NEWS: You Kids Get Off My Lawn

totally with you on the hypocrisy. i've always felt it is hypocritical to ask for equal treatment and at the same time EXPECT the guy to pay. i do think there is a tradeoff and this is one that some women seem maybe unwilling to give up (or at least unwilling to recognize as a "cost" of equality).

as far as having high standards go, i think a lot of people of both genders have this problem, unfortunately. i don't know if it's a byproduct of the "self-esteem generation" or what. i'm not a guy trying to date women, so i'm sure your perspective of women with rigid standards is at least accurate in your experience, but to counter that i know a LOT of women who accept poor treatment from men all the time and don't seem to be able to grasp that they could do much, much better. so i think for every overly picky woman out there, there are at least two who may give lip service to high standards but in reality settle for being treated badly, i suppose because they do not ultimately think they deserve better.

Congratulations, you completely missed the point of the article.

That is why I admitted that once "in" women are much more forgiving, but before the relationship starts, I find women are much, MUCH more demanding in who is "acceptable" to even get his foot in the door. This LEADS to the problems where a woman becomes more accepting once in; a combination of fear of finding someone else that fits, a fear of the long period of "self-imposed" loneliness, and the mental roadblock of "this guy is who I wanted," without realizing that he is just a manifestation of one's excessive expectations. We as a society allow such conduct by ignoring it. We label men as the pigs who lower women's self-esteem with their models and Barbies, while ignoring the fact that a lot of those results stem from deep-ingraned resentment from feelings of inadequacy thrust upon men who bear the burden of PROVING their worth continuously, even against high obstacles.

Just one man's opinion though.

I was responding to the part I quoted. Sorry if my statements did not rigidly comply with the parameters of your original article. I'll endeavor not to reply to your articles, and form new, corollary threads on similar topics lest I derail the mainline discussion.

Missed this before. I'll respond, and hopefully receive the blessing of the original article poster.

I agree completely, my statement was more on second-wave being more revisionary in many people's eyes than progressive.

About staying at home as a man, my best friend, with his law degree, wants to be a stay at home dad, and I'm happy for him. I don't think I could do that; the amount of endless work coupled with the moments of profound monotony and loneliness would be too much for me, and I respect those women who did it for generations without fail. If only more people recognized how crucial and difficult it is to raise a family and keep a house, especially those who have done it themselves, maybe they could be a little more open minded to the man's decision.

You probably already knew what I was saying but just to clarify..

I understand the distancing from 2nd wave. I disagree that it did no favors since it is really a spectrum of policies but perhaps I have a different idea of "2nd wave" than you. It would probably still be threadjacking to clarify or debate this, though since it was not my point.

My point was that the most powerful men exist from a time and place even before 2nd wave feminist values were instilled in children and so it was still exclusively a matter of personal POV. So to challenge the status quo within power and wealth in terms of modern feminism, instead of 2nd wave feminism, is possibly an even more acute challenge.

i don't disagree with this.
the problem with gender roles is that by putting one gender in a box, you automatically do the same to the other. men don't have it easy these days either, no question. i have not experienced the world as a man and therefore may be somewhat biased, but i do think overall, women have it harder. even if we have it slightly easier in the dating world, it's balanced out by having it harder in the working world. basically we're all fucked.

Agreed. Although as a man who completely is "pro-woman's rights" I am a bit more aggrieved in the dating department. Even when in relationships it steams me!

P.S. As a while male, I'm completely fucked. I'm not entitled to have an opinion on anything, despite my rough upbringing and self-made life. WOE! ALAS!

well, you are a lawyer though, right?
you can afford to buy yourself a classy lady, no?

HA! Too young for that yet. Maybe when I move from "boyish" to "mature," i.e. wearing Brooks Brothers. Although, silly me, I want a strong, independent, and loving woman, rather than a Model Barbie.


On a side note... where do we find that catalog?

For a friend. Of course.

After rereading the article I think all of society overblows their opinions centered around pregnancy, support, and work because of a lack of thinking the facts through.

The only think that is true is that a woman needs support for a short period when she is pregnant. After that who raises the child and who wins bread is completely up in the air. Obviously people often seem to prefer that strangers adhere to traditional gender roles on this matter because they believe that it is already "proven to work" by history. I think they don't realize they are contributing to multifarious problems by maintaining a rigid model in a highly competitive society.

Second-wave feminism *isn't* the reactionary (I assume that's what you meant?) force that anti-feminist loudmouths have painted it as. Really. You're right that in "many people's eyes" it is, but that's only because many people don't actually know much about feminism beyond the crap they hear from cartoonish anti-feminists.

Which again, is kind of the point the article's making.

Actually it was me using firefox spell check on divisionary heh. Apparently it isn't a word? I'm sure I wrote it in review articles... However, if you can follow my argument, I think the meaning is more clear?

On Edit: Such as if you read this paragraph;

Agreed. Just like all other "sects" of society that push the concept of "equality through division." The best way to enact change is to push how SIMILAR everyone is, not to point out the differences and demand to be treated the same DESPITE those differences. When people start seeing other people as similar instead of seeing what makes people different is when change will truly take hold. It is possible, is only we can take the American "stew' and turn it into a true "melting pot."

+1. That was my experience in the mid-90s. (That's in Britain, though.)

Edit: OK, early 90s.

Except that by saying "all other" you imply (1) that feminism "pushes the concept of equality through division"--which it doesn't; and (2) that feminism is a 'sect' (which it's not).

The best way to create *equality* is *not* to emphasize similarities between men and women--that leads to things like, "well, if I were pregnant..." and "hey, she chose to stay home with the kids." It implies that the most obvious difference between men and women--pregnancy and childbirth--is incidental to being a woman.

The best way to create equality between men and women (or between any other groups that are treated differently) is to recognize that my rights don't depend on my being "like" you.

Idealistically, people would accept everyone, we'd all hold flowers and sing to the rising sun. However, we live under the confines of our beings. The path to true acceptance is to recognize one's similarities and work off those. Focusing on the differences and accepting despite them is way too advanced to truly inspire change. Further, you don't seem to recognize my point, since you say I say that am wrong that some feminists use "equality through division," and then say:

The best way to create equality between men and women (or between any other groups that are treated differently) is to recognize that my rights don't depend on my being "like" you.

which would be exactly what I am saying. You are entitled to your opinion, but progression means baby steps, not some kind of "cultural-psychosis" change. The first step is seeing similarities, and building off those; that is how most therapies work. Building up, not tearing down.

Great article!

They exist. I met such a woman and married her 17 years ago. And she even asked me to marry her. I had the ring.

Very nice!

But very very very very... very rare

:applauds loudly:

Divisive! Took me nearly 3 hours to think of it.

Yes, a very good synonym! Still feel like I used divisionary before... WEIRD!

Well said.

I liked the end of your post very much, although the earlier parts certainly continue your tendency, and really that of a great many within the feminist community, to maintain a "victim mentality."

I grew up being abused in a variety of ways. I recognize that in some cases it was personal, but in many others it wasn't. However, it certainly wasn't "because I was a guy." It was because I wasn't able to sufficiently protect or defend myself. Or, to put it bluntly, I was weak.

One of the things that's always fascinated me is that women will so commonly label things as "women's issues" that involve people being victimized, supposedly because of gender. In actuality, many of these things occur simply because it would be a lot more difficult to do it to a man.

Women are genetically predisposed to be smaller and weaker. Being big and powerful wasn't a necessity for human females as it was for other female creatures (such as certain sharks who have to be larger than the males to protect their young, for instance). The result is that, while there are certainly some fairly strong women, they are the exception rather than the norm, and unless a woman makes a point of devoting serious time and effort to strength training and most likely some sort of fighting system, she can be easily overpowered by even an average guy.

Small, wussy guys go through much of the same stuff. An incredibly large number of men are raped every single year, although no one cares because it happens in prison. Who do you think are the ones that get raped? The ones that can't fight back effectively.

On a more conventional level, you run into the fact that women are as a general statement more passive than men, less assertive. This is a mixture of genetics and our culture, but the result is that if someone is the type of person to try and intimidate or control another individual, they have a much easier time statistically if they look for a female. This is supported by the amazing capacity much of the female population has for getting in abusive relationships, whether we're talking psychological or physical abuse.

People will applaud the courage of the women who escaped these type of situations, but few feel comfortable commenting on, or even criticizing, the obviously unhealthy psychology of someone who would stay in that type of environment for years.

Now, we are all the product of our genetics and our upbringing. We aren't he ones who made us the way we are. In short, it isn't our fault, but that doesn't make it any less of our responsibility.

I can look at my own past and see that I was a victim because I allowed myself to be. That's not self-hatred. I'm not blaming myself, but I'm acknowledging that there are things I could have done to avoid it. I simply didn't have the knowledge or the confidence at the time. I do now.

I still feel anger and resentment at the people who abused me, but I'm just as angry if not moreso at the scores of people who continue to allow themselves to be victimized, who allow bullies and predators to continue living the way they do. Those people rely on fear. They rely on your belief that you can't do anything to stop them, and if you refuse to allow yourself to be controlled by them then their power is greatly diminished.

Still, that's not what most women seem inclined to do. Over and over I simply see attempts to find a "them" to blame, be it men, white people, black people, Republicans, Christians, or whatever else.

If you strip away the labels you are left with the simply truth (ironically, one illustrated quite well in the new Transformers film), that some people are assholes and some people aren't. Some people want to control you and make decisions for you about your own life (either in a direct sense or in a political sense), and others just care about preserving their own freedom and happiness, and that of their loved ones. Assholes can be any gender, ethnicity, religion, size, or shape, and you quite simply cannot get rid of them. What you can do is strengthen yourself, mentally and physically, empower yourself with knowledge and self-confidence, and not allow yourself to be made into a victim. That includes not making yourself into one. That just means you've allowed fear to control you, and in that case you've already lost.