-be-great-if-it-wasn't-for-stupid-feminism men!
Destroying these patriarchal men and their dreams of a patriarchal marriage is a serious accusation. One that, if true, does demand some reflection. I encourage all women to do what Venker says and "look in the mirror and ask what role [you've] played in bringing about this transformation."
Then give your educated, employed, feminist-self a little pat on the back.
That was the exact same thing going through my head. Who would want to marry some guy who refuses to make something out of himself because others around him are succeeding?
ReplyDeleteI believe these silly articles are one of the many reasons Fox doesn't allow comments.
Brilliant critique! Who allowed this lady to publish three books?
ReplyDeleteWho allowed woman to have drivers licensees? A road between the bedroom and kitchen? I think not!
ReplyDeleteShe says it herself, "Men haven’t changed much ... but women have changed dramatically." Women have taken on the roles of women and men, yet men can hardly handle what is part of their own DNA. If we go through history we will see that there are points when women only required men to procreate. They didn't rely on them for shelter, food or helping raise their children. Sounds to me that this point in time of our culture is just another round of powerful women who don't need a man for anything but children. God forbid that women have learned to take care of themselves and their children on their own given that it seems men have given up on them anyway.
ReplyDeleteI want to say that feminism is a problem, not because it empowers women. This is a good thing for women, it gives them freedom. However it violates the order that has been established over many milenium. Women want the roles, of both man and women, let them have it I say. However tell me how fufilling is a life working yourself to the bone to pay for kids, then having to come home and raise them also with no support? No matter how hard you try as a woman and or a man doing both and being good at both is counter productive. You can excell at your career but your children will pay for it with your absence. You can be a good homemaker but your career will suffer for your absense. Additionaly I find alot of women now desire conflicting attributes from a man they want a tough sensitive man. I have never found a tough sensitive man these qualities cannot coexist. There are more requirements for women that want it all. However you cannot have it all and wanting it all is only an exersize in futility, and leads to failure. To the feminsts I wish you all a bunch of luck in your endevors. However to try and turn the order 4 billion years of evolution will only lead to extinction. The proof is already here cultures that embrace feminism are producing a lot less children than cultures that do not embrace feminism. So yes nature will abolish feminism in it's own way, it's not my rules so don't get mad at me.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - There are actually many studies that show that the children of working parents do not suffer at all. On the contrary, many of them are excelling! There are also many women who successfully manage to have both a career and children. And I'm not at all convinced by either an evolutionary argument for different gender roles or the idea that nature will abolish feminism.
DeleteYou have avoided the point of the article completely. If you don't want to be married. No problem. Don't.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to be married then you need to consider the other person and place their needs first in a reciprocal but different fashion.
You need to consider why would a man want to marry an angry defensive woman with a chip on her shoulder. You need to consider what you bring to the table. Men have changed. They don't need a woman for traditional reasons. They do all that for themselves.
"But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/?intcmp=features#ixzz2T39I8Kzt
"
The other issue is that men have choices. Men don't need to marry a woman who thinks men are "...such entitled jerks that they would rather be a "slacker" than compete with women".
Men aren't interested in completing with their wife. You are all on your own in that race.
Men want a a wife to love. Not to complete with. It says so in that article.
So if your idea of marriage is a competition - just make that very clear to any man you date. Otherwise you are being decitful.
Don't blame men, when you did not make it clear from the first date that you view marriage as a competition. That is something your male date has a right to know.
You can go searching for this competitive marriage. Just be honest about it. We all know how that search will end up.
I have not avoided the point of the article completely. The point of her article is that men don't want to get married anymore because "women aren't women anymore." She is arguing, as you point out, that men don't want to get married because they're not interested in competing with their wife; that they don't want to marry women who have a career and an education and believe in their own equality.
DeleteThe entire problem with the article is that Venker is calling women who believe in their own equality and are out doing things other than trying to get married and have babies "angry defensive women with a chip on their shoulder" (as you put it). Being a feminist doesn't make me an "angry defensive woman with a chip on my shoulder."
Really, it is you who misses the point of the article. She isn't saying that women view marriage as a competition. She says that men view it as a competition and that they don't want to compete with women; that men don't want to get married because "women aren't women anymore." So despite your advice, I don't need to go warning men that I view marriage as a competition, because I and most feminists view it as an equal partnership. But more men do need to confront the fact that they think of it as a competition. And, I would argue, they need to get over that way of (patriarchal) thinking.